PDA

View Full Version : MBB: Duke 79, Michigan 69 Post-Game Thread



Pages : [1] 2

JBDuke
12-03-2013, 10:25 PM
Put your post-game thoughts here.

wilson
12-03-2013, 10:26 PM
I thought that was our best all-around game of the season. Discuss.

Duvall
12-03-2013, 10:26 PM
Cook good, Kersey bad.

Goduke2010
12-03-2013, 10:26 PM
Giving up all those points at the end was a rotten way to conclude the game.

NSDukeFan
12-03-2013, 10:27 PM
Good win. Nice to get the first win of the year vs. a ranked team. The D is coming around. Pretty sure no longer #150 in KenPom.

Duvall
12-03-2013, 10:27 PM
Giving up all those points at the end was a rotten way to conclude the game.

Yes, that really ruined the double-digit win over a ranked team.

bbosbbos
12-03-2013, 10:28 PM
Good game. But I think this UM is quite weak.

Goduke2010
12-03-2013, 10:28 PM
Good win. Nice to get the first win of the year vs. a ranked team. The D is coming around. Pretty sure no longer #150 in KenPom.

I feel like our standards are slipping, to call that a good win. Maybe it's just me...

FerryFor50
12-03-2013, 10:29 PM
Great win with contributions from everyone that played...

Not sure what was up with Sheed. Guess we'll find out eventually...

wilson
12-03-2013, 10:29 PM
Mods, you can delete my duplicate.

I thought that was our best all-around game of the season. Quinn was the kind of two-way floor leader I think we've been lacking to some extent. Possibly his finest game in a Duke uniform. I had more fun watching the boys tonight than I have since last season's home game vs. Miami.

NYBri
12-03-2013, 10:29 PM
DRE!

jipops
12-03-2013, 10:30 PM
Jabari went below 20 for the second straight game. Is it time to hit the panic button?

FerryFor50
12-03-2013, 10:31 PM
I feel like our standards are slipping, to call that a good win. Maybe it's just me...

Yea, it's just you... They played loose D at the end to avoid fouling (notice they were getting called a lot) and to hasten the game's end. Most of those extra possessions were due to UM fouling. They essentially we even in points at the end of the game...

dukelifer
12-03-2013, 10:31 PM
Very good game. Loved the instant O from Dre. Excellent D minus a few lapses. Quinn had his best game. Team is getting better. Still a few chemistry issues - but sharing the ball helps. Overall - felt like a usual Duke win.

kAzE
12-03-2013, 10:31 PM
Yeah, Michigan is not looking like a top 25 team, but we still played pretty well. Great performance from Cook, we're at our best when he's playing like that. Great D and rebounding in the 1st half, but we gave up basically every offensive rebound in the last 3 minutes. McGary seemed like he had a double double just in the last 5 minutes of the game. Gotta get a body or even two on guys like him.

flyingdutchdevil
12-03-2013, 10:31 PM
1) I thought Sulaimon was going to be the X-factor this season. I couldn't be more wrong. It's Quinn. What a game. What a game! MOTM for sure.
2) Speaking of Sulaimon, he's in the "doghouse". I know that phrase isn't popular here and frequently misused, but Sulaimon certainly isn't in favor with Coach K.
3) I really like Mitch McGary. I think someone just needs to light a fire under his behind. He would have been perfect on this team.
4) Is there a shot that is more ineffective than Hairston mid-range jumper? I don't remember one ever going in...
5) I like Dawkins off the bench as instant offense :)
6) MP3 played his best game. He played only 3 minutes, but it was by far his best game. Hopefully a sign of things to come.
7) Our D is getting better and better. And I'm not worried about our O at all.
8) Is it me, or is every time that a team comes back, our answer is untimely 3s? It's a strategy that doesn't work.
9) This may have been one of Dickie V's worst games. And that's saying something.

Congrats to a hard-earned win.

wilson
12-03-2013, 10:31 PM
I feel like our standards are slipping, to call that a good win. Maybe it's just me...Please expound, because I roundly disagree. Still not necessarily a well-oiled machine, but to me that was a good, entertaining, hard-fought game between two good teams.

Goduke2010
12-03-2013, 10:31 PM
Yea, it's just you... They played loose D at the end to avoid fouling (notice they were getting called a lot) and to hasten the game's end. Most of those extra possessions were due to UM fouling. They essentially we even in points at the end of the game...

Sorry but this isn't a good team we beat...
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/130/michigan-wolverines

Edouble
12-03-2013, 10:31 PM
Good game. But I think this UM is quite weak.

Yeah, Michigan does not appear to be top 25 quality.

It's troublesome that 'Sheed was not in the game at all. He is either sick or very deep in the dog house. I hope it's not the latter. I think he's a key piece of the puzzle.

On the other hand, it was great to see Marshall moving his feet and rebounding. He looked good tonight. I yelled loudly when he grabbed that first rebound with authority.

FerryFor50
12-03-2013, 10:33 PM
Sorry but this isn't a good team we beat...
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/130/michigan-wolverines

Neither was Vermont...

Duvall
12-03-2013, 10:34 PM
Jabari went below 20 for the second straight game. Is it time to hit the panic button?

Why?

Ichabod Drain
12-03-2013, 10:34 PM
Sorry but this isn't a good team we beat...
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/130/michigan-wolverines

Kenpom (http://kenpom.com/) disagrees slightly

subzero02
12-03-2013, 10:34 PM
This team will take a while to find its identity... If it starts on the defensive end and finishes on the offensive end we'll be a top 5 team by the end of the year

mr. synellinden
12-03-2013, 10:35 PM
Yeah, this was a 68-50 game with less than 2 minutes left. The rest of the game was a foul fest (by UM) and we were focused on not fouling more than playing defense or rebounding.

CameronDuke
12-03-2013, 10:35 PM
The following stood out to me:

The absolute lock down defense that was played on Stauskas from Matt Jones and Tyler Thornton. I think that was the story of the game.

Very good rebounding effort from our bigs Jefferson and plumlee. The first and second points I just made were obvious focal points in practice.

Quinn was sensational passing and scoring. If he improves his assist to turnover ratio he will complement Hood and Parker on offense nicely.

We still got beat for a few easy dunks and messed up a few switches on dribble penetration at the top of the key that led to layups but defense was a lot better.

Matt Jones needs to play more. He is fundamentally outstanding and plays solid defense.

Marshall looked serviceable and Dre looked brilliant in spurts.

Parker is a stud.

dukelifer
12-03-2013, 10:36 PM
Sorry but this isn't a good team we beat...
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/130/michigan-wolverines

Probably right but they are a still a solid team who will make the tourney. Small steps.

jipops
12-03-2013, 10:38 PM
Why?

Sarcasm

jipops
12-03-2013, 10:40 PM
Nice board work from Amile tonight. Very nice D too.

Even Andre had a nice defensive play where he rotated over in the lane and deflected a pass. Maybe it's contagious?

mgtr
12-03-2013, 10:40 PM
Very happy to see MP3 get some burn tonight. He made some positive contributions during his brief stint.

Duvall
12-03-2013, 10:41 PM
Kenpom (http://kenpom.com/) disagrees slightly

Top 20 in Kenpom and Sagarin predictor, but are we really sure this was a good win?

SCMatt33
12-03-2013, 10:42 PM
Quick Rundown.

The Good:
Stopping Stauskas - Seriously, this was huge. There's been a lot to disparage about the defense this year, but taking away a team's number one option like that has always been a trademark of a Coach K defense. Great job by the guards.

Ball Handling - ESPN box score only has us down for 7 turnovers in the game. Michigan's defense can be complex at times switching from the man to the 1-3-1 trap and back very quickly, but Duke handled it pretty well. They didn't always get a great shot, but they almost always got a shot off.

Role Players - Jones, Jefferson, Plumlee, and Dawkins all made contributions to the game. Duke doesn't need these guys to play lights out, but a few plays a game like that can make a huge difference.

The Bad:
Passive Play - Especially on offense Duke was very passive. As good as they did to not turn it over, you have to question whether some of that was because they were not aggressive enough off of the dribble. Of Duke's 18 free throw attempts, 12 came once Michigan started fouling on purpose. There were only two plays in the game where someone did not try to avoid contact (a Jones drive in the 1st half and a Cook drive in the 2nd). Every other time, it was a floater or a spin move or a pull up. The refs are calling these games tight, and Duke did not take advantage of it.

Hand down, man down - There was a lot of great things to admire on the defense tonight, and you could even see improvement in some things that have been a struggle, like helping back in the lane on ball screens. One nit-picky thing that I keep seeing this year is that guys (especially Hood) won't put a hand up to challenge a jump shooter. It's such a simple thing, but it makes the game so much easier for shooters. Anyway, not to be too hard, because the defense really was great tonight.

The Ugly:
Please stop fouling - Beilein just did not give up at the end. On the one hand, it's hard to blame him for the strategy, because when you're down 16 with two minutes left, the only chance you have is to start fouling sooner rather than later. Most coaches wait until it's too late to make any difference, but that strategy won't get you on many Christmas card lists. On a related note, great job with the late game free throws (11-12) with Cook going 8-8 down the stretch by himself. Throw in that 3 of those were 1-and-1 situations which are always nerve wracking, and it was an impressive display that really kept the game from getting a little too close for comfort.

wallyman
12-03-2013, 10:46 PM
Top 20 in Kenpom and Sagarin predictor, but are we really sure this was a good win?

Lots of folks here are hard to please. Great defense, huge minutes by Andre, Quinn's best game, nice moments from Marshall, great defense by Tyler and Matt, Jabari and Rodney with some big moments. Good rebounding overall. Only two downers were Rasheed not getting in the game and Dickie V, as noted by others, at his very worst. And if you want to find something to complain about there's Josh's shot. Otherwise, heck of a game.

tbyers11
12-03-2013, 10:47 PM
Top 20 in Kenpom and Sagarin predictor, but are we really sure this was a good win?

Michigan is nowhere near the level of Kansas or Arizona but they are a youngish team that has a lot of new faces and old players in new roles. I think they were overrated in the preseason top 10 based on their runner-up finish last year but I guess they will be about a 5 seed come March.

So, yes, I vote good win.

As to the game. Very good D until the matador no foul D the last 3 minutes. Much more good Quinn than bad Quinn. Jabari didn't force things as much in the second half. Dre with a great 2 minute stretch that was the difference maker. Great D and rebounding from Amile and MP3

CoachJ10
12-03-2013, 10:51 PM
Cook good, Kersey bad.

On a night where we had some very good performances (cook, marshall, dre)...I hate to focus on the refs...but they were atrocious tonight. Just awful. Jabari should have had at least 15 ft attempts (he was getting smacked on every attempt inside the paint).

Some nights refs are more noticeable than others...but if we had been losing this game and the refs acted like this tonight, I would have been irate.

Also...Quinn...good things happen when you drive to the hoop. Remember that!

wilko
12-03-2013, 10:53 PM
Top 20 in Kenpom and Sagarin predictor, but are we really sure this was a good win?

I wont talk down a win. We played with lots of energy and verve tonight.
We keep doing THAT; we are in fine shape.

Better decision making and not forcing the issue when it wasnt there....
Defense did some good things. LIKED MP3 getting some action... Jones was doing good things..

There is a lot to like here even if we didnt beat them by 30

Billy Dat
12-03-2013, 10:54 PM
This was a good win. Michigan is the 3rd best team we have played and we lost to the other two, regardless of how good you think they are. Winning this game was important.

Our defense and rebounding continue to improve. The offense looked stagnant at times but we were really trying to share the ball. I thought Jabari was great at passing out of the double team. Quinn Cook had a very solid game - the scoring, assists and free throw shooting. He still made a few bad decisions at critical moments, but Andre bailed him out with his 8 point burst with 8 minutes left when Michigan had cut it to 3.

It would be really interesting to examine the playing time, divided by halves, of everyone not named Jabari, Rodney or Quinn. Tonight, no Alex, Semi or Rasheed. MP3 got in early and seemed to do well but got limited run overall. We are so far from a settled rotation, playing time really seems up for grabs in a very fluid way.

I assume Stauskas was way less than 100%, I'd like to think that we shut him down but he was extremely ineffective and I have to think he's not close to 100%. Robinson was invisible, McGarry was pretty ineffective, Levert was really the star, I heard he even sang "Cassanova" before the game.

Good win, we continue to evolve. I look forward to K's post game comments.

Kedsy
12-03-2013, 10:58 PM
Good win. Our D played pretty well, totally shut down Stauskas, and most of McGary's production and also Michigan's offensive rebounds came after the game was decided.


If [Quinn] improves his assist to turnover ratio he will complement Hood and Parker on offense nicely.

Quinn's current assist/turnover ratio is 3.56, which if he sustains over the course of the season will be a Duke all-time record (by a lot). How much does he need to improve before he nicely complements Rodney and Jabari?

HaveFunExpectToWin
12-03-2013, 10:58 PM
Even Andre had a nice defensive play where he rotated over in the lane and deflected a pass. Maybe it's contagious?

He also got burned on a back door cut, but Andre's offense was definitely needed at that point in the 2nd half.

GGLC
12-03-2013, 11:03 PM
Getting a little tired of Josh.

Really liked seeing the quality minutes from Matt; he looks good out there. Andre needs to play more too.

Marshall made multiple good plays!

Kedsy
12-03-2013, 11:03 PM
He still made a few bad decisions at critical moments, but Andre bailed him out with his 8 point burst with 8 minutes left when Michigan had cut it to 3.

When Andre came in (just before he hit those shots), Michigan had cut the lead to 6 (not 3). The latest Michigan was within 3 was with Duke leading 12-9.

Duvall
12-03-2013, 11:05 PM
Getting a little tired of Josh.

Really liked seeing the quality minutes from Matt; he looks good out there. Andre needs to play more too.

Marshall made multiple good plays!

Yeah, watching Hairston turn McGary into an ex-NBA prospect when he was in was just awful.

jcastranio
12-03-2013, 11:08 PM
Solid all-around game. Better movement on offense. Better communication on defense.

I take it back - what I said last week. Josh may not shoot unless it's a layup. Not allowed.

Sheed should have a good game next time out.

We did take some ill-advised threes at the wrong time. Didn't hurt us, though.

Michigan fouled us 8 times in the last 1:45. We still had 2 more fouls than they did. It was 19-9 for the game prior to that. Don't give me the old we were not aggressive enough on offense. Watch the Jabari "highlight" package they played at the end of the game. He was fouled on every single play. Rodney was fouled on every drive to the middle. No calls for either. What was going on?

Weird sequence: Michigan misses a shot. Michigan player fouls Hairston, then shoves Cook into the crowd. Michigan ends up with two free throws and the ball. I know Quinn should not have thrown the ball at the player, but over-punishment, much? In addition, the long delay gave Michigan a chance to get back in it. They were on the ropes and they began to crawl back in it after that delay.

The "ball touched Marshall out of bounds" play. After the ball hit Marshall's leg - he was still inbounds - it hit the Michigan player's foot. Duke ball. The call was correct.

Andre!

Is this what Jabari can expect? Just foul him and we won't actually call it because he is so good?

Pleased with the effort. Now - On to the Orange Bowl.

gurufrisbee
12-03-2013, 11:09 PM
I'm really feeling like the starting five should be Cook, Parker, Hood, Dawkins, and Plumlee with Sheed, Jones, and Jefferson as the first off the bench.

That said, this was a good win. That was like 80% of the team that was a couple points from being the national champion last year. They are for real.

GGLC
12-03-2013, 11:13 PM
Yeah, watching Hairston turn McGary into an ex-NBA prospect when he was in was just awful.

Yeeeeeah, that wasn't what was happening.

Goduke2010
12-03-2013, 11:14 PM
Lots of folks here are hard to please. Great defense, huge minutes by Andre, Quinn's best game, nice moments from Marshall, great defense by Tyler and Matt, Jabari and Rodney with some big moments. Good rebounding overall. Only two downers were Rasheed not getting in the game and Dickie V, as noted by others, at his very worst. And if you want to find something to complain about there's Josh's shot. Otherwise, heck of a game.

I think the "disconnect" is that I thought we were a top 5 team this year. I don't think we are - or can be - and my expectations haven't yet been reconciled with this reality. I feel the biggest issue is simply outside our control; the rule changes, which have eviscerated our long-standing approach to D (hand checks, funnel to guys taking charges), and we don't have the personnel to adapt (lack of quality depth, poor rebounding potential, inability to alter/block shots).

I agree that our D has looked much better as of late. I desperately hope that my pessimism is unwarranted...

flyingdutchdevil
12-03-2013, 11:16 PM
Yeah, watching Hairston turn McGary into an ex-NBA prospect when he was in was just awful.

Agreed with GGLC. That isn't what happened. McGary was a team effort (unlike Staukis, where Thornton deserves most of the credit), and he had a decent 2nd half.

Duvall
12-03-2013, 11:20 PM
Agreed with GGLC. That isn't what happened. McGary was a team effort (unlike Staukis, where Thornton deserves most of the credit), and he had a decent 2nd half.

Technically true, in that McGary played extremely well during the phase of the second half in which Duke chose not to court the whistles that would have inevitably accompanied any attempt by Duke to block out.

throatybeard
12-03-2013, 11:27 PM
9) This may have been one of Dickie V's worst games. And that's saying something.

The 1983 ACCT Final where State beat UVA was on ESPNC yesterday, and what's shocking to me about these early and even mid-80s ESPN telecasts is that Vitale, while he had already cooked up some of his cliches (Noun phrase-city!), actually sounded like a rational human being who could do color in a game without a bunch of screaming. It's like listening to a cassette tape of James Carville, whispering about why Bill Clinton is a good guy.

Freethrw33
12-03-2013, 11:37 PM
Spacing of the floor is SO much better with Dawkins on the court, as his being out there helped open-up both driving lanes and a 3 by Cook.

I see little positives to playing Josh at all unless other players are in foul trouble. Josh plays hard (had a few nice block-outs), but given his size and skills, he should not be a rotation player on an elite level team, and I'm still hopeful Duke will become a truly elite level team.

I see little upside / growth potential from Tyler (nice defense tonight) and Josh, but a significant chance for improvement if we use those minutes on almost any others.

GREAT to see Marshall play, solid game by Cook especially in the 2nd half, and glad for the victory!

AZLA
12-03-2013, 11:40 PM
Technically true, in that McGary played extremely well during the phase of the second half in which Duke chose not to court the whistles that would have inevitably accompanied any attempt by Duke to block out.

At one point McGary had 11 rebounds (I'm sure he finished higher), but yah, he'll be solid professional. In fact, I always thought he'd make a great Blue Devil.

davekay1971
12-03-2013, 11:43 PM
I think the "disconnect" is that I thought we were a top 5 team this year. I don't think we are - or can be - and my expectations haven't yet been reconciled with this reality. I desperately hope that my pessimism is unwarranted...

This is a team trying to sort out some important things in the early season:

1) Replacing 3 senior starters with a freshman and a transfer who didn't play last season
2) Sorting out the low post after losing a senior All-American
3) Learning to play defense with a dramatic change in emphasis of rules
4) Rebounding

Given those changes, it's unreasonable to expect the team to be clicking on a top 5 level right out of the gate. This team has lots of growing to do, and playing like crap against Vermont, or letting late leads slip away against top competition, is part of the learning and growing process.

In the last 3 games, we've seen a significant emphasis on defense, and the improvement, compared with the Vermont game, which was our defensive low point, is dramatic.

Our rebounding has also improved, if not dramatically, then significantly.

You noted you don't think we can be a top 5 team, but I think that's overly pessimistic. Heck, we led two top 5 teams late into the second half, even though we couldn't close. Given continued growth in the season, could we close against those top 5 teams that we led 33 minutes into the game? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think you can honestly say we "can't" get there.

But it's easier to be pessimistic. After all, if Duke fails to develop into a top-5 team, you can say I told you so. If Duke makes the final four, you can be pleasantly surprised. Always remember, in the Coach K era, Duke fails to win a natty almost 90% of the time, and fails to make the Final Four about 2/3 of the time. Being pessimistic is a usually a winning bet.

PS: We led a top 25 team, basically from start to finish, by a comfortable margin, and had a nearly 20 point lead before the end game stall ball/foul fest allowed a meaningless drop in the lead. We're doomed.

Chicken Little
12-03-2013, 11:44 PM
I think Marshall's most important contribution was just going in and reminding everyone that it's cool to play defense and rebound. He played with heart, he played with passion, and he got everyone fired up on defense and hustle...which has been missing this year. I thought Cook would be that guy, but like everyone else, it seems like he isn't ready to go out on the limb and show everyone else how to care.

This team isn't close to developed, and we're spoiled as Duke fans by having teams that are mostly ready out of the box. I still believe this team can be completely unstoppable if they get it figured out, but they're still learning. Parker shows us at least once a game where he decides to score, and I haven't seen a team stop him yet. We can work with that, especially since he shows an aptitude for passing.

Listening to the Coach K portion of the press conference on goduke while I type this. Paraphrased:

"What was the deal with Sulaimon tonight?"
"He needs to play better than the other guys who did play tonight. He gave us a great contribution from the bench. I'm glad you asked about him. Is there anyone else you wanted to ask about? No? Ok."

Yikes.

Good direction the team is going. I feel like they did close this game out tonight. It's a good building block to move forward from even if it wasn't 40 minutes of poetry.

snowdenscold
12-03-2013, 11:46 PM
From the in-game thread:

Not a complaint, but an observation....when was the last time that Duke has only taken 6 free throws with 2 minutes left in the game? Whatever happened to "Duke makes more free throws than the other team attempts?"

Be careful what you wish for... because, wow, that last 2 minutes of game time seemed to take forever. Did you notice the shots they had of some Crazies in the stands pretending to check their watches and yawning?

Goduke2010
12-04-2013, 12:03 AM
Listening to the Coach K portion of the press conference on goduke while I type this. Paraphrased:

"What was the deal with Sulaimon tonight?"
"He needs to play better than the other guys who did play tonight. He gave us a great contribution from the bench. I'm glad you asked about him. Is there anyone else you wanted to ask about? No? Ok." Yikes.

Charlotte paper said Sheed came into preseason out of shape. First time I've heard that, and would be surprising to me given how hard he appears to work...

More than anything he seems to be really struggling with his shooting. Hard to play SG if you can't make buckets efficiently.

BD80
12-04-2013, 12:06 AM
...Quinn was sensational passing and scoring. If he improves his assist to turnover ratio he will complement Hood and Parker on offense nicely. ...

9 to 2 bears improving?


... Listening to the Coach K portion of the press conference on goduke while I type this. Paraphrased:

"What was the deal with Sulaimon tonight?"
"He needs to play better than the other guys who did play tonight. He gave us a great contribution from the bench. I'm glad you asked about him. Is there anyone else you wanted to ask about? No? Ok."

Yikes. ...

I was hoping he was under the weather. Some tough love being dispensed in derm.

Jones made good on his opportunities. Dre showed he is great O and no D.

Overall great game; still plenty of room for improvement. Tonight restored my faith and hope. Seeing Marshall lifted my spirits the most, we may have a real post defender by tourney time. Maybe not 30 min worth, but 12-15 min worth. That could get us where we want to go.

PSurprise
12-04-2013, 12:14 AM
9 to 2 bears improving?



I was hoping he was under the weather. Some tough love being dispensed in derm.

Jones made good on his opportunities. Dre showed he is great O and no D.

Overall great game; still plenty of room for improvement. Tonight restored my faith and hope. Seeing Marshall lifted my spirits the most, we may have a real post defender by tourney time. Maybe not 30 min worth, but 12-15 min worth. That could get us where we want to go.

I think MP3's (hopefully) increased role will be critical for Jabari's role come tournament time...I think Jabari will need some breaks through the rest of the season. While I'm not sure I believe in it, there seems to be evidence of the freshman "wall" come Februaryish. It would be nice to get some solid contributions (especially on the rebounding and defensive end) from Marshall to help spell Jabari some throughout the season. I would be very pleased with 12-15 minutes. Maybe he can slowly take some of Josh's minutes if he can play like he did tonight.

Sir Stealth
12-04-2013, 12:18 AM
I thought Cook would be that guy, but like everyone else, it seems like he isn't ready to go out on the limb and show everyone else how to care.



This is so completely off base, for the whole season but after this game in particular, that I am just about completely speechless. I honestly don't know what games you could possibly be watching. This has been Quinn's team, and he always leads the team emotionally on the court. It's weird to be so negative after our best win anyway, but this comment in particular is just not based on anything you could have seen.

Very solid win tonight with a lot of positives that have the arrow pointed up. They are figuring it out.

CBecker
12-04-2013, 12:18 AM
No way it wasn't going to be anything other than the doghouse for Sheed given how badly he has played of late, sadly. One of my favourite players, I hope he can turn it around. He seems to be struggling to find his role offensively on this current team. He had his streaky moments from the perimeter last year, but it's the way he is looking absolutely horrible and out of control finishing in the paint this season that is concerning to me. He actually is no way near as athletic as people think, at least as far as leaping ability is concerned and he really struggles to finish over length, but he does have good speed. If he added some hesitation moves or changes of pace, could help him get better shots (obviously easy to say sitting from afar!), as he's just playing way too fast right now. Given how Jones played defensively, I dunno if he'll even get back on the court for a while.

Delighted to see Plumlee get some minutes, and make some really nice plays in them, wish he got a few more minutes, but it's better than nothing

Was a decent win and they defended very well for the most part, although Michigan looked a little dysfunctional and ordinary at times, but that could've been because of the defense.

And yeh, I thought that comment about Cook was a little weird, particularly after his best allround game of the season. He's always been a highly emotional player that obviously cares!!

Des Esseintes
12-04-2013, 12:26 AM
The 1983 ACCT Final where State beat UVA was on ESPNC yesterday, and what's shocking to me about these early and even mid-80s ESPN telecasts is that Vitale, while he had already cooked up some of his cliches (Noun phrase-city!), actually sounded like a rational human being who could do color in a game without a bunch of screaming. It's like listening to a cassette tape of James Carville, whispering about why Bill Clinton is a good guy.

He's shouted himself so hoarse at this point that much of the game he just faded into the crowd noise for me. Toward the end, he answered a Shulman question with a kind of strangled noise, and I fantasized that he had just died. But then he wheezed back to life.

FireOgilvie
12-04-2013, 01:33 AM
Hairston had 1 rebound and 4 fouls in 21 minutes, which is terrible, but he made a couple really nice plays on defense. I'm actually quite happy that he shot those wide open jumpers; he just needs to take his time. He makes those shots in warm-ups and practice. I'm guessing he was told to shoot when he was open, as there was no hesitation. That hasn't been the case this season - the 3 shot attempts tonight was a season high. If you look at his stats from previous years, he had almost twice as many FG attempts per minute.

Plumlee had 3 rebounds, 2 points, and a blocked shot in 6 minutes. I really think he's by far our best option at center (if he is healthy enough to play). His height and athleticism impact the game in so many ways. He did exactly what I said would happen when he blocked that shot - just stood there while the opposing guard freaked out that he suddenly had to shoot it over a 7 footer.

Great game by Cook.

I really hope Sulaimon uses this as positive motivation.

ncexnyc
12-04-2013, 02:05 AM
Excellent win for the team, but a bad game for DBR.

If anyone thought the post game thread from Friday's game went out of control wait till you see what happens on here after what we saw last night.

The MP3 chatter will build up to a roar over the next few days. Even though he had only 1 block, he definitely altered several other close in attempts, which resulted in misses.

The offensive outburst from Dre is also going to be a major talking point over the next few days as well as Matt's solid play.

As for Jabari being held under 20 again, well he also didn't have 5 TO's like the other night, which shows he knows now that he doesn't have to force the issue.

Hey, look who had another nice primetime game. Yes, Mr. Hood. Remember how some folks were worried this kid couldn't do it under the bright lights.

Alright, time for bed as it's nearly 3 AM.

tommy
12-04-2013, 02:59 AM
Yeah, Michigan is not looking like a top 25 team, but we still played pretty well. Great performance from Cook, we're at our best when he's playing like that. Great D and rebounding in the 1st half, but we gave up basically every offensive rebound in the last 3 minutes. McGary seemed like he had a double double just in the last 5 minutes of the game. Gotta get a body or even two on guys like him.

McGary ended up with 15 points and 14 boards. He had 8 points and 3 boards in the last two minutes of the game, when it was pure garbage time, we were playing not to foul and to just get the game over with, and Michigan made the score more respectable, cutting it down from an 18 point deficit to 10.


Agreed with GGLC. That isn't what happened. McGary was a team effort (unlike Staukis, where Thornton deserves most of the credit), and he had a decent 2nd half.

Matt Jones and Rodney Hood also spent significant time on Stauskas, and contributed in a big way to shutting him down.


Technically true, in that McGary played extremely well during the phase of the second half in which Duke chose not to court the whistles that would have inevitably accompanied any attempt by Duke to block out.

I actually think Duke blocked out quite well in this game (before the last 2 minutes when again, the game was very much over) and we did so without getting called for fouls in doing so.


I noticed a couple of guys posting about the referees and the impact of the rule changes on our defense. To my eye, the referees have backed off on calling the ticky-tack handsy stuff on the perimeter in the last couple of games, starting with Alabama. In fact, in tonight's game there wasn't one instance where Duke got called for a foul and I said to myself, "ugh, those new rules/new emphasis. Too tight. Let em play!" I said that a lot in the first few games of the year, but lately not nearly as much. Which is a good thing for the game as a whole and for Duke being able to play defense the way we need to.

dcdrumsinc
12-04-2013, 03:41 AM
Impressive win if you have 1st round aspirations come March. Not impressive if you want to be a National title winner. We are going to be playing teams like Kansas and Arizona when it comes down to the final four, probably not this weak Michigan team. That's how Duke basketball should be judged. And a home game at cameron is different than playing in a dome come March. I still saw too many three point shots with guys standing outside the line (Hood) rather than catch and look to slash as arizona and kansas did to us.

Matt Jones needs to play more

No more Thornton and Hairston please. Amile and plumlee seemed like a good combo at 4 and 5 for bits of the game

NSDukeFan
12-04-2013, 05:09 AM
After some poor defensive performances, Duke has had three better defensive performances and probably played their best game of the year last night, winning comfortably against a talented team. In a perhaps related note, Duke introduced two new starters after some of the worst defensive performances in years.

Saratoga2
12-04-2013, 06:12 AM
Michigan chose to try to stop Rodney and Jabari and to some extent they were successful. That did provide more opportunities for our other scorers to make a solid contribution. Clearly Dre in limited minutes gave us a boost with 2 bombs and and layup. Also, Quinn kept plugging and began to hit from outside and drive inside. His prowess from the free throw line sealed the game. Having Tyler hit a couple of 3's was also big and Marshall was a big help although he only got in for 3 minutes, if that. Marshall missed his two free throws badly and needs to improve there to be in the game at crunch time.

The defense was excellent for much of the game and having Matt come in and be effective adds another body that can be relied on. I think his offense is also there and can be exploited more in future games. Getting more players involve cuts down on the fatigue factor, which might have contributed to our two losses.

In the end, I thought both Josh and Amile with 4 fouls apiece were ineffective on defense and I wondered why Marshall didn't get back in. He obviously had played with a lot of energy and clearly bothered Michigan with his size and aggressiveness. He might have been able to counter McGary's finale. Maybe it was the foul shooting or perhaps the coach just doesn't trust him to play defense at crunch time.

We won and we still had Rasheed, Semi and Alex on the bench. These are all talented guys so we are very flexible. Hope that all of these get some burn in the easier games before ACC play begins.

roywhite
12-04-2013, 06:21 AM
Boxscore (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=209331617) and a few thoughts the morning after:

Very significant defensive improvement by Duke in the last few games; Michigan shot 30.8% from the field in the first half; their second half numbers were inflated by garbage time in the last few minutes.

Lot of griping on this board for some reason; this was a nationally ranked team that Duke beat by double digits; I listened to Coach K's press conference and he was very pleased with the performance and the effort.

I got the impression that Jabari tried to defer a bit in order to blend his game in with the team; some scoring balance can be a good thing.

Back to the defense, the thing that concerned me was one Michigan player, LeVert, figured out the way to attack this Duke defense was through the dribble drive; this is still an area of concern for team defense.

What a weapon Andre can be -- 8 quick points, and he changed the game.

SheltonBob
12-04-2013, 06:23 AM
Hairston had 1 rebound and 4 fouls in 21 minutes, which is terrible, but he made a couple really nice plays on defense. I'm actually quite happy that he shot those wide open jumpers; he just needs to take his time. He makes those shots in warm-ups and practice. I'm guessing he was told to shoot when he was open, as there was no hesitation. That hasn't been the case this season - the 3 shot attempts tonight was a season high. If you look at his stats from previous years, he had almost twice as many FG attempts per minute.

Plumlee had 3 rebounds, 2 points, and a blocked shot in 6 minutes. I really think he's by far our best option at center (if he is healthy enough to play). His height and athleticism impact the game in so many ways. He did exactly what I said would happen when he blocked that shot - just stood there while the opposing guard freaked out that he suddenly had to shoot it over a 7 footer.

Great game by Cook.

I really hope Sulaimon uses this as positive motivation.

Very Well Stated Re: MPIII - His Play Tonight was an important part of a TEAM victory. His hustle and I'll Show You, Coach K, that I deserve to play more was exciting. He has earned more playing time to share the #5 spot with Amile Jefferson. There will be times when what Josh has to offer will be important, but IMO not more PT than MPIII.

NashvilleDevil
12-04-2013, 06:24 AM
Impressive win if you have 1st round aspirations come March. Not impressive if you want to be a National title winner. We are going to be playing teams like Kansas and Arizona when it comes down to the final four, probably not this weak Michigan team. That's how Duke basketball should be judged. And a home game at cameron is different than playing in a dome come March. I still saw too many three point shots with guys standing outside the line (Hood) rather than catch and look to slash as arizona and kansas did to us.

Matt Jones needs to play more

No more Thornton and Hairston please. Amile and plumlee seemed like a good combo at 4 and 5 for bits of the game

Jeez. Duke has one of their best wins of the year and the negativity about it is quite ridiculous. It seems many are disappointed in the win because the last two minutes Michigan got some easy baskets after Duke had backed off with 2 minutes left.

Also this team is no where near a finished product and that is refreshing after many thinking Duke always peaks early and runs out of gas come tournament time. As for Kansas and Arizona, I think Arizona is about as good as they are going to get and if Duke plays them in march the results will be different. And Duke does have first round aspirations because they would like to be a tournament team.

Troublemaker
12-04-2013, 06:52 AM
Excellent win for the team, but a bad game for DBR.

If anyone thought the post game thread from Friday's game went out of control wait till you see what happens on here after what we saw last night.

The MP3 chatter will build up to a roar over the next few days. Even though he had only 1 block, he definitely altered several other close in attempts, which resulted in misses.

The offensive outburst from Dre is also going to be a major talking point over the next few days as well as Matt's solid play.


Well, these are all excellent developments for the team.

In the case of, for example, MP3, it's not like my take has been "I hope that kid never plays!" It's been "I hope Marshall can provide us with rim protection, but it is early in the season and he will have to be gradually eased into the rotation because he's coming off offseason surgery and rehab. He could have a major breakthrough the next game Duke plays or it could be two months from now; let's stay patient and let it play out."

Hopefully, seeing Marshall perform well in a short stint against Michigan will relieve the impatience and thoughts that Coach K is stupid from some folks, but if, in fact, the impatience and stupid thoughts intensify instead, I am still okay with it (and I know you are, too) because seeing MP3 play well in a short stint right now is a great development for the team regardless.

Troublemaker
12-04-2013, 07:04 AM
Impressive win if you have 1st round aspirations come March. Not impressive if you want to be a National title winner. We are going to be playing teams like Kansas and Arizona when it comes down to the final four, probably not this weak Michigan team. That's how Duke basketball should be judged.

Yeah, I had the same reaction. Even though it said Michigan on Duke's schedule, I wanted Kansas and Arizona to come out of that tunnel instead since I have national title aspirations, and I wanted Duke to whup both of those teams right here right now in early December. Gradual development and building towards something are myths. As is, since Michigan came out of that tunnel despite my wishes to defy the schedule, nothing good came out of that game at all.

davekay1971
12-04-2013, 07:09 AM
Yeah, I had the same reaction. Even though it said Michigan on Duke's schedule, I wanted Kansas and Arizona to come out of that tunnel instead since I have national title aspirations, and I wanted Duke to whup both of those teams right here right now in early December. Gradual development and building towards something are myths. As is, since Michigan came out of that tunnel despite my wishes to defy the schedule, nothing good came out of that game at all.

Not to mention, I was hoping for the team to magically be transported to a big neutral site arena where Coach K had to sit on a chair on the raised court. No game means anything, regardless of how we play, unless it's against a top 5 team on a neutral court. Frankly, I'm not sure why K bothers to schedule any games in Cameron Indoor Stadium, and I have no idea why any team outside of the top 5 is scheduled at all. Unless we're playing a potential Final Four team in a potential Final Four arena, it's all meaningless.

OldPhiKap
12-04-2013, 07:11 AM
Not to mention, I was hoping for the team to magically be transported to a big neutral site arena where Coach K had to sit on a chair on the raised court. No game means anything, regardless of how we play, unless it's against a top 5 team on a neutral court. Frankly, I'm not sure why K bothers to schedule any games in Cameron Indoor Stadium, and I have no idea why any team outside of the top 5 is scheduled at all. Unless we're playing a potential Final Four team in a potential Final Four arena, it's all meaningless.

Don't forget the unicorns. Is it asking too much to have some friggin' unicorns?!?

oldnavy
12-04-2013, 07:16 AM
Why can't you dig how beautiful it is out here, why can't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyh-JpWdGmQ

jv001
12-04-2013, 07:17 AM
Kenpom (http://kenpom.com/) disagrees slightly

I have to wonder how kempom has unc rated ahead of Duke? I can't put too much emphasis on the ratings at this time of year. Duke will get better but I don't know about the heels. GoDuke!

NashvilleDevil
12-04-2013, 07:20 AM
I have to wonder how kempom has unc rated ahead of Duke? I can't put too much emphasis on the ratings at this time of year. Duke will get better but I don't know about the heels. GoDuke!

Maybe the throttling they have to Louisville?

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 07:21 AM
Impressive win if you have 1st round aspirations come March. Not impressive if you want to be a National title winner. We are going to be playing teams like Kansas and Arizona when it comes down to the final four, probably not this weak Michigan team. That's how Duke basketball should be judged. And a home game at cameron is different than playing in a dome come March. I still saw too many three point shots with guys standing outside the line (Hood) rather than catch and look to slash as arizona and kansas did to us.

Matt Jones needs to play more

No more Thornton and Hairston please. Amile and plumlee seemed like a good combo at 4 and 5 for bits of the game

I agree! We should start Todd Zafirovski at the 4 AND the 5. We don't need five players on the floor when Todd is on the floor. I mean, he's only played 30 seconds all year! He must be amazing.

Also, what a terrible game by Quinn. Let's start Nick Pagliuca for the remainder of the season.

jv001
12-04-2013, 07:24 AM
On a night where we had some very good performances (cook, marshall, dre)...I hate to focus on the refs...but they were atrocious tonight. Just awful. Jabari should have had at least 15 ft attempts (he was getting smacked on every attempt inside the paint).

Some nights refs are more noticeable than others...but if we had been losing this game and the refs acted like this tonight, I would have been irate.

Also...Quinn...good things happen when you drive to the hoop. Remember that!

For all the talk about enforcing rules on the defensive end, those refs sour ate their whistles last night. Especially when Jabari was shooting in the lane. It's got to be confusing on how to play defense because one game it's touch fouls and the next is let em play. I sure wish they would get their act together. GoDuke!

Mike Corey
12-04-2013, 07:41 AM
Good win by Duke. Expecting March form in early December is unfair and unrealistic and a sure-fire way to miss out on the fun that this season (as most every season) will surely provide.

We know we can produce offensively. Where we had been getting exploited was defensively. Big strides the last few games. Shutting down Stauskas and McGary, for the most part, is very encouraging.

I agree that on offense we're settling for shots too much. We have the talent to get to the basket, or at least get unconstested perimeter shots. I'd also like to see us run more, but that's why I'm a fan and not on the sidelines.

K is motivating Mr. Sulaimon. K is the master at this stuff. Sulaimon has responded publicly rather well. I have no doubt that Sulaimon will come out of this a better player and contributor.

jv001
12-04-2013, 07:48 AM
Maybe the throttling they have to Louisville?

Or the losses to Belmont and UAB. GoDuke!

MChambers
12-04-2013, 07:51 AM
If anyone thought the post game thread from Friday's game went out of control wait till you see what happens on here after what we saw last night.

The MP3 chatter will build up to a roar over the next few days. Even though he had only 1 block, he definitely altered several other close in attempts, which resulted in misses.

The offensive outburst from Dre is also going to be a major talking point over the next few days as well as Matt's solid play.
I agree, and the next game isn't until December 16, so we will have to agonize about this game. How we will pass the days at work?

jv001
12-04-2013, 07:56 AM
Quinn had his best game of the year. He got everyone involved on offense and played steady defense. I'm looking for this game to get him jump started into becoming the elite point guard he can be. Jabari had a very good all around game with good passes out of the double teams and played tough defense. Rodney had a very good first half and played well. Matt Jones continues to impress me with his all around play. Andre with 8 points in 10 minutes and Marshall with 2 points, 3 rebounds and 1 block in 6 minutes. Very effective for both players. Cook, Tyler and Matt had 9 rebounds total with 3 offensive boards. Lot's of good things to take away from this game. Now some practice time and then Next Play. GoDuke!

wsb3
12-04-2013, 07:57 AM
We missed a lot of 3's we usually convert. A few of those in the first half and we are up big. And if we did hit those 3's at a percentage more our norm I think the discussion here would be way more positive. Thanks to hitting some later in the game we finished 8-23, and we needed the 2 by Dre and Cook hit some to get to that percentage.

Did the ref really T K up when K was walking away with his back turned? I coached city league kids for 20 years & even those refs did not T you up when your back was turned.

How about post game interview with Coach K when asked about Rasheed? Little sarcastic to the reporter.

Cook when he plays like this takes us to another level. Like everyone else here I just want to see it on a more consistent basis. I do believe in him and particularly his potential.

Dre, you could not have scripted that better. We are in trouble. Momentum all their way and he doubles our lead in less then a minute.

OK I will join the negativity. I do think when a kid like Marshall comes in and plays the way he did he should get a little more time. Just not at the end when it is free throw time. ;)

pfrduke
12-04-2013, 08:02 AM
I think if this game ended at the 38:00 mark, people would be singing a slightly different tune. Yes, those last two minutes count, and yes, it's disappointing that Michigan scored 19 points in those 2 minutes (scoring in each of its 8 possessions), but neither those two minutes nor the final score are very reflective of the level of control we had over the game throughout. We never trailed. We led by double digits for nearly 20 minutes worth of total game time, including all of the last 8:00. Michigan had 5 possessions all game where they had the ball with a chance to take the lead or tie (i.e., trailing by 3 or fewer), the last of which came with just under 9 minutes to go in the first half. There was a grand total of one second half possession where Michigan held the ball in a two-score situation (i.e., trailing by 6 or fewer), and that came with 16 1/2 minutes to play. And through the first 38 minutes of the game, we held Michigan to 50 points on 60 possessions, which is exceptional defense against a pretty darn good opponent. Plus we executed extremely well on offense during closing time - from the 9:00 mark until the 2:00 mark, we extended our lead from 6 to 18, scoring 22 points in 11 possessions and scoring on 9 of those 11 possessions. In exactly the situation that we struggled against Arizona and Kansas (and even Alabama, to a certain extent) we performed nearly flawlessly against Michigan.

Kedsy
12-04-2013, 08:05 AM
Regarding the overall impact of this game, I'm of two minds. It was a solid win against a 2nd round caliber opponent, so I agree that I don't understand all the negativity around here. We pretty much controlled the game for 40 minutes.

On the other hand, I'm not sure our overall performance was too much better than against Arizona. It was almost the same game. We had a 10 point lead at halftime instead of 3 points mostly because (a) we were playing at home and (b) Arizona is waaaay better than Michigan.

In the middle of the 2nd half, at almost exactly the same point in the game, Michigan made a mini-run like Arizona did, but because our lead was 11 instead of 3 at that point, the run only got them close instead of putting them ahead. At that point things diverged a little because in the Arizona game, down 4, we got a little desperate and went into the zone, prompting another Arizona mini-run which put the game out of reach, and in the Michigan game, up 6, Andre came in and went on a personal Duke mini-run that put the game out of reach the other way. But overall, I thought both our defense and our offense were about the same in the two games.

To me, the biggest difference is how the fan base reacted to the two games. In other words, I'm not trying to downplay our effort last night; I'm just saying the Arizona game wasn't as bad as a lot of people seem to think it was.


No way it wasn't going to be anything other than the doghouse for Sheed given how badly he has played of late, sadly. One of my favourite players, I hope he can turn it around. He seems to be struggling to find his role offensively on this current team. He had his streaky moments from the perimeter last year, but it's the way he is looking absolutely horrible and out of control finishing in the paint this season that is concerning to me. He actually is no way near as athletic as people think, at least as far as leaping ability is concerned and he really struggles to finish over length, but he does have good speed. If he added some hesitation moves or changes of pace, could help him get better shots (obviously easy to say sitting from afar!), as he's just playing way too fast right now. Given how Jones played defensively, I dunno if he'll even get back on the court for a while.

I don't know. Rasheed was by far our best defensive player last season. One good game doesn't mean Matt has passed him on the defensive end. And you talk about Rasheed's failures on offense, but Matt was 0 for 4 from the field against Michigan. I assume this was a message game for Rasheed and he'll be back on the court soon.


Plumlee had 3 rebounds, 2 points, and a blocked shot in 6 minutes. I really think he's by far our best option at center (if he is healthy enough to play). His height and athleticism impact the game in so many ways.

Marshall did play well in his limited minutes, but let's not get too excited. He had exactly one defensive rebound in the game. I'm hoping that by the end of the season we can count on him for 5 to 10 solid minutes per game. Anything more than that seems like a reach, though if he does indeed break through to being a 15 minute man, I'll be very pleased.

In the meantime, after grabbing only 2 rebounds combined in our first two games, Amile has been a top-notch rebounder since then. His counting numbers are masked by his relative lack of playing time, but even including the first two games he now ranks 15th in the ACC in defensive rebounding percentage and 16th in the ACC in offensive rebounding percentage. And I haven't calculated the numbers, but if you go from the third game on, I assume he'd be in the middle of the top 10.

dcar1985
12-04-2013, 08:11 AM
Regarding the overall impact of this game, I'm of two minds. It was a solid win against a 2nd round caliber opponent, so I agree that I don't understand all the negativity around here. We pretty much controlled the game for 40 minutes.

On the other hand, I'm not sure our overall performance was too much better than against Arizona. It was almost the same game. We had a 10 point lead at halftime instead of 3 points mostly because (a) we were playing at home and (b) Arizona is waaaay better than Michigan.

In the middle of the 2nd half, at almost exactly the same point in the game, Michigan made a mini-run like Arizona did, but because our lead was 11 instead of 3 at that point, the run only got them close instead of putting them ahead. At that point things diverged a little because in the Arizona game, down 4, we got a little desperate and went into the zone, prompting another Arizona mini-run which put the game out of reach, and in the Michigan game, up 6, Andre came in and went on a personal Duke mini-run that put the game out of reach the other way. But overall, I thought both our defense and our offense were about the same in the two games.

To me, the biggest difference is how the fan base reacted to the two games. In other words, I'm not trying to downplay our effort last night; I'm just saying the Arizona game wasn't as bad as a lot of people seem to think it was.



I don't know. Rasheed was by far our best defensive player last season. One good game doesn't mean Matt has passed him on the defensive end. And you talk about Rasheed's failures on offense, but Matt was 0 for 4 from the field against Michigan. I assume this was a message game for Rasheed and he'll be back on the court soon.



Marshall did play well in his limited minutes, but let's not get too excited. He had exactly one defensive rebound in the game. I'm hoping that by the end of the season we can count on him for 5 to 10 solid minutes per game. Anything more than that seems like a reach, though if he does indeed break through to being a 15 minute man, I'll be very pleased.

In the meantime, after grabbing only 2 rebounds combined in our first two games, Amile has been a top-notch rebounder since then. His counting numbers are masked by his relative lack of playing time, but even including the first two games he now ranks 15th in the ACC in defensive rebounding percentage and 16th in the ACC in offensive rebounding percentage. And I haven't calculated the numbers, but if you go from the third game on, I assume he'd be in the middle of the top 10.


I'd argue that Matt in his minutes even going back to the exhbitions has looked like our best perimeter defender this year, not just in this one game even though him and Tyler really put clamps on Stauskas.

jv001
12-04-2013, 08:14 AM
Regarding the overall impact of this game, I'm of two minds. It was a solid win against a 2nd round caliber opponent, so I agree that I don't understand all the negativity around here. We pretty much controlled the game for 40 minutes.

On the other hand, I'm not sure our overall performance was too much better than against Arizona. It was almost the same game. We had a 10 point lead at halftime instead of 3 points mostly because (a) we were playing at home and (b) Arizona is waaaay better than Michigan.

In the middle of the 2nd half, at almost exactly the same point in the game, Michigan made a mini-run like Arizona did, but because our lead was 11 instead of 3 at that point, the run only got them close instead of putting them ahead. At that point things diverged a little because in the Arizona game, down 4, we got a little desperate and went into the zone, prompting another Arizona mini-run which put the game out of reach, and in the Michigan game, up 6, Andre came in and went on a personal Duke mini-run that put the game out of reach the other way. But overall, I thought both our defense and our offense were about the same in the two games.

To me, the biggest difference is how the fan base reacted to the two games. In other words, I'm not trying to downplay our effort last night; I'm just saying the Arizona game wasn't as bad as a lot of people seem to think it was.



I don't know. Rasheed was by far our best defensive player last season. One good game doesn't mean Matt has passed him on the defensive end. And you talk about Rasheed's failures on offense, but Matt was 0 for 4 from the field against Michigan. I assume this was a message game for Rasheed and he'll be back on the court soon.



Marshall did play well in his limited minutes, but let's not get too excited. He had exactly one defensive rebound in the game. I'm hoping that by the end of the season we can count on him for 5 to 10 solid minutes per game. Anything more than that seems like a reach, though if he does indeed break through to being a 15 minute man, I'll be very pleased.

In the meantime, after grabbing only 2 rebounds combined in our first two games, Amile has been a top-notch rebounder since then. His counting numbers are masked by his relative lack of playing time, but even including the first two games he now ranks 15th in the ACC in defensive rebounding percentage and 16th in the ACC in offensive rebounding percentage. And I haven't calculated the numbers, but if you go from the third game on, I assume he'd be in the middle of the top 10.

I agree on all you points for this game. I think Coach K is trying to get Rasheed's attention and I hope it works. We really need him hitting on all cylinders. Amile just goes about his business with little fan fare. He had a good game. As for Marshall, I hope he plays well in practice and earns somewhere between 10-15 minutes. In my opinion I think there will be times during the year we'll need him against very big front lines. Plus he can take some pressure off Jabari having to play a big center. GoDuke!

UrinalCake
12-04-2013, 08:25 AM
Very pleased with the win, I felt like this was the Duke team I expected to see all along - applying good defensive pressure, preventing entry passes, getting good contributions from the bench. We beat a quality team fairly solidly without shooting the three ball very well, which a lot of people assumed we couldnt do. Coming into this game, a lot of our own fans thought we were going to lose and McGary was going to score 40 on us, so I don't understand all the negativity and disappointment. Yes it would have been nice to blow them out, but the upward trajectory of the team right now is very promising.

Quinn sounded much more poised and mature in his post-game interview than in years past. Said he embraces the job of getting the ball to his teammates to score, and called Jabari the best player in the country. Plus I'm glad he's stopped doing that nose thing.

I do have a slight concern about the last two minutes - I understand that we were just trying not to foul, but our end of game play has been a weakness and the reason for our two losses. We need to learn how to defend in the last 3-4 minutes for games when we don't have a big lead. I really feel like the game is officiated differently at the end of the game, and would like to have used this game to "practice" our end of game defense.

With that said, I am thrilled that we hit our free throws down the stretch as that will give us confidence moving forward.

CDu
12-04-2013, 08:26 AM
My thoughts:

1. I agree with those who say Michigan is not a great team (probably a 4/5 seed come tourney time). But I also agree with those who are very pleased with this win. We controlled the game, leading by 10+ for much of the game and extending that lead to 18 late before the foul game ensued. Sure, it wasn't an elite opponent, but we won that game handily. And it's our most impressive win of the season to date, with the team playing fairly well on both ends of the floor for perhaps the first time since Davidson. So for that we should be pleased.

2. I mentioned in the in-game thread that the Dawkins fans, the Plumlee fans, and the Jefferson fans should all be pleased with this game. All three had very nice moments, and their play should at least get them in the conversation for more playing time moving forward. I thought Jones acquitted himself nicely as well, playing tenacious defense on Stauskas when he was in the game.

2a. This was the best I've ever seen Plumlee play in a Duke uniform. He was energetic as always, but his energy didn't seem to be useless, spastic energy as it has in the past. He hustled down an offensive rebound (technically the ball went off him out of bounds and the refs blew the call, but the hustle is what mattered). He snatched an in-traffic, out-of-zone defensive rebound. He blocked a shot. He altered a couple of other missed shots. He caught and finished smoothly on his one recorded FGA. He snatched up another offensive rebound and drew a foul under the rim (next step: make a free throw). More than anything though, he didn't look lost on the floor. There was one sequence where he and Jefferson got confused on a switch, which led to a 3pt attempt. Not sure who is to blame there, but thankfully it didn't cost us. And aside from that miscue, things looked generally positive for Mr. Plumlee. Hopefully he builds on that performance, and hopefully that performance gives Coach K the confidence in him to continue giving him looks. A functional Plumlee changes the dynamic of the team in many ways.

2b. Dawkins was terrific. He filled, exactly, the role for which I think he's best suited: instant offense off the bench. He came in and canned two HUGE 3s, and his presence on the floor allowed Cook a wide open 3 as well (which Cook hit). He even tossed in a driving floater. And he added a deflection on a post pass that resulted in a turnover. There were still some miscues (got beaten a couple of times back-door), but he is a huge weapon in spurts. If he can take on the "Microwave" role, that would be fabulous.

2c. Jefferson did a terrific job on the boards, and he got back to his game offensively (standing on the baseline waiting for the dump-off pass to finish an angled layup). I could see a 2.5-headed monster moving forward with Jefferson playing 20-ish minutes and Plumlee/Hairston playing another 25-ish minutes to complement Parker at the PF/C spot. If he and Plumlee can play like they did last night on a consistent basis, I think our frontcourt concerns might be sufficiently mitigated.

3. Quinn Cook was the best player on the floor last night. He just had the game on a string. One sloppy turnover and another turnover trying to do too much, but otherwise he was flawless running the show. He does need to do better to keep his cool out there (that was a DUMB technical from a veteran PG). But he showed what he's capable of doing last night. More of that, please.

4. I loved the way Parker played last night. He recognized the double team and passed out of it. When he got isolated one-on-one in the post, he attacked decisively and (generally) effectively. I really like the ability to use him as a post scorer or a perimeter threat. He's just such a tremendous talent. Probably the most talented, NBA-ready freshman we've ever had at Duke. Not necessarily the best player we've had at Duke, but the most-ready freshman.

5. Nice to see Hood put up another solid performance against a BCS school. The 3s weren't falling, but he was otherwise pretty effective. We need him to be a presence on both ends, and last night he was (several nice defensive rebounds).

6. Interesting that Sulaimon got no PT. Also interesting that the team looked fine without him on the floor. Hopefully he's able to shake things off. I think our ceiling is higher if he's playing, but it appears that our floor is higher if he's not (at least at the moment - hopefully that changes).

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 08:42 AM
My thoughts:

1. I agree with those who say Michigan is not a great team (probably a 4/5 seed come tourney time). But I also agree with those who are very pleased with this win. We controlled the game, leading by 10+ for much of the game and extending that lead to 18 late before the foul game ensued. Sure, it wasn't an elite opponent, but we won that game handily. And it's our most impressive win of the season to date, with the team playing fairly well on both ends of the floor for perhaps the first time since Davidson. So for that we should be pleased.

2. I mentioned in the in-game thread that the Dawkins fans, the Plumlee fans, and the Jefferson fans should all be pleased with this game. All three had very nice moments, and their play should at least get them in the conversation for more playing time moving forward. I thought Jones acquitted himself nicely as well, playing tenacious defense on Stauskas when he was in the game.

2a. This was the best I've ever seen Plumlee play in a Duke uniform. He was energetic as always, but his energy didn't seem to be useless, spastic energy as it has in the past. He hustled down an offensive rebound (technically the ball went off him out of bounds and the refs blew the call, but the hustle is what mattered). He snatched an in-traffic, out-of-zone defensive rebound. He blocked a shot. He altered a couple of other missed shots. He caught and finished smoothly on his one recorded FGA. He snatched up another offensive rebound and drew a foul under the rim (next step: make a free throw). More than anything though, he didn't look lost on the floor. There was one sequence where he and Jefferson got confused on a switch, which led to a 3pt attempt. Not sure who is to blame there, but thankfully it didn't cost us. And aside from that miscue, things looked generally positive for Mr. Plumlee. Hopefully he builds on that performance, and hopefully that performance gives Coach K the confidence in him to continue giving him looks. A functional Plumlee changes the dynamic of the team in many ways.

2b. Dawkins was terrific. He filled, exactly, the role for which I think he's best suited: instant offense off the bench. He came in and canned two HUGE 3s, and his presence on the floor allowed Cook a wide open 3 as well (which Cook hit). He even tossed in a driving floater. And he added a deflection on a post pass that resulted in a turnover. There were still some miscues (got beaten a couple of times back-door), but he is a huge weapon in spurts. If he can take on the "Microwave" role, that would be fabulous.

2c. Jefferson did a terrific job on the boards, and he got back to his game offensively (standing on the baseline waiting for the dump-off pass to finish an angled layup). I could see a 2.5-headed monster moving forward with Jefferson playing 20-ish minutes and Plumlee/Hairston playing another 25-ish minutes to complement Parker at the PF/C spot. If he and Plumlee can play like they did last night on a consistent basis, I think our frontcourt concerns might be sufficiently mitigated.

3. Quinn Cook was the best player on the floor last night. He just had the game on a string. One sloppy turnover and another turnover trying to do too much, but otherwise he was flawless running the show. He does need to do better to keep his cool out there (that was a DUMB technical from a veteran PG). But he showed what he's capable of doing last night. More of that, please.

4. I loved the way Parker played last night. He recognized the double team and passed out of it. When he got isolated one-on-one in the post, he attacked decisively and (generally) effectively. I really like the ability to use him as a post scorer or a perimeter threat. He's just such a tremendous talent. Probably the most talented, NBA-ready freshman we've ever had at Duke. Not necessarily the best player we've had at Duke, but the most-ready freshman.

5. Nice to see Hood put up another solid performance against a BCS school. The 3s weren't falling, but he was otherwise pretty effective. We need him to be a presence on both ends, and last night he was (several nice defensive rebounds).

6. Interesting that Sulaimon got no PT. Also interesting that the team looked fine without him on the floor. Hopefully he's able to shake things off. I think our ceiling is higher if he's playing, but it appears that our floor is higher if he's not (at least at the moment - hopefully that changes).

CDu - as usual, I agree with all of your points.

Your take on Sulaimon is incredibly interesting. Sulaimon was our best perimeter defender last year and the most effective player at penetrating. He looks completely lost out there, now that there are 2 other players who are even better at taking the ball off the dribble. Sulaimon holds a ton of value for this team, and today was clearly a message for him. Right now, he is more talented than anyone on the team not named Hood or Parker. He just needs to realize that potential and be patient. Hopefully, that happens sooner rather than later.

I'm high on Sulaimon. He needs to find his form, and hopefully this game will light that metaphorical fire under his behind.

freshmanjs
12-04-2013, 08:46 AM
My thoughts:

1. I agree with those who say Michigan is not a great team (probably a 4/5 seed come tourney time). But I also agree with those who are very pleased with this win. We controlled the game, leading by 10+ for much of the game and extending that lead to 18 late before the foul game ensued. Sure, it wasn't an elite opponent, but we won that game handily. And it's our most impressive win of the season to date, with the team playing fairly well on both ends of the floor for perhaps the first time since Davidson. So for that we should be pleased.


Michigan was a 4 seed last year. I think it will be very difficult for them to replicate that. I'd expect more like a 7-8.

DukeAlumBS
12-04-2013, 08:48 AM
We had a forum about this man and what is going on with him etc. I made a comment that I think he will not start. Dawkins will over him. I sense his decline in practice and in early games. There is too much talent there. And as I said on that forum. We can pick up the slack with others, until he gets his groove. I like Dawkins to get more, and others. Coach K will put it together.
Go Duke
Jimmy

superdave
12-04-2013, 08:49 AM
This game was encouraging because we actually executed our defensive game plan for 38 solid minutes. The plan was to take Stauskas out of the game. He played 34 minutes, scored 4 points, took only 2 shots, missed them both, and ended a pretty solid 20 point per game scoring streak. I see that he sat out the prior game vs. Coppin State, so I wonder how much was luck on our part.

Two other areas of improvement on the defensive end were our backside rotations and our defensive rebounding. I thought we made a solid effort of boxing out and our big guys conscientiously slid over into the lane to prevent easy buckets. It paid off. We controlled the boards through the second half and did not give up the easy buckets that have plagued us all season. That is a step forward and we should not let the final two minutes of garbage ball taint that.

Next, the 6 minutes that Marshall Plumlee played were great. We need a big bruiser who brings energy to the floor. His role is inevitably going to be limited on such a talented, athletic team, but sometimes you just need toughness and 7 feet to use as a tactical weapon. If we can get a 2 minute stretch out of him each half, all season long, just like last night, I'll be happy.

Matt Jones benefited from Sulaimon's lesson. He was 0-4 from the field and played ok defense. I do not think he is at this point, or will be this season, a better option for heavy minutes than Rasheed. He cannot lock down a ball handler quite like Rasheed and he cannot drive the ball on offense like Rasheed. Those are two premium skills that Rasheed has, he simply needs to play better. If Jones is competing for PT, I think it will be with Andre and Tyler, not Rasheed. We'll see how this plays out.

Dawkins, like Marshall, is a great weapon. When he is on, Coach K should get him shots and use him to space the floor for Rodney, Quinn and Jabari to get better shots. A defense will be wary of him any time he is on the court, but his D is not good enough for a larger role.

We till need to stop the ball better. If our guards can keep their guy in front of them just a little better, some of the other issues will recede. I think part of that comes with Rasheed playing like we know he is capable of playing. If his D matches what he did last season, he will get his minutes back and our defense will jump a level. Quinn plays on-ball defense really well sometimes, but seems to lack focus. If he can improve some with his lateral quickness, that will help a lot. I do wonder if this is who he is now, post-knee injury. I hope not, and I do believe he has some defensive room to grow as a point guard, but I doubt he will be consistently great.

If our guys are starting to gel together, and everyone is settling into roles, then last night may have been the first time we see that become well-defined. Marshall and Andre can adjust to limited roles, Amile and Josh know they have to play good team D and box out. We'll see how the rotation plays out with Rasheed/Andre/Matt/Tyler. Maybe that will come into better focus the next few weeks.

alteran
12-04-2013, 09:01 AM
I have to wonder how kempom has unc rated ahead of Duke? I can't put too much emphasis on the ratings at this time of year. Duke will get better but I don't know about the heels. GoDuke!

Is it Pomeroy which takes about half the season before it has enough data to be meaningful? Or is that Sagarin?

79-77
12-04-2013, 09:12 AM
CDu - as usual, I agree with all of your points.

Your take on Sulaimon is incredibly interesting. Sulaimon was our best perimeter defender last year and the most effective player at penetrating. He looks completely lost out there, now that there are 2 other players who are even better at taking the ball off the dribble. Sulaimon holds a ton of value for this team, and today was clearly a message for him. Right now, he is more talented than anyone on the team not named Hood or Parker. He just needs to realize that potential and be patient. Hopefully, that happens sooner rather than later.

I'm high on Sulaimon. He needs to find his form, and hopefully this game will light that metaphorical fire under his behind.

Keeping him nailed to the bench sure seemed like a message.

I've been trying to remember the last time a key Duke player got benched for an entire game like that -- not coming up with anything.

I expect he'll get it together.


This game was encouraging because we actually executed our defensive game plan for 38 solid minutes. The plan was to take Stauskas out of the game. He played 34 minutes, scored 4 points, took only 2 shots, missed them both, and ended a pretty solid 20 point per game scoring streak. I see that he sat out the prior game vs. Coppin State, so I wonder how much was luck on our part.

Two other areas of improvement on the defensive end were our backside rotations and our defensive rebounding. I thought we made a solid effort of boxing out and our big guys conscientiously slid over into the lane to prevent easy buckets. It paid off. We controlled the boards through the second half and did not give up the easy buckets that have plagued us all season. That is a step forward and we should not let the final two minutes of garbage ball taint that.

Next, the 6 minutes that Marshall Plumlee played were great. We need a big bruiser who brings energy to the floor. His role is inevitably going to be limited on such a talented, athletic team, but sometimes you just need toughness and 7 feet to use as a tactical weapon. If we can get a 2 minute stretch out of him each half, all season long, just like last night, I'll be happy.

Matt Jones benefited from Sulaimon's lesson. He was 0-4 from the field and played ok defense. I do not think he is at this point, or will be this season, a better option for heavy minutes than Rasheed. He cannot lock down a ball handler quite like Rasheed and he cannot drive the ball on offense like Rasheed. Those are two premium skills that Rasheed has, he simply needs to play better. If Jones is competing for PT, I think it will be with Andre and Tyler, not Rasheed. We'll see how this plays out.

Dawkins, like Marshall, is a great weapon. When he is on, Coach K should get him shots and use him to space the floor for Rodney, Quinn and Jabari to get better shots. A defense will be wary of him any time he is on the court, but his D is not good enough for a larger role.

We till need to stop the ball better. If our guards can keep their guy in front of them just a little better, some of the other issues will recede. I think part of that comes with Rasheed playing like we know he is capable of playing. If his D matches what he did last season, he will get his minutes back and our defense will jump a level. Quinn plays on-ball defense really well sometimes, but seems to lack focus. If he can improve some with his lateral quickness, that will help a lot. I do wonder if this is who he is now, post-knee injury. I hope not, and I do believe he has some defensive room to grow as a point guard, but I doubt he will be consistently great.

If our guys are starting to gel together, and everyone is settling into roles, then last night may have been the first time we see that become well-defined. Marshall and Andre can adjust to limited roles, Amile and Josh know they have to play good team D and box out. We'll see how the rotation plays out with Rasheed/Andre/Matt/Tyler. Maybe that will come into better focus the next few weeks.

Great post. I agree especially with the bolded parts.

One quibble: not sure I agree with your praise of Sulaimon's defense. I think he's got that potential but I wouldn't say he's an elite defender at this point.

MChambers
12-04-2013, 09:13 AM
Is it Pomeroy which takes about half the season before it has enough data to be meaningful? Or is that Sagarin?
But perhaps not half a season. Check back in mid-January.

Goduke2010
12-04-2013, 09:23 AM
I think if this game ended at the 38:00 mark, people would be singing a slightly different tune. Yes, those last two minutes count, and yes, it's disappointing that Michigan scored 19 points in those 2 minutes (scoring in each of its 8 possessions), but neither those two minutes nor the final score are very reflective of the level of control we had over the game throughout. In exactly the situation that we struggled against Arizona and Kansas (and even Alabama, to a certain extent) we performed nearly flawlessly against Michigan.

Agree about the impact on perspective of those last 2 minutes. Which is why the team should have competed for the full 40 minutes. I'd be embarrassed to give up all those uncontested layups and 3-pointers, especially if team defense has been justly excoriated by the media, fans, and coaches.

peterjswift
12-04-2013, 09:23 AM
Quinn's current assist/turnover ratio is 3.56, which if he sustains over the course of the season will be a Duke all-time record (by a lot).

I'm not arguing the stat, but sustaining that into conference play is unlikely. I feel like almost every year we have a point guard or someone who has an amazing assist:turnover ratio early in the season. I would be very pleased if this was sustained, but I think there is almost an annual suggestion that someone could do that. Jon Scheyer was approaching 10:1 before conference play (though, to be fair, he ended at almost 3:1 which is pretty great). Here's hoping I'm wrong, and the ratio increases in conference play!

Channing
12-04-2013, 09:23 AM
I love when we run our offense as well as we did for parts of the game last night. Those interior basket cuts and easy layups are a thing of beauty. When Cood and Hood are penetrating and looking to dish the game looks easy. Its when we take some quick threes or a guy goes 1 on 3 that we get a little out of sorts (Except Jabari - the 1 on 3 seems to be one of his signature plays).

Cook has really progressed to being an excellent player. He still has lapses (a couple quick and untimely threes last night) but in the first and second halves he drove the offense beautifully ... looking to be a distributor in the first half and more of a scorer in the second.

Also, I thought we attacked the zone really well. We got some really good looks against their 1-3-1.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 09:25 AM
The refs didn't blow the Plumlee call. After it hit Marshall's foot, it went off of the Michigan player's foot before going out of bounds. The announcers are idiots.

azzefkram
12-04-2013, 09:26 AM
Marshall did play well in his limited minutes, but let's not get too excited. He had exactly one defensive rebound in the game. I'm hoping that by the end of the season we can count on him for 5 to 10 solid minutes per game. Anything more than that seems like a reach, though if he does indeed break through to being a 15 minute man, I'll be very pleased.

Really?!?

nmduke2001
12-04-2013, 09:31 AM
If Marshall can play with that effort for 10 minutes a game, we will be a better team. His presence gives Parker a break defensively and I think that is really important in the long run. Marshall still needs to contain himself a bit on his hedging. Like his brothers, Marshall hedges the screen and follows the ball handler too far leaving Marshall (and the rest of the team) trying to scramble to get back to defend the post. In my opinion, when Brian Zoubek learned when to retreat back to the basket he became a really good player.

The floor spacing with Dre in the game is just better. When Tyler is in the game, his man can basically forget about him and double the post (I know he hit a couple of shots, but one was a desperation shot and the other was wide open). The defender does not have that option when Dre is in the game. Even if Dre is not scoring, the other Duke players get much better looks. Count me as someone that hopes Dre is a 15-20 minute per game player moving forward.

Overall, it was a pretty good performance by the good guys. The next two weeks will be very important for this team. Who will step up in practice and make this team better?

szstark
12-04-2013, 09:59 AM
This has to be one of the most confusing threads I have ever read. Am I missing something? Did we lose? Did we not easily cover the spread? Since when is a 4/5 tournament seed not a good team? Cook needs to improve? Like I said, huh? Some people are going to miss a really fun ride.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 10:06 AM
The floor spacing with Dre in the game is just better. When Tyler is in the game, his man can basically forget about him and double the post (I know he hit a couple of shots, but one was a desperation shot and the other was wide open).

Which one of these was the one that came a full second after the shot clock expired? ;)

BD80
12-04-2013, 10:08 AM
Which one of these was the one that came a full second after the shot clock expired? ;)

Tyler knows clock management

Troublemaker
12-04-2013, 10:14 AM
Matt Jones benefited from Sulaimon's lesson. He was 0-4 from the field and played ok defense. I do not think he is at this point, or will be this season, a better option for heavy minutes than Rasheed. He cannot lock down a ball handler quite like Rasheed and he cannot drive the ball on offense like Rasheed. Those are two premium skills that Rasheed has, he simply needs to play better. If Jones is competing for PT, I think it will be with Andre and Tyler, not Rasheed. We'll see how this plays out.


I disagree here. I think Matt is just as good a defender as Sheed, both on and off the ball. And I think Matt's a pretty good driver as well. I think he has a legitimate chance to start once he consistently displays his shooting prowess from high school. It's like if you gave John Daly putting skills, a short game, and moderation in vices, and said his success in consistently winning majors now depends on his prowess with the driver. It'd be just a matter of time for Daly, and I feel that way about Matt.

Sheed also has a chance to start, of course, once he starts playing better. Between him, Matt, and Dre (although Dre's a longshot to start, imo, and I mention him to cover all bases), Duke has a 99.9% chance of having a very good starting 2-guard, putting Tyler back into a bench role. And then whoever isn't a starting 2 will be great bench players. Duke is loaded at guard, and it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out. I think Matt has a legitimate chance.

Dukehky
12-04-2013, 10:18 AM
I'm not a huge fan of how Amile hulks out after every defensive rebound. I'm afraid it's going to get poked out every time. That's really the only negative I took away from last night.

I was there last night and even though McGary's rebounding stats were really good, it didn't seem like he dominated the glass, which is a good thing. I'm ecstatic we won the rebounding battle last night. I thought last night was a really strong performance considering our 2 best players didn't score the ball like they normally do. Jabari didn't hit a shot outside the paint and Rodney didn't score in the second half except for some free throws. Granted, Quinn took over a lot of the scoring load. He torched that 1-3-1. I thought Josh did a GREAT JOB on McGary. Boxing him out and keeping him off drives. I watched him specifically. I am not a huge Josh fan in terms of his abilities, but I think when we play against a bulky strong big, he is servicable on the defensive end; however, more athletic, taller bigs I don't think he's as effective. Josh's rebounding numbers were low, but he negating McGary getting to the offensive glass, especially in the first half. I was really impressed with Josh. Marshall did a good job of rim protecting, hustling, and providing energy. I think 5-10 minute every game will really help him develop and against a strong C, last night, he didn't prove to be a big enough liability to limit his minutes.

The one thing I didn't really like was, again, the entry passes. Jabari has such a strong post game and Robinson III can't guard him the post. Everyone missed him when he was open in the post at some point in the game. If you're going to guard Parker with a legit college 3, he's got to get the ball in the post because he's going to score or get fouled.

Dre all Day baby.

TT hittin shots and d-ing up. Michigan is a smaller team in the backcourt which helps Tyler out, also, Stauskas plays off the ball a lot, so he won't get burned off the dribble like quicker point guards can do.

I hope Rasheed gets it together over this break. Apparently he's out of shape or came in over the summer out of shape. The kid is important to the team, and we need our old Rasheed back. He's so dynamic when he's right. I hope K knows what he's doing. Sometimes being a hard I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. isn't always the best move- re: Miles Plumlee. Sometimes I don't understand K, but something tells me I'm not meant to. I trust him... as long as he keeps a deeper line-up.

I guess Murph is destined for another season on the bench, darn.

Michigan is better than the number 22 team in the country when they're healthy. They weren't last night, but they are also a really good matchup for us. They're back court is short and/or skinny, and Parker, Hood, Jones are not. Hood is long, and Parker and Jones are seriously strong, as is Tyler. So I think even if Mich was at full strength, we would win handily. Sometimes teams are just bad match-ups. Unfortunately, Kansas, Kentucky, and Arizona are bad matchups for us... Right now... We are going to beat the bejeezus out of UCLA.

Goduke2010
12-04-2013, 10:21 AM
I disagree here. I think Matt is just as good a defender as Sheed, both on and off the ball. And I think Matt's a pretty good driver as well. I think he has a legitimate chance to start once he consistently displays his shooting prowess from high school. It's like if you gave John Daly putting skills and a short game and said his success in consistently winning majors now depends on his prowess with the driver. It'd be just a matter of time for Daly, and I feel that way about Matt.

Sheed also has a chance to start, of course, once he starts playing better. Between him, Matt, and Dre (although Dre's a longshot to start, imo, and I mention him to cover all bases), Duke has a 99.9% chance of having a very good starting 2-guard, putting Tyler back into a bench role. And then whoever isn't a starting 2 will be great bench players. Duke is loaded at guard, and it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out. I think Matt has a legitimate chance.

Agree with you on Matt. The fact that Sheed has regressed during his 2nd season - typically the "most improved" season for a player - really calls into question how much he'll contribute this year. He has his ardent defenders, but if you track his performance starting mid Dec last year, most of his KPIs have gotten worse. A year is an awfully long time for a "slump," and it might be time to consider the first 2 months of last season as the anomaly rather than the last 12 months.

To folks who point to his (occasional) good play and see that as a sign of his potential, keep in mind that every player has variances above their personal mean.

Chicken Little
12-04-2013, 10:24 AM
This has been Quinn's team, and he always leads the team emotionally on the court.

I agree with the general sentiment that the arrows are pointing up, and that Quinn is a great basketball player. Certainly didn't mean to offend at all, let alone to the point of speechlessness. I think the only area we disagree on is Quinn's attitude at times. When someone does something great, Quinn is certainly the first guy hyping him up, but I think his negative reactions can be as impactful on his teammates as the positive ones. Can't remember guys that I saw as real Duke leaders (Jay Williams, Singler, etc.) slumping their shoulders or rolling their eyes after a bad play. Quinn does this a lot. Just feel like if this is his team, he needs to be the one grabbing a guy and telling him to get his head back in the game, instead of being the one reminded.

BD80
12-04-2013, 10:27 AM
I am highly encouraged by the progress the team is making, but not satisfied with the current level of play - nor should anyone be. They will get better and better.

Watching LeVert carve up the defense illustrated the progress made and the distance left to travel. The hedging and help defense is getting better, as is the rotation from the off wing into the paint. It is easy to see that this has been a point of emphasis in practice. The next step - recover to your man- is still a work in progress.

LeVert was great at using a pick and forcing the D to hedge, pressing toward the rim with the dribble to draw the attention of two defenders, using a hesitation dribble to make his defender relax and to send the help or hedge defender scurrying after his man, and then blowing into the lane as soon as the help defender turned his head to locate his man.

This will get better as our guys become more accustomed to helping or hedging and recovering. Right now, you can almost see their minds churning: "help, recover" without truly feeling the flow of the play. They are almost too concerned about being out of position - to the point of freezing when they could make plays.

As they get more comfortable - and they are clearly doing so - I think we'll see not just better defense, but more steals and breaks, more blocks from the weak side, and far better rebounding (last night was particularly encouraging)

moonpie23
12-04-2013, 10:28 AM
they are taking their foot off the gas (throat) when they get up 15 pts…

superdave
12-04-2013, 10:33 AM
Agree with you on Matt. The fact that Sheed has regressed during his 2nd season - typically the "most improved" season for a player - really calls into question how much he'll contribute this year. He has his ardent defenders, but if you track his performance starting mid Dec last year, most of his KPIs have gotten worse. A year is an awfully long time for a "slump," and it might be time to consider the first 2 months of last season as the anomaly rather than the last 12 months.

To folks who point to his (occasional) good play and see that as a sign of his potential, keep in mind that every player has variances above their personal mean.

I disagree that Rasheed has regressed. We have seen some great stretches from him this season. He is just not playing very consistently. I think there is more to what is going on with him than we know. Could be a nagging injury, could be an off-court distraction. I think he is just not as dialed in as he needs to be to be be a consistent and significant contributor. A DNP could be what lights a fire under him. But I do see his upside on both ends of the floor as bigger than Matt's this season.

jv001
12-04-2013, 10:34 AM
I agree with the general sentiment that the arrows are pointing up, and that Quinn is a great basketball player. Certainly didn't mean to offend at all, let alone to the point of speechlessness. I think the only area we disagree on is Quinn's attitude at times. When someone does something great, Quinn is certainly the first guy hyping him up, but I think his negative reactions can be as impactful on his teammates as the positive ones. Can't remember guys that I saw as real Duke leaders (Jay Williams, Singler, etc.) slumping their shoulders or rolling their eyes after a bad play. Quinn does this a lot. Just feel like if this is his team, he needs to be the one grabbing a guy and telling him to get his head back in the game, instead of being the one reminded.

I agree with you on this, but last night when Quinn dribbled the ball off his foot(I think that's what happened/Steve Gray, lol) he didn't seem to let it affect him. He was focused last night and it showed in the end results. GoDuke!

Goduke2010
12-04-2013, 10:35 AM
I disagree that Rasheed has regressed. We have seen some great stretches from him this season. He is just not playing very consistently. I think there is more to what is going on with him than we know. Could be a nagging injury, could be an off-court distraction. I think he is just not as dialed in as he needs to be to be be a consistent and significant contributor. A DNP could be what lights a fire under him. But I do see his upside on both ends of the floor as bigger than Matt's this season.

Hope you're right on Sheed, both for the team and him.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 10:43 AM
The floor spacing with Dre in the game is just better. When Tyler is in the game, his man can basically forget about him and double the post (I know he hit a couple of shots, but one was a desperation shot and the other was wide open). The defender does not have that option when Dre is in the game. Even if Dre is not scoring, the other Duke players get much better looks. Count me as someone that hopes Dre is a 15-20 minute per game player moving forward.


This doesn't make any sense to me. How is it a benefit for the other team to leave Tyler wide open when he can hit wide open shots?

Tyler's detriment to the offense isn't his shooting. It's his ball handling. He isn't great off the dribble, so he's limited to what he can do. But he rebounds pretty well for a guard and can hit open shots. His defense is what keeps him on the floor and what keeps Dre off.

Troublemaker
12-04-2013, 10:43 AM
He has his ardent defenders, but if you track his performance starting mid Dec last year, most of his KPIs have gotten worse. A year is an awfully long time for a "slump," and it might be time to consider the first 2 months of last season as the anomaly rather than the last 12 months.

Well I consider myself an ardent defender of Sheed (or any of our players when they are criticized by short-sighted fans), and I disagree with your assessment of his last 12 months. I thought in his freshman year, he was very good thru February, slumped in March but still had a couple of good NCAAT games. Overall, he had a very good freshman year; certainly, very few Duke guards have ever matched his freshman year counting numbers and shooting splits of 37%/46%/80% (3pt/2pt/FT) and those that matched or exceeded him all went on to have great careers.

You've also mentioned before how he struggled with USA basketball over the summer. But that's not true. Sheed started 8 out of 9 games on a gold-medal winning team and was easily the team's best high-volume 3-pt shooter: http://www.usab.com/misc/13_mu19_usa.pdf . He wasn't perfect -- he struggled from 2-pt range -- but I would not characterize his summer performance as poor or continuing some sort of poor trend for him.

mr. synellinden
12-04-2013, 10:43 AM
A few thoughts:

Someone else noted this earlier - Jabari was getting fouled on almost every shot attempt - these weren't just THIS YEAR UNDER THE "NEW RULES" FOULS, they were ANY YEAR fouls, and yet they weren't called.

Along those lines, Michigan got away with a lot of hand checking and holding, especially on Parker. The refs did not call any of this, which was a stark difference from the way fouls were called, for example, in the Kansas game. If someone wants to go look at the replay, pay attention to how Jabari's defender is constantly reaching and holding him while he is moving without the ball or trying to establish position. These are supposed to be fouls. What has changed in less than a month?

I've resisted saying this, but Josh is a real liability. He may be our most effective big man team defender, but that doesn't take into the account that he really cannot defend a man without fouling. For anyone who thinks he should be starting and playing the minutes he does, I raise this question - if he were a freshman, would Coach K be showing that much faith in him? Our younger players seem to get pulled when they commit bad fouls or fail to rebound, but Hairston (and to a lesser extent, Thornton) seems to get away with making the kind of bad plays that would get a freshman or sophomore pulled. Of course, I'm sure the coaching staff has reasons for playing the lineups that we see. I just think we're a better team when Josh is on the bench.

It is remarkable that Michigan scored 19 points on its last 8 possessions. We scored 11, which is pretty good - but those last 2 minutes really skewed the quality of the defensive performance.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 10:44 AM
I agree with the general sentiment that the arrows are pointing up, and that Quinn is a great basketball player. Certainly didn't mean to offend at all, let alone to the point of speechlessness. I think the only area we disagree on is Quinn's attitude at times. When someone does something great, Quinn is certainly the first guy hyping him up, but I think his negative reactions can be as impactful on his teammates as the positive ones. Can't remember guys that I saw as real Duke leaders (Jay Williams, Singler, etc.) slumping their shoulders or rolling their eyes after a bad play. Quinn does this a lot. Just feel like if this is his team, he needs to be the one grabbing a guy and telling him to get his head back in the game, instead of being the one reminded.

Nitpick and personal peeve: we never had a player at Duke named Jay Williams. It's Jason Williams, goshdarn it. He didn't become "Jay" until he was so anointed by the media during his NBA rookie season.

Kedsy
12-04-2013, 10:47 AM
I'm not arguing the stat, but sustaining that into conference play is unlikely.

I agree, but the post you referenced was in response to someone saying Quinn needed to improve his a/to ratio and I was pointing out that it was pretty good already.


Is it Pomeroy which takes about half the season before it has enough data to be meaningful? Or is that Sagarin?

Both.


Dawkins, like Marshall, is a great weapon. When he is on, Coach K should get him shots and use him to space the floor for Rodney, Quinn and Jabari to get better shots. A defense will be wary of him any time he is on the court, but his D is not good enough for a larger role.


The floor spacing with Dre in the game is just better. When Tyler is in the game, his man can basically forget about him and double the post (I know he hit a couple of shots, but one was a desperation shot and the other was wide open). The defender does not have that option when Dre is in the game. Even if Dre is not scoring, the other Duke players get much better looks. Count me as someone that hopes Dre is a 15-20 minute per game player moving forward.

I agree with nmduke2001. With Andre playing good minutes we're possibly the best offense in the country. It doesn't really even matter if he takes/hits a lot of shots. He just opens up so much room for Jabari, Rodney, and Quinn.

However, I'm not sure I agree with superdave that Andre can't earn a larger role. Yes, he loses his man on backdoor cuts once or twice every game, and that's not good, but the rest of his defense looks improved over prior years. I think he's pretty close to a neutral on D right now.


If Marshall can play with that effort for 10 minutes a game, we will be a better team. His presence gives Parker a break defensively and I think that is really important in the long run. Marshall still needs to contain himself a bit on his hedging. Like his brothers, Marshall hedges the screen and follows the ball handler too far leaving Marshall (and the rest of the team) trying to scramble to get back to defend the post. In my opinion, when Brian Zoubek learned when to retreat back to the basket he became a really good player.

I agree with this observation about Marshall, but would point out that Amile and Jabari have also been doing this. We need all three of them to improve on this aspect, and when they do our defense will look much better. As BD80 points out, it's probably just a matter of time.


Really?!?

Really what?

arnie
12-04-2013, 10:49 AM
I think Dukehky and others have stated Hairston is serviceable on defense, but rebounding nubers are a little low. Agree that he does fight hard on D and maybe he is serviceable. But his rebounding is atrocious for his position. I looked at all PF and C bounds per minute stats for area teams last year and his were dead last. This year numbers are similar. One rebound in 21 minutes last night just doesn't work. His minutes are way too high unless we consider him a lockdown defender or a block shot machine- which he is neither. I'm concerned that if his minutes remain high, our post season success will be minimal. I think he should be a sub to rest others- not a focal point for the team. Hopefully K will gain confidence in Plumlee or Amile as season progresses.]

tbyers11
12-04-2013, 10:50 AM
Nitpick and personal peeve: we never had a player at Duke named Jay Williams. It's Jason Williams, goshdarn it. He didn't become "Jay" until he was so anointed by the media during his NBA rookie season.

Nit to pick with your nit. It was Jason, not the media, who anointed himself Jay when he entered the league. He wanted to differentiate himself from White Chocolate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Williams_(basketball,_born_1975)) and especially from the Jayson Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Williams) who shot his limo driver a few months before the 2002 NBA Draft

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 10:53 AM
I think Dukehky and others have stated Hairston is serviceable on defense, but rebounding nubers are a little low. Agree that he does fight hard on D and maybe he is serviceable. But his rebounding is atrocious for his position. I looked at all PF and C bounds per minute stats for area teams last year and his were dead last. This year numbers are similar. One rebound in 21 minutes last night just doesn't work. His minutes are way too high unless we consider him a lockdown defender or a block shot machine- which he is neither. I'm concerned that if his minutes remain high, our post season success will be minimal. I think he should be a sub to rest others- not a focal point for the team. Hopefully K will gain confidence in Plumlee or Amile as season progresses.]

Yea, but he's just about the only Duke player I see consistently boxing out his man, which is generally the other team's best rebounder. That means that guy doesn't get the rebound/offensive putback and someone else can chase down the board. Team rebounding isn't always about getting to the ball. Given that Duke doesn't have a dominant individual rebounder, they have to rebound with a team mentality.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 10:54 AM
Nit to pick with your nit. It was Jason, not the media, who anointed himself Jay when he entered the league. He wanted to differentiate himself from White Chocolate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Williams_(basketball,_born_1975)) and especially from the Jayson Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Williams) who shot his limo driver a few months before the 2002 NBA Draft

Pick nitted! :cool:

GGLC
12-04-2013, 10:58 AM
Nit to pick with your nit. It was Jason, not the media, who anointed himself Jay when he entered the league. He wanted to differentiate himself from White Chocolate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Williams_(basketball,_born_1975)) and especially from the Jayson Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Williams) who shot his limo driver a few months before the 2002 NBA Draft

I'd like to see a cite for that. My recollection is that someone suggested to him in an interview that he call himself Jay Williams for this reason, and he off-handedly laughed and agreed, and the media started referring to him as Jay thereafter.

MChambers
12-04-2013, 10:58 AM
Well I consider myself an ardent defender of Sheed (or any of our players when they are criticized by short-sighted fans), and I disagree with your assessment of his last 12 months. I thought in his freshman year, he was very good thru February, slumped in March but still had a couple of good NCAAT games. Overall, he had a very good freshman year; certainly, very few Duke guards have ever matched his freshman year counting numbers and shooting splits of 37%/46%/80% (3pt/2pt/FT) and those that matched or exceeded him all went on to have great careers.

You've also mentioned before how he struggled with USA basketball over the summer. But that's not true. Sheed started 8 out of 9 games on a gold-medal winning team and was easily the team's best high-volume 3-pt shooter: http://www.usab.com/misc/13_mu19_usa.pdf . He wasn't perfect -- he struggled from 2-pt range -- but I would not characterize his summer performance as poor or continuing some sort of poor trend for him.
Thank you for this excellent post. I agree with your assessment of his past performance and hope that Rasheed soon gets back on track, in part because he's an impressive kid.

Who can forget this picture and story?


http://blogs.fayobserver.com/accbasketball/July-2013/Gold-medal-meaningful-to-patriotic-Duke-guard-Rash

CDu
12-04-2013, 11:01 AM
If Marshall can play with that effort for 10 minutes a game, we will be a better team. His presence gives Parker a break defensively and I think that is really important in the long run. Marshall still needs to contain himself a bit on his hedging. Like his brothers, Marshall hedges the screen and follows the ball handler too far leaving Marshall (and the rest of the team) trying to scramble to get back to defend the post. In my opinion, when Brian Zoubek learned when to retreat back to the basket he became a really good player.

The floor spacing with Dre in the game is just better. When Tyler is in the game, his man can basically forget about him and double the post (I know he hit a couple of shots, but one was a desperation shot and the other was wide open). The defender does not have that option when Dre is in the game. Even if Dre is not scoring, the other Duke players get much better looks. Count me as someone that hopes Dre is a 15-20 minute per game player moving forward.

Overall, it was a pretty good performance by the good guys. The next two weeks will be very important for this team. Who will step up in practice and make this team better?


I agree with nmduke2001. With Andre playing good minutes we're possibly the best offense in the country. It doesn't really even matter if he takes/hits a lot of shots. He just opens up so much room for Jabari, Rodney, and Quinn.

However, I'm not sure I agree with superdave that Andre can't earn a larger role. Yes, he loses his man on backdoor cuts once or twice every game, and that's not good, but the rest of his defense looks improved over prior years. I think he's pretty close to a neutral on D right now.

I agree with this observation about Marshall, but would point out that Amile and Jabari have also been doing this. We need all three of them to improve on this aspect, and when they do our defense will look much better. As BD80 points out, it's probably just a matter of time.

I agree with both nmduke2001 and Kedsy on Dawkins. Moreso than any other player, he is such a thread as a shooter that he commands attention just by standing there. It's funny, because his percentages aren't off-the-charts. But he's established himself as a guy who can get hot and hit shots in high-volume, and that's a terrifying proposition for the opponent. There will be games when the shot isn't there, and those games he'll likely see less burn. But when he hits even a single shot, the other team is then on high alert.

I also agree with both nmduke and Kedsy with regard to Plumlee. If he can perform like he did yesterday, he's a difference-maker in the rotation. Not a star, but just giving 10-15 mpg changes the complexion of the team entirely. A frontcourt rotation of:
Parker (35 mpg)
Jefferson (20-25 mpg)
Plumlee (10-15 mpg)
Hairston (5-15 mpg)

Would be fabulous, assuming that Plumlee and Jefferson can get it done defensively more consistently. And it would mean minimal minutes for Parker at C, which would be great.

I agree with Kedsy's addition re: Jefferson and Parker. The one thing Hairston does better than any of our other bigs right now is the hedge-and-recover game. It's actually a bit surprising that he is so good at it this year, as even through last season he was pretty awful at it. But he's well ahead of the other three in that regard. If Jefferson and Plumlee get that figured out, then they should eat up most of Hairston's minutes, as they each bring something more to the table than Hairston: Plumlee's size; Jefferson's length and craftiness on offense).

alteran
12-04-2013, 11:03 AM
Tyler knows clock management

Exactly. In any battle between time and Tyler Thornton, my money's on Tyler.

rsvman
12-04-2013, 11:03 AM
I was quite encouraged by the play of the team last night, and really enjoyed watching the game.

If I were to point out any defensive flaws or lapses, it would be the following:

1) Michigan got themselves back into the game when we started settling for long, largely contested threes; long bounces off the rim led to several fast-break, easy layups for Michigan. Our transitional defense was actually quite poor during that stretch. They had 3 or maybe 4 virtually uncontested layups in a very short period of time; to my recollection, all of these came off missed long three-balls. After that, Dre came in a patched the hole with his quick offense, but Dawkins rescuing us should not be an excuse to ignore the poor transition defense.

2) Our handling of the high screen-and-roll was still pretty bad, at least on several occasions. Opposing coaches are going to keep going to this well until we figure out a way to make it stop.
It works like this: The ball handler gets the ball on, say, the left wing. A big comes out to screen for him. As the ball-handler moves over the screen, we move our big past the screen with a fairly hard hedge (the idea being to disrupt the flow of the opposing team's offense). However, for our big to hedge like that, he has to leave his man (the screener). The opposing coach simply has the screener cut toward the basket. The dribbler then throws the ball to the cutting screener. Havoc ensues. Either our guard has to switch and cover the big guy, resulting in a mismatch, or another player has to leave his man to cut off the screener who is now moving toward the basket with the ball. If our guy doesn't move fast enough, the screener has an uncontested shot. If he does move fast enough, he leaves HIS man open, and the screener now throws the ball to the other guy, who is also now cutting to the basket. The point is that in ANY CASE it leads to a situation where we are outnumbered defensively very close to the basket.
The rotations either have to get better or the hedge intensity has to be cut down. Otherwise, any opposing coach worth his salt is going to to the high screen pick-and-roll on us all night long.

Aside from that, I thought the defense was stellar, the rebounding was much improved, and they played more like a unit on offense, as well.

A good win, as far as I'm concerned.

Kedsy
12-04-2013, 11:08 AM
The point is that in ANY CASE it leads to a situation where we are outnumbered defensively very close to the basket.
The rotations either have to get better or the hedge intensity has to be cut down. Otherwise, any opposing coach worth his salt is going to to the high screen pick-and-roll on us all night long.

We've always hedged that way. The difference is our hedgers have to recover faster and get back to their man, or at least to somebody near the basket (or, as you say, the rotations have to get better, or both). I don't think it's an insurmountable problem, but it is something we have to continue to address.

wilson
12-04-2013, 11:21 AM
Nit to pick with your nit. It was Jason, not the media, who anointed himself Jay when he entered the league. He wanted to differentiate himself from White Chocolate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Williams_(basketball,_born_1975)) and especially from the Jayson Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Williams) who shot his limo driver a few months before the 2002 NBA Draft


I'd like to see a cite for that. My recollection is that someone suggested to him in an interview that he call himself Jay Williams for this reason, and he off-handedly laughed and agreed, and the media started referring to him as Jay thereafter.Jason/Jay says here (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/questions/jaywilliams.html) that it pretty much happened organically. He says that even though his birth name is Jason, he grew up being called mostly "Jay," even by his parents. According to the piece, he "offered [Jay] as an option [presumably to people who were asking about how to differentiate among the confusing array of Ja(y)son Williamses], and all of a sudden, the next day it was in the paper."

Also, of course we're discussing minutiae of nomenclature for a player who hasn't worn a Duke uniform in almost 12 years in a thread about last night's game. Sigh.

DBFAN
12-04-2013, 11:23 AM
You wanna know what the most exciting thing Dre did last night....it was his drive to the basket with the little tear drop. When he does that the other team must give him some space on the three point line. Out of fear that he will take it to the hole, and score or get fouled, or both. And with him being a good free throw shooter it just adds to the other teams trouble

AZLA
12-04-2013, 11:41 AM
You wanna know what the most exciting thing Dre did last night....it was his drive to the basket with the little tear drop. When he does that the other team must give him some space on the three point line. Out of fear that he will take it to the hole, and score or get fouled, or both. And with him being a good free throw shooter it just adds to the other teams trouble

Agreed, great point. I had to do a double-take to verify that was Dawkins driving the lane. Nice!

DukeAlumBS
12-04-2013, 11:44 AM
You wanna know what the most exciting thing Dre did last night....it was his drive to the basket with the little tear drop. When he does that the other team must give him some space on the three point line. Out of fear that he will take it to the hole, and score or get fouled, or both. And with him being a good free throw shooter it just adds to the other teams trouble

I agree. I feel since Rasheed is on the bench we have a lot more that can produce. I love Dawkins after what he went through. I was at the Arizona game. With 2-3 minutes they bring in Dawkins. Hit a sweet 3. Wished he got more time cause he has been there and done for us. And can get the numbers we need.
Have nice day
Jimmy

Reisen
12-04-2013, 11:59 AM
The following stood out to me:

The absolute lock down defense that was played on Stauskas from Matt Jones and Tyler Thornton. I think that was the story of the game.

Very good rebounding effort from our bigs Jefferson and plumlee. The first and second points I just made were obvious focal points in practice.

Quinn was sensational passing and scoring. If he improves his assist to turnover ratio he will complement Hood and Parker on offense nicely.

We still got beat for a few easy dunks and messed up a few switches on dribble penetration at the top of the key that led to layups but defense was a lot better.

Matt Jones needs to play more. He is fundamentally outstanding and plays solid defense.

Marshall looked serviceable and Dre looked brilliant in spurts.

Parker is a stud.

Great analysis. It was really nice seeing Matt Jones play well. As much as I would have liked to see Sulaimon out there, this let a few players gain some confidence in a big game.

LBF
12-04-2013, 12:02 PM
Notable positives:

Defensive switches are growing more cohesive and natural.
Perimeter defense is less porous
Rebounding improving as a result of better defensive positioning
K focusing on these areas first will continue to reap great rewards.

Areas of concern:

The high pick and roll/pop offense is unidimensional and vulnerable to a bad night by the 1 and 2. Everyone else stands still, albeit well-spaced, waiting and watching. Little ball movement and off-ball teamwork. The offense will work most nights because of the tremendously talented Hood and Parker, but it is very vulnerable, ala the most glaring example of our season, Austin Rivers 1 on 5. Unfortunately, weak unidimensional offensive sets are becoming a duke trademark. Clearly it was more glaring in the loss to Arizona than last night because Cook and Hood played well. However, it will continue to sporadically plague our season and more importantly possibly the postseason. Great coaches will know how to exploit our offensive weakness.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 12:10 PM
Notable positives:

Defensive switches are growing more cohesive and natural.
Perimeter defense is less porous
Rebounding improving as a result of better defensive positioning
K focusing on these areas first will continue to reap great rewards.

Areas of concern:

The high pick and roll/pop offense is unidimensional and vulnerable to a bad night by the 1 and 2. Everyone else stands still, albeit well-spaced, waiting and watching. Little ball movement and off-ball teamwork. The offense will work most nights because of the tremendously talented Hood and Parker, but it is very vulnerable, ala the most glaring example of our season, Austin Rivers 1 on 5. Unfortunately, weak unidimensional offensive sets are becoming a duke trademark. Clearly it was more glaring in the loss to Arizona than last night because Cook and Hood played well. However, it will continue to sporadically plague our season and more importantly possibly the postseason. Great coaches will know how to exploit our offensive weakness.

Agree with this. I wish we were more dynamic on offense.

Reisen
12-04-2013, 12:10 PM
Jason/Jay says here (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/questions/jaywilliams.html) that it pretty much happened organically. He says that even though his birth name is Jason, he grew up being called mostly "Jay," even by his parents. According to the piece, he "offered [Jay] as an option [presumably to people who were asking about how to differentiate among the confusing array of Ja(y)son Williamses], and all of a sudden, the next day it was in the paper."

Also, of course we're discussing minutiae of nomenclature for a player who hasn't worn a Duke uniform in almost 12 years in a thread about last night's game. Sigh.

I was at Duke with him for all three of his years. My wife and I chatted with him a couple of times at parties (he once asked her out), and ran into him & his mom a few years ago in Grand Cayman. IIRC, people that knew him called him "J".

I think the confusion, at least for me, was seeing it written as "Jay". Even though people called him that, while in school, his name was always written as "Jason".

-jk
12-04-2013, 12:11 PM
Tyler knows clock management


Exactly. In any battle between time and Tyler Thornton, my money's on Tyler.

He can seemingly make time stand still!

-jk

Eakane
12-04-2013, 12:30 PM
Spacing of the floor is SO much better with Dawkins on the court, as his being out there helped open-up both driving lanes and a 3 by Cook.

I see little positives to playing Josh at all unless other players are in foul trouble. Josh plays hard (had a few nice block-outs), but given his size and skills, he should not be a rotation player on an elite level team, and I'm still hopeful Duke will become a truly elite level team.

I see little upside / growth potential from Tyler (nice defense tonight) and Josh, but a significant chance for improvement if we use those minutes on almost any others.

GREAT to see Marshall play, solid game by Cook especially in the 2nd half, and glad for the victory!

Totally agree. Josh is a lot like Lance. When Lance finally figured out his role, he was great. That role means no dribbling, EVER, and no shooting jumpers, EVER. That's hard for a kid to accept. Especially if he is wide open. If Josh gets the ball outside, he needs to pass it and head for the basket.

Much as it bugs me to see Thornton starting, I have to give credit where credit's due. TT and Matt did a great job on Stauskas. And not to take away from a good win, but I think Michigan will be better when Stauskas and McG are 100% healthy.

And it's not a coincidence that we had an overall better peformance wiht an expanded rotation. Not sure we win without Andre's clutch shots. Matt and MPIII also making the most of their minutes. Wold love to see Rasheed back, and I'm confident he will be, eventually. Just hope it's sooner than later.

The biggest thing is that we played with urgency and passion. We do that every time, we'll be ok.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 12:40 PM
Totally agree. Josh is a lot like Lance. When Lance finally figured out his role, he was great. That role means no dribbling, EVER, and no shooting jumpers, EVER. That's hard for a kid to accept. Especially if he is wide open. If Josh gets the ball outside, he needs to pass it and head for the basket.


In Lance's senior year, he was a vastly improved jump shooter.. enough so that you didn't cringe when he shot. I don't have a problem with Josh taking 1-2 jumpers a night... I'd like to see him make them more regularly, though. That helps the offense and forces a defender to help. Duke has no other post presence other than Jabari that will make open jumpers with more regularity than Hairston. Amile can't make them. Plumlee can't make them. Todd can't make them. Hairston, believe it or not, is Duke's most reliable jump shooting big.

I can't see why so many people think Hairston shoots so much. He averages 1.6 FG attempts per game, and that's WITH layups/putbacks. He knows his role and fills it already.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 12:44 PM
In Lance's senior year, he was a vastly improved jump shooter.. enough so that you didn't cringe when he shot. I don't have a problem with Josh taking 1-2 jumpers a night... I'd like to see him make them more regularly, though. That helps the offense and forces a defender to help. Duke has no other post presence other than Jabari that will make open jumpers with more regularity than Hairston. Amile can't make them. Plumlee can't make them. Todd can't make them. Hairston, believe it or not, is Duke's most reliable jump shooting big.

I can't see why so many people think Hairston shoots so much. He averages 1.6 FG attempts per game, and that's WITH layups/putbacks. He knows his role and fills it already.

Josh has one of the worst mid-range jump shots in college basketball. It is incredibly ineffective. I like Thornton taking shots, because he's a decent 3pt shooter. He doesn't shoot mid-range jump shots, and rarely goes for a contested lay-up.

I cringe like crazy when Josh shoots. It's in ineffective shot that he takes once a game.

Also, I can't recall many Josh lay-ups / putbacks this year. Amile, yes. But not Josh.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 12:47 PM
Josh has one of the worst mid-range jump shots in college basketball. It is incredibly ineffective. I like Thornton taking shots, because he's a decent 3pt shooter. He doesn't shoot mid-range jump shots, and rarely goes for a contested lay-up.

I cringe like crazy when Josh shoots. It's in ineffective shot that he takes once a game.

Also, I can't recall many Josh lay-ups / putbacks this year. Amile, yes. But not Josh.

I recall a few Josh putbacks/layups. Most of them resulted in free throws, however.

I prefer the wide open Josh Hairston 20 foot jumper to the contested 30 foot three pointer that Quinn Cook likes to launch once or twice a game...

conmanlhughes
12-04-2013, 12:55 PM
The high pick and roll/pop offense is unidimensional and vulnerable to a bad night by the 1 and 2. Everyone else stands still, albeit well-spaced, waiting and watching. Little ball movement and off-ball teamwork. The offense will work most nights because of the tremendously talented Hood and Parker, but it is very vulnerable, ala the most glaring example of our season, Austin Rivers 1 on 5. Unfortunately, weak unidimensional offensive sets are becoming a duke trademark. Clearly it was more glaring in the loss to Arizona than last night because Cook and Hood played well. However, it will continue to sporadically plague our season and more importantly possibly the postseason. Great coaches will know how to exploit our offensive weakness.

I have to disagree with you here. Our offense is one of the best in the nation. Hood and Parker almost always show up to play, and anyone from Quinn, Sheed, Dre, and Amile (see: NCSU game, 1st half, 2013) could go off for 15-20 points. If I were a coach, I would be afraid to put emphasis on a single player, since that almost always leaves another good player open. If you are making the argument our team doesn't pass well, were 35th in the nation in apg. We might not have yet bonded as a team yet on either sides, but the offense is stellar even without that bond, and as that bond grows, so will the numbers we see the offense and defense put up.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 12:55 PM
I recall a few Josh putbacks/layups. Most of them resulted in free throws, however.

I prefer the wide open Josh Hairston 20 foot jumper to the contested 30 foot three pointer that Quinn Cook likes to launch once or twice a game...

I dunno... they both have around a 15% of going in, and Quinn's is worth 3 points. Plus, given our poor rebounding, 3s generally resulting in longer rebounds, giving us a higher chance at an O rebound. I agree Quinn needs to cut back on that, but I normally roll my eyes when he does it. The Hairston shot makes me cringe.

Not saying that cringing is worse than rolling eyes, but they just instigate different physical reactions in me...

GGLC
12-04-2013, 12:57 PM
In Lance's senior year, he was a vastly improved jump shooter.. enough so that you didn't cringe when he shot. I don't have a problem with Josh taking 1-2 jumpers a night... I'd like to see him make them more regularly, though. That helps the offense and forces a defender to help. Duke has no other post presence other than Jabari that will make open jumpers with more regularity than Hairston. Amile can't make them. Plumlee can't make them. Todd can't make them. Hairston, believe it or not, is Duke's most reliable jump shooting big.

I can't see why so many people think Hairston shoots so much. He averages 1.6 FG attempts per game, and that's WITH layups/putbacks. He knows his role and fills it already.

I have a huge problem with Josh taking 1-2 jumpers a night. He essentially doesn't make them AT ALL, and that's not much of an exaggeration. There's not much difference between Josh taking a long jumper (particularly with 30+ seconds on the shot clock like he did last night, groan) and Duke turning the ball over. His jump shot is basically a turnover. That's not good.

And to say that Hairston is Duke's most reliable jump shooting big is hilarious. I tracked all of his jumpers last season, and I believe he shot around 13 percent on them. Thirteen percent. Just because Jefferson stays within himself and doesn't take those shots at all does not mean that Josh's willingness to take those shots is some kind of asset to the team.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 12:59 PM
I have a huge problem with Josh taking 1-2 jumpers a night. He essentially doesn't make them AT ALL, and that's not much of an exaggeration. There's not much difference between Josh taking a long jumper (particularly with 30+ seconds on the shot clock like he did last night, groan) and Duke turning the ball over. His jump shot is basically a turnover. That's not good.

And to say that Hairston is Duke's most reliable jump shooting big is hilarious. I tracked all of his jumpers last season, and I believe he shot around 13 percent on them. Thirteen percent. Just because Jefferson stays within himself and doesn't take those shots at all does not mean that Josh's willingness to take those shots is some kind of asset to the team.

You can't rebound turnovers...

And Amile doesn't take jumpers because he can't make them. See his FT shooting for evidence...

GGLC
12-04-2013, 01:00 PM
I recall a few Josh putbacks/layups. Most of them resulted in free throws, however.

I prefer the wide open Josh Hairston 20 foot jumper to the contested 30 foot three pointer that Quinn Cook likes to launch once or twice a game...

Now you're playing fast and loose with reality.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 01:02 PM
You can't rebound turnovers...

...And long jumpers that miss badly usually don't have our folks in position to pick up offensive rebounds either (not to mention that one of our putative rebounders is the one taking the shot). What's your point?

NSDukeFan
12-04-2013, 01:04 PM
...And long jumpers that miss badly usually don't have our folks in position to pick up offensive rebounds either (not to mention that one of our putative rebounders is the one taking the shot). What's your point?

I'm not Ferryfor50, but I took his point as a missed shot is better than a turnover. And a shot that may go in and open up the offense is better than a turnover.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 01:09 PM
I'm not Ferryfor50, but I took his point as a missed shot is better than a turnover. And a shot that may go in and open up the offense is better than a turnover.

Taking a shot that has a ~13 percent chance of going in is one of the worst possible outcomes for an offensive possession short of a turnover. To take such a shot with lots of time left on the shot clock, as Josh habitually does, is absolutely inexcusable.

He should be benched every time he does it until he stops doing it.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 01:15 PM
Here is a link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnqpMeTZyS6ndFRfYl84WFFqdzRlcVFnYmN4d3BzM 0E#gid=0) to a chart of Josh's game-by-game jumpers from greater than 10 feet over the course of last year's regular season and conference tournament through March 21. I'm happy to update these numbers by going through the game logs.

Overall, he shot 3 for 23 on 10+ foot jumpers, which is 13.04 percent. 17 of his 23 jumpers came with 15 seconds or more on the shot clock. All three of his makes were included in that total, so he shot 17.65 percent on jumpers from 10 feet or further with 15+ seconds on the shot clock. That is an awful, awful result of those possessions any way you slice it, and he did it again twice last night.

(Oh, and that 3 for 23 number doesn't include two 9-foot jumpers that Josh took and missed last season, or any number of other, shorter jumpers he might also have missed. Having him shoot jumpers is extremely -EV for the team, and I don't see how anyone could conclude otherwise.)

Now, is it a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things? Sure. But a wasted offensive possession is a wasted offensive possession, and it is silly to say that this is something positive that he brings to the table or that we should be pleased to see him take these shots.

SlapTheFloor
12-04-2013, 01:22 PM
You can't rebound turnovers...

And Amile doesn't take jumpers because he can't make them. See his FT shooting for evidence...

I find that to be a commendable discretion. Players who can't hit long jumpers shouldn't take them. I wish Josh would follow his lead.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 01:27 PM
Here is a link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnqpMeTZyS6ndFRfYl84WFFqdzRlcVFnYmN4d3BzM 0E#gid=0) to a chart of Josh's game-by-game jumpers from greater than 10 feet over the course of last year's regular season and conference tournament through March 21. I'm happy to update these numbers by going through the game logs.

Overall, he shot 3 for 23 on 10+ foot jumpers, which is 13.04 percent. 17 of his 23 jumpers came with 15 seconds or more on the shot clock. All three of his makes were included in that total, so he shot 17.65 percent on jumpers from 10 feet or further with 15+ seconds on the shot clock. That is an awful, awful result of those possessions any way you slice it, and he did it again twice last night.

(Oh, and that 3 for 23 number doesn't include two 9-foot jumpers that Josh took and missed last season, or any number of other, shorter jumpers he might also have missed. Having him shoot jumpers is extremely -EV for the team, and I don't see how anyone could conclude otherwise.)

Now, is it a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things? Sure. But a wasted offensive possession is a wasted offensive possession, and it is silly to say that this is something positive that he brings to the table or that we should be pleased to see him take these shots.

Never did I say I *wanted* Josh to take those shots.

I said I didn't mind when he did.

1-2 jumpers per game are better than the 1-2 turnovers per game by Quinn Cook, but that doesn't mean I want Cook to stop playing PG...

Missed shots are better than turnovers. And honestly, every time someone shoots, they actually have a 50-50 chance of making it. :p

GGLC
12-04-2013, 01:38 PM
1-2 jumpers per game are better than the 1-2 turnovers per game by Quinn Cook, but that doesn't mean I want Cook to stop playing PG...

This is a ludicrous statement. A point guard who handles the ball all game and only turns it over twice is doing a GOOD JOB, because that is a good turnover rate for a point guard to have. A player who takes 1-2 long jump shots per game with ample time on the shot clock and makes approximately one out of every eight of them is not doing a good job, because that is not a good shooting percentage for anyone to have.

The comparison is facile.

Eakane
12-04-2013, 01:47 PM
Never did I say I *wanted* Josh to take those shots.

I said I didn't mind when he did.

1-2 jumpers per game are better than the 1-2 turnovers per game by Quinn Cook, but that doesn't mean I want Cook to stop playing PG...

Missed shots are better than turnovers. And honestly, every time someone shoots, they actually have a 50-50 chance of making it. :p

I asume that's a joke, right? My mother, bless her heart, at 86, does not have a 50/50 chance of making a basket, and she has much better shooting form than Josh.

When Josh shoots from 10+ feet, he does us the additional disservice of not being in position to try for an Offesnive rebound.

Quibbling about whether a missed shot is better than a turnover entirely misses the point. I like Josh; I love his effort and his hustle. He just shouldn't be allowed to shoot the ball outside of 5 feet, EVER. Tyler should look to pass first and shoot second. Josh should never look to shoot.

Oh and Lance's "better" shooting hiss senior year is only because it was so astonshingly awful his first three years. There was no where to go but up. It only made me cringe more because he had become so good at defending/rebounding. Same with Josh.

rsvman
12-04-2013, 01:49 PM
..... And honestly, every time someone shoots, they actually have a 50-50 chance of making it. :p

Wha?!?

Don't get your point. At all. I guess it is supposed to be some kind of a joke, but, if so, I don't get the joke, either.

SlapTheFloor
12-04-2013, 01:51 PM
Never did I say I *wanted* Josh to take those shots.

I said I didn't mind when he did.

1-2 jumpers per game are better than the 1-2 turnovers per game by Quinn Cook, but that doesn't mean I want Cook to stop playing PG...

Missed shots are better than turnovers. And honestly, every time someone shoots, they actually have a 50-50 chance of making it. :p

Cook has a 3.5-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio. Josh has a 1-to-6.7 made jumper to missed jumper ratio. For those two stats to be considered comparable, a turnover would have to be more than 23 times worse than a missed jump shot.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 01:53 PM
Wha?!?

Don't get your point. At all. I guess it is supposed to be some kind of a joke, but, if so, I don't get the joke, either.

Yes, it was a joke. Hence the smiley-tongue guy.

I'll explain it to you... 50-50 because you either hit the shot or you miss the shot.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 01:58 PM
This is a ludicrous statement. A point guard who handles the ball all game and only turns it over twice is doing a GOOD JOB, because that is a good turnover rate for a point guard to have. A player who takes 1-2 long jump shots per game with ample time on the shot clock and makes approximately one out of every eight of them is not doing a good job, because that is not a good shooting percentage for anyone to have.

The comparison is facile.

How is it ludicrous?

A turnover is a GUARANTEED lost possession.

A jump shot, no matter how terrible the shooter is, has a CHANCE of going in. It also has a CHANCE of being rebounded for another possession.

Again, I'll re-state my point, since EVERYONE seems to be missing it (you guys have a worse point-getting % than Josh's jump shooting %, btw)...

I don't necessarily WANT Josh to take those jumpers, but if he's wide open and takes one or two a game, I don't mind it.

Why? Because if he DOES hit one, then the other team has to at least think about defending him... If he DOESN'T shoot any jumpers, then the other team has ZERO reason to defend him and can sag off him.

The Cook comparison was less of a knock on Cook, because his assist to turnover ratio has been great, but more to illustrate the point that, personally, I'd rather see a missed shot than a turnover.

FireOgilvie
12-04-2013, 01:58 PM
Cook has a 3.5-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio. Josh has a 1-to-6.7 made jumper to missed jumper ratio. For those two stats to be considered comparable, a turnover would have to be more than 23 times worse than a missed jump shot.

I don't know what you are talking about. A turnover results in zero points. A Hairston jumper results in 0.26 points (according to your stats, and that's with no offensive rebound). If he plays 20 minutes per game, I have no problem with him taking 1-2 wide open jump shots; he'll only get more comfortable with the shot by the end of the year. It would be different if we were using him as some kind of limited-minutes defensive specialist. He's a starter! Coach obviously has no problem with him shooting those shots and I guarantee you he was told to shoot when open, because he was way less hesitant against Michigan than he has been in previous games this season.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 01:59 PM
Yes, it was a joke. Hence the smiley-tongue guy.

I'll explain it to you... 50-50 because you either hit the shot or you miss the shot.

Yeah, I took this to be a variation of the old poker joke about having a 50 percent chance to hit a flush draw: either you get the flush or you don't.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:00 PM
I don't know what you are talking about. A turnover results in zero points. A Hairston jumper results in 0.26 points. If he plays 20 minutes per game, I have no problem with him taking 1-2 wide open jump shots; he'll only get more comfortable with the shot by the end of the year. It would be different if we were using him as some kind of limited-minutes defensive specialist. He's a starter! Coach obviously has no problem with him shooting those shots and I guarantee you he was told to shoot when open, because he was way less hesitant against Michigan than he has been in previous games this season.

THANK YOU. I thought I was going insane...

If Coach K didn't want to see Hairston taking those shots, he'd do just as GGLC said he'd do - pull him every time he took one.

I think Coach K's mantra probably is "if you're open, shoot."

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:02 PM
Yeah, I took this to be a variation of the old poker joke about having a 50 percent chance to hit a flush draw: either you get the flush or you don't.

Exactly.

I thought the tonguey guy was enough to drive that home... sheesh. :)

Dukehky
12-04-2013, 02:03 PM
I think Dukehky and others have stated Hairston is serviceable on defense, but rebounding nubers are a little low. Agree that he does fight hard on D and maybe he is serviceable. But his rebounding is atrocious for his position. I looked at all PF and C bounds per minute stats for area teams last year and his were dead last. This year numbers are similar. One rebound in 21 minutes last night just doesn't work. His minutes are way too high unless we consider him a lockdown defender or a block shot machine- which he is neither. I'm concerned that if his minutes remain high, our post season success will be minimal. I think he should be a sub to rest others- not a focal point for the team. Hopefully K will gain confidence in Plumlee or Amile as season progresses.]

First of all I'm with you on the Hairston stuff. I was saying that last night he was good. I think this has proved to be the exception rather than the rule. i think that our ceiling is much higher with Hairston has a limited contributor. Your rebounding notes are well taken; however, last night was again an exception. He did a great job of boxing out the opposing teams best offensive rebounder which enabled specifically Jabari to get a lot of boards in the first half. If he continues to do that, his servicability increases. He's ground boundness affects his rebounding and won't be his forte, ever. Defensive rotations are concepts that should be easy to grasp for players of this level and hopefully Marshall and Amile pick them up more quickly. Also both of them have the ability to box out then go get the rebound rather than box out and depend on others to grab the board. I think last night showed Josh's ceiling, not to take away from him, because I thought he was fantastic last night.

I also saw a huge line-up last night which I loved. Marshall Amile Hood Jones and Cook. Throw Jabari in that mix, pack in the defense and that puts Jabari at an incredible advantage on the offensive end at the 3. I'd really like to see that line-up for a few minutes every game. I think it would present an incredible change of pace that would throw off opposing teams and give us an edge for 5-10 minutes a game, provided that team can defend the perimeter effectively.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:03 PM
I don't know what you are talking about. A turnover results in zero points. A Hairston jumper results in 0.26 points. If he plays 20 minutes per game, I have no problem with him taking 1-2 wide open jump shots; he'll only get more comfortable with the shot by the end of the year. It would be different if we were using him as some kind of limited-minutes defensive specialist. He's a starter! Coach obviously has no problem with him shooting those shots and I guarantee you he was told to shoot when open, because he was way less hesitant against Michigan than he has been in previous games this season.

I guarantee you that a Hairston jump shot with 15+ seconds left on the shot clock results in fewer expected points than almost any other offensive outcome that would come from him passing up that shot and giving the ball to someone who can actually shoot.

Put another way, the "0.26 points" that results from a Hairston jumper (however you calculate that figure) is almost certainly waaaaaaaay lower than any shot taken by, say, Cook, Hood, Parker, Dawkins, Sulaimon, Jones, Thornton, etc. with whatever time is remaining on the shot clock.

And I will ASSURE you and FerryFor50 that even if Josh does hit that shot occasionally at a 13 percent clip, it's not going to result in the other team defending him out there. They will let him take his 13 percent shot every time and waste as many Duke offensive possessions as possible. You've got to be kidding me.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:06 PM
THANK YOU. I thought I was going insane...

If Coach K didn't want to see Hairston taking those shots, he'd do just as GGLC said he'd do - pull him every time he took one.

I think Coach K's mantra probably is "if you're open, shoot."

Then on this particular issue, Coach K is absolutely wrong.

Long two-point jumpers are the most -EV shot in basketball.* Someone who is TERRIBLE at shooting the most -EV shot in basketball should never be taking that shot outside of truly desperate, shot-clock-expiring circumstances. Period.


*Frankly, Jabari and Rodney shouldn't take as many long two-pointers as they do either. But at least they hit them every once in a while.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:08 PM
I also saw a huge line-up last night which I loved. Marshall Amile Hood Jones and Cook. Throw Jabari in that mix, pack in the defense and that puts Jabari at an incredible advantage on the offensive end at the 3. I'd really like to see that line-up for a few minutes every game. I think it would present an incredible change of pace that would throw off opposing teams and give us an edge for 5-10 minutes a game, provided that team can defend the perimeter effectively.

I do want to note that, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think we had a single lineup combination out there last night that had Jabari guarding the opposing team's center. I'm pretty sure Jabari was ALWAYS in the game with at least one of Josh, Amile, and Marshall. I thought that was great to see, and I hope it keeps up.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:13 PM
I guarantee you that a Hairston jump shot with 15+ seconds left on the shot clock results in fewer expected points than almost any other offensive outcome that would come from him passing up that shot and giving the ball to someone who can actually shoot.

Put another way, the "0.26 points" that results from a Hairston jumper (however you calculate that figure) is almost certainly waaaaaaaay lower than any shot taken by, say, Cook, Hood, Parker, Dawkins, Sulaimon, Jones, Thornton, etc. with whatever time is remaining on the shot clock.

And I will ASSURE you and FerryFor50 that even if Josh does hit that shot occasionally at a 13 percent clip, it's not going to result in the other team defending him out there. You've got to be kidding me.

Agree to disagree.

You will never convince me that a turnover is somehow better than a missed shot, regardless of who shoots it.

And I will never convince you that Hairston shooting 1-2 jumpers (out of 71.5 possessions) isn't the end of the world.

Consider this - despite TT and Hairston playing the 4th and 6th most minutes of anyone on the team, their usage % are dead last. They both have lower usage % than MP3....

http://www.bbstate.com/teams/DUKE/stats/poss

Kedsy
12-04-2013, 02:13 PM
Why? Because if he DOES hit one, then the other team has to at least think about defending him...

As GGLC pointed out, he'd have to hit a lot more than one before the opponents will guard him out there. We have a lot of offensive weapons, at least two of whom require double-teams much of the time. With his historical success rate there is simply no way opposing defenses will pay Josh much attention outside of 5 feet.


Defensive rotations are concepts that should be easy to grasp for players of this level...

For the most part, history has shown this statement to be incorrect.


I also saw a huge line-up last night which I loved. Marshall Amile Hood Jones and Cook. Throw Jabari in that mix, pack in the defense and that puts Jabari at an incredible advantage on the offensive end at the 3. I'd really like to see that line-up for a few minutes every game. I think it would present an incredible change of pace that would throw off opposing teams and give us an edge for 5-10 minutes a game, provided that team can defend the perimeter effectively.

Throw Jabari in that mix and we'd have six guys on the court. :p

Seriously, I was mildly surprised to see Marshall and Amile on the floor together, but we only did that to give Jabari a rest. Very little chance Jabari would then sub in for Matt or Quinn. It's certainly not going to happen for 5 to 10 minutes a game. Especially considering our wealth of wing players, all of whom would be on the bench in your scenario.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:17 PM
As GGLC pointed out, he'd have to hit a lot more than one before the opponents will guard him out there. We have a lot of offensive weapons, at least two of whom require double-teams much of the time. With his historical success rate there is simply no way opposing defenses will pay Josh much attention outside of 5 feet.


Maybe, maybe not. I didn't say they'd start defending him... I said they'd have to start thinking about it.

Granted, he'll never draw the kind of attention Dre does when he simply steps onto the floor, but they may sag a little less.

MChambers
12-04-2013, 02:18 PM
I do want to note that, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think we had a single lineup combination out there last night that had Jabari guarding the opposing team's center. I'm pretty sure Jabari was ALWAYS in the game with at least one of Josh, Amile, and Marshall. I thought that was great to see, and I hope it keeps up.

The box score says that Josh, Amile, and Marshall played a total of 44 minutes, so it's very possible you are right. That's nice to see. And it's not like Michigan is a particularly big team. McGary, Horford, and Morgan played 43 minutes combined.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:21 PM
Agree to disagree.

You will never convince me that a turnover is somehow better than a missed shot, regardless of who shoots it.

And I will never convince you that Hairston shooting 1-2 jumpers (out of 71.5 possessions) isn't the end of the world.


I've never said that a turnover is better than a missed shot. I said that Josh taking long jumpers with plenty of time left on the shot clock is effectively THE SAME as a turnover.

These are very different things.

I've also never said that it's the end of the world. I've acknowledged that it's not a gigantic deal in the grand scheme of things. But it is frustrating to see offensive possessions be consistently wasted like that -- and, contrary to your implication, Josh has shown NO signs that he has the capacity to improve in this department. I'm happy to find the game logs so far this year to see if he's even hit a single jumper after the staggering ineptitude he displayed on those shots last season.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:22 PM
The box score says that Josh, Amile, and Marshall played a total of 44 minutes, so it's very possible you are right. That's nice to see. And it's not like Michigan is a particularly big team. McGary, Horford, and Morgan played 43 minutes combined.

I think I was most impressed with how Duke handled Michigan's front line more than how they handled Stauskus. Stauskus was a bit banged up. But that UM front line is pretty formidable (but not overly big) and Duke put their big boy pants on and kept them in check.

Goduke2010
12-04-2013, 02:24 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I didn't say they'd start defending him... I said they'd have to start thinking about it.

Granted, he'll never draw the kind of attention Dre does when he simply steps onto the floor, but they may sag a little less.

If the Josh stats mentioned are correct, why are you still arguing that he should shoot? Unless the EV of the next-best action is less than 0.26 (e.g., 0.1 seconds left on the shot clock), he shouldn't take the shot. That's just basic math...Using the Cook example, unless Josh knows that the possession is guaranteed to end with a Cook turnover, he should do whatever he can to get the ball to somebody else as fast as possible.

azzefkram
12-04-2013, 02:29 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I didn't say they'd start defending him... I said they'd have to start thinking about it.

Granted, he'll never draw the kind of attention Dre does when he simply steps onto the floor, but they may sag a little less.

No they won't. Teams would love for Josh to continue taking the worst shot in basketball.

79-77
12-04-2013, 02:30 PM
Thank you for this excellent post. I agree with your assessment of his past performance and hope that Rasheed soon gets back on track, in part because he's an impressive kid.

Who can forget this picture and story?


http://blogs.fayobserver.com/accbasketball/July-2013/Gold-medal-meaningful-to-patriotic-Duke-guard-Rash

Very nice article and photo. Thanks for posting.

He's a good kid.




Also, of course we're discussing minutiae of nomenclature for a player who hasn't worn a Duke uniform in almost 12 years in a thread about last night's game. Sigh.

Jason Williams was freaking great though.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:30 PM
I've never said that a turnover is better than a missed shot. I said that Josh taking long jumpers with plenty of time left on the shot clock is effectively THE SAME as a turnover.

These are very different things.

I've also never said that it's the end of the world. I've acknowledged that it's not a gigantic deal in the grand scheme of things. But it is frustrating to see offensive possessions be consistently wasted like that -- and, contrary to your implication, Josh has shown NO signs that he has the capacity to improve in this department. I'm happy to find the game logs so far this year to see if he's even hit a single jumper after the staggering ineptitude he displayed on those shots last season.

Ok, then you will never convince me that a long 2 point jumper is effectively the same as a turnover (for the same reasons previously stated). :)

From what I understand, Hairston hits those shots fairly regularly in practice. He hit some in the blue-white game, if I recall. The word was that he had improved the jumper from last season.

Rasheed Sulaimon has a lower FG%, lower effective FG% and a lower true FG% than Hairston. Should he also stop shooting?

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2014.html

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:32 PM
If the Josh stats mentioned are correct, why are you still arguing that he should shoot? Unless the EV of the next-best action is less than 0.26 (e.g., 0.1 seconds left on the shot clock), he shouldn't take the shot. That's just basic math...Using the Cook example, unless Josh knows that the possession is guaranteed to end with a Cook turnover, he should do whatever he can to get the ball to somebody else as fast as possible.

Jiminy Cricket....

I NEVER SAID HE SHOULD SHOOT.

I said I didn't mind when he shoots.

Also, are you not paying attention to the stats I'm posting? Of course not...

oldnavy
12-04-2013, 02:33 PM
Then on this particular issue, Coach K is absolutely wrong.

Long two-point jumpers are the most -EV shot in basketball.* Someone who is TERRIBLE at shooting the most -EV shot in basketball should never be taking that shot outside of truly desperate, shot-clock-expiring circumstances. Period.


*Frankly, Jabari and Rodney shouldn't take as many long two-pointers as they do either. But at least they hit them every once in a while.

Your point about a long 2 is taken. The idea that a shot just inside the 3-point line is a worse shot than the same look, right behind the line is based on the return verse risk. The assumption is that the risk of missing a ~21 foot shot compared to an ~18 foot shot is not that high (no idea what it actually is), but the return is 33% greater if you make the shot.

I don't think the 10-15 foot shots Josh take are considered "long" 2 pointers.

I really don't think Josh should shoot often (I don't think anyone including Josh does), however I am not too upset when he does shoot , especially in situations like last night where they were wide open and we basically had control of the game.

There may actually come a time in a game where we need him to shoot that shot (he has the ball, unguarded and no one open to pass with shot clock ticking down), and I don't mind him getting a few off in games like last night.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:35 PM
Ok, then you will never convince me that a long 2 point jumper is effectively the same as a turnover (for the same reasons previously stated). :)

A long two-point jump shot that will go in approximately 13 percent of the time is (a) a wasted offensive possession and (b) effectively the same as a turnover. If you don't agree with this, then I'm a bit befuddled, but we can agree to disagree.


From what I understand, Hairston hits those shots fairly regularly in practice. He hit some in the blue-white game, if I recall. The word was that he had improved the jumper from last season.

Rasheed Sulaimon has a lower FG%, lower effective FG% and a lower true FG% than Hairston. Should he also stop shooting?

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2014.html

If Rasheed hits ~13 percent of his two-point jump shots (or 20 percent, or 25 percent), then he ABSOLUTELY should stop shooting them. Somehow I suspect that you know that Rasheed is a light years better jump shooter than Josh, but if you'd rather confuse the issue by conflating lay-ups and putbacks with 20-footers flung at the general vicinity of the basket with 30 seconds left on the shot clock, be my guest.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:38 PM
Jiminy Cricket....

I NEVER SAID HE SHOULD SHOOT.

I said I didn't mind when he shoots.

Also, are you not paying attention to the stats I'm posting? Of course not...

To the extent you're trying to suggest that Rasheed is a worse shooter than Josh, no one should pay attention to the stats you're posting.


Your point about a long 2 is taken. The idea that a shot just inside the 3-point line is a worse shot than the same look, right behind the line is based on the return verse risk. The assumption is that the risk of missing a ~21 foot shot compared to an ~18 foot shot is not that high (no idea what it actually is), but the return is 33% greater if you make the shot.

I don't think the 10-15 foot shots Josh take are considered "long" 2 pointers.

I really don't think Josh should shoot often (I don't think anyone including Josh does), however I am not too upset when he does shoot , especially in situations like last night where they were wide open and we basically had control of the game.

There may actually come a time in a game where we need him to shoot that shot (he has the ball, unguarded and no one open to pass with shot clock ticking down), and I don't mind him getting a few off in games like last night.

The two jumpers that Josh took last night were just inside the three-point line. I'd consider those long jumpers by any measure. And note that Josh hit 13 percent last year in the sample I looked at over ALL 10+ foot jumpers -- meaning that even "medium" 2 pointers from him have significantly negative expected value.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:40 PM
A long two-point jump shot that will go in approximately 13 percent of the time is (a) a wasted offensive possession and (b) effectively the same as a turnover. If you don't agree with this, then I'm a bit befuddled, but we can agree to disagree.



If Rasheed hits ~13 percent of his two-point jump shots (or 20 percent, or 25 percent), then he ABSOLUTELY should stop shooting them. Somehow I suspect that you know that Rasheed is a light years better jump shooter than Josh, but if you'd rather confuse the issue by conflating lay-ups and putbacks with 20-footers flung at the general vicinity of the basket with 30 seconds left on the shot clock, be my guest.

I *know* Sheed is a better shooter by far.

But the numbers right now don't support that assertion. But somehow we both know it, right?

The fact that Hairston's true % and eFG % are higher shows a few things:

- Sheed is in a bad slump
- Hairston doesn't make as many bad decisions shooting the ball as people say
- His long 2 point jumpers (which I concede that he should take a step or two in for) aren't killing his eFG% or true%

And the early in the shot clock examples you give are generally true. However, he only did that once, and that was off an offensive rebound that HE got. I'm ok with rewarding the guy who does the dirty work. Unfortunately, that shot was contested.

The other jumper was so wide open, he probably could have dwindled the rest of the shot clock down waiting for someone to guard him.

freshmanjs
12-04-2013, 02:40 PM
A long two-point jump shot that will go in approximately 13 percent of the time is (a) a wasted offensive possession and (b) effectively the same as a turnover. If you don't agree with this, then I'm a bit befuddled, but we can agree to disagree.

it's just that the jumper you describe yields .26 points + (our offensive rebounding % * points per posession). i'm not sure what that adds up to, but I know that it is not effectively zero.

still, i agree that it's not a good offensive play.

SlapTheFloor
12-04-2013, 02:42 PM
I don't know what you are talking about. A turnover results in zero points. A Hairston jumper results in 0.26 points (according to your stats, and that's with no offensive rebound). If he plays 20 minutes per game, I have no problem with him taking 1-2 wide open jump shots; he'll only get more comfortable with the shot by the end of the year. It would be different if we were using him as some kind of limited-minutes defensive specialist. He's a starter! Coach obviously has no problem with him shooting those shots and I guarantee you he was told to shoot when open, because he was way less hesitant against Michigan than he has been in previous games this season.

And an assist results in (at least) two. Cook is averaging over 6 assists per game to go with his 1.6 turnovers. If you're going to mention his negatives, you have to consider it in light of the positives of his passing. The two can't be considered in a vacuum, and Cook's passes are much more likely to result in Duke points than turnovers. Hairston's long jumpers, however, are much more likely to result in misses than makes.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:43 PM
To the extent you're trying to suggest that Rasheed is a worse shooter than Josh, no one should pay attention to the stats you're posting.



The two jumpers that Josh took last night were just inside the three-point line. I'd consider those long jumpers by any measure. And note that Josh hit 13 percent last year in the sample I looked at over ALL 10+ foot jumpers -- meaning that even "medium" 2 pointers from him have significantly negative expected value.

I'm not suggesting it - I'm providing statistics that back it up. Kind of like when you provided stats that showed Josh only hits 13% of his jump shots (statistics, damn statistics and lies, right?).

Or are your statistics somehow more valid than the ones used by numerous people to show a player's value?

Again, I know Sheed is a better shooter overall, by FAR. But right now, he's in a slump. Doesn't mean I cringe when I see him take a jumper.

Just because you call someone's argument "ludicrous" doesn't mean it automatically is...

Kedsy
12-04-2013, 02:45 PM
Ok, then you will never convince me that a long 2 point jumper is effectively the same as a turnover (for the same reasons previously stated). :)

From what I understand, Hairston hits those shots fairly regularly in practice. He hit some in the blue-white game, if I recall. The word was that he had improved the jumper from last season.

Rasheed Sulaimon has a lower FG%, lower effective FG% and a lower true FG% than Hairston. Should he also stop shooting?

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2014.html

That's a cool website. Funny fact: do you know what Duke player has the third-best oRtg and the best dRtg on the team so far this season? Semi, that's who. Here's another: if you assembled a lineup by taking the top five PERs on the team or the top five win shares per 40 on the team, you'd have the same lineup, and it would be Jabari, Rodney, Andre, Semi, and Quinn, but I'm pretty sure that lineup has never seen the floor in a game.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:45 PM
And an assist results in (at least) two. Cook is averaging over 6 assists per game to go with his 1.6 turnovers. If you're going to mention his negatives, you have to consider it in light of the positives of his passing. The two can't be considered in a vacuum, and Cook's passes are much more likely to result in Duke points than turnovers. Hairston's long jumpers, however, are much more likely to result in misses than makes.

Agreed. But the point wasn't to point out Cook's negatives. It was to illustrate that Josh shooting a jumper 1 or 2 times out of 71.5 possessions doesn't make me scream at the TV because it *could* go it (likely not, but still..) or it *could* result in a rebound for Duke (again, unlikely). Cook making a boneheaded turnover does, because that is DEFINITIVELY a wasted possession.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:45 PM
I *know* Sheed is a better shooter by far.

But the numbers right now don't support that assertion. But somehow we both know it, right?

The fact that Hairston's true % and eFG % are higher shows a few things:

- Sheed is in a bad slump
- Hairston doesn't make as many bad decisions shooting the ball as people say
- His long 2 point jumpers (which I concede that he should take a step or two in for) aren't killing his eFG% or true%

-The numbers do not discriminate between lay-ups and jump shots, which is sort of important when you're comparing an inside player and an outside player.
-Would you like to compare Sheed's numbers on jump shots from last season with Josh's numbers on jump shots from last season?


And the early in the shot clock examples you give are generally true. However, he only did that once, and that was off an offensive rebound that HE got. I'm ok with rewarding the guy who does the dirty work. Unfortunately, that shot was contested.

I'm pretty certain this is incorrect. The first long jumper Josh took was off of someone else's offensive rebound. It got rebounded, passed to him, and he immediately went up with a jumper just inside the line. Otherwise how does an interior player get an offensive rebound and then magically find himself 20 feet from the basket? (If your answer is that he was out there and the ball caromed to him, then I'd hardly call that "dirty work.")


The other jumper was so wide open, he probably could have dwindled the rest of the shot clock down waiting for someone to guard him.

And why do you think they weren't guarding him?

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:46 PM
That's a cool website. Funny fact: do you know what Duke player has the third-best oRtg and the best dRtg on the team so far this season? Semi, that's who. Here's another: if you assembled a lineup by taking the top five PERs on the team or the top five win shares per 40 on the team, you'd have the same lineup, and it would be Jabari, Rodney, Andre, Semi, and Quinn, but I'm pretty sure that lineup has never seen the floor in a game.

Yea those advanced stats are cool. Not sure how eye opening they are this early in the season, especially when you consider usage rate, but interesting anyway.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:47 PM
I'm not suggesting it - I'm providing statistics that back it up. Kind of like when you provided stats that showed Josh only hits 13% of his jump shots (statistics, damn statistics and lies, right?).

Or are your statistics somehow more valid than the ones used by numerous people to show a player's value?

Again, I know Sheed is a better shooter overall, by FAR. But right now, he's in a slump. Doesn't mean I cringe when I see him take a jumper.

Just because you call someone's argument "ludicrous" doesn't mean it automatically is...

I called your equating of Quinn's 1-2 turnovers per game with Josh's 1-2 jump shots per game ludicrous, because it is. Come on, man.

jimsumner
12-04-2013, 02:47 PM
And an assist results in (at least) two. Cook is averaging over 6 assists per game to go with his 1.6 turnovers. If you're going to mention his negatives, you have to consider it in light of the positives of his passing. The two can't be considered in a vacuum, and Cook's passes are much more likely to result in Duke points than turnovers. Hairston's long jumpers, however, are much more likely to result in misses than makes.

Wojo has Duke's best single-season a/to ratio, a 3:03:1 back in 1997.

Cook currently has 57 assists and 16 turnovers. So, if he maintains that pace he will have the best a/to ratio in Duke history by far, better than anything Hurley or Amaker or Williams or Duhon ever pulled off.

Can he maintain that pace? Likely not. But I absolutely agree that to ignore his play-making abilities is both unfair and inaccurate.

Goduke2010
12-04-2013, 02:49 PM
Since we're talking about stats...does Duke go deep into the metrics a la Hollinger? I wonder because the % of possessions that result in a bad action leading to a predictably poor outcome (e.g., a contested 3 with plenty of time on the clock) seems rather significant based on the games so far. We talk about Hairston shouldn't shoot while Jabari should, but do we evaluate all the possible outcomes of a possession and steer away from the predictably and controllable bad actions?

If we're wasting 20% of possessions on actions we can directly avoid, that could easily add up to 5 - 10 points per game.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:52 PM
-The numbers do not discriminate between lay-ups and jump shots, which is sort of important when you're comparing an inside player and an outside player.
-Would you like to compare Sheed's numbers on jump shots from last season with Josh's numbers on jump shots from last season?



I'm pretty certain this is incorrect. The first long jumper Josh took was off of someone else's offensive rebound. It got rebounded, passed to him, and he immediately went up with a jumper just inside the line. Otherwise how does an interior player get an offensive rebound and then magically find himself 20 feet from the basket? (If your answer is that he was out there and the ball caromed to him, then I'd hardly call that "dirty work.")



And why do you think they weren't guarding him?


No, I know for sure it was his rebound. He batted the ball out to Cook (who got credited in the play by play) it got passed a couple times and ended up with Josh. And he took a contested jumper.

Have a look at the play by play:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/michigan-wolverines-duke-blue-devils-201312030173/

15:18
Duke Quinn Cook misses a 23-foot three-pointer
15:18
Duke Quinn Cook offensive rebound
15:06
Duke Josh Hairston misses a 21-foot jumper

And yes, he was wide open because other teams don't respect his shot. I think we all agree on that.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:53 PM
Agreed. But the point wasn't to point out Cook's negatives. It was to illustrate that Josh shooting a jumper 1 or 2 times out of 71.5 possessions doesn't make me scream at the TV because it *could* go it (likely not, but still..) or it *could* result in a rebound for Duke (again, unlikely). Cook making a boneheaded turnover does, because that is DEFINITIVELY a wasted possession.

Sigh. You're conflating chance and outcome here.

Chance A: Quinn Cook handles the ball.
Outcome A: Quinn Cook very rarely turns the ball over. (GOOD OUTCOME)

Chance B: Josh Hairston takes a jump shot.
Outcome B: Josh Hairston very rarely makes the shot. (BAD OUTCOME)

You're comparing Quinn turning the ball over with Josh TAKING the shot, where the appropriate comparison should be chance against chance -- Quinn handling the ball vs. Josh taking the shot -- or outcome against outcome -- Quinn turning the ball over when he handles it (unlikely) vs. Josh missing the shot when he takes it (extremely likely).

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:54 PM
Wojo has Duke's best single-season a/to ratio, a 3:03:1 back in 1997.

Cook currently has 57 assists and 16 turnovers. So, if he maintains that pace he will have the best a/to ratio in Duke history by far, better than anything Hurley or Amaker or Williams or Duhon ever pulled off.

Can he maintain that pace? Likely not. But I absolutely agree that to ignore his play-making abilities is both unfair and inaccurate.

No one was ignoring it - I was using his turnover rate to illustrate the point that a missed Hairston jumper is of less concern to me than a Cook turnover, which is also of minor concern to me.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:56 PM
Sigh. You're conflating chance and outcome here.

Chance A: Quinn Cook handles the ball.
Outcome A: Quinn Cook very rarely turns the ball over. (GOOD OUTCOME)

Chance B: Josh Hairston takes a jump shot.
Outcome B: Josh Hairston very rarely makes the shot. (BAD OUTCOME)

You're comparing Quinn turning the ball over with Josh TAKING the shot, where the appropriate comparison should be chance against chance -- Quinn handling the ball vs. Josh taking the shot -- or outcome against outcome -- Quinn turning the ball over when he handles it (unlikely) vs. Josh missing the shot when he takes it (extremely likely).

No, I'm comparing the TURNOVER, not QUINN making the turnover. You could replace Quinn's name with any other player and the point is the same. Turnovers are worse than missed shots, regardless of where and when they are taking them and who is taking them.

And you're conflating my overall point - it's not to say "Josh should keep shooting." It's "I don't mind when Josh takes/misses a jumper that he takes 1-2 times a game out of 71.5 possessions."

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:56 PM
Since we're talking about stats...does Duke go deep into the metrics a la Hollinger? I wonder because the % of possessions that result in a bad action leading to a predictably poor outcome (e.g., a contested 3 with plenty of time on the clock) seems rather significant based on the games so far. We talk about Hairston shouldn't shoot while Jabari should, but do we evaluate all the possible outcomes of a possession and steer away from the predictably and controllable bad actions?

If we're wasting 20% of possessions on actions we can directly avoid, that could easily add up to 5 - 10 points per game.

This is a great post, and I don't know the answer. I suspect that Coach K is probably not as well-versed or reliant on (or trusting of) advanced stats as is, say, Brad Stevens.


No, I know for sure it was his rebound. He batted the ball out to Cook (who got credited in the play by play) it got passed a couple times and ended up with Josh. And he took a contested jumper.

Have a look at the play by play:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/michigan-wolverines-duke-blue-devils-201312030173/

15:18
Duke Quinn Cook misses a 23-foot three-pointer
15:18
Duke Quinn Cook offensive rebound
15:06
Duke Josh Hairston misses a 21-foot jumper

And yes, he was wide open because other teams don't respect his shot. I think we all agree on that.

That play-by-play does not match my recollection at all (I am 100 percent positive there were at least 30 seconds on the shot clock when Josh took the shot), so if someone who has the game recorded could find Josh's first jump shot and report the circumstances thereof, I'd be grateful, and I will happily concede the point if I'm wrong.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 02:58 PM
No, I'm comparing the TURNOVER, not QUINN making the turnover. You could replace Quinn's name with any other player and the point is the same. Turnovers are worse than missed shots, regardless of where and when they are taking them and who is taking them.

And you're conflating my overall point - it's not to say "Josh should keep shooting." It's "I don't mind when Josh takes/misses a jumper that he takes 1-2 times a game out of 71.5 possessions."

You're not understanding.

You're comparing Josh TAKING a shot with someone (Cook, whoever) turning the ball over. You should be comparing the relative likelihood of Josh MISSING the shot with the relative likelihood of a turnover occurring. Nobody is saying that missed shots are worse than turnovers.

Also, yes or no: Josh taking an 18-foot jumper is likely to result in a wasted offensive possession for Duke.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 02:59 PM
This is a great post, and I don't know the answer. I suspect that Coach K is probably not as well-versed or reliant on (or trusting of) advanced stats as is, say, Brad Stevens.



That play-by-play does not match my recollection at all (I am 100 percent positive there were at least 30 seconds on the shot clock when Josh took the shot), so if someone who has the game recorded could find Josh's first jump shot and report the circumstances thereof, I'd be grateful, and I will happily concede the point if I'm wrong.

The reason I remember was because when Josh took that horrible shot (yes, it was bad) I thought "well at least he kept the possession alive to even get to take that horrible shot." So, I looked at it as a wash.

Had he not gotten the rebound, I'd be arguing the same thing you are. :p

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 03:00 PM
You're not understanding.

You're comparing Josh TAKING a shot with someone (Cook, whoever) turning the ball over. You should be comparing the relative likelihood of Josh MISSING the shot with the relative likelihood of a turnover occurring. Nobody is saying that missed shots are worse than turnovers.

Also, yes or no: Josh taking an 18-foot jumper is likely to result in a wasted offensive possession for Duke.

No, you are saying that missed shots are effectively as bad as turnovers. And I am saying that turnovers are worse than that.

But you're absolutely right re: likelihoods... but I still don't mind when Josh takes an open 15-18 footer. I do hate the 18-20 footers, though...

Kedsy
12-04-2013, 03:00 PM
Yea those advanced stats are cool. Not sure how eye opening they are this early in the season, especially when you consider usage rate, but interesting anyway.

Actually, Andre's usage rate is the 2nd highest on the team, he just doesn't get many minutes. Semi's usage rate is low, but since his win shares are high anyway, that's an accomplishment, right?

Does anyone know how dRtg is calculated? From FerryFor50's link, here are the dRtgs for our perimeter players (lower is better):

Tyler 104.3
Matt 105.0
Rodney 106.0
Rasheed 107.0
Andre 108.4
Quinn 110.1

Here are the dRtgs of our interior players:

Semi 98.0
Jabari 100.5
Amile 102.5
Marshall 104.9
Josh 110.9
Alex 111.7

Interestingly enough, in 2012-13, our worst dRtg was Seth at 101.7, which would be 3rd-best this season. Our 3rd-worst dRtg last season was Rasheed at 100.0 (which is interesting in its own right because I thought he was our best perimeter defender), and that would be better than any of this year's rotation players.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 03:04 PM
Actually, Andre's usage rate is the 2nd highest on the team, he just doesn't get many minutes. Semi's usage rate is low, but since his win shares are high anyway, that's an accomplishment, right?

Does anyone know how dRtg is calculated? From FerryFor50's link, here are the dRtgs for our perimeter players (lower is better):

Tyler 104.3
Matt 105.0
Rodney 106.0
Rasheed 107.0
Andre 108.4
Quinn 110.1

Here are the dRtgs of our interior players:

Semi 98.0
Jabari 100.5
Amile 102.5
Marshall 104.9
Josh 110.9
Alex 111.7

Interestingly enough, in 2012-13, our worst dRtg was Seth at 101.7, which would be 3rd-best this season. Our 3rd-worst dRtg last season was Rasheed at 100.0 (which is interesting in its own right because I thought he was our best perimeter defender), and that would be better than any of this year's rotation players.

One thing those advanced stats don't take into consideration is situation.

For instance, Semi's drtg is outstanding based on the stats, but they don't tell you that he likely compiled it in garbage time against crappy teams.

Meanwhile, Josh usually gets to play more, and against the best bigs the other team has to offer.

It may tell us why Alex Murphy doesn't play more, though...

oldnavy
12-04-2013, 03:05 PM
To the extent you're trying to suggest that Rasheed is a worse shooter than Josh, no one should pay attention to the stats you're posting.



The two jumpers that Josh took last night were just inside the three-point line. I'd consider those long jumpers by any measure. And note that Josh hit 13 percent last year in the sample I looked at over ALL 10+ foot jumpers -- meaning that even "medium" 2 pointers from him have significantly negative expected value.

I don't think anyone is arguing that a jumper from Josh is a good offensive option. I just don't think that him taking 1 or 2 in a game such as last night is particularly harmful. NOW, if he starts chucking them up in tight games (he won't btw), then we have a totally different scenario.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 03:09 PM
The reason I remember was because when Josh took that horrible shot (yes, it was bad) I thought "well at least he kept the possession alive to even get to take that horrible shot." So, I looked at it as a wash.

Had he not gotten the rebound, I'd be arguing the same thing you are. :p

Interesting argument on both ends. Enjoyed it after my marathon 3 hour meeting.

I agree somewhat with you and somewhat with GGLC:

1) a turnover is much worse than a Hairston shot
2) a Hairston mid-range shot is much worse than any other shot that a player takes on the court, including Quinn's hero 3s
3) the difference between a Hairston shot and a turnover is that a Hairston shot can be completely and utterly avoidable: don't take the shot. While you can minimize turnovers, you cannot avoid them in full. Our best ballhandler, Quinn, has a 3.5:1 assist:turnover ratio. That is insane. He turns the ball over 2 a game, if that. Do I want him to cut back on turnovers? Sure. Does that mean that other players will have to handle the ball more and produce even more turnovers? Uh oh...give the ball back to Quinn.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 03:12 PM
Interesting argument on both ends. Enjoyed it after my marathon 3 hour meeting.

I agree somewhat with you and somewhat with GGLC:

1) a turnover is much worse than a Hairston shot
2) a Hairston mid-range shot is much worse than any other shot that a player takes on the court, including Quinn's hero 3s
3) the difference between a Hairston shot and a turnover is that a Hairston shot can be completely and utterly avoidable: don't take the shot. While you can minimize turnovers, you cannot avoid them in full. Our best ballhandler, Quinn, has a 3.5:1 assist:turnover ratio. That is insane. He turns the ball over 2 a game, if that. Do I want him to cut back on turnovers? Sure. Does that mean that other players will have to handle the ball more and produce even more turnovers? Uh oh...give the ball back to Quinn.

If anyone is interested, skip the last 4 pages and just read this post. It pretty much summarizes the "discussion."

For the record, Josh's turnover rate is only slightly worse than Quinn's ;)

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2014.html

GGLC
12-04-2013, 03:12 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing that a jumper from Josh is a good offensive option. I just don't think that him taking 1 or 2 in a game such as last night is particularly harmful. NOW, if he starts chucking them up in tight games (he won't btw), then we have a totally different scenario.

He won't? Was the game not tight when he chucked up both of his jumpers last night?


Interesting argument on both ends. Enjoyed it after my marathon 3 hour meeting.

I agree somewhat with you and somewhat with GGLC:

1) a turnover is much worse than a Hairston shot
2) a Hairston mid-range shot is much worse than any other shot that a player takes on the court, including Quinn's hero 3s
3) the difference between a Hairston shot and a turnover is that a Hairston shot can be completely and utterly avoidable: don't take the shot. While you can minimize turnovers, you cannot avoid them in full. Our best ballhandler, Quinn, has a 3.5:1 assist:turnover ratio. That is insane. He turns the ball over 2 a game, if that. Do I want him to cut back on turnovers? Sure. Does that mean that other players will have to handle the ball more and produce even more turnovers? Uh oh...give the ball back to Quinn.

Extremely well-stated, and I don't disagree with a word of it.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 03:13 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing that a jumper from Josh is a good offensive option. I just don't think that him taking 1 or 2 in a game such as last night is particularly harmful. NOW, if he starts chucking them up in tight games (he won't btw), then we have a totally different scenario.

Really? Why? Isn't any bad shot harmful? If you are suggesting that Josh deserves to take 1-2 shots a game because he is a senior / he works his butt off, then I have to completely disagree with you. A bad shot is a bad shot and should be mitigated as much as possible.

I have come to love Thornton's 3s, after years of cringing. But I cringe now more than ever with the Hairston mid-range. It really is a terrible, terrible shot.

FireOgilvie
12-04-2013, 03:14 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing that a jumper from Josh is a good offensive option. I just don't think that him taking 1 or 2 in a game such as last night is particularly harmful. NOW, if he starts chucking them up in tight games (he won't btw), then we have a totally different scenario.

Exactly! And he makes them in practice. Wouldn't it be nice for our starting big man to be able to make wide open 15 foot jump shots? Would that add value? Yes! Has he shown the ability to make this shot in practice? Yes! But he won't ever be able to do that unless he occasionally attempts a shot. If he hasn't shown the ability to hit these shots by the end of the regular season, will he still have the green light in the NCAA Tournament? No! We can play "maximize offensive statistical potential at all times in December" basketball in December, or we can play "maximize offensive statistical potential in March" basketball in December. I choose March!

GGLC
12-04-2013, 03:15 PM
For the record, Josh's turnover rate is only slightly worse than Quinn's ;)

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2014.html

Which is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 03:17 PM
Exactly! And he makes them in practice. Wouldn't it be nice for our starting big man to be able to make wide open 15 foot jump shots? Would that add value? Yes! Has he shown the ability to make this shot in practice? Yes! But he won't ever be able to do that unless he occasionally attempts a shot. If he hasn't shown the ability to hit these shots by the end of the regular season, will he still have the green light in the NCAA Tournament? No! We can play "maximize offensive statistical potential at all times in December" basketball in December, or we can play "maximize offensive statistical potential in March" basketball in December. I choose March!

What if I were to tell you that Josh took these shots all last season (and the season before, etc.)? Would you expect that he'd show the ability to hit it at this point? Or do you just think that he needs a few months to get warmed up every year?

How do you know that he makes these shots in practice, by the way?

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 03:18 PM
He won't? Was the game not tight when he chucked up both of his jumpers last night?


The first jumper was about 5 minutes into the first half:

15:06
Duke Josh Hairston misses a 21-foot jumper

The game was already getting out of hand for UM, but it was still early enough where Josh's shot didn't really matter.

The 2nd jumper was about 3 minutes in to the 2nd half:

17:48
Duke Josh Hairston misses a 17-foot jumper

Duke was still fairly comfortably ahead, though it may have been during the Michigan run that got them within 6. I can't recall...

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 03:20 PM
Which is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Oh, you think?

Have you not learned anything from my posts? When I use a smiley face (or frankly, when anyone uses them), it means it's a joke or tongue in cheek.

Besides that, the discussion was over. Flyingdutchdevil won.

FireOgilvie
12-04-2013, 03:21 PM
What if I were to tell you that Josh took these shots all last season (and the season before, etc.)? Would you expect that he'd show the ability to hit it at this point?

So you're saying that even though he has shown he can hit the shot in practice, because he missed it more than you would like while shooting less than 1 time per game a year ago, he should never shoot again? What if I told you he's been working on his shot since last season? What if he's better now? How will we know unless he shoots the ball?

GGLC
12-04-2013, 03:21 PM
The first jumper was about 5 minutes into the first half:

15:06
Duke Josh Hairston misses a 21-foot jumper

The game was already getting out of hand for UM, but it was still early enough where Josh's shot didn't really matter.

The 2nd jumper was about 3 minutes in to the 2nd half:

17:48
Duke Josh Hairston misses a 17-foot jumper

Duke was still fairly comfortably ahead, though it may have been during the Michigan run that got them within 6. I can't recall...

So it's not enough for the game to be tight for the jumpers to be problematic; it also has to be tight and not too early on. Gotcha.

Make sure to put those goalposts back in Wally Wade when you're done with them.

BD80
12-04-2013, 03:21 PM
... You're comparing Josh TAKING a shot with someone (Cook, whoever) turning the ball over. You should be comparing the relative likelihood of Josh MISSING the shot with the relative likelihood of a turnover occurring. Nobody is saying that missed shots are worse than turnovers. ...

Well, with Josh shooting, there are concerns of public safety. Somewhat like throwing cinderblocks into the stands.

vick
12-04-2013, 03:22 PM
Does anyone know how dRtg is calculated?

See here (http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html) for the details, but the fundamental idea is to tally up all the ways you can make a "stop" on the other team--by grabbing a defensive rebound, by blocking the shot, or by making a steal* and using this for a fairly rough estimate of the opponents' offensive rating when facing you. The problem is, a significant component of stops aren't captured by any of these stats, so it just winds up being allocated by minutes and the team's overall defensive efficiency. DRtg isn't useless but it's not nearly as powerful as ORtg.

* As an aside, I feel like a useful addition to basketball box scores would be the concept of "turnovers forced" of which steals would be a subset. So, for instance, if a player forces a five-second violation, he gets credit, or if two trap someone who travels, they split credit (just like sacks in football). There would be a bit of arbitrariness but I don't think really any more than assists.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 03:23 PM
So it's not enough for the game to be tight for the jumpers to be problematic; it also has to be tight and not too early on. Gotcha.

Make sure to put those goalposts back in Wally Wade when you're done with them.

In both cases, the game was not tight. The game was never tight last night. Unless you call pulling within 6 tight... :) (<-- smile means LIGHTHEARTED)

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 03:23 PM
The first jumper was about 5 minutes into the first half:

15:06
Duke Josh Hairston misses a 21-foot jumper

The game was already getting out of hand for UM, but it was still early enough where Josh's shot didn't really matter.

The 2nd jumper was about 3 minutes in to the 2nd half:

17:48
Duke Josh Hairston misses a 17-foot jumper

Duke was still fairly comfortably ahead, though it may have been during the Michigan run that got them within 6. I can't recall...

Unfortunately, with this team, every possession is on the line, whether we're up 15 or down 10.

Can we all agree (for once) that the typical 2013-2014 Duke game kinda goes like this:

First half (0:00-5:00): Duke! Yay!
First half (5:00-10:00): Duke is going to win by 15!
First half (10:00-15:00): Duke is going to win by 20!
First half (15:00-20:00): How did the opponent get within 10?

Second half (0:00-5:00): We're going shot for shot...
Second half (5:00-7:30): Quinn! Don't you dare take that shot...
Second half (7:30-10:00): I just $%&# my pants. And I need another beer
Second half (10:00-20:00): [Anything can happen]

GGLC
12-04-2013, 03:23 PM
So you're saying that even though he has shown he can hit the shot in practice, because he missed it more than you would like while shooting less than 1 time per game a year ago, he should never shoot again? What if I told you he's been working on his shot since last season? What if he's better now? How will we know unless he shoots the ball?

1) Where is the evidence that he has shown he can hit the shot in practice?

2) Where is the evidence that he has been working on his shot since last season?

3) Where is the evidence that he's better now?

4) What is his shooting percentage on jumpers so far this season?

Unless you're Josh (in which case, hi!) or someone who gets to watch the practices, I don't see how you can know #1 or #2 any more than we do, and I strongly suspect that #4 is not a number that is much higher than 13 percent, if at all.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 03:25 PM
Unfortunately, with this team, every possession is on the line, whether we're up 15 or down 10.

Can we all agree (for once) that the typical 2013-2014 Duke game kinda goes like this:

First half (0:00-5:00): Duke! Yay!
First half (5:00-10:00): Duke is going to win by 15!
First half (10:00-15:00): Duke is going to win by 20!
First half (15:00-20:00): How did the opponent get within 10?

Second half (0:00-5:00): We're going shot for shot...
Second half (5:00-7:30): Quinn! Don't you dare take that shot...
Second half (7:30-10:00): I just $%&# my pants. And I need another beer
Second half (10:00-20:00): [Anything can happen]

Where's the point in the game where I've knocked myself unconscious (again) by hitting my head against the wall?

GGLC
12-04-2013, 03:25 PM
Also, maybe Marshall has been working on his three-quarter court heave in his best Kyle Makes Buckets impression. Maybe he's really good at it now. How will we know unless he shoots the ball?

oldnavy
12-04-2013, 03:27 PM
Really? Why? Isn't any bad shot harmful? If you are suggesting that Josh deserves to take 1-2 shots a game because he is a senior / he works his butt off, then I have to completely disagree with you. A bad shot is a bad shot and should be mitigated as much as possible.

I have come to love Thornton's 3s, after years of cringing. But I cringe now more than ever with the Hairston mid-range. It really is a terrible, terrible shot.

Because I am not agreeing that it is a "bad" shot. His percentage isn't high, true enough, but I don't think him shooting a wide open jump shot is "bad" in and of itself. Is it our best option, heavens no!! If Dre is open in the corner and he doesn't pass it to him and takes the shot, then that was a bad decision, and therefore a "bad" shot.

I really think that we are over analyzing this. Josh has taken a grand total of 14 shots this year in 9 games. It's not like he's firing it up every time he gets the ball. Josh's shooting isn't going to be the downfall of this team.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 03:28 PM
1) Where is the evidence that he has shown he can hit the shot in practice?

2) Where is the evidence that he has been working on his shot since last season?

3) Where is the evidence that he's better now?

4) What is his shooting percentage on jumpers so far this season?

Unless you're Josh (in which case, hi!) or someone who gets to watch the practices, I don't see how you can know #1 or #2 any more than we do, and I strongly suspect that #4 is not a number that is much higher than 13 percent, if at all.

The thing about practice is that players can react very differently from practice to game time. Miles Plumlee is the best example. From what I heard, he was dynamite in practice (sorry GGLC, no evidence, just heard through the grapevine). But he couldn't emulate this as much during game time. And because of this, Coach K restricted Miles' offensive opportunities moreso during games.

Maybe Josh is the same way. While practice makes perfect, it apparently doesn't make a mid-range jump shot...

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 03:34 PM
Because I am not agreeing that it is a "bad" shot. His percentage isn't high, true enough, but I don't think him shooting a wide open jump shot is "bad" in and of itself. Is it our best option, heavens no!! If Dre is open in the corner and he doesn't pass it to him and takes the shot, then that was a bad decision, and therefore a "bad" shot.

I really think that we are over analyzing this. Josh has taken a grand total of 14 shots this year in 9 games. It's not like he's firing it up every time he gets the ball. Josh's shooting isn't going to be the downfall of this team.

I agree with you that we're over-analyzing (it's 12 days until our next game. What are we supposed to do? And as much as support Duke football, I know very little about the sport).

I have to disagree on everything else. It's a game of probabilities. Let's say that Josh hits 20% of his mid-range jumpers (I'm being generous here). If he shoots, that's 20% for a 2pt shot, or 0.4 per possession. Josh can pass the ball out and have a player go for a 2pt shot at 30% or a 3pt shot at 20%, or 0.6 per possession (and these are on the low end, I would say). Hence, for the betterment of the team, Josh should pass. You always go for the higher expected value. Always.

Parker triple-teamed shooting 25% is not ideal, but interestingly enough it's a better expected value. If this happens to Parker, hopefully he passes out to Amile under the basket for a 95% shot, or 1.9 per possession.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 03:37 PM
You always go for the higher expected value. Always.


This sums up my entire position in a nutshell.

When possible, find a better shot. When possible, put the ball in the hands of someone who can take (or create!) a better shot. When possible, do not take a bad (and by "bad," I mean demonstrably low-percentage) shot with time left on the shot clock. Period.

freshmanjs
12-04-2013, 03:38 PM
You always go for the higher expected value. Always.

There are exceptions to this. in small sample size (end of game situations), you might prefer a 2 point shot with 60% probability to make it over a 3 point shot with 41% probability. you always need to consider distribution of outcomes in addition to expected value. sometimes you will take a lower expected value with less risk when you don't have enough trials to get to a stable outcome.

Troublemaker
12-04-2013, 03:38 PM
I do want to note that, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think we had a single lineup combination out there last night that had Jabari guarding the opposing team's center. I'm pretty sure Jabari was ALWAYS in the game with at least one of Josh, Amile, and Marshall. I thought that was great to see, and I hope it keeps up.

Yes, it continues the trend we saw vs Arizona (where Josh, Amile, and Marshall combined for 40 minutes) and other recent games where, if Jabari was in the game with another big, the other big guarded the 5. You're right, it is great to see. If superstars couldn't wear down, there would no reason why, if Jabari and Amile were in the game together, Jabari wouldn't guard the center. But superstars can wear down and having Amile, Josh (and now Marshall) guarding the 5 appears to be overtly a legs-saving maneuver for Jabari. And I completely agree with it. This is how I always imagined things would play out in the offseason.

Jabari will still see possessions where he guards the center. If there's a big-on-big pick that causes a switch. If there's a sideline or baseline out-of-bounds play because Duke likes to use Amile and Josh to guard the inbounder (who is rarely a center). If, in transition, things line up that way. If Duke is playing 4 perimeter players + Jabari at the end of games to hold a lead. If the other team is small and has a Jabari-sized center.

But it's a good idea to minimize as much as possible possessions where Jabari has to bang with big bodies (including in practice, of course). It won't guarantee Jabari won't wear down as the season progresses. But I bet it helps.

GGLC
12-04-2013, 03:43 PM
There are exceptions to this. in small sample size (end of game situations), you might prefer a 2 point shot with 60% probability to make it over a 3 point shot with 41% probability. you always need to consider distribution of outcomes in addition to expected value. sometimes you will take a lower expected value with less risk when you don't have enough trials to get to a stable outcome.

This is a fair proviso, of course.

mkirsh
12-04-2013, 03:53 PM
But it's a good idea to minimize as much as possible possessions where Jabari has to bang with big bodies (including in practice, of course). It won't guarantee Jabari won't wear down as the season progresses. But I bet it helps.

Not to pick Troublemaker out for this point, but there seems to be general consensus that guarding another team's center leads to more fatigue than guarding a wing player, but is there evidence to support this? Is pushing and shoving in the paint more taxing than chasing a wing player all over the perimeter and fighting through screens? Did Shelden wear down more than JJ? The best example we all have is Kyle Singler, but not sure how much of that was from the freshman wall vs guarding opposing bigs? Not trying to be contrary here, just not sure what is correct when it comes to wearing down as the season progresses.

Kedsy
12-04-2013, 04:00 PM
I have to disagree on everything else. It's a game of probabilities. Let's say that Josh hits 20% of his mid-range jumpers (I'm being generous here). If he shoots, that's 20% for a 2pt shot, or 0.4 per possession. Josh can pass the ball out and have a player go for a 2pt shot at 30% or a 3pt shot at 20%, or 0.6 per possession (and these are on the low end, I would say). Hence, for the betterment of the team, Josh should pass. You always go for the higher expected value. Always.

Your analysis has left out the possibility of Josh turning it over if he attempts to pass the ball.

I hesitate to weigh in on this debate, but I will add that in years past my observation has been that Josh shot almost every time he got the ball, he just didn't get the ball very often (at least out there beyond 10 feet). I don't know if that's true this season -- I suspect it isn't -- but the one or two games I charted (I think last season but I'm not 100% sure of that) backed up my observation.

My theory was that when he got the ball that far from the basket he didn't feel comfortable dribbling and he didn't have the court vision to see open teammates. If he either took the time to find an open teammate or if he passed to a non-open teammate, the chance of a turnover would presumably go up. Thus the safest course would be to take the shot.

You can't figure out which is the highest expected value unless you can quantify things like that (and using his actual turnover rate won't work because it may only be as low as it is because he shoots from out there).

GGLC
12-04-2013, 04:03 PM
Your analysis has left out the possibility of Josh turning it over if he attempts to pass the ball.

I hesitate to weigh in on this debate, but I will add that in years past my observation has been that Josh shot almost every time he got the ball, he just didn't get the ball very often (at least out there beyond 10 feet). I don't know if that's true this season -- I suspect it isn't -- but the one or two games I charted (I think last season but I'm not 100% sure of that) backed up my observation.

My theory was that when he got the ball that far from the basket he didn't feel comfortable dribbling and he didn't have the court vision to see open teammates. If he either took the time to find an open teammate or if he passed to a non-open teammate, the chance of a turnover would presumably go up. Thus the safest course would be to take the shot.

You can't figure out which is the highest expected value unless you can quantify things like that (and using his actual turnover rate won't work because it may only be as low as it is because he shoots from out there).

Your point is well taken, but one would think that a senior playing on the highest level of college basketball would have the rudimentary ability to pass the ball to someone else when he gets it away from the paint.

mkirsh
12-04-2013, 04:04 PM
This sums up my entire position in a nutshell.

When possible, find a better shot. When possible, put the ball in the hands of someone who can take (or create!) a better shot. When possible, do not take a bad (and by "bad," I mean demonstrably low-percentage) shot with time left on the shot clock. Period.

Agree with the last sentence, but not sure the first thought in reality works this cleanly. If "always go for higher expected value" were true, then no shot other than a dunk should be attempted under any circumstances until late in the shot clock - wide open threes by good shooters should get passed up to try to keep the ball moving until it's either a dunk or whatever final shot is better than a shot clock violation. I agree on avoiding low value shots early in the shot clock, but think that once you are in some sort of reasonable range, say .9 points per shot, ok to pull the trigger

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 04:05 PM
Your analysis has left out the possibility of Josh turning it over if he attempts to pass the ball.

I hesitate to weigh in on this debate, but I will add that in years past my observation has been that Josh shot almost every time he got the ball, he just didn't get the ball very often (at least out there beyond 10 feet). I don't know if that's true this season -- I suspect it isn't -- but the one or two games I charted (I think last season but I'm not 100% sure of that) backed up my observation.

My theory was that when he got the ball that far from the basket he didn't feel comfortable dribbling and he didn't have the court vision to see open teammates. If he either took the time to find an open teammate or if he passed to a non-open teammate, the chance of a turnover would presumably go up. Thus the safest course would be to take the shot.

You can't figure out which is the highest expected value unless you can quantify things like that (and using his actual turnover rate won't work because it may only be as low as it is because he shoots from out there).

I agree with you - there are a lot more factors involved. But my point still stands - expected value is key. And Josh's mid-range doesn't have a high expected value. By the way, if your observation in bold is correct, that is downright scary.

Kedsy
12-04-2013, 04:07 PM
Not to pick Troublemaker out for this point, but there seems to be general consensus that guarding another team's center leads to more fatigue than guarding a wing player, but is there evidence to support this? Is pushing and shoving in the paint more taxing than chasing a wing player all over the perimeter and fighting through screens? Did Shelden wear down more than JJ? The best example we all have is Kyle Singler, but not sure how much of that was from the freshman wall vs guarding opposing bigs? Not trying to be contrary here, just not sure what is correct when it comes to wearing down as the season progresses.

I don't know if there's any data for real players, but I know when I guard bigger players in the halfcourt it is MUCH more tiring than running around the perimeter. Most pickup players I know feel the same way.

So comparing Shelden to JJ won't help that much. In my opinion, Kyle wore down because (a) he was a freshman and he wasn't used to grinding it out for six months; and (b) he was guarding bigger players. Shelden wasn't necessarily guarding bigger players very often.

In this case, Jabari is guarding larger players and thus he's more analogous to Kyle than Shelden.

Also, if JJ wore down it was probably more from when he was on offense (running constantly and being constantly grabbed and shoved) than on defense.

Having said all that, it's possible that if you're guarding a smaller player, it's more tiring to chase him around the perimeter than to bump with him in the post. I don't think that has any bearing on Jabari, though.

sagegrouse
12-04-2013, 04:07 PM
This sums up my entire position in a nutshell.

When possible, find a better shot. When possible, put the ball in the hands of someone who can take (or create!) a better shot. When possible, do not take a bad (and by "bad," I mean demonstrably low-percentage) shot with time left on the shot clock. Period.

FWIW, I sense that K approves of Hairston's taking shots. To wit, he keeps doing it, and he doesn't get pulled from games after shooting.

None of this means that K is right, but there may be somewhat larger considerations here.

BTW I think Hairston is doing a good defensive job; he's a tough, aggressive defender who can body up against anyone we are playing. Amile can't seem to do that; we don't want Jabari totally wearing himself out on post defense; and apparently the coaches don;t think that MP3 is the answer right now.

JoshHe also understands both the defensive scheme AND the offensive scheme, which the new guys are just learning.

And on a related topic, I assume that most people now see the value of having Tyler on the court.

sagegrouse

GGLC
12-04-2013, 04:09 PM
Agree with the last sentence, but not sure the first thought in reality works this cleanly. If "always go for higher expected value" were true, then no shot other than a dunk should be attempted under any circumstances until late in the shot clock - wide open threes by good shooters should get passed up to try to keep the ball moving until it's either a dunk or whatever final shot is better than a shot clock violation. I agree on avoiding low value shots early in the shot clock, but think that once you are in some sort of reasonable range, say .9 points per shot, ok to pull the trigger

Sure, and I'm also not expecting players to be able to assess the expected value of shots to the second decimal point on the fly or anything. But there's a difference between "work it until you can take/create the best shot" and "work it until you can take/create a good shot." And I think the latter should be reasonably achievable on almost every possession.

Troublemaker
12-04-2013, 04:13 PM
Not to pick Troublemaker out for this point, but there seems to be general consensus that guarding another team's center leads to more fatigue than guarding a wing player, but is there evidence to support this? Is pushing and shoving in the paint more taxing than chasing a wing player all over the perimeter and fighting through screens? Did Shelden wear down more than JJ? The best example we all have is Kyle Singler, but not sure how much of that was from the freshman wall vs guarding opposing bigs? Not trying to be contrary here, just not sure what is correct when it comes to wearing down as the season progresses.

You're asking a good question, and I don't feel picked on at all. I don't think this thing has been studied, nor could it really have been studied until just recently with the installation of SportVu cameras in NBA arenas (and gradually, in college gyms, including at Duke already) that allow teams to closely track players' fitness over the course of a season.

So it's all theory right now, that's true. I would say that generally speaking you want players to guard similar-sized opposing players. You don't want Jabari chasing a 6-foot point guard around, and you don't want him to push against a 6'10" 250-lb behemoth in the paint. If he's mostly guarding 6'6" to 6'8" guys who are 200-230 lbs, hopefully he will be fine. (Also, I don't think most teams' 4s will be running Jabari through screens too much).

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 04:14 PM
FWIW, I sense that K approves of Hairston's taking shots. To wit, he keeps doing it, and he doesn't get pulled from games after shooting.

None of this means that K is right, but there may be somewhat larger considerations here.

BTW I think Hairston is doing a good defensive job; he's a tough, aggressive defender who can body up against anyone we are playing. Amile can't seem to do that; we don't want Jabari totally wearing himself out on post defense; and apparently the coaches don;t think that MP3 is the answer right now.

JoshHe also understands both the defensive scheme AND the offensive scheme, which the new guys are just learning.

And on a related topic, I assume that most people now see the value of having Tyler on the court.

sagegrouse

I wonder if Coach K approves of Quinn's hero 3s, because Quinn keeps on launching them and rarely gets pulled (Coach K gets really mad at the dumb turnovers, though).

Hairston does understand the O concepts (I would hope so, given that he's part of the program for 4 years), but you do need offensive talent to execute those concepts. That is something that Hairston just doesn't have much of.

Lastly, I am one of those people who now understands the value of Tyler (I was also one of those people who understood the value of Zoubs after the Maryland game). I will admit it and eat crow. I really like Tyler's game, and think that he's gels well with this team. He has enough D and O talent to execute the concepts that he fully understands (although those stupid fouls that he does once per game still drive me crazy). That is where I think he and Hairston differ - the execution of most plays on O and some plays on D.

CDu
12-04-2013, 04:31 PM
Agree to disagree.

You will never convince me that a turnover is somehow better than a missed shot, regardless of who shoots it.

And I will never convince you that Hairston shooting 1-2 jumpers (out of 71.5 possessions) isn't the end of the world.

Consider this - despite TT and Hairston playing the 4th and 6th most minutes of anyone on the team, their usage % are dead last. They both have lower usage % than MP3....

http://www.bbstate.com/teams/DUKE/stats/poss

A turnover is worse than a long jumpshot. But nobody DECIDES to make a turnover. It is an unfortunate outcome of trying to do something else.

Hairston, on the other hand, is CHOOSING to take that long jumper.

So it is a silly thing to compare the two. One is a decision and the other an outcome. If you want to compare the jumper to an intentional pass into the stands (both decisions), that is a valid comparison. If you want to compare a single missed shot to a turnover (both outcomes), that is fair too. But comparing Hairston's decision to shoot to Cook's outcome of a turnover is inappropriate.

Want to make a valid comparison between Hairston's shot and Cook? Compare expected outcome of a Hairston jumper to the expected outcome of any possession in which Cook has the ball. Because those possessions are the ones in which Cook risks a turnover.

Saratoga2
12-04-2013, 04:38 PM
First of all I'm with you on the Hairston stuff. I was saying that last night he was good. I think this has proved to be the exception rather than the rule. i think that our ceiling is much higher with Hairston has a limited contributor. Your rebounding notes are well taken; however, last night was again an exception. He did a great job of boxing out the opposing teams best offensive rebounder which enabled specifically Jabari to get a lot of boards in the first half. If he continues to do that, his servicability increases. He's ground boundness affects his rebounding and won't be his forte, ever. Defensive rotations are concepts that should be easy to grasp for players of this level and hopefully Marshall and Amile pick them up more quickly. Also both of them have the ability to box out then go get the rebound rather than box out and depend on others to grab the board. I think last night showed Josh's ceiling, not to take away from him, because I thought he was fantastic last night.

I also saw a huge line-up last night which I loved. Marshall Amile Hood Jones and Cook. Throw Jabari in that mix, pack in the defense and that puts Jabari at an incredible advantage on the offensive end at the 3. I'd really like to see that line-up for a few minutes every game. I think it would present an incredible change of pace that would throw off opposing teams and give us an edge for 5-10 minutes a game, provided that team can defend the perimeter effectively.

Josh gets few points, few rebounds and few blocks, despite playing significant time. While doing that he picks up fouls at a high rate. When we have other players who can do a better job per minute of the above, eventually they will take time from Josh. His main contribution is that he understands the defensive rotations and hedging, but it is hard to see that as overcoming the lack of the other main areas of play for an inside man.

mkirsh
12-04-2013, 04:40 PM
BTW I think Hairston is doing a good defensive job; he's a tough, aggressive defender who can body up against anyone we are playing. Amile can't seem to do that; we don't want Jabari totally wearing himself out on post defense; and apparently the coaches don;t think that MP3 is the answer right now.

JoshHe also understands both the defensive scheme AND the offensive scheme, which the new guys are just learning.

And on a related topic, I assume that most people now see the value of having Tyler on the court.

sagegrouse

I agree with this, and think that Josh is very valuable on D, even if his stats (rebs, blocks, steals) don't show it. I think his real value is knowing the defensive rotations and calling them out to others, so when there are hedges and switches he directs people to the right place during the play (TT does this as well). The data we'd really need to see to support this would be points per possession allowed with and without Josh on the floor (I think that would be way better than the current DRating metric), but not sure if that exists anywhere. I suspect it would shot that our defense is better when Josh is in the game vs Amile or Marshall, but can't prove it with what I've been able to find so far. (I'd also love to see the corresponding offensive numbers to see if it is worth the trade-off)

GGLC
12-04-2013, 04:47 PM
I have come to appreciate Tyler, but I still think his starter's minutes would be better given to a more dynamic player with the ability to shoot and drive on offense and the ability to lock larger defenders down on defense.

I call this player Matt Dawkins. :)

(Or Rasheed Sulaimon circa 2012)

mkirsh
12-04-2013, 04:49 PM
I don't know if there's any data for real players, but I know when I guard bigger players in the halfcourt it is MUCH more tiring than running around the perimeter. Most pickup players I know feel the same way.

So comparing Shelden to JJ won't help that much. In my opinion, Kyle wore down because (a) he was a freshman and he wasn't used to grinding it out for six months; and (b) he was guarding bigger players. Shelden wasn't necessarily guarding bigger players very often.

In this case, Jabari is guarding larger players and thus he's more analogous to Kyle than Shelden.

Also, if JJ wore down it was probably more from when he was on offense (running constantly and being constantly grabbed and shoved) than on defense.

Having said all that, it's possible that if you're guarding a smaller player, it's more tiring to chase him around the perimeter than to bump with him in the post. I don't think that has any bearing on Jabari, though.

I guess my personal experience is different - I'd much rather lean on someone in the post than chase out on the perimeter, but likely I'm just lazy.

Also, I think your relative size point has merit, but with Jabari at 6-8, 235, I don't think he is guarding many bigger players in the post. McGarry is definitely bigger at 6-10 255, Tarcweski is taller at 7-0 but the same weight, but most college centers are 6-8 or so and similar build to Jabari, Most college 4s are similar height but maybe a little leaner than JP, so I think defending the post is most likely playing against the player on the other team with the most similar build to his own.

arnie
12-04-2013, 04:57 PM
Josh gets few points, few rebounds and few blocks, despite playing significant time. While doing that he picks up fouls at a high rate. When we have other players who can do a better job per minute of the above, eventually they will take time from Josh. His main contribution is that he understands the defensive rotations and hedging, but it is hard to see that as overcoming the lack of the other main areas of play for an inside man.

Well stated and that is my concern also. Strongly believe our tournament ceiling is not high if Josh logs 20 minutes a game. I think he's a stopgap until someone else evolves - at least hope that's the case.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2013, 05:04 PM
Well stated and that is my concern also. Strongly believe our tournament ceiling is not high if Josh logs 20 minutes a game. I think he's a stopgap until someone else evolves - at least hope that's the case.

I think this too. If Hairston is starting in February, color me surprised.

I think he limits the team offensively and doesn't have the potential or talent that Amile and MP3 can bring (in MP3's case, a ton of valuable height).

CDu
12-04-2013, 05:25 PM
Well stated and that is my concern also. Strongly believe our tournament ceiling is not high if Josh logs 20 minutes a game. I think he's a stopgap until someone else evolves - at least hope that's the case.


I think this too. If Hairston is starting in February, color me surprised.

I think he limits the team offensively and doesn't have the potential or talent that Amile and MP3 can bring (in MP3's case, a ton of valuable height).

I too hope that the duo of Jefferson and Plumlee can improve and/or gain Coach K's confidence to the point that Hairston isn't needed for more than 5-10 mpg. The "upside" with those two just seems so much greater. I agree that IF we're still running Hairston out there for 20 mpg in February/March, that's a problem.

I similarly hope that Jones/Dawkins/Sulaimon improve enough to bump Thornton to the the backup PG role. I have less optimism there, though. And to be honest, Thornton doesn't bother me as much as Hairston. At least Thornton will hit an open shot, and he generally knows when to pass up a bad shot.

uh_no
12-04-2013, 05:26 PM
Why? Because if he DOES hit one, then the other team has to at least think about defending him... If he DOESN'T shoot any jumpers, then the other team has ZERO reason to defend him and can sag off him..

A coach would have to be pretty out there to consider guarding a 13% shooter because he happened to knock one down....if he starts to bring that % up to mid to high 20's? sure....but not at 13%....hairston rarely hits them and the other teams know it....which is why there's about a 8' radius around him when he has the ball on the perimeter....other teams WANT him to take that shot...they're goading him....because they know it's got such a low expected value


EDIT: jeez didn't realize how far behind i was in this thread....oops!

Double DD
12-04-2013, 07:35 PM
I've never said that a turnover is better than a missed shot. I said that Josh taking long jumpers with plenty of time left on the shot clock is effectively THE SAME as a turnover.

These are very different things.

I've also never said that it's the end of the world. I've acknowledged that it's not a gigantic deal in the grand scheme of things. But it is frustrating to see offensive possessions be consistently wasted like that -- and, contrary to your implication, Josh has shown NO signs that he has the capacity to improve in this department. I'm happy to find the game logs so far this year to see if he's even hit a single jumper after the staggering ineptitude he displayed on those shots last season.

It looks like he's only taken 4 jumpshots so far this year, but he has missed all of them.

mattman91
12-04-2013, 08:05 PM
I was happy to be able to watch this one with my fellow Asheville devils, Mountain Devil and Rick.

A few observations, most of which have probably already been mentioned.

1. I liked seeing Marshall getting early, meaningful, minutes in a big game. I LOVED seeing him capitalize on the opportunity by showing passion and playing like the 7 footer he is in the paint.

2. The 828 Pale Ale at Asheville Brewing is rather tasty.

3. I was very happy with our team defense in this game. Thornton showed a lot of what he brings to this team on the defensive end. Hopefully one day the haters will give him respect.

4. Quinn played like the best point guard in the ACC, which I believe he is. I didn't mind the technical either. I like his emotion and energy!

5. Loved seeing Andre make big shots in a really key stretch of the game. I'm rooting so hard for this guy.

We're still a work in progress, but we are absolutely headed in the right direction. In K I Trust.

Dukeface88
12-04-2013, 08:20 PM
5. Loved seeing Andre make big shots in a really key stretch of the game. I'm rooting so hard for this guy.



So much this. As much as everyone focuses on the post, Dre is the guy I most want to see improve. After all the crap he's been through I really want him to catch a break.

FerryFor50
12-04-2013, 08:38 PM
A turnover is worse than a long jumpshot. But nobody DECIDES to make a turnover. It is an unfortunate outcome of trying to do something else.

Hairston, on the other hand, is CHOOSING to take that long jumper.

So it is a silly thing to compare the two. One is a decision and the other an outcome. If you want to compare the jumper to an intentional pass into the stands (both decisions), that is a valid comparison. If you want to compare a single missed shot to a turnover (both outcomes), that is fair too. But comparing Hairston's decision to shoot to Cook's outcome of a turnover is inappropriate.

Want to make a valid comparison between Hairston's shot and Cook? Compare expected outcome of a Hairston jumper to the expected outcome of any possession in which Cook has the ball. Because those possessions are the ones in which Cook risks a turnover.

So, generally speaking, if you call something "silly" or suggest something is not a "valid comparison," you probably want to use valid logic.

You are attempting to essentially argue intent. For your logic to be valid, we'd have to make a huge leap of faith and assume Josh Hairston shoots with the intent of missing.

Missed jump shots and turnovers are both decisions. In both cases, the intent is to do something positive. But when you turn the ball over, it's a lost possession. When you shoot, you either score, get an offensive board or turn around and play defense.

I'll say it again, because no one apparently reads the threads, the Cook comparison was done for effect. You could insert ANY player's name, including Hairston's, beside the phrase "commiting a turnover" and the argument is the same - a turnover is always worse than a wide open Hairston jump shot. Always. There is no logical argument you could make other than Hairston shoots with the intent to miss.

Turnovers are not always the result of good defense. Many times, they are the result of poor decision making.

When Quinn Cook retreats and picks up his dribble against a full court press, that's a bad decision.

When Jabari Parker fails to to recognize the double team and pass out of it, that's a bad decision.

When Rasheed Sulaimon drives into 3 waiting defenders, that's a bad decision.

When Rodney Hood shuffles his feet before driving to the basket, that's a bad decision.

When Josh Hairston shoots a wide open jumper once a game, I don't believe it's a bad decision.