Short Bench?

[rocketeli]

Here's an interesting box score for those who are convinced Duke is some kind of outlier in terms of bench use:
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400506830

[Saratoga2]

It is one case but I also notice that Baylor won (great) by using 8 players heavily while Kentucky went with 5 players and a few cameos. It is an unfortunate fact that teams recruit far more players than they can give significant playing time to. It appears to be even more likely an issue with programs that can recruit at the highest level as often times very good players are left to languish on the bench. Duke fits that category.

The question I and others raised is whether a fatigued or foul troubled star player performs better than a fresh and rested very good player. Coaches know better than we do, but not playing these good players leaves them disheartened and candidates for transfer. All programs face this problem and we are no different. Coach K definitely uses a short bench but maybe no more so than other highly competitive programs. Where this approach could hurt the most is where a player is injured or sick for protracted periods and a team becomes very slim on backups.

Another obvious question is whether some of the experienced players who put up weak numbers despite their extensive playing times are providing better results than those deeper on the bench. The question has been talked about a great deal with Hairston and to a lesser extent Thornton being looked upon as players who might surrender some PT to athletes with high potential which remain on the bench. Semi and Marshall come to mind. Again, we have to hope that the coaches know best but those of us who watch just the games are left to wonder.

[greybeard]

It is one case but I also notice that Baylor won (great) by using 8 players heavily while Kentucky went with 5 players and a few cameos. It is an unfortunate fact that teams recruit far more players than they can give significant playing time to. It appears to be even more likely an issue with programs that can recruit at the highest level as often times very good players are left to languish on the bench. Duke fits that category.

The question I and others raised is whether a fatigued or foul troubled star player performs better than a fresh and rested very good player. Coaches know better than we do, but not playing these good players leaves them disheartened and candidates for transfer. All programs face this problem and we are no different. Coach K definitely uses a short bench but maybe no more so than other highly competitive programs. Where this approach could hurt the most is where a player is injured or sick for protracted periods and a team becomes very slim on backups.

Another obvious question is whether some of the experienced players who put up weak numbers despite their extensive playing times are providing better results than those deeper on the bench. The question has been talked about a great deal with Hairston and to a lesser extent Thornton being looked upon as players who might surrender some PT to athletes with high potential which remain on the bench. Semi and Marshall come to mind. Again, we have to hope that the coaches know best but those of us who watch just the games are left to wonder.

Both Semi and Marshall will get more playing time. I think Marshall will get around 20 minutes, probably more if his stamina holds up. If by Semi you mean Rasheed, his minutes I think will depend on the extent to which he can play the point. Cook is the guy who most needs a backup, and I think that K has decided that he needs Thorton on the court for the minutes he gets. Semi might well be closer to running the team AKA Cook, than Thorton, but K is dissatisfied with his inability to adapt his game to see the game more globally than he currently does. No one can replace Cook's combination, especially his ability late in the clock to get his shot, often a lay up, if the scorer's are covered; K might see Semi as potentially the closest to giving that to the team. If all this is so, and I begin this narrative solely on intuition, than I am not sure that pressuring Semi to adapt will not be counterproductive. I'm not K and have no real idea of what he is after in any case.

[throatybeard]

There's a reason it's 1A.

[Troublemaker]

The discussion of Duke's short bench is quite premature and will probably prove to be inaccurate.

Duke played a 9-man rotation in our last game against Michigan. Duke also played a 9-man rotation against Alabama. In between those two games, we played a 7-man rotation against Arizona. But, you'll note that against elite competition, the best coaches very often shorten their rotation. Sean Miller actually played fewer players and gave his bench fewer minutes than Coach K did in the Duke-Arizona game.

I think it's very possible Duke is trending towards a deep 9-man rotation. It might take the form of 5 perimeter players + 4 post players, or the unlikelier (but still possible based on talent) formulation of 6 perimeter players + 3 post players could also occur.

A 9-man rotation is a deep team. Perfect depth for a basketball team, I'd argue. Even with an 8-man rotation, I would not consider that to be "short." If you have a point guard, a wing, and a big man that you can rely on, that's a good thing to have.

Let's see how things shake out. I'd argue that as of right now, Coach K is on the path towards giving the "deep bench acolytes" exactly what they want, but they're too foolish, too impatient to recognize what is happening before their eyes. Duke is a very talented but young team, and it will take some time to develop a consistent rotation. Stay patient. Let it play out. Let the season breathe.

[rocketeli]

I think that if you look at a series of top team box scores you will see that the modal number of players that get 10+ minutes is somewhere between 7.5 and 8.5 and Duke tends to be right in that range.I'd like to see the "Duke always plays a short bench"meme retired because we don't really have substitution patterns or player use that are different from other top programs.

(as an aside, I feel that the coaches see the players in practice and know more about basketball than I do, so I rarely criticize their decisions. That being said, watching Josh Hairston (who I know is a great guy, works hard and wants to succeed as much as anybody) was the first time I remember hoping a Duke player would foul out.)

[Furniture]

I think we will see more and more of Marshall as we play more games.

[Jarhead]

I think we will see more and more of Marshall as we play more games.

If he can continues to play with the same intensity and results as he had in the last game we may see him on the starting roster.

[Furniture]

If he can continues to play with the same intensity and results as he had in the last game we may see him on the starting roster.

What I liked was that the rest of the team were genuinely pumped about him doing well. I think they know they will need him as many on this board have also pointed out.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I think we will see more and more of Marshall as we play more games.


If he can continues to play with the same intensity and results as he had in the last game we may see him on the starting roster.

We don't need Marshall to be a scorer, there are many other players who do that for us. We need him to play interior defense, rebound, and make foul shots (which may be the kicker...). He'll get some put back layups from the offensive rebounds he needs to get. And, he needs to be a high energy player, which doesn't seem to be a problem for him :cool:

[Indoor66]

We don't need Marshall to be a scorer, there are many other players who do that for us. We need him to play interior defense, rebound, and make foul shots (which may be the kicker...). He'll get some put back layups from the offensive rebounds he needs to get. And, he needs to be a high energy player, which doesn't seem to be a problem for him :cool:

I mostly agree with you Oz, but he does need to make himself a threat to score & pass. Otherwise his offensive value diminishes and he could clog the middle for the drivers.

[Furniture]

I mostly agree with you Oz, but he does need to make himself a threat to score & pass. Otherwise his offensive value diminishes and he could clog the middle for the drivers.

It was obvious to me from his few minutes in the last game that the potential is massive. I think that K is going to build him up slowly. Plenty of practice, increase the minutes and confidence. It's a question of time....

[azzefkram]

and make foul shots (which may be the kicker...)

While I would love him to make fouls shots, I only think it's an issue in end of game situations. I would love for opposing bigs to waste their fouls on hack-a-Marshall during the game. Get them in foul trouble and then let Jabari and Rodney go (more?) wild. Energy, defense, rebounding and the occasional put-back and I'd be a happy camper.

[gurufrisbee]

I think we'll keep seeing basically a ten man rotation. Jabari, Hood, and Cook will keep getting 35 minutes a night unless it's a blowout. THey are all just too good. The <cough> center position will keep being the three headed monster of Plumlee, Jefferson, Hairston. That trio will only ever get over 40 minutes total if in very rare occassions they play two of them at the same time, which only might happen 2-3 minutes a game. The SG position is almost in the same position now except there are FOUR with Sheed, Dawkins, Jones, and Tyler filling all those minutes (but they will average closer to 50-55 minutes as those guys are also the back ups for everything but center). So it's a ten man rotation with three guys playing a lot and seven guys playing smaller roles. I think this only changes IF someone in that group of seven steps up and says 'No, I'm a star like those other three and I'm not letting you give me less than 30.' (a.k.a. probably something only Sheed has the potential to do).

[Kedsy]

(but they will average closer to 50-55 minutes as those guys are also the back ups for everything but center).

They're the backups for center, too, because we've been going small (Jabari at C, Rodney at PF) for 5 or 10 (or more) minutes a game so far.

[Saratoga2]

I think we'll keep seeing basically a ten man rotation. Jabari, Hood, and Cook will keep getting 35 minutes a night unless it's a blowout. THey are all just too good. The <cough> center position will keep being the three headed monster of Plumlee, Jefferson, Hairston. That trio will only ever get over 40 minutes total if in very rare occassions they play two of them at the same time, which only might happen 2-3 minutes a game. The SG position is almost in the same position now except there are FOUR with Sheed, Dawkins, Jones, and Tyler filling all those minutes (but they will average closer to 50-55 minutes as those guys are also the back ups for everything but center). So it's a ten man rotation with three guys playing a lot and seven guys playing smaller roles. I think this only changes IF someone in that group of seven steps up and says 'No, I'm a star like those other three and I'm not letting you give me less than 30.' (a.k.a. probably something only Sheed has the potential to do).

Thornton is the only real sub for Quinn at this time, although Rasheed might do it and Matt appears to have some abilities along that line but is too inexperienced to put in to such a key position. So Tyler gets 5 to 8 minutes at backup PG and 15 at SG and he has a 20 minute night. That leaves 25 minutes to share between Rasheed, Matt and Andre. Now, with Alex out of consideration, we have some time open when Rodney is off the floor at the 3. That could also be filled by any of our true shooting guards or by Semi. Later in the season we may well need to rely on the 3 SG's and I think all of them can be contributors.

[Kedsy]

Thornton is the only real sub for Quinn at this time, although Rasheed might do it and Matt appears to have some abilities along that line but is too inexperienced to put in to such a key position. So Tyler gets 5 to 8 minutes at backup PG and 15 at SG and he has a 20 minute night. That leaves 25 minutes to share between Rasheed, Matt and Andre. Now, with Alex out of consideration, we have some time open when Rodney is off the floor at the 3. That could also be filled by any of our true shooting guards or by Semi. Later in the season we may well need to rely on the 3 SG's and I think all of them can be contributors.

I don't know that Alex has anything to do with it, nor Semi, really. Both of them have been playing PF/C minutes. The minutes when Rodney is off the floor were already going to Rasheed/Matt/Andre. Frankly so were/are the minutes when Jabari is off the floor and for the most part when our center collective is off the floor.

[Son of Jarhead]

Both Semi and Marshall will get more playing time. I think Marshall will get around 20 minutes, probably more if his stamina holds up. If by Semi you mean Rasheed, his minutes I think will depend on the extent to which he can play the point. Cook is the guy who most needs a backup, and I think that K has decided that he needs Thorton on the court for the minutes he gets. Semi might well be closer to running the team AKA Cook, than Thorton, but K is dissatisfied with his inability to adapt his game to see the game more globally than he currently does. No one can replace Cook's combination, especially his ability late in the clock to get his shot, often a lay up, if the scorer's are covered; K might see Semi as potentially the closest to giving that to the team. If all this is so, and I begin this narrative solely on intuition, than I am not sure that pressuring Semi to adapt will not be counterproductive. I'm not K and have no real idea of what he is after in any case.

I'm pretty sure that by Semi he meant Semi Ojeleye (6'7", 230lb, Freshman), not Rasheed Sulaimon (6'4", 190lb, Sophmore).

[kAzE]

Jefferson, Dawkins, and Jones have played well off the bench in recent games. I don't see a situation developing where any of those 3 guys fall out of the rotation completely. Jones or Dawkins seem to be the most likely to lose minutes to the other. Depending on game situation, you could see Coach K subbing those two guys out offense for defense or vice-versa. You absolutely have to imagine that Sulaimon gets it going and becomes a key guy in the rotation again, if not, play starter's minutes. At his best, he's the hybrid between Dawkins and Jones, and the only true two way shooting guard we have (at least until Jones has a break out offensive game, which could totally happen). Seems to me like a 9 man rotation is totally within reason. We have 11 guys who can all play. Hey, if basketball was 6 on 6, we'd be awesome.

[sagegrouse]

Jefferson, Dawkins, and Jones have played well off the bench in recent games. I don't see a situation developing where any of those 3 guys fall out of the rotation completely. Jones or Dawkins seem to be the most likely to lose minutes to the other. Depending on game situation, you could see Coach K subbing those two guys out offense for defense or vice-versa. You absolutely have to imagine that Sulaimon gets it going and becomes a key guy in the rotation again, if not, play starter's minutes. At his best, he's the hybrid between Dawkins and Jones, and the only true two way shooting guard we have (at least until Jones has a break out offensive game, which could totally happen). Seems to me like a 9 man rotation is totally within reason. We have 11 guys who can all play. Hey, if basketball was 6 on 6, we'd be awesome.

Deep within your heart, you know that we are going to see a lot of minutes with the following lineup, which lacks height but offers incredible offensive productivity:

Jabari
Hood
Two of Dawkins/Jones/Sulaimon
Cook

This would be a killer lineup against some teams.

sage

[Furniture]

Deep within your heart, you know that we are going to see a lot of minutes with the following lineup, which lacks height but offers incredible offensive productivity:

Jabari
Hood
Two of Dawkins/Jones/Sulaimon
Cook

This would be a killer lineup against some teams.

sage

That is a great line up. But I think that it's missing Plumlee and Hairston with the sort of minutes he (Hairston) had last year.

[throatybeard]

I predict that any counterpoint to the last few posts will include the catch-phrase, "rim protector."

[greybeard]

Anybody see the lobs to Marshall, his off-side rebounding? There was one play that particularly impressed even though it produced no combination. Check out a replay. Marshall was in the low block on the right side of the key, body and face looking left and out. His eyes were scanning the middle and the ball, he waited and stepped into the middle. Whether there was a lane or not, that's a low post game that you haven't seen since, as I've said a gazillion times, Zoubek's freshman year, only Zoubek never got the ball as he came clear. IMO, Marshall gets PT, gets on the same page with the exterior players and becomes a little more composed with the increased PT, you've got 6-10 relatively easy points at the rim off some really nice teamwork, take pressure off Parker to be catching inside, and get a couple of fouls oh the other team's bigs that don't otherwise happen.

[jipops]

Deep within your heart, you know that we are going to see a lot of minutes with the following lineup, which lacks height but offers incredible offensive productivity:

Jabari
Hood
Two of Dawkins/Jones/Sulaimon
Cook

This would be a killer lineup against some teams.

sage

That's the crunch time lineup.

[mapleleafdevil]

It is an unfortunate fact that teams recruit far more players than they can give significant playing time to. It appears to be even more likely an issue with programs that can recruit at the highest level as often times very good players are left to languish on the bench. Duke fits that category.


It's the same reason airlines overbook flights.

[Goduke2010]

The question I and others raised is whether a fatigued or foul troubled star player performs better than a fresh and rested very good player. Coaches know better than we do, but not playing these good players leaves them disheartened and candidates for transfer. Where this approach could hurt the most is where a player is injured or sick for protracted periods and a team becomes very slim on backups.

Another obvious question is whether some of the experienced players who put up weak numbers despite their extensive playing times are providing better results than those deeper on the bench. Again, we have to hope that the coaches know best but those of us who watch just the games are left to wonder.

Two good points I've also wondered about. I don't get the feeling that we use advanced analytics to model out the optimal approach to lineup/minutes, and I'd argue that what the coaches learn in practice may be of only limited value to a real game situation, when presented with different lineups to match up against.

In terms of "the coaches know best," they probably do. But as a consultant, I've worked with many companies, and the senior leadership often has blind spots, based on their experience and approach to running a business. I think we'd be foolish to assume our coaching staff doesn't have similar blind spots. The best we can hope is that there's a culture of "bring up anything, no sacred cows" and a willingness and ability to try something new, learn, and incorporate moving forward.

[sagegrouse]

Two good points I've also wondered about. I don't get the feeling that we use advanced analytics to model out the optimal approach to lineup/minutes, and I'd argue that what the coaches learn in practice may be of only limited value to a real game situation, when presented with different lineups to match up against.

In terms of "the coaches know best," they probably do. But as a consultant, I've worked with many companies, and the senior leadership often has blind spots, based on their experience and approach to running a business. I think we'd be foolish to assume our coaching staff doesn't have similar blind spots. The best we can hope is that there's a culture of "bring up anything, no sacred cows" and a willingness and ability to try something new, learn, and incorporate moving forward.

I think we all have some humility in giving the coaching staff advice: the coaches understand the game ten times better than of us (100x better than me) and they also know what they are trying to accomplish. But this is an open forum, with opinions only occasionally beaten down by other posters and Mods, so have at it.

There is one case where the Board was right and the coaches were slow on the uptake. It was our man Zoubek in 2010. While he was booking minutes, he was not a player the team relied on heavily. Frequently he would start and come out after only 3-4 minutes. Well, people here noticed that his plus-minus numbers were the best on the team for the minutes he played, and there was a small groundswell of opinion here that he should be getting starter minutes.

Well, lo and behold, he became a major factor with the Maryland game on February 13, if you agree that 16 points and 17 rebounds in 22 minutes is being a major factor, and never left the starting lineup. The rest of the story is in the trophy cabinet.

[MChambers]

I think we all have some humility in giving the coaching staff advice: the coaches understand the game ten times better than of us (100x better than me) and they also know what they are trying to accomplish. But this is an open forum, with opinions only occasionally beaten down by other posters and Mods, so have at it.

There is one case where the Board was right and the coaches were slow on the uptake. It was our man Zoubek in 2010. While he was booking minutes, he was not a player the team relied on heavily. Frequently he would start and come out after only 3-4 minutes. Well, people here noticed that his plus-minus numbers were the best on the team for the minutes he played, and there was a small groundswell of opinion here that he should be getting starter minutes.

Well, lo and behold, he became a major factor with the Maryland game on February 13, if you agree that 16 points and 17 rebounds in 22 minutes is being a major factor, and never left the starting lineup. The rest of the story is in the trophy cabinet.

Sage, very nice of you not to point out all the other mistakes the board has made. "Olek needs to get some serious burn", etc.

[Saratoga2]

Sage, very nice of you not to point out all the other mistakes the board has made. "Olek needs to get some serious burn", etc.

Clearly there is a lot of experience among the many posters who provide comments in the treads. Much of it is of interest to us and perhaps a small percentage might be of value to the coaches in terms of a different viewpoint. I doubt that they look at the threads to find the nuggets among the tons or rock, but if they do, bully for them.

[sagegrouse]

Sage, very nice of you not to point out all the other mistakes the board has made. "Olek needs to get some serious burn", etc.

Well there's one nice thing about having bad adviced totally ignored -- it is never proved wrong. -- sage

[Troublemaker]

There is one case where the Board was right and the coaches were slow on the uptake. It was our man Zoubek in 2010. While he was booking minutes, he was not a player the team relied on heavily. Frequently he would start and come out after only 3-4 minutes. Well, people here noticed that his plus-minus numbers were the best on the team for the minutes he played, and there was a small groundswell of opinion here that he should be getting starter minutes.


The Board (certain members anyway) deserves credit for noticing Z's impact, but I wouldn't count it as a head-to-head victory over the coaches.

Certainly, the coaches must have access to plus-minus data, right? Once basketball coaches first started to have an assistant chart games possession by possession, the idea to collect plus-minus could not have been far behind. (In fact, the idea to chart games perhaps came about because of the desire to have plus-minus numbers available, in addition to stats like deflections and charges that the regular box score doesn't capture.) I would be fairly surprised if Coach K didn't track plus-minus by hand even back when he first started at Duke in the early 80s. These days, major programs just subscribe to companies like Synergy Sports or Stats LLC to get plus-minus for players/lineups and for data much more advanced than that.

So if both coaches and fans were looking at Z's huge plus-minus numbers in the first half of the 2010 season, the only question became how to interpret the numbers and when/if to expand his role. Keeping in mind that Z was a large man who had struggled with injuries throughout his career and had only played 7 mpg, 11 mpg, and 12 mpg his freshman through junior seasons, if the coaches were a bit hesitant until the stretch run of the season to give him 25 mpg, I think it's completely understandable.

There is perhaps an alternate universe somewhere in which Z played 30 mpg from the beginning of the 2010 season, stayed healthy, and Duke went 38-2 instead of 35-5. But there might also be an alternate universe somewhere in which the coaches weren't as careful with his minutes, he got injured again, and Duke's season doesn't end as happily as it did in our universe.

[sagegrouse]

The Board (certain members anyway) deserves credit for noticing Z's impact, but I wouldn't count it as a head-to-head victory over the coaches.

Certainly, the coaches must have access to plus-minus data, right? Once basketball coaches first started to have an assistant chart games possession by possession, the idea to collect plus-minus could not have been far behind. (In fact, the idea to chart games perhaps came about because of the desire to have plus-minus numbers available, in addition to stats like deflections and charges that the regular box score doesn't capture.) I would be fairly surprised if Coach K didn't track plus-minus by hand even back when he first started at Duke in the early 80s. These days, major programs just subscribe to companies like Synergy Sports or Stats LLC to get plus-minus for players/lineups and for data much more advanced than that.

So if both coaches and fans were looking at Z's huge plus-minus numbers in the first half of the 2010 season, the only question became how to interpret the numbers and when/if to expand his role. Keeping in mind that Z was a large man who had struggled with injuries throughout his career and had only played 7 mpg, 11 mpg, and 12 mpg his freshman through junior seasons, if the coaches were a bit hesitant until the stretch run of the season to give him 25 mpg, I think it's completely understandable.

There is perhaps an alternate universe somewhere in which Z played 30 mpg from the beginning of the 2010 season, stayed healthy, and Duke went 38-2 instead of 35-5. But there might also be an alternate universe somewhere in which the coaches weren't as careful with his minutes, he got injured again, and Duke's season doesn't end as happily as it did in our universe.

You're right, of course. I should have said "the coaches may have been slow on the uptake," and not a stronger term. But, hey, we appeared to have been right! Think how many times we have been wrong!

[-jk]

K has tracked all sorts of numbers since the beginning. Among others, he tracks effectiveness per minute played. Some guys are good for only 30 minutes, some 40, some fewer. That's a part of the overall substitution pattern he builds.

-jk

[TruBlu]

Of course, we must have a short bench. Otherwise, Wojo's feet wouldn't reach the court while sitting on the bench.

(Is it obvious that I haven't read the thread?)

[Troublemaker]

K has tracked all sorts of numbers since the beginning. Among others, he tracks effectiveness per minute played. Some guys are good for only 30 minutes, some 40, some fewer. That's a part of the overall substitution pattern he builds.

-jk

Yes, if anyone is concerned that Duke isn't utilizing advanced metrics (a sentiment I've noticed a couple times recently), here are a couple of articles (that were originally discussed in the offseason) that seemingly debunk that thought.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1828423-meet-synergy-sports-technology-the-company-revolutionizing-college-basketball

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304520704579127281774259324

Duke tries to be cutting edge in everything.

[Eakane]

You're deluding yourself if you think the coaches have the time or inclination to read the boards. There are no "nuggets" here they haven't already thought of a dozen times over.

And you're really deluding yourself if you think we are going to go 10 or even 9 deep. It is the same story every year -- we bring in a bevy of talented players, and some of them simply have to languish on the pine, as K shortens the rotation to 7.

That might frustrate us as fans (imagine how former McD AA's feel about riding the pine), but the guy has something like a .780 winning percentage. How many more wins do you suppose he'd have if he played 8 or 9? You can disagree with the philosophy but you can't disagree with the results, and you're deluding yourself if you think it's going to change any time soon.

EA "I'm delusional too -- I want to see Semi and MPIII and Matt and Andre all getting meaningful minutes" Kane

[Des Esseintes]

There is perhaps an alternate universe somewhere in which Z played 30 mpg from the beginning of the 2010 season, stayed healthy, and Duke went 38-2 instead of 35-5. But there might also be an alternate universe somewhere in which the coaches weren't as careful with his minutes, he got injured again, and Duke's season doesn't end as happily as it did in our universe.
I don't even think such an alternate universe exists. Remember that Z started playing a lot more from Maryland onward but that this increase "just happened" to coincide with a major decrease in his foul rate. Bryan became playable for longer stretches that season not because the staff woke up but because Brian suddenly learned how to stay on the court. I really don't see how the Board was out in front of the staff on this one.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Two good points I've also wondered about. I don't get the feeling that we use advanced analytics to model out the optimal approach to lineup/minutes, and I'd argue that what the coaches learn in practice may be of only limited value to a real game situation, when presented with different lineups to match up against.

In terms of "the coaches know best," they probably do. But as a consultant, I've worked with many companies, and the senior leadership often has blind spots, based on their experience and approach to running a business. I think we'd be foolish to assume our coaching staff doesn't have similar blind spots. The best we can hope is that there's a culture of "bring up anything, no sacred cows" and a willingness and ability to try something new, learn, and incorporate moving forward.
Yes, but I'll take whatever blind spots a coach has if it leads them to 934 wins. And counting.

K didn't get where he is without evolving his thinking and approach. That much should be clear to anyone who has paid attention in the least.

[Troublemaker]

I don't even think such an alternate universe exists. Remember that Z started playing a lot more from Maryland onward but that this increase "just happened" to coincide with a major decrease in his foul rate. Bryan became playable for longer stretches that season not because the staff woke up but because Brian suddenly learned how to stay on the court. I really don't see how the Board was out in front of the staff on this one.

Great memory, and great point.

Pre-MD, Z fouled at a rate of 8.8 fouls/40, or once every 4.6 minutes. Assuming a uniform rate of fouling, he could only play 22.8 minutes max before fouling out. During the Pre-MD period, he was given 15.2 mpg.

From MD onwards, Z fouled at a rate of 6.0 fouls/40, or once every 6.7 minutes. Assuming a uniform rate of fouling, he could play 33.5 minutes max before fouling out. Huge difference. From MD onwards, he was given 23.9 mpg.

[greybeard]

I always thought, and said so many times, that Z had an offensive game that Duke didn't play to. I don't think anybody predicted, even dreamed of the sui generis offensive role that Z created for himself. K used Z in the classic screen and roll, and perhaps had him rolling into a second screen. But, it was a combination of Z's vision for the game (something that I long had said he possessed) and his steel will to make a difference, to be a great player, that lead to the lethal screen-and-screen-and-screen-some-more, rebound-pass-it-out-perfectly-for-an-open-three game, all performed with the athleticism usually reserved for LT-like linebackers that kept Z on the court. All credit to the Z-man for this. I have to believe that K would agree without qualification.

[Des Esseintes]

I always thought, and said so many times, that Z had an offensive game that Duke didn't play to. I don't think anybody predicted, even dreamed of the sui generis offensive role that Z created for himself. K used Z in the classic screen and roll, and perhaps had him rolling into a second screen. But, it was a combination of Z's vision for the game (something that I long had said he possessed) and his steel will to make a difference, to be a great player, that lead to the lethal screen-and-screen-and-screen-some-more, rebound-pass-it-out-perfectly-for-an-open-three game, all performed with the athleticism usually reserved for LT-like linebackers that kept Z on the court. All credit to the Z-man for this. I have to believe that K would agree without qualification.
So true. If I received a nickel that season for every time I said, "God, Zoubek looks exactly like Lawrence Taylor out there. That is what Lawrence Taylor would look like on a basketball court. I want to take another two Dilaudid and Percocet and need something to wash it down. Where's the Dewar's?", well, I'd be a rich man.

[NSDukeFan]

The Board (certain members anyway) deserves credit for noticing Z's impact, but I wouldn't count it as a head-to-head victory over the coaches.

Certainly, the coaches must have access to plus-minus data, right? Once basketball coaches first started to have an assistant chart games possession by possession, the idea to collect plus-minus could not have been far behind. (In fact, the idea to chart games perhaps came about because of the desire to have plus-minus numbers available, in addition to stats like deflections and charges that the regular box score doesn't capture.) I would be fairly surprised if Coach K didn't track plus-minus by hand even back when he first started at Duke in the early 80s. These days, major programs just subscribe to companies like Synergy Sports or Stats LLC to get plus-minus for players/lineups and for data much more advanced than that.



...
There may be some posters who thought Z was ready to be a larger contributor, but my recollection is that there were at least as many who were complaining about any minutes he and Lance were getting instead of the newer and shinier Plumlees, or Ryan Kelly. I recall the "they are what they are" argument about the seniors and remember hoping for them more in part because of how often they were put down on this board.

I agree that the coaching staff is likely quite aware of analytics and I have found the more I learn about the numbers, the more I understand what they are doing. Since the team knew early on about KenPom, was one of the first teams with SportsVu, I doubt the coaching staff would learn much about analytics from this board. Fortunately, I learn lots.

You're right, of course. I should have said "the coaches may have been slow on the uptake," and not a stronger term. But, hey, we appeared to have been right! Think how many times we have been wrong!
I expect if a DBR poll had been taken before the Maryland game asking who should play more, the Plumlees or the seniors, LT and Z would have been on the losing end.

I always thought, and said so many times, that Z had an offensive game that Duke didn't play to. I don't think anybody predicted, even dreamed of the sui generis offensive role that Z created for himself. K used Z in the classic screen and roll, and perhaps had him rolling into a second screen. But, it was a combination of Z's vision for the game (something that I long had said he possessed) and his steel will to make a difference, to be a great player, that lead to the lethal screen-and-screen-and-screen-some-more, rebound-pass-it-out-perfectly-for-an-open-three game, all performed with the athleticism usually reserved for LT-like linebackers that kept Z on the court. All credit to the Z-man for this. I have to believe that K would agree without qualification.
I agree that Lance Thomas was very versatile and probably would have been good defending the run or the pass as a linebacker. I'm not sure exactly how well Brian saw a screening offence, but he was a load on screens, was more confident rolling and catching, developed a couple of nice post moves and was a monster on the glass. His biggest improvement the second half of his senior year was probably the way he moved his big feet and positioned himself defensively,especially on pick and rolls. I am always happy with any post giving credit to big Z. Along with Lance's versatility and the solid D of the big 3, that team's D was also fun to watch.

[greybeard]

There may be some posters who thought Z was ready to be a larger contributor, but my recollection is that there were at least as many who were complaining about any minutes he and Lance were getting instead of the newer and shinier Plumlees, or Ryan Kelly. I recall the "they are what they are" argument about the seniors and remember hoping for them more in part because of how often they were put down on this board.

I agree that the coaching staff is likely quite aware of analytics and I have found the more I learn about the numbers, the more I understand what they are doing. Since the team knew early on about KenPom, was one of the first teams with SportsVu, I doubt the coaching staff would learn much about analytics from this board. Fortunately, I learn lots.

I expect if a DBR poll had been taken before the Maryland game asking who should play more, the Plumlees or the seniors, LT and Z would have been on the losing end.

I agree that Lance Thomas was very versatile and probably would have been good defending the run or the pass as a linebacker. I'm not sure exactly how well Brian saw a screening offence, but he was a load on screens, was more confident rolling and catching, developed a couple of nice post moves and was a monster on the glass. His biggest improvement the second half of his senior year was probably the way he moved his big feet and positioned himself defensively,especially on pick and rolls. I am always happy with any post giving credit to big Z. Along with Lance's versatility and the solid D of the big 3, that team's D was also fun to watch.

The vast majority missed Z's abilities from the time he arrived. By the time his senior year came around, after his having missed the better part of two seasons with back to back foot injuries, he came back a monster. He no longer set up def3enders and then moved to the middle as he had his freshman year, when the ball never arrived in a timely fashion, that is, before z's defender recovered, closed space, and was draped on Z's back. Z became the key piece on offense after the Maryland game not as a scorer or rebounder or defender, but as a multiple screen setter on each possession. As I said at the time, most of the progressions of screens he set could not have been choreographed; they had to depend on reads that varied depending on moves other guys made off the reads that they had made when Z's previous screen had played out. This took an understanding of, and vision for, the game that everyone said that he lacked from the time he arrived at Duke. It just wasn't so. He showed a very sophisticated feel and vision for the game from his first game at Duke.

Neither Miles nor Mason had anywhere near the feel and vision for the game that Z had, nor that Lance had, by the way. Of all the bigs on that team, Ryan included up through the time of his graduation, imo Lance had the best looking offensive game. His moves to and around the basket were superior,; how he missed on some of the creative moves he displayed around the basket mystified me. But, back to Z, once that offensive screen game was birthed, he became superman on the boards and defensively. Whether Joe the fan wanted to recognize it or not, he was the Man on that court, he understood the game as well as anyone, and finally had found a way that put it into action, a way that made Duke's 3-ball game impossible to defend.

As for his ability around the basket, History shows how good Z actually was. You watch the tape of the Championship game and see who scored the first four points, or four of the first six or eight, and how. A looked like he could have scored at will, easily in the 20s. The only thing that stopped him was that was not the way K wanted to play. Duke's 3-ball game, especially effective when Z was on the court, took them that far and was going to take them home. It did, barely. It was fitting that Z got the last shot.

Plumlee sees and feels the game of basketball; the game, the possibilities of five guys getting what is best; part of that best is Plumlee getting it close, in the middle of the lane preferably, with a little edge, or a little space. Duke is playing that game this year. Zoubek should have been so lucky.

[ncexnyc]

Don't want to start a thread for this so will stick this here since we've gone from talking about a short bench to Brian Zoubek.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20131209/john-beilein-michigan-big-ten-mitch-mcgary-hoop-thoughts/

The Duke comments are at the bottom of this article and talk about Jabari and Rasheed.

[tbyers11]

Don't want to start a thread for this so will stick this here since we've gone from talking about a short bench to Brian Zoubek.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20131209/john-beilein-michigan-big-ten-mitch-mcgary-hoop-thoughts/

The Duke comments are at the bottom of this article and talk about Jabari and Rasheed.

Thanks for the article. However, it is pretty typical Seth Davis stuff and that any fan paying much attention can see that Jabari isn't a great defender and Rasheed has regressed from last year.

I was more interested in the factoid in the Michigan section that Stauskas practiced full-bore the day before the Duke game and that it was our defense and not a gimpy ankle that rendering him practically nonexistent.

[Des Esseintes]

As for his ability around the basket, History shows how good Z actually was. You watch the tape of the Championship game and see who scored the first four points, or four of the first six or eight, and how. A looked like he could have scored at will, easily in the 20s. The only thing that stopped him was that was not the way K wanted to play. Duke's 3-ball game, especially effective when Z was on the court, took them that far and was going to take them home. It did, barely. It was fitting that Z got the last shot.

From two months ago, the last time you made this insane, wrong claim:



Interesting that you would bring up the championship game. I think perhaps you should watch a replay of that game, because your take on the game is just not accurate at all.

Zoubek got his first shot with about 18:30 in the half. It was not a pass "on the move." On the contrary, it was a classic post entry on the left block. Zoubek turned into the lane and shot (and missed) a jump hook. Zoubek's first basket came on a tip in of a Lance Thomas missed jumper. He then didn't score again until the 12:42 mark, when he was fouled after an offensive rebound (he made 1 of 2). Zoubek scored again on an unassisted layup with 7:00 to go in the half. That play was again a classic post entry on the left block, and Zoubek just backed his man down to get a layup. His final bucket (not counting the free throw at the end) was midway through the second half. It was a blown inbounds play in which Zoubek set a low-block screen for Singler and both defenders chased Singler. This left Zoubek wide open under the basket, and Scheyer handed him the inbounds for an easy layup.

Not one of Zoubek's FG attempts could be classified as getting him the ball on the move. They were all virtually stationary - either on a post-up, a tip-in, or a blown defensive assignment. And it certainly wasn't a case where we had success getting him the ball early and then went away from it. Coach K didn't choose to stop going to Zoubek, mainly because he rarely went to Zoubek in the first place. And frankly, that was for the best. That team operated almost exclusively on the offensive prowess of the big 3. Zoubek and Thomas (and the Plumlees and occasionally Dawkins) contributed as needed, but most of their contributions were rebounding, screen setting, and/or interior defense. Zoubek, in particular, provided most of his value as an otherwordly rebounding machine. But he was at no point a focal point of the offense, and we most certainly didn't ever try to get him the ball on the move. Frankly, I think that would have been a disaster. He played hard, but he just wasn't the most coordinated player. He really needed to be settled when he got the ball, otherwise he'd likely commit a turnover.
Thanks again to CDu for doing yeoman's work on the tape.

I'll note that you did not respond to his post then, and seem to have conveniently forgotten how wrong you were in the interim. It's hard to believe your claims of special insight into the game, insight invisible to the entire rest of the board, when your recall is so mistaken on basic stuff such as this.

[ncexnyc]

Thanks for the article. However, it is pretty typical Seth Davis stuff and that any fan paying much attention can see that Jabari isn't a great defender and Rasheed has regressed from last year.

I was more interested in the factoid in the Michigan section that Stauskas practiced full-bore the day before the Duke game and that it was our defense and not a gimpy ankle that rendering him practically nonexistent.

True, that was an important tidbit dropped in that article. It certainly puts to bed a lot of the talk on this board that Stauskas wasn't firing on all cylinders due to his injury.

I was also shocked to see Alex Poythress lumped in with Rasheed. After Uk lost to Baylor the other night I took a glance at the boxscore and was quite surprised to see AP riding the pine. I really thought that kid would be very good, but after a decent freshman year he appears to have lost his spot to James Young and in a big way.

[tommy]

Whether Joe the fan wanted to recognize it or not, he was the Man on that court, he understood the game as well as anyone, and finally had found a way that put it into action, a way that made Duke's 3-ball game impossible to defend.

As for his ability around the basket, History shows how good Z actually was. You watch the tape of the Championship game and see who scored the first four points, or four of the first six or eight, and how. A looked like he could have scored at will, easily in the 20s. The only thing that stopped him was that was not the way K wanted to play. Duke's 3-ball game, especially effective when Z was on the court, took them that far and was going to take them home. It did, barely. It was fitting that Z got the last shot.

What Des said a few posts ago, but in addition, the bolded portion above is simply not true either. Duke was a very good 3-point shooting team that year, but no more so with Zoubek on the court than without. For instance, in the last 3 tournament games, against Baylor, West Virginia, and Butler, when Zoubek was on the court, Duke shot 21 of 46 from 3-point range. That's 45.6%. When he wasn't on the court, Duke shot 9 of 20. That's 45%. Same rate of success.

[MChambers]

True, that was an important tidbit dropped in that article. It certainly puts to bed a lot of the talk on this board that Stauskas wasn't firing on all cylinders due to his injury.

Stauskas also had a big game the game after Duke. Against Houston Baptist, but still it shows he's fully recovered.

Back on topic, I expect Rasheed to be playing big minutes by mid-January, so I think we'll go at least 9 deep. Of course, I am almost always optimistic concerning our players and our depth.

[greybeard]

From two months ago, the last time you made this insane, wrong claim:

Thanks again to CDu for doing yeoman's work on the tape.

I'll note that you did not respond to his post then, and seem to have conveniently forgotten how wrong you were in the interim. It's hard to believe your claims of special insight into the game, insight invisible to the entire rest of the board, when your recall is so mistaken on basic stuff such as this.

No one needs to believe anything about my insights. They are what they are.

I also have to say that stating that Z got the ball in the left block and not on the move, well, I need a little better picture than that to say that a play that brought him across the lane had not been run for Z, and that he did not catch with advantage, that is, that he did not catch without a guy draped on his back. If he shot the ball, went into an offensive move with the ball in such a circumstance, I believe that that proves my case, in any event. What is it that I am missing.

Did Z suddenly take it upon himself to go for the basket after having been thrown the ball down low when that was so not what he had been doing before, or is it fair to assume that K ran something for him. And, I am not buying that he had not been brought to the spot on the move because his history had been that catching with a guy on his back and trying to score devoid of rhythm was not within his game.

K went to him early and Z scored the ball, right. Did K go to him another time early and something good come of it, CDu doesn't say.

If someone checks the first few minutes of that game and the semis, it would be interesting to hear about Z's play (it might have been the latter that I'm thinking of). In fact, checking the final 16 game on in would be. That is, if we want a picture of what's what.

Now, if you think that the screen game Z played could have been played without a keen understanding of and vision and feel for the game, just say so. And, if you think that a person can have that and is 7 feet, strong, fast, controlled, and with good footwork and hands (the saw that Z could not catch or shoot the ball was debunked by his foul shooting, rebounding and passing) was incapable of beating a man if his team played to get him the ball, just say so. You might also say why you think that either proposition holds weight. I think they don't, and that does not depend the least bit on insight.

[CDu]

I also have to say that stating that Z got the ball in the left block and not on the move, well, I need a little better picture than that to say that a play that brought him across the lane had not been run for Z, and that he did not catch with advantage, that is, that he did not catch without a guy draped on his back. If he shot the ball, went into an offensive move with the ball in such a circumstance, I believe that that proves my case, in any event. What is it that I am missing.

It was a standard post-up. Not "on the move." If that doesn't make sense, then you don't have a clear understanding of offense. Instead, I suggest you actually go watch the game that you're making up statements about, since you clearly don't have any point of reference to be making those statements.


Did Z suddenly take it upon himself to go for the basket after having been thrown the ball down low when that was so not what he had been doing before, or is it fair to assume that K ran something for him. And, I am not buying that he had not been brought to the spot on the move because his history had been that catching with a guy on his back and trying to score devoid of rhythm was not within his game.

No, his history was that if he got the ball on the move, he traveled. So Coach K took that out of the gameplan, and got him the ball in a stationary position. The opposite of what you're suggesting.


K went to him early and Z scored the ball, right.

Incorrect. We passed him the ball on the post one time early. He missed. Zoubek didn't actually score a field goal on a play designed for him until under 7 minutes to go in the first half. His points prior to that came off of offensive rebounds/tip-backs of other people's misses.


Did K go to him another time early and something good come of it, CDu doesn't say.

I recited all of the plays in which Zoubek was involved in a scoring play. I didn't mention another instance of going to Zoubek early with success because it didn't happen.


If someone checks the first few minutes of that game and the semis, it would be interesting to hear about Z's play (it might have been the latter that I'm thinking of). In fact, checking the final 16 game on in would be. That is, if we want a picture of what's what.

As I said in the post that was quoted earlier, I think YOU should go back and watch the first few minutes of the championship game. I already did so, and reported what happened. As it happens, I do have the DVD with me, and will humor you.

In the Final Four game, Zoubek did score 4 of his 6 points in the first 4 minutes. But they were not in ways that support your argument. The first score for Zoubek came as a result of Smith beating his man off the dribble and getting to the rim. Zoubek's man then came over to help, leaving Zoubek wide open standing under the basket. Smith gave the handoff and Zoubek scored. The second was a slip screen in which both defenders chased the ball, leaving Zoubek entirely unattended. Zoubek fullfilled his role in the slip screen by taking two steps toward the basket, uncontested. Smith threw him the ball directly under the rim. Zoubek caught it and scored.

As for the Purdue (Sweet 16) and Baylor (Elite 8) games, they don't support your argument. Zoubek's only points in the Purdue game came off an offensive rebound (foul shots) and an assist by Lance Thomas. In the Baylor game, Zoubek only scored off offensive rebounds.


Now, if you think that the screen game Z played could have been played without a keen understanding of and vision and feel for the game, just say so. And, if you think that a person can have that and is 7 feet, strong, fast, controlled, and with good footwork and hands (the saw that Z could not catch or shoot the ball was debunked by his foul shooting, rebounding and passing) was incapable of beating a man if his team played to get him the ball, just say so. You might also say why you think that either proposition holds weight. I think they don't, and that does not depend the least bit on insight.

We've already had this discussion numerous times. It does not need to be repeated, other than that you keep saying the same things that aren't correct over and over again. Nothing about Zoubek's screen game was incredibly innovative or nuanced. It is the same screen game that has been used for decades. He was a good screener, yes. It was not revolutionary.

And as for his offensive skills with the ball in his hands, Zoubek was very limited. He was limited when he came to Duke, and he was limited when he left. What he did do well during his senior year was to settle down and avoid the turnovers and fouls. That allowed him to stay on the floor and get lots of offensive rebounds, which resulted in lots of putback points. He also got a bit better at establishing post position (he was terrible at it early, in part due to injuries and in part not being ready for the strength and physicality of the college game. He just lacked the strength early in his career and the quickness/fluidity throughout to be a consistent post scorer.

We've now gone through Duke's final four games of that season, and we've found exactly ONE instance of Duke running a play for Zoubek that was successful. And that wasn't exactly a challenging play for Zoubek, as there was literally no defense on Zoubek on that play. So nothing in the last four games of the season supports your argument that Duke made an effort to work the ball to Zoubek, let alone support the argument that Zoubek was successful in those instances.

Now, if your argument is that Duke should have gotten the ball to Zoubek uncontested near the rim, then I completely agree. That's a pretty effective strategy. Unfortunately, that only happens when the defense breaks down - either because we beat them off the dribble and draw help or because someone misses an assignment (like the slip-screen play). But anything other than that just isn't supported by the data.

A cursory look at the box scores for other games beginning with the Maryland game (his breakthrough game) suggests that we can count on one hand the number of times Duke ran a play for Zoubek that resulted in a make. He simply got almost all of his buckets off of offensive rebounds or being the recipient of "gimme" buckets.

[-jk]

I will say (and this doesn't support either argument), that Zoubs was a fabulous communicator. And, damn!, we could use that skill this year. He spent his time in and out of the lane with a non-stop verbal spew - with gestures, too! He was a maestro!

Go back to the Baylor game, and watch how he directed the offense, over and over. He may not have been much more - physically - than a rebounder/screener, but he gave so much more. He understood the game. Even if he was much more a cream puff guy. (And I say that in the nicest, um "sweetest", way! ;) )

-jk

[tommy]

No one needs to believe anything about my insights. They are what they are.

I also have to say that stating that Z got the ball in the left block and not on the move, well, I need a little better picture than that to say that a play that brought him across the lane had not been run for Z, and that he did not catch with advantage, that is, that he did not catch without a guy draped on his back. If he shot the ball, went into an offensive move with the ball in such a circumstance, I believe that that proves my case, in any event. What is it that I am missing.

Did Z suddenly take it upon himself to go for the basket after having been thrown the ball down low when that was so not what he had been doing before, or is it fair to assume that K ran something for him. And, I am not buying that he had not been brought to the spot on the move because his history had been that catching with a guy on his back and trying to score devoid of rhythm was not within his game.

K went to him early and Z scored the ball, right. Did K go to him another time early and something good come of it, CDu doesn't say.

If someone checks the first few minutes of that game and the semis, it would be interesting to hear about Z's play (it might have been the latter that I'm thinking of).


I already did that, about 10 days ago, in the Arizona post-game thread. Here's what I said, in response to your post n that thread:


I didn't do the math again. What I did do again today was watch some of the games again from 2010. In particular, I watched the entire championship game against Butler and a portion of the semifinal game against West Virginia. That gave me a pretty good feel for what we were doing on offense and in particular I was watching Zoubek on every single possession. As I suspected, whether you want to call it your memory or your analysis, or something else, you are simply incorrect as to what was going on on the offensive end of the floor with that team. You're entitled to your own opinions, of course, but not your own facts.

It is a fact that on most half court sets that Duke ran, Zoubek's first job was to set a screen, usually but not always a screen away from the ball. But sometimes a ball screen. It is also a fact that on the great majority of instances, the next thing Zoubek did was either go to the rim, either rolling looking for a pass or going to the rim to offensive rebound, as a shot looked to be going up. In the alternative, Zoubek did quite a lot of posting up after setting that initial screen. He would simply pivot, using pretty good footwork, stick his butt into his man, put his hand in the air, and ask for the ball. Sometimes he got it, sometimes he didn't. These are facts. I just got finished watching exactly that type of action, time and time again from Z.

Now, sometimes after the initial screen was set, he would take a step or two in one direction or another and set another off-the-ball screen for a teammate. Sometimes he would simply pivot and set a second screen in exactly the same spot as the first one, this time for a different teammate. Sometimes, even if after the first screen was set and he either rolled or turned and posted, but nothing came of it and it got to be deeper in the possession, he would then take a few steps, maybe to the other side of the lane, and attempt to set another screen. Which itself would usually be followed by either another rim run or another post-up attempt. These are facts.

At no time, and in no way, shape, or form, did either Butler's or West Virginia's big man defenders appear to be confused, flummoxed, "lost," running around like chickens with their heads cut off, or anything of the kind. They were not doing anything "unfamiliar." They simply played standard post defense. Zoubek was slow. He wasn't hard to keep up with. He only took a few steps in one direction or another, or none after setting a screen. This was not constant running, constant motion, or anything of the kind.

And there were plenty of possessions, half court possessions, where Zoubek set no screens at all. Duke just ran other stuff. And sometimes, lo and behold, they actually managed to put the ball in the basket without a Brian Zoubek screen having been set!!! All facts.

No one could stop Duke from "controlling the outcome" and nobody could stop Duke from winning that year? Duke clearly had the best team that year, and it wasn't close, and Zoubek was a very important part of it. But if Gordon Hayward's half-court shot was an inch or so shorter, somebody would have stopped Duke from "controlling the outcome" now wouldn't they have?

I've been playing and watching basketball for 40 years. While Zoubek was a real force for the 2010 team, there was simply nothing unusual about the way he was screening, the frequency of his screening, the angles he took to screen, or anything else. He wasn't doing anything "the game has not seen." Sometimes a guy would curl off his screen and get a good shot. Sometimes it wouldn't result in that. Sometimes the screen would open up opportunities for other guys a pass or two away. Sometimes not. Sometimes Zoubek would roll to the rim or post up after his screen and get the ball for a decent shot. Sometimes he wouldn't. You know, kind of like the screening done by just about all competent big men in offenses of any sophistication.

If you doubt the accuracy of what I'm saying, I challenge you to watch these games yourself and point out exactly, perhaps with a clock time, where Zoubek did something revolutionary on the offensive end of the floor, or anywhere on the floor for that matter. I'm guessing you won't do it. I loved Zoubek, and I fully recognize how important he was to that team and the championship they won. But sorry, my friend, the facts -- the tape -- simply does not back up your recollection or your analysis of what he was doing out there.


Predictably, you ignored my post because a close review of the videotape of the Butler and West Virginia games reveals, again, that your memory of how that 2010 Duke team played, and in particular how Zoubek was utilized, is flawed. I also challenged you to review the game tape yourself and point out where exactly Zoubek is doing any of these magical things you claim he did, or to disprove what I or CDu or Des Essienties or any of the others on this board have tried, repeatedly, to point out to you are the facts here. You have ignored that challenge as well, which of course is your right, but it speaks volumes about the validity of your positions.

[gep]

I will say (and this doesn't support either argument), that Zoubs was a fabulous communicator. And, damn!, we could use that skill this year. He spent his time in and out of the lane with a non-stop verbal spew - with gestures, too! He was a maestro!

Go back to the Baylor game, and watch how he directed the offense, over and over. He may not have been much more - physically - than a rebounder/screener, but he gave so much more. He understood the game. Even if he was much more a cream puff guy. (And I say that in the nicest, um "sweetest", way! ;) )

-jk

Geee... I wonder if Zoubs could be a "real" big-man coach... :confused:

[throatybeard]

Geee... I wonder if Zoubs could be a "real" big-man coach... :confused:

I think he needs another four inches.

The good news is I think he can play QB in the ACC.

[Wander]

The good news is I think he can play QB in the ACC.

Finally beating Virginia Tech was a big moment, but man this joke will never get old for me.

[greybeard]

I do not have the tape and we all look and see what we want. There are people who say that Mason and Miles should have been playing when Lance and Zoubek were. Do you agree? If you think that Zoubek played the pick and roll like other big guys, and I am asking straight up because I don't have these games DVDed, was there the rotation among the interior defenders that always occurs in the mnormal pick and roll game? I seem to recall that there wasn't. I am not clear what you are describing with regard to the multiple screens Z set sometimes. It sounds as if the multiple, if multiple means 2, screens set on a defender of a guy with the ball and dribbling, that there would be nothing unusual about that. If those were on an off-the-ball potential shooter, a different story.

Since you guys have watched the film, and you've reported that Zoubek played no meaningful roll in the offense, how did Duke get all those threes? Was it off penetration and kicks? I'm interested. Seriously.

Did Zoubek score more than one or two baskets in any game off put backs? Was it usually the case that he got slip passes off penetration, one or two a game? How many post up moves did he make? Was he a particularly effective off-the-ball shot blocker?

What in your opinion kept him on the floor, and what was his contribution to Duke's championship run? Was there anything unusual about how Zoubek was deployed that distinguishes him from Mason or Miles in a good way, was there anything about his play that was a distinctive asset. And, I am not talking about their play when Zoubek was there and playing. I'm talking about each of the brothers tenure at Duke. I remember each having years when they were screen setters primarily, high pick and roll guys. The roll was not designed to get them the ball but rather to get them down low. I think that I once a video of K showing how the high screen with the guy on top off to the sideline was designed to get an open three lock for one of three guys, not to get the ball inside. Perhaps, that is all that Z did, while Miles had a jump shot and a small ability to get to the board off the dribble and Mason throughout could score running the court, had that twirl high post move and his junior year developed that left to the middle game.

What I'm asking is this, genuinely, because I am told that I remember having seen that which did not happen and I obviously cannot say that that is not so. (by the way, scientific fact, each time you conjure a memory, the facts change; so remember once, something changes, twice you begin from the changed recollection and so on; so beware how many times you recall something if you want to be able to recall it later for a reason that is important).

We all remember, more or less, me, for sure less, the Maryland game. Why did he continue to get considerable scoring time and recognition after that game when that scoring exhibition did not repeat? What I think I remember is that Zoubek's screen game morphed into something both unusual and extremely effective and that that was what put so much pressure on stopping easy three looks and opening the lane for penetration finishes. I do not recall Zoubek's defender being in a position to challenge, or challenging, too many, if any, drives by Singler and Smith, in particular, nor do I remember Zoubek getting many slip passes for open layups.

I do remember Lance driving the lane from the right side to the middle or all the way to the left side and getting to the rim, finishing creatively, missing without getting fouled and with getting off a shot that I thought was a snow bird. I do remember Zoubek crashing late in th3e clock off screens that lead to a shot, or simply found him far from the basket off the ball and beating his man to the ball, catching and throwing the ball out. I do remember that that was part of what I thought at the time was a highly unusual and effective screen-screen game played as if a guard on Notre Dame left, or Notre Dame right. I remember saying so repeatedly here.

Now, those memories might well be wrong. I have been told that Zoubek played a screen game that was not the least bit unusual, at least for sure in the last four games in the tournament. I am challenged to consult the tape. I thought I had been told that Z got his first touch at 18:50 in the first half of the Championship game and scored the ball, and then I am told that that is not so. Maybe I remember the first telling wrong. It just happened the other day but I am an old guy.

So, why was Z on the Court? How in heaven's name was the 2010-11 team not yards better than the 2009-10 team with all the additions and with a far better Ryan Kelly, who got much more playing time than the year before. Why was Zoubek so celebrated.

The reasons that Butler was so close. First, Singler was hurt and couldn't shoot the ball, and I am sure that that wrist impacted other aspects of his game. Second, Butler's big guy did not have to play defense and, since Singler was no danger from three, the three ball game, which I remember being at its best when Z was on the court, was not nearly as effective in getting good looks. I thought at the time that Duke could have hurt Butler by going inside and that they had established that ability early on. Whether they had or not depends on my recollection and whether Brian got it and scored at 18:50 or not. If he did, there was a play that was run for him and the big for Butler was in relative terms nowhere to be found. If he didn't, and he posed no threat to Butler that made them commit resources to guarding the middle, I am surprised in retrospect that Butler did not have the lead although now I remember that Singler was on that guard and devoted all of Singler to stopping him which was way more than the guy could handle.

I think that Marshall will be playing significant minutes and will make a significant contribution on offense, 6 to 10 points. Will he average that, how far do you want my intuition to take us. You have to admit that this makes good reading.

Really, why did Zoubek get all the attention and playing time he did. I'd really like to know. I don't6 remember too good, or remembered too often. Sadly, it's probably the first.

[Des Esseintes]

If I thought they were clever enough, I would give serious thought to the possibility that greybeard is an elaborate gaslighting operation on the part of Kentucky fans. Still cannot quite process a straight-faced comparison of Brian Zoubek and Lawrence Taylor, who, last time I checked, were the two least-alike people in American history.

[CDu]

Greybeard, there are so many things wrong in your previous post (in part because it is such a long post) that it is just not worth continuing to discuss it. If you are going to continue to misstate what I and others have said, then this will continue to be a fruitless discussion.

Here is a helpful hint: reread the posts on this page. Maybe then you'll see some of the factual errors in your post. The rest I am sure you can figure out on your own, since they are you alterring others' arguments to make your stance sound better.

Another helpful hint: there is a difference between "innovative", "revolutionary", and "effective."

[greybeard]

Tommy:

I didn't do the math again. What I did do again today was watch some of the games again from 2010. In particular, I watched the entire championship game against Butler and a portion of the semifinal game against West Virginia. That gave me a pretty good feel for what we were doing on offense and in particular I was watching Zoubek on every single possession. As I suspected, whether you want to call it your memory or your analysis, or something else, you are simply incorrect as to what was going on on the offensive end of the floor with that team. You're entitled to your own opinions, of course, but not your own facts.

It is a fact that on most half court sets that Duke ran, Zoubek's first job was to set a screen, usually but not always a screen away from the ball. But sometimes a ball screen. It is also a fact that on the great majority of instances, the next thing Zoubek did was either go to the rim, either rolling looking for a pass or going to the rim to offensive rebound, as a shot looked to be going up. In the alternative, Zoubek did quite a lot of posting up after setting that initial screen. He would simply pivot, using pretty good footwork, stick his butt into his man, put his hand in the air, and ask for the ball. Sometimes he got it, sometimes he didn't. These are facts. I just got finished watching exactly that type of action, time and time again from Z.

Now, sometimes after the initial screen was set, he would take a step or two in one direction or another and set another off-the-ball screen for a teammate. Sometimes he would simply pivot and set a second screen in exactly the same spot as the first one, this time for a different teammate. Sometimes, even if after the first screen was set and he either rolled or turned and posted, but nothing came of it and it got to be deeper in the possession, he would then take a few steps, maybe to the other side of the lane, and attempt to set another screen. Which itself would usually be followed by either another rim run or another post-up attempt. These are facts.


I am not certain on this, but pretty certain: Duke's bigs did not usually initiate on offense by setting off-ball screens; they set screen and rolls. If Z set an off ball screen to start the offense, that, I believe, was different, new.

Now, you that "sometimes" Z set a second off-ball screen after settt6ing the first by taking a step or two in one direction or the other" or in the "exact same spot." I am having a difficult time seeing this but we are talking multiple screens here. The reason that I am having a difficult time seeing this is because of spacing. Duke played with three shooters if Lance and Zoubek were on the floor at the same time, or maybe four, if Singler was on the floor instead of Lance and there was a fourth shooter, who would have been or gotten to the corner. The three-man set up would have been a guy on top (at the start Jon), a guy on the left wing (at the start Nelson) and a guy on the right wing, (at the start, Kyle), all three would slide but Not to close space between one another but rather distance it, at least at first. And, certainly not to close it when an off ball screen had been set, because that would defeat the purpose of the screen in the first place. So, am I saying your "facts" are wrong? NO. We see what we look for, including me, and we assess distances differently, and sometimes one or two is one or two small steps to get going and one or two large ones, which if you are Zoubek are pretty large," and sometimes it is not. And, sometimes, a guy taking one or two large steps has caught the eye, because the others have learned to look for it, of the player who is by now, closing space and setting up his man to move closer to the basket so the screen will work best.

Now, maybe there were sets, and they might well have been a set play, in which two guys were clustered off on one side of the key for the top and the ball/passer was two spaces away, and first one guy came off and then a second, but, if that happened, the first guy almost certainly would have dived the basket (this I do not recall having seen, maybe that play was in there, but I think I'd recall such a thing and I don't).

Multiple off ball screens. Did they happen twice in an offensive set if nothing good came early or if K wanted to go late no matter what? I'm just asking. And, did Z's dives for a rebound come off shots taken late in the clock because there was almost no chance that a shot wasn't going up, or did he dive to the rim with not a clue what was going to happen and just get lucky?

Posting up: You say that Z stuck his butt into the defender. Are you saying that Z got into a semi crouch, aka Mason the last two years and asked for the ball to make a move if possible, or that Z stood relatively straight, in an athletic stance and maybe stuck his butt back a little bit but still remained quite mobile? And, wasn't it clear that when Z got the ball then, and that was not often, it was for the purpose of swinging it, that it did not go back out to the passer to see if he could reposition to get a better look. There was no look, was there?

And, wasn't Z's trademark to get an offensive rebound, even one in which he had a clear edge to the basket, to turn and find a step in 3 shooter, not to take it back up. And, if that it is so, and you don't have to answer this, didn't it confuse and frustrate the hell out of the inside defenders because they had to commit to trying to get where they could somehow bother the shot which never came or foul Zoubek who had turned the other way and was not there, nor was the ball (what happened to the chicken's head).

I do agree that Z's ability to play inside went downhill his middle years, but, as we were later to learn, at least it was later for me, he had the same broken metatarsal to deal with, I also believe that his confidence had been broken, not so much in himself, but in his ability to function as if the others believed in him, not that they wanted him to fail, but deep down they did not want him to try because they feared for him that he would. (Grey, intuition again here; damn right, but I played more ball for more years to call this intuition what you think intuition is; this is the intuition that comes from having thrown the ball to guys who no one would have thrown an easy pass to that would ask of them to make an athletic play and finish and they would, not once, but a thousand times and that, my friends, ain't no exaggeration.)

Now, CDu, we have always disagreed with the game Z arrived with and that is that. I have never said that Z showed that he could score the ball after having set his man up to lean to the baseline and then stepped with perfect timing into the middle when the guy who had just gotten the ball had a perfect angle to deliver it to him because they never did. And, you never said that he did not do all those things, just that you never saw an offensive game from Z the year he arrived. Again, I say we see what we look for.

I have a few more things to say and I'll give the floor. You will find I have to believe somewhere in the ACC or NCAA playoffs two successive scoring plays having been called for Z and his having made them. Maybe not. Maybe it was just the play in the Butler game, that brought me to the edge of my seat, and maybe Stevens and his guys too. Going inside to the monster, who could take it all out of the one guy who was for me the cog around which Butler moved. As a college player, he was beautiful to watch in the pivot, beautiful. And, that pass to Zoubek said to me, really, is K sending Z to smash mouth this guy, to take him on in the middle where all that he had to his game didn't matter one whit and could be taken away? Was Z on balance and did he get something off that was exactly what you would want, was it easy. You'll have to ask Tommy, and I mean no disrespect. My recollection was off on how those first few minutes played out, so it would be nonsensical to say anymore about it.

Finally, maybe Z got to be on the court because in some way nobody can describe he grabbed K as more deserving, better than, two guys who were to become first round draft picks and we much more highly prized recruits than Z. Mason certainly had his difficulty with hand checks and other "eagerness" fouls but maybe that was because he knew his minutes were going to be way too short for his taste unless he did something special to stay on the court and pressed too much. And, maybe Miles displayed a lack of judgment or lack of timing/coordination (resulting in bad hands) that made him less attractive than Z. Or maybe it was just that Z and Lance played so smashingly together, so seamlessly together.

Maybe Z arrived at Duke without game and never found it, maybe he just grew his body into near monster dimension and got his minutes by being an outlandishly-sized grunt. For those of you who could live with some facsimile of that, you see what you look for, as do I.