Phase II 2013-14 (through 12/31)

[Newton_14]

Duke has wrapped up Phase I with a record of 7-2, with both losses to teams ranked in the Top 5 (Kansas/Arizona). There was some great, good, bad, and ugly during those 9 games. We learned a few things, like: Jabari is for real, Hood is for real, we have a high octane offense when things are clicking, our defense is a mess and work in process, we struggle against teams with a lot of size, we struggle to keep the ball in front of us on the perimeter, the rotation and roles are still being defined, the guys are still learning each other as well as themselves, and finally, the refs are flip flopping at times with the new rules, with the charge call becoming an egnigma. We also unfortunately said good-bye to Alex Murphy, a great teammate, a great person, and a skilled guy who just could not seem to put it together in his 2.5 years at Duke. We wish him nothing but the best in his future, and wish it could have worked out for him at his dream school, Duke.

So it is on to Phase II, a short, but important set of 4 games, (Gardner-Webb, UCLA, Eastern Michigan, Elon) where K will get to continue tinkering, (at least should be able to in 3 or the 4 games), guys will have one final chance to show they are ready and can be trusted in conference games and big games. Also gives the guys four more games to "find themselves" so to speak, establish an identity, and grow as a team. In my mind, we are a team with great potential, plenty of room to grow, and a team that can be much better 2 months from now than they are right now.

Here are the key things I will look for during this Phase:
1. Health-

We have been fairly fortunate thus far. We did have a setback with Andre due to a back injury that he looks to still be trying to fully recover on. Outside of that though, besides Rasheed having flu like symptoms for about a week, we have made it this far without suffering a major injury, knock on wood. MP3 appears to be on the comeback trail from the foot surgery, and everyone else appears to be as healthy as one could hope for.


2. Deeefeennssee


Or lack thereof. Whew, we were 176 in Pomeroy at one point, and I am not the dork stat member of the board, and do not follow Pomeroy, but it was hard to miss that gem of a number. The good news is we are trending up the last three games, but for the purpose of this category, the question is, how much better can this team get on defense? The answer will go a long way in determining our fate in the new ACC regular season, and the tourney's. Here are the 3 biggest problems with our defense right now as I saw it in the 9 games:
Communication- It just has not been there in the early going. I was able to attend 4 of the 9 games, and also the two exhibition games. Have to tell you it was painful watching Drury, ECU, and Vermont carve us up like sliced Turkey on Thanksgiving. The guys have to stop playing 1 on 1 defense as individuals, and get to playing K's 5 Man Team Defense Man To Man, where 5 guys are acting as 1. We are not good enough to survive otherwise.
Perimeter Defense- Pick on Dawkins all you want, but truth is all of the perimeter guys got blown by with regularity in one or more of these games. I do think the new rules are impacting this but not in the manner the haters are suggesting (HA HA Duke can't grab and hold like they always do with these new rules). Not about that. The kids have first of all just not moved their feet well, but 2nd of all, and to my point on the rules, they have been hesitant to cut off penetrators not knowing what would be called a foul or not. I look for that to settle down soon actually, but they have to move their feet better, get down in that stance, and cut the penetrator off.
Protecting the Paint-Here's the thing. We are not getting killed on straight up post play against big men. Kansas game aside. It is much more about poor switching, poor help defense by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, at times just being totally lost on where one is supposed to be, and unfortunately, since rebounding is part of protecting the rim and paint, poor boxing out. Josh Hairston is the only kid I have seen box someone out all year. With all that, slashers on penetration, and good offensive rebounders following shots have feasted. The new rules are a factor here too, as the weapon of taking the charge to protect the paint has been elminated totally in the early games, but maybe just maybe seems to be allowed again recently.


Honorable mentions were poor hedging, poor ability to press/generate turnovers, and poor success on defending the dreaded high ball screen. If we can get improvement on the 3 key items I listed, we might actually become a decent defensive team. Admittedly a long way to go, but like I said, lately has been better.

3. Can Rasheed come out of his funk?


Really love this kid. Hope he can figure it out soon, and we really really need him playing at a high level to be all that we can be. I am not in the camp that the presence of Jabari and Hood is the reason he is struggling. He is searching for his role on this team sure, and the make up is different than last year, so I get that. However, this is mostly mental. It has to start on defense, not offense anyway. Tyler is starting at the 2 because of his defense. Rasheed needs to get back to being a great on the ball and team defender, and let that fuel him on offense. On offense, he needs to use his mid-range game more, seek and initiate the contact when he does drive all the way to the rack, and keep a positive outlook, embracing Next Play mentality such that he eliminates the sulking and stops getting down on himself. These next 4 games are an opportunity for Rasheed to step it up and win back his starting spot. It is absolutely key to Duke's success in the long run. Which way will this go?


4. Can Amile stay on the floor?

In the Davidson and Kansas games, Amile looked really good, and looked to be the most improved player among the returnee's from last year. Looked good in the exhibition games too for that matter. Taking guys off the dribble for scores, getting opportune garbage buckets, rebounding well, moving to the right spot down low to receive dump down passes from Rodney, and Jabari, and just doing a lot of things well. Two things started keeping him on the pine over the next 7 games and his numbers and minutes dropped significantly. Foul trouble. Game after game, Amile picked up 2 early fouls, seemingly before the first TV timeout every game. To the bench he went. Shortly after that his defense and rebounding went south on him. 411 to everyone: Forgetting how to play defense is a really fast path to the end of K's bench. Amile was getting lost in the motion and switching, time and time again, still fouling, and just struggling mightily. I thought he looked better in the Michigan game, and I am hoping Amile bounces back in a big way over these next 4 games. Like Rasheed, the next 4 games present an opportunity for Amile to get it together and reclaim his starting spot, and like Rasheed it is absolutely key to Duke's success in the long run for this to happen. Same question: Which way will this go?


5. Can Marshall improve enough to earn solid minutes?

Note: "Solid Minutes" does not mean 25 mpg. If we can get, say 12 to 17 mpg of solid play from MP3, good defense, shotblocking threat, good rebounder, a garbage basket here an there, it will greatly help this team and take pressure off of Jabari and Amile. Like with Amile, I thought MP3 looked pretty darn good in limited minutes in the Michigan game. One nice block, and then rewarded on the other end after running the floor, catching in transition, and going hard to the hoop drawing the foul. Most of us stated losing the summer would set him back and it has, but he is possibly coming around to the point where he can help if only in limited minutes. Don't need him to be a star, and don't need him to play 25 minutes. Let's see where MP3 is in a month.


6. Rotation/Minutes allocation/Identity

With Murph departing, it leaves us with 11 scholarship players. To be honest, throughout the 9 games, all 11 had moments of really solid play, which is good, but K will certainly trim that number down to say 8 once conference play begins. Who's in? Who's out? One other question I will throw at you: Will we see K channel some of the NBA approach in him, and play certain reserves in some games, and other reserves in other games, based soley on matchups? He has never really done that before, but with this team the opportunity at least, seems to be present. K has kind of sorta done this a wee little bit already. Using just the eye test, he seems to have played Andre more (not counting Kansas DNP due to injury) in some games and less in others based on whether or not Andre could adequately defend someone on the other team. I thought against Arizona, the matchups on defense did not favor Andre, and that is why K did not give him many minutes. I could be off in left field here but thought it worth mentioning. That said, where are we headed with the rotation, and identity of this team? It is safe to say the Top 7 as of right now are Jabari, Hood, Cook, Thornton, Hairston, Amile, Rasheed. Next seems to be Andre/Matt, and then finally MP3/Semi. I will make no predictions here other than expecting Amile and Rasheed to reclaim their starting spots at some point, and we may be surprised in the end on who steps up and who doesn't. As for identity, I think it goes hand in hand with the rotation sorting itself out, which as of now is still very much a work in progress.


So there you have it. Discuss away and add things you will be looking for in Phase II.

[Kedsy]

All good points. Nice Phase report, Mark. The fingers vs. fist thing is overdone in Dukedom, but I don't think I've ever seen a Coach K team where it applied more. We seem to be playing as "fingers," not only on defense, but also lately on offense. The Arizona game was one of the worst cases of offensive fingeritis we've seen in the Coach K era.

To me, one of the biggest issues is balance. The first few games, we looked like by far the best offense in the country, but on D we couldn't stop a retirement home team. Since Tyler and Josh have been inserted into the starting lineup, our defense has perked up but our offense looks a bit discombobulated. The Michigan game was probably our most balanced performance, but we still have a long way to go.

The Rasheed question is huge. I expect he'll break out of the slump but who knows? With Amile, his lack of minutes has masked that his rebounding after the first two games has been really good. And while his scoring has been way down after the first three games, he's still shooting 73% from the field overall. I'm not sure if the issue is Amile staying on the floor so much as it is the fingers/fist thing again, because Amile's only going to score in the context of a team offense. If we become basically a one-on-one team, almost all his points will come on offensive-rebound putbacks.

If you're right about the rotation and Marshall is the 9th man, there's no way he'll see 12 to 17 minutes. If he remains that low on the totem pole, even the 6 minutes he saw against Michigan will be a stretch once league play starts. For Marshall to get up to 8 to 12 minutes a game, he'll realistically have to break in to the top 7 (or more accurately, into the top 3 bigs), but for that to happen either Josh or Amile would have to drop out of the main rotation, and I'm not sure how realistic that is at this point.

Even crazier when it comes to the rotation, if Coach K goes to his trademark 7-man rotation once ACC play rolls around, and the rotation order remains as you have pegged it, that would mean Matt, Andre, Marshall, and Semi will all be relegated to mop-up minutes. And while I agree on its face that doesn't sound right, the alternatives are K expanding to a longer rotation (which would more or less be a first) or one or more of the current top 7 to drop out of the rotation (which is possible, but doesn't seem likely, despite the anti-Josh and/or anti-Tyler sentiment among the fans). I don't think this will be an issue during the current Phase, but come January or February it's going to be fascinating (and possibly disappointing) to watch.

[Troublemaker]

we have a high octane offense when things are clicking

So it is on to Phase II, a short, but important set of 4 games, (Gardner-Webb, UCLA, Eastern Michigan, Elon)

add things you will be looking for in Phase II.

Very good Phase post, Newton! Great summary of Phase I, and well said about Alex's departure.

What will I be looking for in Phase 2? Since it is a short Phase as you mentioned, I'm going to be looking for one thing: for Duke to solidify the SG position, which will help maintain the high octane offense you mentioned. Solidifying the 2 is an important task for this team and also the easiest to accomplish within a short Phase since we have so much guard talent. One of Matt, Sheed, or Andre needs to step up and grab the SG starting role by the neck. Love Tyler, but we need more than 3.2 points/gm from that slot, and Coach K never planned on Tyler being more than a valuable sub off the bench. I suspect that's one of the reasons why Rodney was made a Captain -- so there would BE a Captain in the starting/predominant lineup. One of our talented SGs needs to bump Captain Tyler back to his sub role, and it's not going to take more than 2-3 consecutive good games to do it, based on the previous timeline of Sheed struggling during Fall practice, coming off the bench and playing well in two games against Davidson and Kansas, and then re-claiming the starting role immediately after.

Also, let's go 4-0 in this Phase.

[Furniture]

On the Duke Basketball TV show K said it was all about adjustments and now that D was better opposing teams have doubled up on Jabari and Hood so he would now be doing some adjustments on Offense! What does that mean to me? Less mins for TT and JH?

[Bob Green]

Great job with the Phase Post! I've got just a couple of comments.




1. Health

We have been fairly fortunate thus far.

We absolutely have to stay healthy (of course every other team in the nation can say the same thing) to be able to develop as a team in order to maximize potential. This is a young team so all the key ingredients must be available for the staff to mold them into an effective unit.




2. Deeefeennssee

Or lack thereof.

Yeah, what happenned to the team that was going to be able to press the opponent for 90 feet? Perhaps it was just message board banter all along, but in the recesses of my always fickle memory, I remember hearing a comment or reading a quote from Coach Krzyzewski discussing this team's potential to execute an uptempo pressing defense.

Reality appears to be a team more suited to falling back and working hard to stay in front of the opponent.




3. Can Rasheed come out of his funk?

Really love this kid. Hope he can figure it out soon, and we really really need him playing at a high level to be all that we can be.

4. Can Amile stay on the floor?

Like Rasheed, the next 4 games present an opportunity for Amile to get it together and reclaim his starting spot, and like Rasheed it is absolutely key to Duke's success in the long run for this to happen. Same question: Which way will this go?

I'm going to lump Sulaimon and Jefferson together and label it the Sophomore Slump. These two have got to break out of it as they're the critical supporting players who have the potential to transform the starting line-up into a dominant force. The more minutes these two play the better because they will only play if they're performing and if they're performing they will make Parker, Hood and Cook much better.




5. Can Marshall improve enough to earn solid minutes?

Note: "Solid Minutes" does not mean 25 mpg. If we can get, say 12 to 17 mpg of solid play from MP3, good defense, shotblocking threat, good rebounder, a garbage basket here an there...

I don't see it happenning and agree with Kedsy that six mpg is probable a more realistic target for MPIII. I desire be wrong here because of the whole "you can't teach 7 feet" thing, but my optimism wanes with this topic.

My untrained eyes see a player who struggles with his size. MPIII does not appear to have the same physical gifts possessed by his two older brothers.




6. Rotation/Minutes allocation/Identity

With Murph departing, it leaves us with 11 scholarship players...It is safe to say the Top 7 as of right now are Jabari, Hood, Cook, Thornton, Hairston, Amile, Rasheed. Next seems to be Andre/Matt, and then finally MP3/Semi.

I'm going to go 180 degrees out from conventional wisdom and state the rotation is all about the offense. The defense will work itself out so the key to this team's development is figuring out the different combinations of players who can go out and score together.

I look for Andre Dawkins to play a key role moving forward. He is just too good shooting the ball to not play a lot of minutes.




So there you have it. Discuss away and add things you will be looking for in Phase II.

Again, thanks for a very solid job on the Phase Post. There is a lot to watch and see over the next four games.

[Saratoga2]

My take is that the reality of the rules changes demand that we play a deeper rotation than in the past. There will be many games where we get into foul trouble early and have to go deep. Just look at the UNC and Kentucky last night.

I also agree that we will need to have a more potent offense since teams have been keying there defenses on Jabari and Rodney. Josh and Tyler have fairly limited offensive games and Josh has not really been a force on the boards, with blocked shots or with steals. His main contribution is he understands coach K's defense. I see both Josh and Tyler getting reduced PT going forward with Matt and Andre and Sheed getting some of it and also subbing more for Rodney when foul trouble requires it.

I see Amile returning at the starting center with Marshall getting some of Josh's PT. Marshall gives the team size at center and that by itself might be enough to keep him in when matchups are favorable. Marshall does have to get better with his FT shooting. Worse looking shot on the team. I hate to see Semi sitting completely. We all know he is a very strong and athletic kid. He might just surprise us going forward by matching up against an athletic wing player.

[jv001]

On the Duke Basketball TV show K said it was all about adjustments and now that D was better opposing teams have doubled up on Jabari and Hood so he would now be doing some adjustments on Offense! What does that mean to me? Less mins for TT and JH?

If I were the opposing coach, I would certainly take my chances with TT and JH beating me than Hood and Parker. GoDuke!

[greybeard]

If I were the opposing coach, I would certainly take my chances with TT and JH beating me than Hood and Parker. GoDuke!

A lot of possibilities off that. If Dawkins comes in and is killing it, you get out of the double team, right. TK comes in, do you go back to it, or do you prefer to keep Dawkins on the bench. You play Plumlee more as he gets his legs and game legs, are you really going to leave him alone or just shaded underneath? Really? Even straight up, really? JH's minutes might go down, or others who share the minutes spelling him might need to take a back seat. This kid, contrary to popular opinion, will score the ball. In that regard, he is better than either of his brothers at this stage, imo. & feet definitely counts, but the kid has softer hands and better vision and feel for the game, particularly the one that Duke is now playing. Rasheed, as I've guessed, will get minutes at the point, if his game grows to get some Cook in it. If I were him, and I wanted to play on the next level, that's what I'd be wanting. Does he have it in him; if K thinks he does, and not everybody does, then that's what will dictate his minutes, the upside of them. In any case, he might get more PT if he can incorporate into his game an ability to modulate his speeds off the dribble, and change what he is up to off of that--think, the smaller EC penetrators.

[jv001]

A lot of possibilities off that. If Dawkins comes in and is killing it, you get out of the double team, right. TK comes in, do you go back to it, or do you prefer to keep Dawkins on the bench. You play Plumlee more as he gets his legs and game legs, are you really going to leave him alone or just shaded underneath? Really? Even straight up, really? JH's minutes might go down, or others who share the minutes spelling him might need to take a back seat. This kid, contrary to popular opinion, will score the ball. In that regard, he is better than either of his brothers at this stage, imo. & feet definitely counts, but the kid has softer hands and better vision and feel for the game, particularly the one that Duke is now playing. Rasheed, as I've guessed, will get minutes at the point, if his game grows to get some Cook in it. If I were him, and I wanted to play on the next level, that's what I'd be wanting. Does he have it in him; if K thinks he does, and not everybody does, then that's what will dictate his minutes, the upside of them. In any case, he might get more PT if he can incorporate into his game an ability to modulate his speeds off the dribble, and change what he is up to off of that--think, the smaller EC penetrators.


Some and I include myself in that group, thought that Rasheed would indeed get minutes at the point after last season. Quinn had some up and down moments last year but he worked hard during the off season on his defense and point guard skills. While he has not set the world on fire, he has played a pretty good point guard this year. Still he has room for improvement. I hope Rasheed get's out of his sophomore slump or what ever is holding him back. We will be a much better team with Sheed playing like we know he can. As for Marshall, I just hope he improves and shows it in practice. We could use his length when the ACC season opens up. GoDuke!

[Troublemaker]

Quinn had some up and down moments last year but he worked hard during the off season on his defense and point guard skills. While he has not set the world on fire, he has played a pretty good point guard this year. Still he has room for improvement.

I think you're underselling Quinn a bit. In my view, he's been fantastic, and if he keeps it up, I hope he gets 1st-team ACC consideration. Agree with you that he's improved a lot on defense, and his scoring ability continues to soar as well. Somehow he's shooting 60% from 2-pt range so far this season (as compared to 43% last season). That number will dip but I bet it stays north of 50%, which is great for a guard. I think he's worked his butt off on conditioning, too, and he's reached the point that Coach K wants to see from all his PGs where he can play 35 min/gm without getting tired. Love what Quinn's doing this season, and I consider Duke to have a Big 3, not just a Big 2.

[jv001]

I think you're underselling Quinn a bit. In my view, he's been fantastic, and if he keeps it up, I hope he gets 1st-team ACC consideration. Agree with you that he's improved a lot on defense, and his scoring ability continues to soar as well. Somehow he's shooting 60% from 2-pt range so far this season (as compared to 43% last season). That number will dip but I bet it stays north of 50%, which is great for a guard. I think he's worked his butt off on conditioning, too, and he's reached the point that Coach K wants to see from all his PGs where he can play 35 min/gm without getting tired. Love what Quinn's doing this season, and I consider Duke to have a Big 3, not just a Big 2.

I might be selling Quinn a little short, but I want him to get rid of the head dropping on bad plays and get back down court and go to the next play. He did a better job of that in the last game and that shows me he's been made aware of it. Quinn is having a fine season. He did work hard to get himself in shape and it shows on defense. GoDuke!

[Troublemaker]

I might be selling Quinn a little short, but I want him to get rid of the head dropping on bad plays and get back down court and go to the next play. He did a better job of that in the last game and that shows me he's been made aware of it. Quinn is having a fine season. He did work hard to get himself in shape and it shows on defense. GoDuke!

Yeah, I agree. He is learning to have a "good face" on at all times, which is important for an upperclassman leader under Coach K. There are occasional puzzling moments. On one play against Kansas, Rodney fumbled a pass from him on the wing leading to a turnover, and Quinn stopped to give Rodney a "what the heck" look instead of hustling back in transition. Wiggins ended up dunking the ball and fouling out Jabari, but I would've liked to have seen what happens if Quinn ran back immediately. That said, I think the "good face" is getting more and more consistent from Quinn.

[Wander]

I definitely want Rasheed to get out of his slump, but I don't think it's THAT critical with the makeup of our roster. In my view Thornton, Dawkins, and Jones are all perfectly capable of playing as an off-the-ball guard for heavy minutes in an ACC game. On the other hand, if Jefferson and Plumlee can't contribute heavy minutes combined at the 5, the alternative of playing Parker at center is super lame.

[CDu]

I definitely want Rasheed to get out of his slump, but I don't think it's THAT critical with the makeup of our roster. In my view Thornton, Dawkins, and Jones are all perfectly capable of playing as an off-the-ball guard for heavy minutes in an ACC game. On the other hand, if Jefferson and Plumlee can't contribute heavy minutes combined at the 5, the alternative of playing Parker at center is super lame.

I agree. Perimeter scoring options abound. We are going to need more consistent play from the 5.

[Newton_14]

I definitely want Rasheed to get out of his slump, but I don't think it's THAT critical with the makeup of our roster. In my view Thornton, Dawkins, and Jones are all perfectly capable of playing as an off-the-ball guard for heavy minutes in an ACC game. On the other hand, if Jefferson and Plumlee can't contribute heavy minutes combined at the 5, the alternative of playing Parker at center is super lame.


I agree. Perimeter scoring options abound. We are going to need more consistent play from the 5.

My minor quibble here is that Rasheed is the one guy in the group that, if playing to his full potential, gives us an explosive player on offense, and a solid (if not better) defensive player. That absolutely makes us a stronger team in my opinion. Plus, I felt last year that Rasheed showed a really good ability to distribute, especially when driving in traffic. With him playing at his best it would give K the ability to slide Rasheed over to the point when Quinn is resting or in foul trouble, making our backcourt bigger, but still quick, and still good offensively.

Totally agree that we need Amile and Plumlee to be able to handle a large portion of the center minutes, but I feel Rasheed is an important cog in the wheel if this team is to reach its goals.

[superdave]

I will echo the comments about how our defensive performance was subpar last night. We had been building on a few things the prior two games, so the GW game felt like a step back. Hopefully all that is due to the exam layover.

I am not sure this team will get Coach K's rotations, communication and help side stuff down the way he hopes and the way we are accustomed to. There's a lot of new faces and just maybe some average defenders will play a lot of minutes.

However, we can settle into a defensive identify this year and learn to maximize the efficiency of that particular identity. Duke did this best in 2010 - great hedging, great help D and incredible rebounding. We were slower but had size and impeccable execution that season. Of course we did not get there until February (remember...duke cannot win road games..?) and we did not lose again after we got there.

I am not sure what this team's defensive identity will be. We seemed to try the press a little to not satisfactory end. Someone previously stated it was a lot of effort expended for little gain. I do not think we're going to pack it in because we are under-sized. Coach K does seem to be keying on taking away opponents 3's this season. That is a significant strategic choice that is currently in place and is likely to be evident all season.

Two other wrinkles I have seen that could improve our defensive efficiency if they become trends -

Rodney helped trap a ball handler on the side between the foul line extended and the three point line extended. Rodney is 6'8'' and the trap caused a bad pass. Trapping may be a better role for our size and athleticism this year than the full court press.

Rasheed came in and locked down the primary ball handler for GW and played really good on-ball defense. Similarly, Marshall gave us a jolt vs. Michigan. We have a deep bench that is unlikely to be used evenly all season, but that bench can be used to bring defensive energy at key times. For examply, it could be helpful to move Jabari off the 5 at times when the game is more physical. Marshall is a great option for a stretch. Or Quinn may have trouble keeping a quick guard in front of him and Rasheed can be deployed for that task. I am sure there are more examples, but Coach K can selectively use the deep bench to address a particular weakness that he sees during the course of the game.

We still have work to do to play better team D. We've got the time to get there.

[Kedsy]

However, we can settle into a defensive identify this year and learn to maximize the efficiency of that particular identity. Duke did this best in 2010 - great hedging, great help D and incredible rebounding. We were slower but had size and impeccable execution that season.

Here's a fun fact: so far this season our defensive rebounding percentage (69.8%) is significantly better than our defensive rebounding percentage in 2009-10 (67.5%).

Our defense in 2009-10 did feature good hedging, rotation, and help defense. (It was also the best Duke team ever at defending the three-pointer.) But hedging, rotation, and help defense are difficult to learn. Hopefully this team will get there, but if we don't, I'm not sure what sort of defensive identity we can forge. Some people seem to think that "packing it in like 2010" will be the panacea this team needs (not saying that's you, superdave, but it seems to be a popular suggestion these days), but I don't think it's nearly that simple.

[greybeard]

[/B]

Some and I include myself in that group, thought that Rasheed would indeed get minutes at the point after last season. Quinn had some up and down moments last year but he worked hard during the off season on his defense and point guard skills. While he has not set the world on fire, he has played a pretty good point guard this year. Still he has room for improvement. I hope Rasheed get's out of his sophomore slump or what ever is holding him back. We will be a much better team with Sheed playing like we know he can. As for Marshall, I just hope he improves and shows it in practice. We could use his length when the ACC season opens up. GoDuke!

Right now Tyler takes over the point when Cool sits, and Cook is probably getting too many minutes. If Rasheed develops the vision/temperament/judgment of a point, the game can keep going as more of an approximation of how it runs with Cook at the point, that is, with the potential for s three and penetration/finish late in the clock, than TK can at the point. That would keep TK on the court for a large number of minutes, which many think that he shouldn't have but K obviously does, while keeping the game as a close approximation of what it is when Cook is on the floor. Pure intuition here, but that might be what K is looking for. When K wants deliberate, stell minded play on offense, TK is his point. But, Duke plays so well up tempo, he might be looking for Rasheed to switch rolls with TK when Cook is off the court and, if Rasheed is good at it, Cook would get more rest, which I think he probably could use. Then there is always the possibility that Cook goes down.

C
Does K Want to see Sheed do this, does he think Sheed can, is Sheed not delivering if the answers, which really are of one piece, the first two are in the affirmative, I have to think not yet. Otherwise, he had better start playing better at the two to get more time, which is conventional wisdom. I have never been a conventional-widom guy. Others do it better.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Here's a fun fact: so far this season our defensive rebounding percentage (69.8%) is significantly better than our defensive rebounding percentage in 2009-10 (67.5%).

Our defense in 2009-10 did feature good hedging, rotation, and help defense. (It was also the best Duke team ever at defending the three-pointer.) But hedging, rotation, and help defense are difficult to learn. Hopefully this team will get there, but if we don't, I'm not sure what sort of defensive identity we can forge. Some people seem to think that "packing it in like 2010" will be the panacea this team needs (not saying that's you, superdave, but it seems to be a popular suggestion these days), but I don't think it's nearly that simple.

I'm beginning to think that this team isn't that bad in rebounding. Hood is finally starting to come around, Jabari has been Melo-solid in rebounding, and Amile and MP3 will provide quality rebounding (especially Amile). Hairston is an incredibly poor rebounder, but he is a stop-gap for this team.

What worries me is the volume of rebounds. Despite a high rebounding percentage, we aren't rebounding that much (23.6 D rebounds a game). That either means a) we are turning the ball over a lot or b) we are giving up way too many easy shots that are falling. Given that we aren't forcing that many turnovers, the problem is clearly on-the-floor defense.

[Newton_14]

I'm beginning to think that this team isn't that bad in rebounding. Hood is finally starting to come around, Jabari has been Melo-solid in rebounding, and Amile and MP3 will provide quality rebounding (especially Amile). Hairston is an incredibly poor rebounder, but he is a stop-gap for this team.

What worries me is the volume of rebounds. Despite a high rebounding percentage, we aren't rebounding that much (23.6 D rebounds a game). That either means a) we are turning the ball over a lot or b) we are giving up way too many easy shots that are falling. Given that we aren't forcing that many turnovers, the problem is clearly on-the-floor defense.

It's the latter. Hard to get defensive rebounds when you are taking the ball out of the net 62% of the time, like in the first half last night. I don't think the "pack it in" defense will be the best approach with this group due to the lack of size. Zoubs/LT/MP2/MP3 aren't walking through that door. We have Hairston/Jabari/Amile/MP3/Semi.

As for "defend the 3", that has been one of the staples of K's defenses for a very long time now. No way he changes that. As Kedsy pointed out, even in 2010 when we did pack it in, we still defended the 3 better than any other Duke team ever. K plays the percentages of the 3 ball on both ends of the floor. Even if a team is not great at shooting 3's, K's philosophy is to not let them have one of those magical nights from 3.

I think due to the long layoff and the lack of time together on the court during the layoff, we have to throw out last night's game as an outlier. They obviously lost the momentum on defense they gained over the 3 previous games. Let's see what they do collectively over the next 3 games, and then measure them.

Kind of the same thing with Rasheed. He did not have any practice time to improve and get back into the rotation, so expecting him to play much last night was probably unwise. If he is still getting 5mpg after Elon, it will then be time for a vigil.

Amile made strides last night with 10 boards in limited minutes so that is one plus, and a good start on one of the key items in Phase II.

[Kedsy]

Right now Tyler takes over the point when Cool sits, and Cook is probably getting too many minutes. If Rasheed develops the vision/temperament/judgment of a point, the game can keep going as more of an approximation of how it runs with Cook at the point, that is, with the potential for s three and penetration/finish late in the clock, than TK can at the point. That would keep TK on the court for a large number of minutes, which many think that he shouldn't have but K obviously does, while keeping the game as a close approximation of what it is when Cook is on the floor. Pure intuition here, but that might be what K is looking for. When K wants deliberate, stell minded play on offense, TK is his point. But, Duke plays so well up tempo, he might be looking for Rasheed to switch rolls with TK when Cook is off the court and, if Rasheed is good at it, Cook would get more rest, which I think he probably could use. Then there is always the possibility that Cook goes down.

C
Does K Want to see Sheed do this, does he think Sheed can, is Sheed not delivering if the answers, which really are of one piece, the first two are in the affirmative, I have to think not yet. Otherwise, he had better start playing better at the two to get more time, which is conventional wisdom. I have never been a conventional-widom guy. Others do it better.

I hate to feed this flame, but who in the world is "TK"? Tyler Thornton? It's bad enough that in four years you have never spelled his last name correctly, but now you're changing his last initial as well?

[Kedsy]

I'm beginning to think that this team isn't that bad in rebounding. Hood is finally starting to come around, Jabari has been Melo-solid in rebounding, and Amile and MP3 will provide quality rebounding (especially Amile). Hairston is an incredibly poor rebounder, but he is a stop-gap for this team.

What worries me is the volume of rebounds. Despite a high rebounding percentage, we aren't rebounding that much (23.6 D rebounds a game). That either means a) we are turning the ball over a lot or b) we are giving up way too many easy shots that are falling. Given that we aren't forcing that many turnovers, the problem is clearly on-the-floor defense.

So far this season, opponents have made 2-point shots at a 51.8% clip. That is horrendous. Since 1996-97 (as far back as I went), our previous worst performance in opposing two-point shooting was 47.7% in 2002-03.

We have been very good at defending the three, however. Our current 27.3% opposing three-point percentage is even better than 2009-10's 28.2%, which as has been discussed is the best Duke mark ever over a full season.

It's neither here nor there, but as I looked the above facts up, I saw something odd about the 2002-03 defense:

Our opponents' two-point percentage was the highest (worst for Duke) in at least 17 years. Our opponents' three-point percentage was the highest (worst for Duke) in the past 13 years. Our free throw rate (putting opponents on the line) was the worst in at least 17 years. Our defensive rebounding percentage (65.1%, 229th in the country) was fairly poor. The only thing we did well that season defensively was force turnovers, but even that rate (24.4%) wasn't off the charts.

Now, these are all raw numbers, but according to Pomeroy our non-conference schedule that season was 134th. So how on Earth did we manage to be Pomeroy's 16th best defense in the country that season?

[CDu]

So far this season, opponents have made 2-point shots at a 51.8% clip. That is horrendous. Since 1996-97 (as far back as I went), our previous worst performance in opposing two-point shooting was 47.7% in 2002-03.

We have been very good at defending the three, however. Our current 27.3% opposing three-point percentage is even better than 2009-10's 28.2%, which as has been discussed is the best Duke mark ever over a full season.

It's neither here nor there, but as I looked the above facts up, I saw something odd about the 2002-03 defense:

Our opponents' two-point percentage was the highest (worst for Duke) in at least 17 years. Our opponents' three-point percentage was the highest (worst for Duke) in the past 13 years. Our free throw rate (putting opponents on the line) was the worst in at least 17 years. Our defensive rebounding percentage (65.1%, 229th in the country) was fairly poor. The only thing we did well that season defensively was force turnovers, but even that rate (24.4%) wasn't off the charts.

Now, these are all raw numbers, but according to Pomeroy our non-conference schedule that season was 134th. So how on Earth did we manage to be Pomeroy's 16th best defense in the country that season?

Well, over half of our games were conference games. And I suspect that our conference SOS was really good (we were 38th in overall SOS, so that suggests our conference SOS was substantially better). Six of the other eight teams in the conference were all in the top-55, with the other two also in the top-80. That's my guess as to how our defense got to be #16. That, and our 3pt defense and foul rates - while poor for us - were probably still pretty good nationally.

[superdave]

Here's a fun fact: so far this season our defensive rebounding percentage (69.8%) is significantly better than our defensive rebounding percentage in 2009-10 (67.5%).

Our defense in 2009-10 did feature good hedging, rotation, and help defense. (It was also the best Duke team ever at defending the three-pointer.) But hedging, rotation, and help defense are difficult to learn. Hopefully this team will get there, but if we don't, I'm not sure what sort of defensive identity we can forge. Some people seem to think that "packing it in like 2010" will be the panacea this team needs (not saying that's you, superdave, but it seems to be a popular suggestion these days), but I don't think it's nearly that simple.

No, I do not think we can pack it in and field our best lineup. Packing it in means skewing towards size and girth rather than towards our speed and athleticism strengths. From my perspective, Coach K typically maximizes strengths more than he changes things to minimize a weakness.

I think we need to get better at team D and also add some simple wrinkles like I mentioned. I'd love to see us use the trap in halfcourt D more often. It's a great way to produce more turnovers since our pressure D is not yielding as much in that department.

Thanks for the defensive rebounding stats. I would have thought 2010 was better. Those guys knew how make an opponent work really hard on offense and they could buckle down and get stops.

I would have thought our best D this season would be to speed opponents up with the press, the trap and having them know we would run on offense. we've slowed the pace down some. I dont know how we're evolving exactly, but our approach is changing from a month ago.

[sagegrouse]

Our opponents' two-point percentage was the highest (worst for Duke) in at least 17 years. Our opponents' three-point percentage was the highest (worst for Duke) in the past 13 years. Our free throw rate (putting opponents on the line) was the worst in at least 17 years. Our defensive rebounding percentage (65.1%, 229th in the country) was fairly poor. The only thing we did well that season defensively was force turnovers, but even that rate (24.4%) wasn't off the charts.

?


Losing three All-Americans in 2002 had something to do with the defense in 2003; losing two All-ACC players has affected this year.

[vick]

I'm beginning to think that this team isn't that bad in rebounding. Hood is finally starting to come around, Jabari has been Melo-solid in rebounding, and Amile and MP3 will provide quality rebounding (especially Amile). Hairston is an incredibly poor rebounder, but he is a stop-gap for this team.

I largely agree with your conclusion about rebounding, but just quibbling a bit. The defensive rebounding gap between Jefferson and Plumlee is pretty significant. In limited minutes, Plumlee is at 11.1%, which isn't particularly good for a center. Jefferson, meanwhile, is at 23.4%, which is very nearly what Richard Howell was doing at NCST last year. Now, I think that probably underestimates Plumlee's potential (though it's not like he did anything special rebounding last year either), and it's a fair question whether Jefferson can be as productive while getting his foul rate under control. But if he can, defensive rebounding isn't really that big a concern to me, which I have to admit is a mildly pleasant surprise.

[greybeard]

I hate to feed this flame, but who in the world is "TK"? Tyler Thornton? It's bad enough that in four years you have never spelled his last name correctly, but now you're changing his last initial as well?

TK is Kornheiser with whom I communicate regularly about sports, Redskins predominantly lately, but also one about MPIII. I have been right as rain by the way about RGIII since day one, the press is catching up, but we have some surprises yet. Sorry, for the TK, reflexive. And, you do have to admit that WoJo said point blank exactly what I have been saying about MPIII since immediately and consistently since the last season ended, which is that MPIII will define this team's potential, he will determine how high it can go, have no impact on the bottom.

So, what do you think about my take on Sheed? You do have an opinion, no?

[Kedsy]

Well, over half of our games were conference games. And I suspect that our conference SOS was really good (we were 38th in overall SOS, so that suggests our conference SOS was substantially better). Six of the other eight teams in the conference were all in the top-55, with the other two also in the top-80. That's my guess as to how our defense got to be #16. That, and our 3pt defense and foul rates - while poor for us - were probably still pretty good nationally.

They were both in the 120s nationally, so not entirely awful, but not so good.

Obviously our conference schedule strength was better than non-conference, but I still think 2003 being 16th is odd, for example, compared to 2013's D being ranked 31st by Pomeroy. And even if last season's ACC wasn't as strong as in 2003, our non-conference schedule last season was rated 7th in the country which I'd think would more than make up for any differences in the relative conference strength. But other than forcing turnovers, our defense last year was significantly better in every aspect than in 2003, at least in the raw numbers:



Season DR% foul TO eFG% 3 pt 2 pt
rate rate pct pct
2013: 67.7 32.7 20.4 45.5 0.290 0.462
2003: 65.1 37.6 24.4 47.5 0.346 0.477


I'm not really making a point here, just wondering. Were offenses that much better in 2003 than they are now? I wouldn't have guessed that. Or is it something about Pomeroy? We place so much credence on Pomeroy's numbers, but maybe those numbers have some quirks we don't entirely understand? Or maybe (since I believe Pomeroy really measures points scored rather than the four factors) maybe there are things about defense the numbers don't tell us -- maybe there's more to denying our opponents' scoring than just the four factors? (Although since the four factors seem to cover every possible way of scoring, it's hard to imagine what more there could be.) I'm kind of flummoxed on this, actually.

[CDu]

TK is Kornheiser with whom I communicate regularly with whom I communicate about sports, Redskins predominantly, I have been right as rain by the way about RGIII since day one, bye the way, the press is catching up, but we have some surprises yet. Sorry, for the TK, reflexive, but you do have to admit that WoJo does happen to agree with the position I have been taking with the position I have taking with regard to MPIII since immediately and consistently since the last season ended, which is that MPIII will define this team's potential, he will determine how high it can go, have no impact on the bottom.

So, what do you think about my take on Sheed? You do have an opinion, no?

As has been discussed in the RGIII thread you started, it does not appear that you are "right as rain" about RGIII, who has outplayed Cousins both last year and this year.

As for Plumlee, while I agree that he COULD make a big difference, that's not exactly an earthshattering insight (having a 7'0" guy who can play would obviously help). The question is whether or not he'll get there, and whether or not we can do well even if he doesn't get there.

As for Sulaimon, I don't think anyone (but you and maybe one or two others) have written off his season. I think he will have a big role to play in this team's growth this year. He's not as critical to the team's success as guys like Cook, Hood, and Parker, but I think he brings something to the table that none of our other SG options do. He just has to get back to playing top-tier basketball like he was doing at many times last year.

[Kedsy]

If Rasheed develops the vision/temperament/judgment of a point, the game can keep going as more of an approximation of how it runs with Cook at the point, that is, with the potential for s three and penetration/finish late in the clock, than TK can at the point.


That would keep TK on the court for a large number of minutes...


When K wants deliberate, stell minded play on offense, TK is his point.


But, Duke plays so well up tempo, he might be looking for Rasheed to switch rol[e]s with TK when Cook is off the court...


TK is Kornheiser with whom I communicate regularly about sports, Redskins predominantly lately, but also one about MPIII. I have been right as rain by the way about RGIII since day one, the press is catching up, but we have some surprises yet. Sorry, for the TK, reflexive. And, you do have to admit that WoJo has recently does happen to agree with the position I have been taking with the position I have taking with regard to MPIII since immediately and consistently since the last season ended, which is that MPIII will define this team's potential, he will determine how high it can go, have no impact on the bottom.

So, what do you think about my take on Sheed? You do have an opinion, no?

Regarding Rasheed, I agree that before the season I thought he might be able to snag a few minutes at PG, but only a few and right now I'm more concerned that he get on the court at all. And my guess is that's what Coach K's looking for as well. I doubt Coach K ever expected Rasheed's role to be backup PG while Tyler played most of the SG minutes. Rasheed is our most talented guy at SG, both offensively and defensively. Right now he's having problems translating that talent into play that'll most help the team.

My best guess is the disconnect lies in the fact that last season Rasheed was our chief slasher and really our only guy who could create his own shot and he both flourished in and enjoyed that role. This season, we have two other guys plus an improved Quinn who can all do what Rasheed did last season (and do it a little better) and Rasheed needs to find a new role to help the team. Either he's resisting that process or he's confused about what to do. And then he's letting his uncertainty on offense affect his defense and that's why he's not playing.

I'm hopeful that he'll figure it out and break out on the other side of his current funk. When he does, both he and the team will be better for it.

[CDu]

They were both in the 120s nationally, so not entirely awful, but not so good.

Obviously our conference schedule strength was better than non-conference, but I still think 2003 being 16th is odd, for example, compared to 2013's D being ranked 31st by Pomeroy. And even if last season's ACC wasn't as strong as in 2003, our non-conference schedule last season was rated 7th in the country which I'd think would more than make up for any differences in the relative conference strength. But other than forcing turnovers, our defense last year was significantly better in every aspect than in 2003, at least in the raw numbers:



Season DR% foul TO eFG% 3 pt 2 pt
rate rate pct pct
2013: 67.7 32.7 20.4 45.5 0.290 0.462
2003: 65.1 37.6 24.4 47.5 0.346 0.477


I'm not really making a point here, just wondering. Were offenses that much better in 2003 than they are now? I wouldn't have guessed that. Or is it something about Pomeroy? We place so much credence on Pomeroy's numbers, but maybe those numbers have some quirks we don't entirely understand? Or maybe (since I believe Pomeroy really measures points scored rather than the four factors) maybe there are things about defense the numbers don't tell us -- maybe there's more to denying our opponents' scoring than just the four factors? (Although since the four factors seem to cover every possible way of scoring, it's hard to imagine what more there could be.) I'm kind of flummoxed on this, actually.

Yeah, I went back and checked, and according to Pomeroy our conference SOS was also quite high last year (#6 overall SOS, #7 non-con SOS). So I too am a bit flummoxed.

It could be that teams are, in general, less effective shooters than they were in 2003. Our adjusted defensive efficiency was 92.1 in 2003 and 92.6 in 2013. And it's not that we were facing better offenses (relative to the rest of the nation) in 2003: we faced the #1 opposing offense schedule in the country in 2013, versus #21 in 2003.

It must really be that teams aren't as good at shooting (or perhaps are worse at turning the ball over) in 2013 as compared to 2003. Or maybe fouls were called more frequently in general in 2003 than in 2013. I do notice that 13 teams had adjusted defensive efficiencies of 90.0 or less in 2013 as compared to just 8 in 2003. So I suspect that the issue is a temporal shift in one (or more) of the four factors over time.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Regarding Rasheed, I agree that before the season I thought he might be able to snag a few minutes at PG, but only a few and right now I'm more concerned that he get on the court at all. And my guess is that's what Coach K's looking for as well. I doubt Coach K ever expected Rasheed's role to be backup PG while Tyler played most of the SG minutes. Rasheed is our most talented guy at SG, both offensively and defensively. Right now he's having problems translating that talent into play that'll most help the team.

My best guess is the disconnect lies in the fact that last season Rasheed was our chief slasher and really our only guy who could create his own shot and he both flourished in and enjoyed that role. This season, we have two other guys plus an improved Quinn who can all do what Rasheed did last season (and do it a little better) and Rasheed needs to find a new role to help the team. Either he's resisting that process or he's confused about what to do. And then he's letting his uncertainty on offense affect his defense and that's why he's not playing.

I'm hopeful that he'll figure it out and break out on the other side of his current funk. When he does, both he and the team will be better for it.

I had no idea that Tony Kornheiser is on the Duke roster. Did he take Alex Murphy's scholarship? Is he disguised as Pagliuca or Zafirovski? Also, I would expect TK to play the 3 or the 4, not take minutes at the 1 or 2.

Also, how many minutes should TK get? I think this is an important question to ask. Given his experience (all 65 years of it), I'm gonna suggest he gets at least 15, maybe 18 depending on the opponent.

[GGLC]

I'd love to see Amile back in the starting lineup.

[superdave]

I'd love to see Amile back in the starting lineup.

More importantly, I'd like to see him playing more than 12 minutes per game. His upside this season is greater than Josh's. So here's to hoping that Amile can earn more minutes.

I think you can say very similar things about upside and earning minutes about Rasheed (taking minutes from Tyler).

[CDu]

More importantly, I'd like to see him playing more than 12 minutes per game. His upside this season is greater than Josh's. So here's to hoping that Amile can earn more minutes.

I think you can say very similar things about upside and earning minutes about Rasheed (taking minutes from Tyler).

I think the key statement is that we want guys like Jefferson/Plumlee to improve their play to the point that they demand more playing time. Implicitly some are assuming that these guys are better than Hairston, and I'm not sure that this is necessarily the correct assumption right now. They have more potential than Hairston, but Hairston's edge in defensive rotations is a big edge, and Coach K will rely on that until the younger guys prove that they HAVE to be on the court.

The same applies to Sulaimon/Thornton, although Sulaimon has a few additional avenues to playing time (Jones and Dawkins).

[GGLC]

I think the key statement is that we want guys like Jefferson/Plumlee to improve their play to the point that they demand more playing time. Implicitly some are assuming that these guys are better than Hairston, and I'm not sure that this is necessarily the correct assumption right now. They have more potential than Hairston, but Hairston's edge in defensive rotations is a big edge, and Coach K will rely on that until the younger guys prove that they HAVE to be on the court.

The same applies to Sulaimon/Thornton, although Sulaimon has a few additional avenues to playing time (Jones and Dawkins).

I believe Amile's abilities on the offensive end and on the glass outweigh Josh's value in defensive rotations, based on Amile's play from both last season and this season. I recognize that Coach K disagrees, but I don't think it's fair to lump Amile and Marshall in the same "well, they have potential to improve" bucket.

[Kedsy]

I'd love to see Amile back in the starting lineup.

I think Amile's minutes per game are more important than whether he starts or not. Right now his rebounding numbers are amazing, considering he had two total rebounds in the first two games combined. Even including those two games, his overall defensive rebounding percentage (23.3%) is exactly the same as Mason's last season, and his offensive rebound percentage (15.1%), while not Zoubekian, is better than anything Mason or Shelden Williams or Carlos Boozer ever put up, better than Elton Brand's POTY numbers (about the same as Elton's career number), and just a little worse than Miles Plumlee's best season. If Amile can play 20+ minutes and keep up those rebounding numbers, between him and Jabari we'll have as good a rebounding team as any Duke team this century, with the possible exception of the 2006-07 team.

[CDu]

I believe Amile's abilities on the offensive end and on the glass outweigh Josh's value in defensive rotations, based on Amile's play from both last season and this season. I recognize that Coach K disagrees, but I don't think it's fair to lump Amile and Marshall in the same "well, they have potential to improve" bucket.

Jefferson is certainly closer to earning more playing time than Plumlee. That's a given based on the fact that Jefferson is, in fact, playing substantially more than Plumlee. But he's currently playing less than Hairston, which is why I lumped he and Plumlee together. Both are playing less than Hairston.

As evidienced by Jefferson originally being a starter and playing more minutes per game than Plumlee, clearly Jefferson is closer to earning that playing time than Plumlee.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I believe Amile's abilities on the offensive end and on the glass outweigh Josh's value in defensive rotations, based on Amile's play from both last season and this season. I recognize that Coach K disagrees, but I don't think it's fair to lump Amile and Marshall in the same "well, they have potential to improve" bucket.

The prospect of having Jabari (poor team and individual defensive player, very solid rebounder) with Jefferson (very poor defensive player all around, very solid rebounder) is kinda frightening. Our defense is so poor right now, that Hairston - a very poor individual defender but very strong team defender - actually makes our overall defense better. IMO, this team needs drastic defensive improvement in order to even consider playing Jefferson more.

It speaks volumes of this team's offense that when Thornton and Hairston are on the floor, it's essentially 3 v 5 on offense and yet we still have the number 1 offense in the country.

You cannot win championships without defense. The way we're playing on offense, we can beat any team in the country in a single game. But winning 6 straight games against average-to-great competition is unrealistic with the current defense.

Coach K is absolutely doing the right thing with both Tyler and Hairston out there. I am convinced Coach K also believes they are a temporary solution, at least until he gets better D from all players.

[CDu]

The prospect of having Jabari (poor team and individual defensive player, very solid rebounder) with Jefferson (very poor defensive player all around, very solid rebounder) is kinda frightening. Our defense is so poor right now, that Hairston - a very poor individual defender but very strong team defender - actually makes our overall defense better. IMO, this team needs drastic defensive improvement in order to even consider playing Jefferson more.

It speaks volumes of this team's offense that when Thornton and Hairston are on the floor, it's essentially 3 v 5 on offense and yet we still have the number 1 offense in the country.

You cannot win championships without defense. The way we're playing on offense, we can beat any team in the country in a single game. But winning 6 straight games against average-to-great competition is unrealistic with the current defense.

Coach K is absolutely doing the right thing with both Tyler and Hairston out there. I am convinced Coach K also believes they are a temporary solution, at least until he gets better D from all players.

I agree with all of this. I think Coach K has Hairston and Thornton playing major minutes because while they are very limited offensively - he trusts them to know the defensive schemes and to communicate. Jefferson hasn't yet fully earned that trust. Sulaimon has gotten lost trying to find his role.

I don't think we're going to see Hairston and (especially) Thornton play less than 10 mpg. I'd be shocked if Thornton drops below 15 mpg. Old habits die hard, and Coach K just has too much trust in Thornton to change.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I agree with all of this. I think Coach K has Hairston and Thornton playing major minutes because while they are very limited offensively - he trusts them to know the defensive schemes and to communicate. Jefferson hasn't yet fully earned that trust. Sulaimon has gotten lost trying to find his role.

I don't think we're going to see Hairston and (especially) Thornton play less than 10 mpg. I'd be shocked if Thornton drops below 15 mpg. Old habits die hard, and Coach K just has too much trust in Thornton to change.

This, to me, really makes me depressed. Sulaimon represents everything about Duke - and to a lesser extent Duke basketball - that I love: book smart, hard worker, great teammate, down-to-earth, chip on his shoulder, and responds positively to criticism and encouragement.

Last year, I truly believed that Sulaimon was the next great Duke player. Between his stellar D, the ability to create his own shot, and his passing, he was a phenom.

What the hell has happened? I really hope Sulaimon finds what he's looking for, because the kid deserves it first and foremost.

[GGLC]

This, to me, really makes me depressed. Sulaimon represents everything about Duke - and to a lesser extent Duke basketball - that I love: book smart, hard worker, great teammate, down-to-earth, chip on his shoulder, and responds positively to criticism and encouragement.

Last year, I truly believed that Sulaimon was the next great Duke player. Between his stellar D, the ability to create his own shot, and his passing, he was a phenom.

What the hell has happened? I really hope Sulaimon finds what he's looking for, because the kid deserves it first and foremost.

Couldn't agree with this more. Huge Sulaimon fan.

[greybeard]

Regarding Rasheed, I agree that before the season I thought he might be able to snag a few minutes at PG, but only a few and right now I'm more concerned that he get on the court at all. And my guess is that's what Coach K's looking for as well. I doubt Coach K ever expected Rasheed's role to be backup PG while Tyler played most of the SG minutes. Rasheed is our most talented guy at SG, both offensively and defensively. Right now he's having problems translating that talent into play that'll most help the team.

My best guess is the disconnect lies in the fact that last season Rasheed was our chief slasher and really our only guy who could create his own shot and he both flourished in and enjoyed that role. This season, we have two other guys plus an improved Quinn who can all do what Rasheed did last season (and do it a little better) and Rasheed needs to find a new role to help the team. Either he's resisting that process or he's confused about what to do. And then he's letting his uncertainty on offense affect his defense and that's why he's not playing.

I'm hopeful that he'll figure it out and break out on the other side of his current funk. When he does, both he and the team will be better for it.

Thanks. This is very interesting. I wouldn't give up on the point just yet. Also, it might well be that Marshall and Rasheed will see their playing time increase together. If Marshall is what I think he might be on offense, Parker might get some rest that in the long run will prove quite valuable. Then, a second slasher/scorer to go along with Hood (do I have that right) would be valuable. Right now, Parker has such freedom to roam where he can find the ball that clearing space for Rasheed to "go" or his finding his own way might not be on the agenda, as long as Parker is on the floor.

Really made me think.

[CDu]

This, to me, really makes me depressed. Sulaimon represents everything about Duke - and to a lesser extent Duke basketball - that I love: book smart, hard worker, great teammate, down-to-earth, chip on his shoulder, and responds positively to criticism and encouragement.

Last year, I truly believed that Sulaimon was the next great Duke player. Between his stellar D, the ability to create his own shot, and his passing, he was a phenom.

What the hell has happened? I really hope Sulaimon finds what he's looking for, because the kid deserves it first and foremost.

Chemistry is often an overstated issue, but I think it applies (or at least a specific aspect of it applies) here. Last year, roles were very clearly defined: Mason, Kelly, and Curry were the senior leaders and offensive go-to guys. Cook was the PG, floor general, and emotional leader. Thornton was the glue guy on the perimeter. Hairston and Jefferson were fill-ins at PF/C. And Sulaimon was the jack-of-all-trades, X-factor type wing. He wasn't the focal point of the offense, but he was capable of doing a little bit of everything. And more importantly, he was one of just two guys on the team who could create off the dribble. We had only four guards on the squad, which all but guaranteed tons of playing time for everybody as Coach K went with a three-guard lineup.

Well, this year things changed. We switched from being a team loaded up front but lacking in small guys to a team with a ton of guards/wings but lacking big guys. We suddenly had 3 other guys capable of creating off the dribble as opposed to 1 other guy. And instead of competing with two guys for 2+ positions' worth of minutes, he was competing with three guys for 1+ position's worth of minutes. So it seems like the change in roster structure, the increase in competition for a decrease in available PT, and the change in role on offense have combined to make life tough for Sulaimon so far.

Hopefully, he is able to adjust and figure it out. I think he potentially brings more to the table individually than any of our other guards - he just has to play to that potential within the team concept. He's not the shooter that Dawkins is and he's not the defensive floor general that Thornton is and he's probably not quite as good an on-ball defender as Jones is, but he's probably second among the four on all of those lists, and he's the best ballhandler/playmaker of the quartet by far.

[CDu]

Thanks. This is very interesting. I wouldn't give up on the point just yet. Also, it might well be that Marshall and Rasheed will see their playing time increase together. If Marshall is what I think he might be on offense, Parker might get some rest that in the long run will prove quite valuable. Then, a second slasher/scorer to go along with Hood (do I have that right) would be valuable. Right now, Parker has such freedom to roam where he can find the ball that clearing space for Rasheed to "go" or his finding his own way might not be on the agenda, as long as Parker is on the floor.

Really made me think.

I think it remains to be seen whether Plumlee is what you think he is offensively (my inclination is that he is not, but I'm not entirely sure what you think he is offensively so I could be wrong). But I would be shocked if Parker sees any reduction in minutes with or without an emergence by Plumlee. Parker is our best player, by a wide margin. He's going to play 33-35 (or more) minutes in any competitive games barring injury or foul trouble. Plumlee is not going to change that dynamic.

IF (and it's a very big "if" right now) Plumlee improves to the point of demanding more minutes, those minutes will come from Jefferson, Hairston, Ojeleye, and any of the guards who come in when we move Hood to the PF spot. But Parker is not going to see much bench time moving forward. If anything, his playing time is going to go UP (from the 30.6 mpg he's currently averaging) as we enter ACC play.

We're going to see a ton of Hood and Parker on the floor together the rest of the way. Coach K feels they are our two best players, so along with Cook (our only true PG at the moment) they are going to continue to play 30+ mpg. So there are going to almost always be 2 (or more) other slashers on the floor whenever Sulaimon is in the game.

[Kedsy]

Yeah, I went back and checked, and according to Pomeroy our conference SOS was also quite high last year (#6 overall SOS, #7 non-con SOS). So I too am a bit flummoxed.

It could be that teams are, in general, less effective shooters than they were in 2003. Our adjusted defensive efficiency was 92.1 in 2003 and 92.6 in 2013. And it's not that we were facing better offenses (relative to the rest of the nation) in 2003: we faced the #1 opposing offense schedule in the country in 2013, versus #21 in 2003.

It must really be that teams aren't as good at shooting (or perhaps are worse at turning the ball over) in 2013 as compared to 2003. Or maybe fouls were called more frequently in general in 2003 than in 2013. I do notice that 13 teams had adjusted defensive efficiencies of 90.0 or less in 2013 as compared to just 8 in 2003. So I suspect that the issue is a temporal shift in one (or more) of the four factors over time.

I've been digging into it a little deeper. I'm no statistician, so I'm not sure I understand how to calculate correlations properly, but according to Excel, turnover % and eFG% are by far the most correlative of the four factors (free throw rate doesn't appear to be correlated at all) with regard to Pomeroy rankings. So if it's really basically two factors, rather than four, then 2003 vs. 2013 makes a little more sense, since 2003's turnover % is "more better" than 2013's eFG%.

FWIW, it also explains why our rating this season is so dismal, because so far both our turnover % and our opponents' eFG% are the worst numbers Duke's defense has had in the recorded history of Pomeroy (i.e., since and including 2002-03). In fact, they're both the worst going back at least to 1996-97 (as far back as I tracked), although Pomeroy doesn't go back that far.

[vick]

I've been digging into it a little deeper. I'm no statistician, so I'm not sure I understand how to calculate correlations properly, but according to Excel, turnover % and eFG% are by far the most correlative of the four factors (free throw rate doesn't appear to be correlated at all) with regard to Pomeroy rankings. So if it's really basically two factors, rather than four, then 2003 vs. 2013 makes a little more sense, since 2003's turnover % is "more better" than 2013's eFG%.

FWIW, it also explains why our rating this season is so dismal, because so far both our turnover % and our opponents' eFG% are the worst numbers Duke's defense has had in the recorded history of Pomeroy (i.e., since and including 2002-03). In fact, they're both the worst going back at least to 1996-97 (as far back as I tracked), although Pomeroy doesn't go back that far.

That eFG% is the most important of the four factors is true in general (http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm) (Dean was studying the NBA, but it's also true at the college level).

[Kedsy]

That eFG% is the most important of the four factors is true in general (http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/20040601_roboscout.htm) (Dean was studying the NBA, but it's also true at the college level).

That's what I expected, but I didn't realize turnover % was almost as correlative as eFG% with Pomeroy rating and way more correlative than either of the other two factors. And I have no idea if any relationship with an ordinal rank is valid, but turnover % has by far the biggest correlation of any of the factors with Pomeroy ordinal rank, significantly more correlated than eFG%.

Also, note that I was just tracking Duke's rating and rank against Duke's four factor performance, so only 11 data points. I understand that may invalidate even the sketchy conclusions I've managed here. I'm not statistically skilled enough to run this analysis for every team, nor do I have easy access to the four factors data for every team for the past 11 years.

That said, if turnover pct. is truly that important to Pomeroy rating, it would go a long way to explaining why recent Duke teams haven't done as well in Pomeroy's defensive rankings as we'd hoped.

[-jk]

Trying to compare stats across seasons could bump into outside changes - especially officiating this year.

-jk

[CDu]

That's what I expected, but I didn't realize turnover % was almost as correlative as eFG% with Pomeroy rating and way more correlative than either of the other two factors. And I have no idea if any relationship with an ordinal rank is valid, but turnover % has by far the biggest correlation of any of the factors with Pomeroy ordinal rank, significantly more correlated than eFG%.

Also, note that I was just tracking Duke's rating and rank against Duke's four factor performance, so only 11 data points. I understand that may invalidate even the sketchy conclusions I've managed here. I'm not statistically skilled enough to run this analysis for every team, nor do I have easy access to the four factors data for every team for the past 11 years.

That said, if turnover pct. is truly that important to Pomeroy rating, it would go a long way to explaining why recent Duke teams haven't done as well in Pomeroy's defensive rankings as we'd hoped.

In thinking about it a bit more, I guess it would stand to reason that efficiency is most closely tied to eFG% and turnovers, as these are the only two measures that have a direct, isolated effect on points per possession. Rebound percentage is only relevant in the case of a missed shot, which implies that it is dependent on the eFG% and the turnover rate. Foul rate is sort of a separate issue, as the impact of a foul depends on the type of foul (shooting, non-shooting), the total number of fouls (bonus or not), and FG% (1, 2, or 3 FTA). And even then it depends on how many of those FT are made (though that would theoretically normalize to some degree).

So I guess I can see a logical reason why eFG% and turnover rates have the two biggest impacts on efficiency. I had never thought about it in depth before. Quite interesting. And certainly would help (along with any national trends in eFG% over time) to explain the seeming anomaly in results.

[pfrduke]

I've been digging into it a little deeper. I'm no statistician, so I'm not sure I understand how to calculate correlations properly, but according to Excel, turnover % and eFG% are by far the most correlative of the four factors (free throw rate doesn't appear to be correlated at all) with regard to Pomeroy rankings. So if it's really basically two factors, rather than four, then 2003 vs. 2013 makes a little more sense, since 2003's turnover % is "more better" than 2013's eFG%.

FWIW, it also explains why our rating this season is so dismal, because so far both our turnover % and our opponents' eFG% are the worst numbers Duke's defense has had in the recorded history of Pomeroy (i.e., since and including 2002-03). In fact, they're both the worst going back at least to 1996-97 (as far back as I tracked), although Pomeroy doesn't go back that far.

Further insight (although that may be putting it too strongly) on this - Pomeroy's defensive rating is, at the end of the day, just points per possession adjusted for schedule*. Duke's "raw" efficiency is 104.2 - i.e., we've given up roughly 104 points for every 100 possessions. We've played a slightly tougher schedule than the average team, played better on D more recently, and probably still have some preseason skew built in, so considering those factors, our "adjusted" efficiency is 100.1. Essentially, that means if we played USC (currently one of the teams with the mean performance in terms of offensive efficiency in the country), they would be expected to score at a rate of one point per possession.

*The adjustment is more complicated than that - it includes weighting for preseason ranks (for a time), recent performance over older performance, etc. - but schedule is the primary driver.

The four factors are not, themselves, determinative of our defensive ranking - that is, Pomeroy doesn't throw eFG%, TO%, ORB%, and FTA/FGA into a formula and compute defensive efficiency as a result. Instead, the factors are explanatory; Duke has yielded 104 points per 100 possessions because teams shoot at an effective 49.1% clip, only turn the ball over on 18% of possessions, get 30% of their misses, and shoot 2 free throws for every 5 field goal attempts. But our rating is what it is because the opponents we've played have scored 104 points per 100 possessions - if they had gotten those points through a different combination of performance in the four factors, our rating would be unchanged.

[vick]

In thinking about it a bit more, I guess it would stand to reason that efficiency is most closely tied to eFG% and turnovers, as these are the only two measures that have a direct, isolated effect on points per possession. Rebound percentage is only relevant in the case of a missed shot, which implies that it is dependent on the eFG% and the turnover rate. Foul rate is sort of a separate issue, as the impact of a foul depends on the type of foul (shooting, non-shooting), the total number of fouls (bonus or not), and FG% (1, 2, or 3 FTA). And even then it depends on how many of those FT are made (though that would theoretically normalize to some degree).

So I guess I can see a logical reason why eFG% and turnover rates have the two biggest impacts on efficiency. I had never thought about it in depth before. Quite interesting. And certainly would help (along with any national trends in eFG% over time) to explain the seeming anomaly in results.

So I dug into this a bit, and I think the results are somewhat interesting. Last year the correlations for the four factors with defensive efficiency was:

eFG%: 86.1%
TO%: -37.8% (more turnovers ==> better defense ==> lower efficiency number, hence negative correlation)
OR%: 38.9%
FTRate: 8.6%

But for this year, so far, the results look pretty different:

eFG%: 86.5%
TO%: -35.6%
OR%: 53.9%
FTRate: 31.4%

Basically, as far as I can tell, it seems like turnovers have become less important relative to rebounding, and free throws have become much more important. Both of these effects are what you would directionally expect with the stricter enforcement of hand-checking, but the magnitude of the effect is somewhat surprising, at least to me.

[greybeard]

I think it remains to be seen whether Plumlee is what you think he is offensively (my inclination is that he is not, but I'm not entirely sure what you think he is offensively so I could be wrong). But I would be shocked if Parker sees any reduction in minutes with or without an emergence by Plumlee. Parker is our best player, by a wide margin. He's going to play 33-35 (or more) minutes in any competitive games barring injury or foul trouble. Plumlee is not going to change that dynamic.

IF (and it's a very big "if" right now) Plumlee improves to the point of demanding more minutes, those minutes will come from Jefferson, Hairston, Ojeleye, and any of the guards who come in when we move Hood to the PF spot. But Parker is not going to see much bench time moving forward. If anything, his playing time is going to go UP (from the 30.6 mpg he's currently averaging) as we enter ACC play.

We're going to see a ton of Hood and Parker on the floor together the rest of the way. Coach K feels they are our two best players, so along with Cook (our only true PG at the moment) they are going to continue to play 30+ mpg. So there are going to almost always be 2 (or more) other slashers on the floor whenever Sulaimon is in the game.

We'll see. You are talking a lot of minutes, this kid is a freshman, and I believe that even Mason, the breast that he is, ran out of gas towards the end of each of the last two seasons. What kind of offensive player do I think Plumlee is; a very effective one.

[superdave]

We'll see. You are talking a lot of minutes, this kid is a freshman, and I believe that even Mason, the breast that he is, ran out of gas towards the end of each of the last two seasons. What kind of offensive player do I think Plumlee is; a very effective one.

You think Marshall is a very effective offensive player?

He shot 1-8 from the floor last year and is 2-4 so far this year. First of all, 3-12 is inefficient. Second of all, twelve shots are too few from which we might draw accurate conclusions. Third, we should all put our eggs in the hopeful basket and stop projecting too much with Marshall. He is going to be good for us. When is the question.

[CDu]

We'll see. You are talking a lot of minutes, this kid is a freshman, and I believe that even Mason, the breast that he is, ran out of gas towards the end of each of the last two seasons. What kind of offensive player do I think Plumlee is; a very effective one.

Mason was also playing several more mpg than Parker is playing. And it is debatable whether he wore down anyway.

And Marshall is 3-12 from the field and 0-10 from the line, with a 3:7 turnover rate, just an OK rebound rate, and a general "lost" look on the floor right now. Nothing about what he has done thus far suggests efficient or effective on offense. Hopefully someday he develops into an effective offensive player. He has the size and athleticism to make an impact once his skills catch up. But to suggest that he is effective right now is, I think, a classic example of believing what you want to see, not what you actually are seeing.

[tommy]

We'll see. You are talking a lot of minutes, this kid is a freshman, and I believe that even Mason, the breast that he is . . .

I knew I really liked Mason for some reason . . .

[tommy]

My best guess is the disconnect lies in the fact that last season Rasheed was our chief slasher and really our only guy who could create his own shot and he both flourished in and enjoyed that role. This season, we have two other guys plus an improved Quinn who can all do what Rasheed did last season (and do it a little better) and Rasheed needs to find a new role to help the team. Either he's resisting that process or he's confused about what to do. And then he's letting his uncertainty on offense affect his defense and that's why he's not playing.



Chemistry is often an overstated issue, but I think it applies (or at least a specific aspect of it applies) here. Last year, roles were very clearly defined: Mason, Kelly, and Curry were the senior leaders and offensive go-to guys. Cook was the PG, floor general, and emotional leader. Thornton was the glue guy on the perimeter. Hairston and Jefferson were fill-ins at PF/C. And Sulaimon was the jack-of-all-trades, X-factor type wing. He wasn't the focal point of the offense, but he was capable of doing a little bit of everything. And more importantly, he was one of just two guys on the team who could create off the dribble. We had only four guards on the squad, which all but guaranteed tons of playing time for everybody as Coach K went with a three-guard lineup.

Well, this year things changed. We switched from being a team loaded up front but lacking in small guys to a team with a ton of guards/wings but lacking big guys. We suddenly had 3 other guys capable of creating off the dribble as opposed to 1 other guy. And instead of competing with two guys for 2+ positions' worth of minutes, he was competing with three guys for 1+ position's worth of minutes. So it seems like the change in roster structure, the increase in competition for a decrease in available PT, and the change in role on offense have combined to make life tough for Sulaimon so far.

But why would the fact that there are other very good slashing-tyhpe of players diminish Rasheed's ability to be that type of player too? Why would having Jabari Parker and Rodney Hood slashing to the basket be mutually exclusive with Rasheed Sulaimon slashing to the basket? None of them do it on every possession. On certain possessions, Jabari might post, or Rasheed might hang out at the 3-point line, etc., as they are skilled in those areas as well. Having multiple slashers doesn't usually create spacing problems. Slashers sometimes run into bigs down low who clog things up, but not other guys in the mid-range to the perimeter areas. To me, the team would only be stronger if we had another guy in the lineup who relished -- as Rasheed does -- taking the ball strong to the hole, either off the dribble or off of cutting action. Preferably the latter. I understand that there is more competition at the 2 this year, but as has been stated (forget by you guys or others) Rasheed's game, or his game last year anyway, is the most well-rounded of all of them -- he's, as you say, a jack-of-all-trades -- and I have no doubt that if he was playing as he did last year, even with Jabari and Rodney on the floor contemporaneously, he would have no problem in beating out both Tyler and Matt for major minutes at SG.


The prospect of having Jabari (poor team and individual defensive player, very solid rebounder) with Jefferson (very poor defensive player all around, very solid rebounder) is kinda frightening. Our defense is so poor right now, that Hairston - a very poor individual defender but very strong team defender - actually makes our overall defense better. IMO, this team needs drastic defensive improvement in order to even consider playing Jefferson more.


I agree with all of this. I think Coach K has Hairston and Thornton playing major minutes because while they are very limited offensively - he trusts them to know the defensive schemes and to communicate. Jefferson hasn't yet fully earned that trust. Sulaimon has gotten lost trying to find his role.

You're both right, which makes all the pining on DBR for more minutes for Marshall Plumlee even more hard to fathom. Sure, he's seven feet tall and pretty mobile, and there are obvious benefits to that, but of all the guys perhaps on the entire team, and certainly among the bigs, he appears to have the furthest to go in his understanding of and ability to execute the defensive schemes. He is the least experienced, save Semi, his energy still seems a bit out of control, and when he hedges he is slow to get back to his man -- I've seen opponents miss opportunities to hit the big cutting to the hoop past post-hedge Marshall a number of times already -- and while I'm sure he's a smart guy and will eventually get it and internalize it, he's clearly not there yet. And that's just the defensive end. Why we would want to insert a guy, who has not demonstrated an ability to execute defensively, for major minutes into a lineup that is already struggling defensively, eludes me.

[Kedsy]

...just an OK rebound rate...

I agree with you, and I understand the sample size on Marshall is way too small, but I wanted to point out that Marshall's current offensive rebounding pct is 20.0%, which is outstanding (not just OK) if he had any chance of keeping it up.

[Kedsy]

But why would the fact that there are other very good slashing-type of players diminish Rasheed's ability to be that type of player too?

Because (a) there's only one ball; (b) it's redundant, if you want someone to slash to the basket you can give it to Rodney or Jabari -- both of whom are better at it than Rasheed is -- or Quinn, who's about as good, so there's no need for Rasheed to do it; (c) when they all try to do it, the offense gets too one-note and predictable (like the second half against Arizona), and the defense can pack it in without consequences because they pretty much know all of Duke's players are going to try to slash to and/or try to score near the basket; (d) because more helpful to the offense than a third slasher (or fourth, if you include Quinn), is someone who can catch a pass and convert -- either a shooter or an inside threat -- and/or possibly another distributor, maybe even a screener; (e) because Coach K wants players to play roles, and if you already have Jabari, Rodney, and Quinn playing the slashing role, what the coaching staff needs and expects from Rasheed is a different role and by most accounts he's resisting that; and of course (f) if Coach K won't play him, his ability to do anything is diminished.

[tommy]

Because (a) there's only one ball; (b) it's redundant, if you want someone to slash to the basket you can give it to Rodney or Jabari -- both of whom are better at it than Rasheed is -- or Quinn, who's about as good, so there's no need for Rasheed to do it; (c) when they all try to do it, the offense gets too one-note and predictable (like the second half against Arizona), and the defense can pack it in without consequences because they pretty much know all of Duke's players are going to try to slash to and/or try to score near the basket; (d) because more helpful to the offense than a third slasher (or fourth, if you include Quinn), is someone who can catch a pass and convert -- either a shooter or an inside threat -- and/or possibly another distributor, maybe even a screener; (e) because Coach K wants players to play roles, and if you already have Jabari, Rodney, and Quinn playing the slashing role, what the coaching staff needs and expects from Rasheed is a different role and by most accounts he's resisting that; and of course (f) if Coach K won't play him, his ability to do anything is diminished.

I don't know. Just because Jabari and Rodney are better at slashing than is Rasheed doesn't mean Rasheed isn't also good at it, or that the team couldn't benefit by his doing it. I mean, nobody is better at outside jump shooting than is Andre, but it's not like he's the only one who takes outside jump shots. So I guess that, as to (b) I'd say that while there may not be a "need" for Rasheed to do it, if he's good at it, he can and should do it. I know what you mean that it's redundant, but it's not like they'd be doing it simultaneously. That's why I say that if one guy is slashing to the hole, the others -- who are also skilled at slashing but just not doing it on this particular possession -- can move without the ball to be ready for a kickout, after which they can either slash to the hoop, shoot, or swing the ball.

As to c), it seemed to me that the problem against Arizona wasn't the predictable nature of our slashing, but that once we got to the hoop -- and Rasheed was admittedly the worst offender here -- we tried to finish over some guys with tremendous length, and that just wasn't going to happen. The slashing would have looked a lot better if once our slasher got into the lane and caused their defense to react, if we had dumped off to a teammate on the interior, or kicked out to an open one on the 3-point line.

If (d) is what is going on, then the whole issue re: Rasheed isn't really about his game at all. He's not the outside shooter that Andre, and perhaps Matt, are, so if K wants a pure shooter to hang around the line and wait for kick outs from Jabari and Rodney, then those two guys should be playing ahead of Rasheed. They're better at that than he is.

I've read and heard the same things you have about Rasheed being a little resistant (e) to some of what the coaches want him to adopt in terms of role. I'm just not sure what that really means, though. I can't imagine they want him to just be a spot-up shooter, and not try to slash to the hoop. Yeah, I'm sure they want him to find his way back to his midrange game, but that includes the slashing style that you're saying K may not want him to employ. Does the staff really want him to reduce the scope of his offensive game, just become a spot up shooter, and play hard-nosed D? I guess it's possible, but I'd be pretty surprised, wouldn't you?

[Kedsy]

I don't know. Just because Jabari and Rodney are better at slashing than is Rasheed doesn't mean Rasheed isn't also good at it, or that the team couldn't benefit by his doing it. I mean, nobody is better at outside jump shooting than is Andre, but it's not like he's the only one who takes outside jump shots. So I guess that, as to (b) I'd say that while there may not be a "need" for Rasheed to do it, if he's good at it, he can and should do it. I know what you mean that it's redundant, but it's not like they'd be doing it simultaneously. That's why I say that if one guy is slashing to the hole, the others -- who are also skilled at slashing but just not doing it on this particular possession -- can move without the ball to be ready for a kickout, after which they can either slash to the hoop, shoot, or swing the ball.

As to c), it seemed to me that the problem against Arizona wasn't the predictable nature of our slashing, but that once we got to the hoop -- and Rasheed was admittedly the worst offender here -- we tried to finish over some guys with tremendous length, and that just wasn't going to happen. The slashing would have looked a lot better if once our slasher got into the lane and caused their defense to react, if we had dumped off to a teammate on the interior, or kicked out to an open one on the 3-point line.

If (d) is what is going on, then the whole issue re: Rasheed isn't really about his game at all. He's not the outside shooter that Andre, and perhaps Matt, are, so if K wants a pure shooter to hang around the line and wait for kick outs from Jabari and Rodney, then those two guys should be playing ahead of Rasheed. They're better at that than he is.

I've read and heard the same things you have about Rasheed being a little resistant (e) to some of what the coaches want him to adopt in terms of role. I'm just not sure what that really means, though. I can't imagine they want him to just be a spot-up shooter, and not try to slash to the hoop. Yeah, I'm sure they want him to find his way back to his midrange game, but that includes the slashing style that you're saying K may not want him to employ. Does the staff really want him to reduce the scope of his offensive game, just become a spot up shooter, and play hard-nosed D? I guess it's possible, but I'd be pretty surprised, wouldn't you?

I don't know either. Seems to me Rasheed wants the ball at the top of the key and wants to slash first, with his primary thought being to score. But with Jabari and Rodney on the floor, we either need a guy who'll space the floor and think perimeter shot first, only going toward the hoop after a shot-fake and then pulling up mid-range or only going all the way in if there was a clear lane (and, yeah, this is Andre, but Rasheed could do it when he's on the floor, too, and he's a better defender than Andre); OR a guy who penetrates with the expectation of dishing or kicking out and only going in for the shot if the passing lanes are cut off (i.e., we have more use for a second Quinn than a third Rodney). So it's really a mindset or a willingness to adopt a role.

Put another way, to make our offense most effective, Rasheed should either be taking a lot of threes or getting a lot of assists. He shouldn't be taking a lot of contested short shots.

I disagree with you about the Arizona game. To me, the problem was we tried to go one-on-one, possession after possession. Arizona always had a guy or two near the basket (I assumed it was because we did the same thing every time, but maybe not) but because of the nature of our slashing, good kickouts and dumpoffs weren't really available. We needed good spacing and team play, and since whoever got the ball simply put his head down and went to the hoop, we had neither of those things.

[jv001]

I don't know either. Seems to me Rasheed wants the ball at the top of the key and wants to slash first, with his primary thought being to score. But with Jabari and Rodney on the floor, we either need a guy who'll space the floor and think perimeter shot first, only going toward the hoop after a shot-fake and then pulling up mid-range or only going all the way in if there was a clear lane (and, yeah, this is Andre, but Rasheed could do it when he's on the floor, too, and he's a better defender than Andre); OR a guy who penetrates with the expectation of dishing or kicking out and only going in for the shot if the passing lanes are cut off (i.e., we have more use for a second Quinn than a third Rodney). So it's really a mindset or a willingness to adopt a role.

Put another way, to make our offense most effective, Rasheed should either be taking a lot of threes or getting a lot of assists. He shouldn't be taking a lot of contested short shots.

I disagree with you about the Arizona game. To me, the problem was we tried to go one-on-one, possession after possession. Arizona always had a guy or two near the basket (I assumed it was because we did the same thing every time, but maybe not) but because of the nature of our slashing, good kickouts and dumpoffs weren't really available. We needed good spacing and team play, and since whoever got the ball simply put his head down and went to the hoop, we had neither of those things.

This to me is spot on for our offense against Arizona. Way too much one on one that ended with a bad result. It reminded me of our Austin Rivers offense where he drove the lane with one intent(shoot and try to draw a foul). Rasheed has the ability to drive the ball and dish to an open team mate. One that is open from three or a rotating player around or near the basket. GoDuke!

[roywhite]

I don't know either. Seems to me Rasheed wants the ball at the top of the key and wants to slash first, with his primary thought being to score. But with Jabari and Rodney on the floor, we either need a guy who'll space the floor and think perimeter shot first, only going toward the hoop after a shot-fake and then pulling up mid-range or only going all the way in if there was a clear lane (and, yeah, this is Andre, but Rasheed could do it when he's on the floor, too, and he's a better defender than Andre); OR a guy who penetrates with the expectation of dishing or kicking out and only going in for the shot if the passing lanes are cut off (i.e., we have more use for a second Quinn than a third Rodney). So it's really a mindset or a willingness to adopt a role.

Put another way, to make our offense most effective, Rasheed should either be taking a lot of threes or getting a lot of assists. He shouldn't be taking a lot of contested short shots.



Even last year, I thought Rasheed's biggest deficiency was his difficulty in finishing drives when defended, and especially finishing if there was any contact (whistle or not). For a good player, it's a learned skill, and a valuable one. J.J. Redick for example became much more effective as a junior and senior when he could finish his drives. This skill seems to be lacking in Rasheed's game, and is likely a factor in his lack of minutes. Currently, we'd like to see Rasheed be a threat from 3-pt and mid-range, while working on consistency and other areas of his game.

[dcar1985]

I don't know either. Seems to me Rasheed wants the ball at the top of the key and wants to slash first, with his primary thought being to score. But with Jabari and Rodney on the floor, we either need a guy who'll space the floor and think perimeter shot first, only going toward the hoop after a shot-fake and then pulling up mid-range or only going all the way in if there was a clear lane (and, yeah, this is Andre, but Rasheed could do it when he's on the floor, too, and he's a better defender than Andre); OR a guy who penetrates with the expectation of dishing or kicking out and only going in for the shot if the passing lanes are cut off (i.e., we have more use for a second Quinn than a third Rodney). So it's really a mindset or a willingness to adopt a role.

Put another way, to make our offense most effective, Rasheed should either be taking a lot of threes or getting a lot of assists. He shouldn't be taking a lot of contested short shots.

I disagree with you about the Arizona game. To me, the problem was we tried to go one-on-one, possession after possession. Arizona always had a guy or two near the basket (I assumed it was because we did the same thing every time, but maybe not) but because of the nature of our slashing, good kickouts and dumpoffs weren't really available. We needed good spacing and team play, and since whoever got the ball simply put his head down and went to the hoop, we had neither of those things.

Anyone else notice that the only set called for Rasheed is the high ball screen (our whole offense during Austin's year) I think maybe putting Sheed in different spots or getting him the ball somewhere else might trigger something for him. But yea right now once he turns the corner on that screen he's pretty much head down going to the rim which in a way is what you want him to do when his outside shot is not falling but when the defense knows its coming or rotates (one of Sheeds biggest weakneses in my observations is finishing through contact) missing those layups are just adding to his frustration out there.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Even last year, I thought Rasheed's biggest deficiency was his difficulty in finishing drives when defended, and especially finishing if there was any contact (whistle or not). For a good player, it's a learned skill, and a valuable one. J.J. Redick for example became much more effective as a junior and senior when he could finish his drives. This skill seems to be lacking in Rasheed's game, and is likely a factor in his lack of minutes. Currently, we'd like to see Rasheed be a threat from 3-pt and mid-range, while working on consistency and other areas of his game.

When he stopped...ummm....yeah.....

Let's say When he took his role on the team seriously. That's when JJ became a significantly more effective player.

[roywhite]

When he stopped...ummm....yeah.....

Let's say When he took his role on the team seriously. That's when JJ became a significantly more effective player.

Not an insider, but I guess I understand your reference on JJ.

Are you suggesting a similar issue with Rasheed? Coach K seems to be saying it's just his game that's a problem, not attitude. Though I guess a lack of development could be traced to work habits.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Not an insider, but I guess I understand your reference on JJ.

Are you suggesting a similar issue with Rasheed? Coach K seems to be saying it's just his game that's a problem, not attitude. Though I guess a lack of development could be traced to work habits.

It's very well known that JJ didn't take conditioning seriously as a freshman and sophomore. A large part of this is due to...ummm..."extra-curricular activities".

There is a well known story (can't find the article online, but it's out there) that, during the late spring / early summer between his sophomore and junior years, the coaching staff came in JJ's room and abruptly awoke JJ, who was in bad shape. They brought him to Coach K, who somehow got JJ to drop these "extra-curricular activities" and start getting in ideal shape. JJ - and the coaching staff - points to this one meeting as the turning point from 3pt specialist to one of the best players of the decade.

I obviously can't go more into detail about the "extra-curricular activities," but as someone who overlapped with JJ for 3 years, I can assure you that these existed.

With Rasheed, it is a completely different story. I don't think that there is any overlap. With Rasheed, it's mental. With JJ, it was primarily physical.

[azzefkram]

You're both right, which makes all the pining on DBR for more minutes for Marshall Plumlee even more hard to fathom. Sure, he's seven feet tall and pretty mobile, and there are obvious benefits to that, but of all the guys perhaps on the entire team, and certainly among the bigs, he appears to have the furthest to go in his understanding of and ability to execute the defensive schemes. He is the least experienced, save Semi, his energy still seems a bit out of control, and when he hedges he is slow to get back to his man -- I've seen opponents miss opportunities to hit the big cutting to the hoop past post-hedge Marshall a number of times already -- and while I'm sure he's a smart guy and will eventually get it and internalize it, he's clearly not there yet. And that's just the defensive end. Why we would want to insert a guy, who has not demonstrated an ability to execute defensively, for major minutes into a lineup that is already struggling defensively, eludes me.

It's easy because Marshall is better (small sample size alert) at all the things Josh is bad at. MP3 is a significantly better rebounder, shot blocker and on the ball defender than Josh. While Josh is better at hedging than Marshall (IMHO Josh is pretty over-rated here WRT that), there is more to defense than hedging. GW scored about 40% of their points at the rim and shot a very efficient 72% from that range. Duke does an outstanding job guarding the 3 and Josh is a part of that. However, the most efficient shot in basketball is at the rim and Duke does a poor job at that. Josh isn't the sole culprit but he does represent the lion's share and he is the most easily replaceable.

[Kedsy]

While Josh is better at hedging than Marshall (IMHO Josh is pretty over-rated here WRT that), there is more to defense than hedging.

It's not just hedging. What Josh does better than almost everyone on the team right now is defensive positioning. And we need that and Marshall in his limited minutes has not done that very well yet.

[azzefkram]

It's not just hedging. What Josh does better than almost everyone on the team right now is defensive positioning. And we need that and Marshall in his limited minutes has not done that very well yet.

I'll give you the Marshall but I don't agree about Josh. At least three times a game Josh opens up the lane giving the opposing team a free shot at a lay-up/dunk. How do I know it's at least three times, because that is how often my wife graces me with a reproachful look. I am not talking about blow-bys either. He often will put his back to the ball and inadvertently shield a fellow Duke defender or make an ill-advised double team. In either case the lane is wide open.

[greybeard]

You think Marshall is a very effective offensive player?

He shot 1-8 from the floor last year and is 2-4 so far this year. First of all, 3-12 is inefficient. Second of all, twelve shots are too few from which we might draw accurate conclusions. Third, we should all put our eggs in the hopeful basket and stop projecting too much with Marshall. He is going to be good for us. When is the question.

Yeap. YOU DON'T? Eight shots after sitting out how long, the youngest of three brothers, the first two of whom were first round draft picks. We all see what we look for. We'll see who sees a closer approximation of what manifests. BTW, that is all that we see, even after what we are looking at is already there. "The only thing objective about objectivity is the subjective opinion of those who believe that such a thing exists."

[GGLC]

Yeap. YOU DON'T? Eight shots after sitting out how long, the youngest of three brothers, the first two of whom were first round draft picks. We all see what we look for. We'll see who sees a closer approximation of what manifests. BTW, that is all that we see, even after what we are looking at is already there. "The only thing objective about objectivity is the subjective opinion of those who believe that such a thing exists."

What evidence do you have that Marshall Plumlee is a very effective offensive player?

Given his stats, the burden is on you.

Would you say Ozzie Canseco was a very effective offensive player?

[Billy Dat]

It's very well known that JJ didn't take conditioning seriously as a freshman and sophomore. A large part of this is due to...ummm..."extra-curricular activities" (http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2003/04/03/redick-faces-inquiry-pot-use).

JJ seems like a very spiritual guy, and many consider his extra-curricular activity to be a sacred sacramen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_spiritual_use_of_cannabis)t.

[greybeard]

What evidence do you have that Marshall Plumlee is a very effective offensive player?

Given his stats, the burden is on you.

Would you say Ozzie Canseco was a very effective offensive player?

I was trained in basketball by some of the very best, played for 25 years, some of them against very high end athletes, and see the game in a snap. I could neither run nor jump but could handle myself quite well with anyone I played with and against. I could size players up after watching them a few moments, just shooting before a game, and pick up the most important things about them, nothing to do with the ball going in or not, very quickly and on a continuing basis. Call it my gift.

If J Will went ) for 8 his first game that would prove what. Cook scored, I think it was zero points the first half of one game and dropped 25 the next. Mason had some terrible scoring games the first three years at Duke. Miles forget about it. How much did Kelly average?

You see what you look at. Me, I do not look at the number of pints scored in a few minutes of play. I do see a lot in that amount of time. I saw a lot in the first time I saw the kid play last year.

I knew that G could not shoot going left and, in fact, was pretty bad for his talent dribbling right because he took too wide a turn as he stopped and went into his shot, over rotated and so had an extremely, extremely small window in which to release and even still had to make a big adjustment to put it on target. He found a way to stop with much smaller steps, particularly his second step, and turn tight, like a skater going into one of those spins, less centrifugal force, actually its a force that starts with an "a" that would throw his arm and the ball dead right center field if he did not keep turning and centrugal force did not pull it back in. Did you notice that. Scheyer I think had something stuck in his right shoulder blade that caused his shot to go to the right, which he was able to make a nice adjustment to prevent. The first two years, I'd almost invite Nelson to go right because he went so hard on a narrow line to the basket that the bigs inside almost always got him. When he learned to slow and finish with a hook or a hanging bank, in addition to the quick darting finish he was lethal. Singlers' best three balls came off his uncanny ability to come off a screen down low, sprint to the three line, turn on a dime in complete balance with no over rotation as he brought the ball up to shooting. Lets see, neither Mason nor Miles particularly liked to catch the ball on the move and go. They didn't seem to have their bearings. Miles did not have "bad" hands, he had bad concepts. His concepts going up inside the defense were to tighten his mid-section on up, including through his arms, and neck, which tightened all his flexors including his hands and made him incredibly slow and predicable going up with a rebound, he had to overcome all that flexion, including in his hands and thus the ball flew right out. He did not know how to not go into flexion, how to relax the muscles that articulate joints. He started to get the feel of it, to see the utility of it, the last 8 game he played for Duke. You want I should go on? McRoberts preferred, much preferred to finish right than left. Much.

Dawkins shoots much better going right and stops left right, with his right foot close to his left and slightly behind his left and brings the ball up I believe with his left hand and meets the ball with his right when it gets near the top of his shooting position as he is about to leave the grouhnd. Very quick shot and almost impossible to bother how he brings it up to shooting.

Many, many shooters have one way to bring the ball up to shooting. Disturb that way is better than getting a hand in the face (probably more effective in school yard ball). Same with how they come to a stop to go into their jump shots, or turn for their shots. Again, you make them do things different, and you will impact their shots significantly. That pertains much less to the three ball. You are not close enough to the defender and guys today have down this ability to go through their legs taking a jump backwards and stop their momentum back into up and are deadly. You rarely saw that 10 years ago.

Mason was quite effective going to the left baseline from the middle and going along the left baseline to the basket. Had great variety in the things mentioned above. Going from the right side he was quite limited, unless he had a rather straight on angle and no backside help; then he had a wicked spin move but pretty much had to see that before he got going.

McRoberts did not have to gather himself to elevate. That is what made him such a great off the ball shot blocker. He could wait and was very difficult to fake off his feet. Scheyer read passing lanes from the left side of the key down to the baseline tericially. I mean outstandingly. Not so much from the right. If Scheyer was in that position on the left side, I'd be extremely cautious.

Okay, I'm tired and it's late.

[Saratoga2]

I was trained in basketball by some of the very best, played for 25 years, some of them against very high end athletes, and see the game in a snap. I could neither run nor jump but could handle myself quite well with anyone I played with and against. I could size players up after watching them a few moments, just shooting before a game, and pick up the most important things about them, nothing to do with the ball going in or not, very quickly and on a continuing basis. Call it my gift.

If J Will went ) for 8 his first game that would prove what. Cook scored, I think it was zero points the first half of one game and dropped 25 the next. Mason had some terrible scoring games the first three years at Duke. Miles forget about it. How much did Kelly average?

You see what you look at. Me, I do not look at the number of pints scored in a few minutes of play. I do see a lot in that amount of time. I saw a lot in the first time I saw the kid play last year.

I knew that G could not shoot going left and, in fact, was pretty bad for his talent dribbling right because he took too wide a turn as he stopped and went into his shot, over rotated and so had an extremely, extremely small window in which to release and even still had to make a big adjustment to put it on target. He found a way to stop with much smaller steps, particularly his second step, and turn tight, like a skater going into one of those spins, less centrifugal force, actually its a force that starts with an "a" that would throw his arm and the ball dead right center field if he did not keep turning and centrugal force did not pull it back in. Did you notice that. Scheyer I think had something stuck in his right shoulder blade that caused his shot to go to the right, which he was able to make a nice adjustment to prevent. The first two years, I'd almost invite Nelson to go right because he went so hard on a narrow line to the basket that the bigs inside almost always got him. When he learned to slow and finish with a hook or a hanging bank, in addition to the quick darting finish he was lethal. Singlers' best three balls came off his uncanny ability to come off a screen down low, sprint to the three line, turn on a dime in complete balance with no over rotation as he brought the ball up to shooting. Lets see, neither Mason nor Miles particularly liked to catch the ball on the move and go. They didn't seem to have their bearings. Miles did not have "bad" hands, he had bad concepts. His concepts going up inside the defense were to tighten his mid-section on up, including through his arms, and neck, which tightened all his flexors including his hands and made him incredibly slow and predicable going up with a rebound, he had to overcome all that flexion, including in his hands and thus the ball flew right out. He did not know how to not go into flexion, how to relax the muscles that articulate joints. He started to get the feel of it, to see the utility of it, the last 8 game he played for Duke. You want I should go on? McRoberts preferred, much preferred to finish right than left. Much.

Dawkins shoots much better going right and stops left right, with his right foot close to his left and slightly behind his left and brings the ball up I believe with his left hand and meets the ball with his right when it gets near the top of his shooting position as he is about to leave the grouhnd. Very quick shot and almost impossible to bother how he brings it up to shooting.

Many, many shooters have one way to bring the ball up to shooting. Disturb that way is better than getting a hand in the face (probably more effective in school yard ball). Same with how they come to a stop to go into their jump shots, or turn for their shots. Again, you make them do things different, and you will impact their shots significantly. That pertains much less to the three ball. You are not close enough to the defender and guys today have down this ability to go through their legs taking a jump backwards and stop their momentum back into up and are deadly. You rarely saw that 10 years ago.

Mason was quite effective going to the left baseline from the middle and going along the left baseline to the basket. Had great variety in the things mentioned above. Going from the right side he was quite limited, unless he had a rather straight on angle and no backside help; then he had a wicked spin move but pretty much had to see that before he got going.

McRoberts did not have to gather himself to elevate. That is what made him such a great off the ball shot blocker. He could wait and was very difficult to fake off his feet. Scheyer read passing lanes from the left side of the key down to the baseline tericially. I mean outstandingly. Not so much from the right. If Scheyer was in that position on the left side, I'd be extremely cautious.

Okay, I'm tired and it's late.

Given that anyone up that late might have had a drink or two along the way, if you have the expertise you claim, (and I have no reason to say you don't), then why not provide an analysis of players on our current team.

Also, why do players languish on our team for years without making key improvements in their game? Is it that they don't have the needed physical skills or are they not developing for other reasons? It would seem that 4 years is enough time to get the hitch out of a foul shot or to be able to learn how to make a mid range shot, or how to hedge and get back. Do some players just not see the game as it is being played? Players like Scheyer did see what was happening while players like Miles and Mason were slow to improve aspects of their games despite tremendous physical gifts. How is it that Miles in now showing himself to be valuable at the NBA level?

Back to the current team as there have been discussions going on about Josh, Tyler, Sheed and Marshall, what can you add about those players that might be inciteful?

[GGLC]

I was trained in basketball by some of the very best, played for 25 years, some of them against very high end athletes, and see the game in a snap. I could neither run nor jump but could handle myself quite well with anyone I played with and against. I could size players up after watching them a few moments, just shooting before a game, and pick up the most important things about them, nothing to do with the ball going in or not, very quickly and on a continuing basis. Call it my gift.

If J Will went ) for 8 his first game that would prove what. Cook scored, I think it was zero points the first half of one game and dropped 25 the next. Mason had some terrible scoring games the first three years at Duke. Miles forget about it. How much did Kelly average?

You see what you look at. Me, I do not look at the number of pints scored in a few minutes of play. I do see a lot in that amount of time. I saw a lot in the first time I saw the kid play last year.

I knew that G could not shoot going left and, in fact, was pretty bad for his talent dribbling right because he took too wide a turn as he stopped and went into his shot, over rotated and so had an extremely, extremely small window in which to release and even still had to make a big adjustment to put it on target. He found a way to stop with much smaller steps, particularly his second step, and turn tight, like a skater going into one of those spins, less centrifugal force, actually its a force that starts with an "a" that would throw his arm and the ball dead right center field if he did not keep turning and centrugal force did not pull it back in. Did you notice that. Scheyer I think had something stuck in his right shoulder blade that caused his shot to go to the right, which he was able to make a nice adjustment to prevent. The first two years, I'd almost invite Nelson to go right because he went so hard on a narrow line to the basket that the bigs inside almost always got him. When he learned to slow and finish with a hook or a hanging bank, in addition to the quick darting finish he was lethal. Singlers' best three balls came off his uncanny ability to come off a screen down low, sprint to the three line, turn on a dime in complete balance with no over rotation as he brought the ball up to shooting. Lets see, neither Mason nor Miles particularly liked to catch the ball on the move and go. They didn't seem to have their bearings. Miles did not have "bad" hands, he had bad concepts. His concepts going up inside the defense were to tighten his mid-section on up, including through his arms, and neck, which tightened all his flexors including his hands and made him incredibly slow and predicable going up with a rebound, he had to overcome all that flexion, including in his hands and thus the ball flew right out. He did not know how to not go into flexion, how to relax the muscles that articulate joints. He started to get the feel of it, to see the utility of it, the last 8 game he played for Duke. You want I should go on? McRoberts preferred, much preferred to finish right than left. Much.

Dawkins shoots much better going right and stops left right, with his right foot close to his left and slightly behind his left and brings the ball up I believe with his left hand and meets the ball with his right when it gets near the top of his shooting position as he is about to leave the grouhnd. Very quick shot and almost impossible to bother how he brings it up to shooting.

Many, many shooters have one way to bring the ball up to shooting. Disturb that way is better than getting a hand in the face (probably more effective in school yard ball). Same with how they come to a stop to go into their jump shots, or turn for their shots. Again, you make them do things different, and you will impact their shots significantly. That pertains much less to the three ball. You are not close enough to the defender and guys today have down this ability to go through their legs taking a jump backwards and stop their momentum back into up and are deadly. You rarely saw that 10 years ago.

Mason was quite effective going to the left baseline from the middle and going along the left baseline to the basket. Had great variety in the things mentioned above. Going from the right side he was quite limited, unless he had a rather straight on angle and no backside help; then he had a wicked spin move but pretty much had to see that before he got going.

McRoberts did not have to gather himself to elevate. That is what made him such a great off the ball shot blocker. He could wait and was very difficult to fake off his feet. Scheyer read passing lanes from the left side of the key down to the baseline tericially. I mean outstandingly. Not so much from the right. If Scheyer was in that position on the left side, I'd be extremely cautious.

Okay, I'm tired and it's late.

What evidence do you have that Marshall Plumlee is a very effective offensive player?

Given his stats, the burden is on you.

Would you say Ozzie Canseco was a very effective offensive player?

I'm repeating my questions because your post didn't address them at all.

[tommy]

I was trained in basketball by some of the very best, played for 25 years, some of them against very high end athletes, and see the game in a snap. I could neither run nor jump but could handle myself quite well with anyone I played with and against. I could size players up after watching them a few moments, just shooting before a game, and pick up the most important things about them, nothing to do with the ball going in or not, very quickly and on a continuing basis. Call it my gift.

If J Will went ) for 8 his first game that would prove what. Cook scored, I think it was zero points the first half of one game and dropped 25 the next. Mason had some terrible scoring games the first three years at Duke. Miles forget about it. How much did Kelly average?

You see what you look at. Me, I do not look at the number of pints scored in a few minutes of play. I do see a lot in that amount of time. I saw a lot in the first time I saw the kid play last year.

I knew that G could not shoot going left and, in fact, was pretty bad for his talent dribbling right because he took too wide a turn as he stopped and went into his shot, over rotated and so had an extremely, extremely small window in which to release and even still had to make a big adjustment to put it on target. He found a way to stop with much smaller steps, particularly his second step, and turn tight, like a skater going into one of those spins, less centrifugal force, actually its a force that starts with an "a" that would throw his arm and the ball dead right center field if he did not keep turning and centrugal force did not pull it back in. Did you notice that. Scheyer I think had something stuck in his right shoulder blade that caused his shot to go to the right, which he was able to make a nice adjustment to prevent. The first two years, I'd almost invite Nelson to go right because he went so hard on a narrow line to the basket that the bigs inside almost always got him. When he learned to slow and finish with a hook or a hanging bank, in addition to the quick darting finish he was lethal. Singlers' best three balls came off his uncanny ability to come off a screen down low, sprint to the three line, turn on a dime in complete balance with no over rotation as he brought the ball up to shooting. Lets see, neither Mason nor Miles particularly liked to catch the ball on the move and go. They didn't seem to have their bearings. Miles did not have "bad" hands, he had bad concepts. His concepts going up inside the defense were to tighten his mid-section on up, including through his arms, and neck, which tightened all his flexors including his hands and made him incredibly slow and predicable going up with a rebound, he had to overcome all that flexion, including in his hands and thus the ball flew right out. He did not know how to not go into flexion, how to relax the muscles that articulate joints. He started to get the feel of it, to see the utility of it, the last 8 game he played for Duke. You want I should go on? McRoberts preferred, much preferred to finish right than left. Much.

Dawkins shoots much better going right and stops left right, with his right foot close to his left and slightly behind his left and brings the ball up I believe with his left hand and meets the ball with his right when it gets near the top of his shooting position as he is about to leave the grouhnd. Very quick shot and almost impossible to bother how he brings it up to shooting.

Many, many shooters have one way to bring the ball up to shooting. Disturb that way is better than getting a hand in the face (probably more effective in school yard ball). Same with how they come to a stop to go into their jump shots, or turn for their shots. Again, you make them do things different, and you will impact their shots significantly. That pertains much less to the three ball. You are not close enough to the defender and guys today have down this ability to go through their legs taking a jump backwards and stop their momentum back into up and are deadly. You rarely saw that 10 years ago.

Mason was quite effective going to the left baseline from the middle and going along the left baseline to the basket. Had great variety in the things mentioned above. Going from the right side he was quite limited, unless he had a rather straight on angle and no backside help; then he had a wicked spin move but pretty much had to see that before he got going.

McRoberts did not have to gather himself to elevate. That is what made him such a great off the ball shot blocker. He could wait and was very difficult to fake off his feet. Scheyer read passing lanes from the left side of the key down to the baseline tericially. I mean outstandingly. Not so much from the right. If Scheyer was in that position on the left side, I'd be extremely cautious.

Okay, I'm tired and it's late.

And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen's off with her head . . .

[Billy Dat]

And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen's off with her head . . .

Wait, I thought JJ was the only hookah smoking caterpillar we were going to reference in this thread?

Our beloved greybeard, can I request that your posts be recorded on video and uploaded as YouTube links? Something tells me that the experience would be transformative.

[jamesfrommaiden]

This to me is spot on for our offense against Arizona. Way too much one on one that ended with a bad result. It reminded me of our Austin Rivers offense where he drove the lane with one intent(shoot and try to draw a foul). Rasheed has the ability to drive the ball and dish to an open team mate. One that is open from three or a rotating player around or near the basket. GoDuke!

The only thin Sheed has done so far thisnseason is turn the ball over consistently. He has no idea where he fits in on the offense. When he has driven the lane he has committed turnovers, not drawn fouls, not found the open man, and not even gotten off shots. I think Andre is a much better fit for this team on offense. He is a knockdown 3pt shooter and has shown the ability to be even more diverse with his game. Yes Sheed is better on D, but when you consider how poor his overall play has been Andre is the best choice. I have very impresed with Matt. I did not think his defense would be nearly as good as it is. Yes the best possible scenario is for Sheed to find his way and take over the starting SG role. As of right now that hasn't happened and I'm not holding my breath. Matt will be a better player as a result down the stretch. Andre makes Duke a better team now and deserves to play. I love TT. His ideal role is coming off the bench. Go Duke!

[jv001]

The only thin Sheed has done so far thisnseason is turn the ball over consistently. He has no idea where he fits in on the offense. When he has driven the lane he has committed turnovers, not drawn fouls, not found the open man, and not even gotten off shots. I think Andre is a much better fit for this team on offense. He is a knockdown 3pt shooter and has shown the ability to be even more diverse with his game. Yes Sheed is better on D, but when you consider how poor his overall play has been Andre is the best choice. I have very impresed with Matt. I did not think his defense would be nearly as good as it is. Yes the best possible scenario is for Sheed to find his way and take over the starting SG role. As of right now that hasn't happened and I'm not holding my breath. Matt will be a better player as a result down the stretch. Andre makes Duke a better team now and deserves to play. I love TT. His ideal role is coming off the bench. Go Duke!

So far, Coach K seems to agree with you regarding Rasheed's play. His minutes are down to a mop up player's role. Coming in out of shape didn't help matters either. GoDuke!

[dukebballcamper90-91]

Sheed seems to me that he is a player that needs a lot of mins to get into the game flow. He isn't the knock down shooter like Dawkins, that can walk out of a pub on to a court and bust 3's. I would like to see him play more, I think we will need him come acc play.

[jv001]

Sheed seems to me that he is a player that needs a lot of mins to get into the game flow. He isn't the knock down shooter like Dawkins, that can walk out of a pub on to a court and bust 3's. I would like to see him play more, I think we will need him come acc play.

Now I could see pj coming out of a pub and taking the court, but I don't see any Duke players trying that, lol. GoDuke!

[greybeard]

Given that anyone up that late might have had a drink or two along the way, if you have the expertise you claim, (and I have no reason to say you don't), then why not provide an analysis of players on our current team.

Also, why do players languish on our team for years without making key improvements in their game? Is it that they don't have the needed physical skills or are they not developing for other reasons? It would seem that 4 years is enough time to get the hitch out of a foul shot or to be able to learn how to make a mid range shot, or how to hedge and get back. Do some players just not see the game as it is being played? Players like Scheyer did see what was happening while players like Miles and Mason were slow to improve aspects of their games despite tremendous physical gifts. How is it that Miles in now showing himself to be valuable at the NBA level?

Back to the current team as there have been discussions going on about Josh, Tyler, Sheed and Marshall, what can you add about those players that might be inciteful?

I don't drink or do drugs. I might have a glass of wine or two with diner, usually only if my wife insists, or are friends, I'll have an occasional, once every month or so give or take, shot and or two of vanilla vodka; that's the list. Never liked weed and never tried anything else.

Why don't players learn to improve? They don't know how and people who try to teach them are not trying to teach them how to learn, but rather what to do to do something better which never works. No one taught you how to roll over, how to roll back to your back, how to roll to the other side, how to roll onto your stomach, how to look up to see the horizon, which developed the cervical and lumbar curves that are essential for your standing and ambulating upright. Than you begin slithering and then crawling. Slithering and crawling you can't get enough of. You learn to use your pelvis in a myriad of orientations relative to what your extremities are doing supported by the rest of you and begin doing these things because you "want" something. Your brain is attracted to what is easier and feels good, and you figure things out. Now, at some point, you pull yourself up by holding onto the couch, you look around, you get confused or bored, and you plop down on your behind, easily with not a wince. And, left to your own resources, you will stay there, on the ground and start rocking and rolling on your hands, needs, belly, back, maybe elbows and feet, twisting and turning. Find things that might work in that other orientation, and maybe next time you find yourself there, you might have a little something to do, get bored or loose your balance, more or the same, and at some point you get up on purpose and are able to do some things, crawl up onto the couch, one foot it along the coach, plop and play and learn from playing some more.

Then throughout your toddler and little boy stage, no one gets in your face and starts telling you not only what to play but how to do each part of it. You get to use the how of learning and figure stuff out. If you get to do at least some of that long enough you keep that knowing "how" to adapt and learn new ways and new things without "how to" instructions. You see it once and you've gotten it.

Now, if you are someone who has good genes and has good musculature that develops with all this self use, and you have certain things that come into your awareness that are valuable as building blocks, you become a player at something who can see a how to instruction and have a pretty good approximation of it from the get go. All this drilling stuff is fine, but the real development comes when you get away from that coach and play with your imagination and the pictures you have and find what feels easy that produces what you are after and you own it. (I'll get back to this guy in a moment."

Another kid, kid B, does this crawling thing but isn't very good at it, hasn't had a chance to develop completely on his own even to roll onto his stomach and back onto his back, and has his feet supported (pushed actually" so he had a chance to learn squadoosh about this building block movement. Anyway, this kid who is still more comfortable in crawling backwards than forwards and probably has not had time to figure out that he does each differently, finds his way in an upright position holding onto the couch. He falls and Mom and/or Dad, makes a fuss, "Oh, poor baby, picks you up, hugs, kisses, and back on your feet." Now, two things happen. Grandpa comes over, you have found your way in some unknown fashion back to your feet holding onto the couch and he takes each of your hands and extends your arms over head, and then moves your right arm forward as your right foot necessarily lifts and comes forward and then the left. Who the hell walks like that! Nobody you've seen. You might be ignorant but you are not dumb. These people are nuts and I better do what they want, force me to do, or else.

Then, you are 4 1/2 and, boom, you find yourself on this grass field with somebody's dad with a whistle around his neck telling you, as he holds it up, this is a "soccer ball," starts telling (demanding) not only that you kick the damn thing, not only how you should go about it, but he then says good with a different tone when other guys kick it because it goes further and even you can tell that that is good. How could you miss that because there are all these adults standing around hooting and clapping.

This kid ain't playing basketball for Duke, unless there is some not so serious intervention by a soul educated in how to facilitate you're getting in touch with your body, how to explore figuring how to use it to do simple things, how to leave it at appropriate times, etc. That is, helps you learn how to learn how to use yourself even while in the process of doing that you actually figure out to do one of the things that you've seen or explored doing but suddenly got it. You got it and you own it. And now you are off; you can take it as far as you want, unless of course the boss insists that you go to one of those camps where other guys with whistles who actually know how to do the things that they are asking you to do puts you in a line for you to show your stuff. All of a sudden, the devil you know, is better than the devil you don't, so rather than look like you're trying something new and not immediately getting it, probably some good natured laughter, you become your old inept self and nobody laughs because that ain't polite. You ain't playing for Duke either.

Here's the guy who is playing for Duke but hits the wall.

You might get reasonably far along through this standing and plopping thing, and have wonderful genes such that your muscular development pops as you scramble and then ramble around. You also have folks around who are pretty well organized and are active, and you happen to be attracted to certain aspects of what you see that prove to be pretty impactful things to look at in terms of developing certain skill sets involved in certain or several sports. You are given a certain amount of time to "play on your own," but for the most part you have the type of father who was a pretty good ballplayer who has you out there dribbling and shooting the way he tells you at one of those little baskets and, because he is so big and strong and could squash you like a bug and you are one of the few things in the world that lights up his eyes and they shine the brightest when you get the ball in the basket the way he says, you stick with it. You then go to the camps, you watch, you drill, you drill some more, and you master the Way you are supposed to do it. You continue with those genes of yours to develop musculature and Pops starts a push up and weight lifting regimen and before you know it, the camps and clinics and travel teams etc start having a serious training component and you grove on it because with those genes and the mental toughness you have developed THIS IS SOMETHING that you really know how to do to produce really, really high end results.

Also, practice, practice, practice, and you learn how to dribble with either hand, maybe two at a time, and to shoot certain shots. You grow to be 6'7" or 5'10" and your one way of doing things and tremendous athletic skills make you a high school star, so much so that you dominate. You are the guy you asked me "how come."

Now, are there degrees of this guy? Sure. It's never, or hardly never all or nothing, but you are not adaptive. What happens is that becomes an impediment to continued success is something like this. First, there are other guys who have a narrow vision but what they see and how they do it fits more with the requirements of "the next" level, or they have greater physical or tenacity skills (they practice and play harder). These guys can be the three ball shooter who will kill you off the catch and shoot, and the coach has a vision that is attracted to, understands, offenses that feature such a guy, maxes out his use. That coach grabs hold of you, and you hear someone who really sees you and you do great. Some other coach sees those things in you but also sees other things that are not so developed. Maybe you didn't develop them because you had no incentive to try--hell, you hit threes from range that a defender would get a nose bleed trying to guard you or the coach had so many different ways to have different guys to set multiple screens that the defender would get a nose bleed trying to guard you even if you shot from normal three range. This college coach says, I've seen this guy defend, or shoot the gap and steal passes, or make some pretty nice combinations, or who knows what, and I can develop him. Only, you are tired of being put through more how-to drills or you have reached the limits of your vision, your awareness, your aptitude in that area and no amount of trying will get you there. Depending on what the things you really do terrific are and how well those things fit with how the other guys present and how the coach wants to play, you might well get playing time. But, if he needs you to learn something that is outside your keen you can't because you really do not know HOW to learn, you do not know how to investigate and figure things out; you don't really know what that means.

Here's the kicker, the guy I just described might actually have a pretty diverse game and the body and skills to perform quite well in Ks scheme and get playing time. He might even be a starter. But, if he comes across a guy who eats up what you do, you either just got outplayed by a "better" ball player, or at least to the oh-so-not-Duke-coach type of person like you do not belong out there. And, at some point, if adapting your game as you get more responsibility or are ready to be developed by the coaches for the pros so they give you new stuff to do, you are stuck. Why? Because the fundamental building blocks of everything you do are fixed and you ability to imagine your way out of who you are is not up to the challenge.

Depending where you hit that wall will determine what level of ball player you are, that, and along with how good the upper level of your game is.

I got lost somewhere in here, and frankly, what you asked of me, is really not possible to answer, now is it. That said, you are impressed, right?

[Saratoga2]

I don't drink or do drugs. I might have a glass of wine or two with diner, usually only if my wife insists, or are friends, I'll have an occasional, once every month or so give or take, shot and or two of vanilla vodka; that's the list. Never liked weed and never tried anything else.

Why don't players learn to improve? They don't know how and people who try to teach them are not trying to teach them how to learn, but rather what to do to do something better which never works. No one taught you how to roll over, how to roll back to your back, how to roll to the other side, how to roll onto your stomach, how to look up to see the horizon, which developed the cervical and lumbar curves that are essential for your standing and ambulating upright. Than you begin slithering and then crawling. Slithering and crawling you can't get enough of. You learn to use your pelvis in a myriad of orientations relative to what your extremities are doing supported by the rest of you and begin doing these things because you "want" something. Your brain is attracted to what is easier and feels good, and you figure things out. Now, at some point, you pull yourself up by holding onto the couch, you look around, you get confused or bored, and you plop down on your behind, easily with not a wince. And, left to your own resources, you will stay there, on the ground and start rocking and rolling on your hands, needs, belly, back, maybe elbows and feet, twisting and turning. Find things that might work in that other orientation, and maybe next time you find yourself there, you might have a little something to do, get bored or loose your balance, more or the same, and at some point you get up on purpose and are able to do some things, crawl up onto the couch, one foot it along the coach, plop and play and learn from playing some more.

Then throughout your toddler and little boy stage, no one gets in your face and starts telling you not only what to play but how to do each part of it. You get to use the how of learning and figure stuff out. If you get to do at least some of that long enough you keep that knowing "how" to adapt and learn new ways and new things without "how to" instructions. You see it once and you've gotten it.

Now, if you are someone who has good genes and has good musculature that develops with all this self use, and you have certain things that come into your awareness that are valuable as building blocks, you become a player at something who can see a how to instruction and have a pretty good approximation of it from the get go. All this drilling stuff is fine, but the real development comes when you get away from that coach and play with your imagination and the pictures you have and find what feels easy that produces what you are after and you own it. (I'll get back to this guy in a moment."

Another kid, kid B, does this crawling thing but isn't very good at it, hasn't had a chance to develop completely on his own even to roll onto his stomach and back onto his back, and has his feet supported (pushed actually" so he had a chance to learn squadoosh about this building block movement. Anyway, this kid who is still more comfortable in crawling backwards than forwards and probably has not had time to figure out that he does each differently, finds his way in an upright position holding onto the couch. He falls and Mom and/or Dad, makes a fuss, "Oh, poor baby, picks you up, hugs, kisses, and back on your feet." Now, two things happen. Grandpa comes over, you have found your way in some unknown fashion back to your feet holding onto the couch and he takes each of your hands and extends your arms over head, and then moves your right arm forward as your right foot necessarily lifts and comes forward and then the left. Who the hell walks like that! Nobody you've seen. You might be ignorant but you are not dumb. These people are nuts and I better do what they want, force me to do, or else.

Then, you are 4 1/2 and, boom, you find yourself on this grass field with somebody's dad with a whistle around his neck telling you, as he holds it up, this is a "soccer ball," starts telling (demanding) not only that you kick the damn thing, not only how you should go about it, but he then says good with a different tone when other guys kick it because it goes further and even you can tell that that is good. How could you miss that because there are all these adults standing around hooting and clapping.

This kid ain't playing basketball for Duke, unless there is some not so serious intervention by a soul educated in how to facilitate you're getting in touch with your body, how to explore figuring how to use it to do simple things, how to leave it at appropriate times, etc. That is, helps you learn how to learn how to use yourself even while in the process of doing that you actually figure out to do one of the things that you've seen or explored doing but suddenly got it. You got it and you own it. And now you are off; you can take it as far as you want, unless of course the boss insists that you go to one of those camps where other guys with whistles who actually know how to do the things that they are asking you to do puts you in a line for you to show your stuff. All of a sudden, the devil you know, is better than the devil you don't, so rather than look like you're trying something new and not immediately getting it, probably some good natured laughter, you become your old inept self and nobody laughs because that ain't polite. You ain't playing for Duke either.

Here's the guy who is playing for Duke but hits the wall.

You might get reasonably far along through this standing and plopping thing, and have wonderful genes such that your muscular development pops as you scramble and then ramble around. You also have folks around who are pretty well organized and are active, and you happen to be attracted to certain aspects of what you see that prove to be pretty impactful things to look at in terms of developing certain skill sets involved in certain or several sports. You are given a certain amount of time to "play on your own," but for the most part you have the type of father who was a pretty good ballplayer who has you out there dribbling and shooting the way he tells you at one of those little baskets and, because he is so big and strong and could squash you like a bug and you are one of the few things in the world that lights up his eyes and they shine the brightest when you get the ball in the basket the way he says, you stick with it. You then go to the camps, you watch, you drill, you drill some more, and you master the Way you are supposed to do it. You continue with those genes of yours to develop musculature and Pops starts a push up and weight lifting regimen and before you know it, the camps and clinics and travel teams etc start having a serious training component and you grove on it because with those genes and the mental toughness you have developed THIS IS SOMETHING that you really know how to do to produce really, really high end results.

Also, practice, practice, practice, and you learn how to dribble with either hand, maybe two at a time, and to shoot certain shots. You grow to be 6'7" or 5'10" and your one way of doing things and tremendous athletic skills make you a high school star, so much so that you dominate. You are the guy you asked me "how come."

Now, are there degrees of this guy? Sure. It's never, or hardly never all or nothing, but you are not adaptive. What happens is that becomes an impediment to continued success is something like this. First, there are other guys who have a narrow vision but what they see and how they do it fits more with the requirements of "the next" level, or they have greater physical or tenacity skills (they practice and play harder). These guys can be the three ball shooter who will kill you off the catch and shoot, and the coach has a vision that is attracted to, understands, offenses that feature such a guy, maxes out his use. That coach grabs hold of you, and you hear someone who really sees you and you do great. Some other coach sees those things in you but also sees other things that are not so developed. Maybe you didn't develop them because you had no incentive to try--hell, you hit threes from range that a defender would get a nose bleed trying to guard you or the coach had so many different ways to have different guys to set multiple screens that the defender would get a nose bleed trying to guard you even if you shot from normal three range. This college coach says, I've seen this guy defend, or shoot the gap and steal passes, or make some pretty nice combinations, or who knows what, and I can develop him. Only, you are tired of being put through more how-to drills or you have reached the limits of your vision, your awareness, your aptitude in that area and no amount of trying will get you there. Depending on what the things you really do terrific are and how well those things fit with how the other guys present and how the coach wants to play, you might well get playing time. But, if he needs you to learn something that is outside your keen you can't because you really do not know HOW to learn, you do not know how to investigate and figure things out; you don't really know what that means.

Here's the kicker, the guy I just described might actually have a pretty diverse game and the body and skills to perform quite well in Ks scheme and get playing time. He might even be a starter. But, if he comes across a guy who eats up what you do, you either just got outplayed by a "better" ball player, or at least to the oh-so-not-Duke-coach type of person like you do not belong out there. And, at some point, if adapting your game as you get more responsibility or are ready to be developed by the coaches for the pros so they give you new stuff to do, you are stuck. Why? Because the fundamental building blocks of everything you do are fixed and you ability to imagine your way out of who you are is not up to the challenge.

Depending where you hit that wall will determine what level of ball player you are, that, and along with how good the upper level of your game is.

I got lost somewhere in here, and frankly, what you asked of me, is really not possible to answer, now is it. That said, you are impressed, right?

Without getting into individual names, we have seen some good athletes come and go who really didn't mature in the Duke system. Didn't learn how to play defense, couldn't learn to make a mid range shot or make a close in move without traveling. Other kids couldn't learn to improve their free throws. I think you just told me some of these kids reach a plateau and cannot be brought along even by good coaching. When you see a team which seems to have good free throw shooting across the board I guess that would mean that the kids were recruited with that ability. It would make some sense if nurture (experience) has at least some impact as many players improve year to year.

Great win for Duke tonight. Hope that more of the kids can make the kind of progress that will make this a FF team.

[greybeard]

Without getting into individual names, we have seen some good athletes come and go who really didn't mature in the Duke system. Didn't learn how to play defense, couldn't learn to make a mid range shot or make a close in move without traveling. Other kids couldn't learn to improve their free throws. I think you just told me some of these kids reach a plateau and cannot be brought along even by good coaching. When you see a team which seems to have good free throw shooting across the board I guess that would mean that the kids were recruited with that ability. It would make some sense if nurture (experience) has at least some impact as many players improve year to year.

Great win for Duke tonight. Hope that more of the kids can make the kind of progress that will make this a FF team.

This is a link to a video comprising two parts, each of which you might find quite informative, the latter perhaps quite startling and moving. Together they get at something that we have been talking about here and in one way or another what is at least subtext for many of the Board's Threads.
Even a very poor approximation of what you see here can be quite impactful; there are practitioners whose own interpretation of the Work stands alone with remarkable integrity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Upbxqplh8

[gam7]

Not sure which games will be included in the next phase, but wanted to throw this thought out there (perhaps you phase reporters have already considered this) - our conference schedule seems to lend itself to three 6-game, in-conference phases this year, rather than the usual two. Historically, we've had two in-conference phases, each ending with a Carolina game. This worked really well with the 16-game, home-and-home ACC schedule. Now, of course, we have the 18-game schedule with the first Carolina game no longer serving as the midway point in the slate. This season, the Carolina games are the 12th and 18th conference games. Also, our conference schedule can pretty easily be grouped into three 6 game chunks with distinct differences in level of difficulty. The first 6 games (@ND, GT, @Clem, UVA, NC State, @Miami) look manageable - easing into the league schedule. Our second six is a brutal stretch with four tough road games, ending at Carolina (FSU, @Pitt, @Syracuse, Wake, @BC, @UNC). Our third six is somewhere in the middle in terms of level of difficulty - we get Syracuse and UNC again, but this time both at home (Maryland, @GT, Syracuse, VT, @Wake, UNC).

[Kedsy]

Not sure which games will be included in the next phase, but wanted to throw this thought out there (perhaps you phase reporters have already considered this) - our conference schedule seems to lend itself to three 6-game, in-conference phases this year, rather than the usual two. Historically, we've had two in-conference phases, each ending with a Carolina game. This worked really well with the 16-game, home-and-home ACC schedule. Now, of course, we have the 18-game schedule with the first Carolina game no longer serving as the midway point in the slate. This season, the Carolina games are the 12th and 18th conference games. Also, our conference schedule can pretty easily be grouped into three 6 game chunks with distinct differences in level of difficulty. The first 6 games (@ND, GT, @Clem, UVA, NC State, @Miami) look manageable - easing into the league schedule. Our second six is a brutal stretch with four tough road games, ending at Carolina (FSU, @Pitt, @Syracuse, Wake, @BC, @UNC). Our third six is somewhere in the middle in terms of level of difficulty - we get Syracuse and UNC again, but this time both at home (Maryland, @GT, Syracuse, VT, @Wake, UNC).

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Newton_14]

Not sure which games will be included in the next phase, but wanted to throw this thought out there (perhaps you phase reporters have already considered this) - our conference schedule seems to lend itself to three 6-game, in-conference phases this year, rather than the usual two. Historically, we've had two in-conference phases, each ending with a Carolina game. This worked really well with the 16-game, home-and-home ACC schedule. Now, of course, we have the 18-game schedule with the first Carolina game no longer serving as the midway point in the slate. This season, the Carolina games are the 12th and 18th conference games. Also, our conference schedule can pretty easily be grouped into three 6 game chunks with distinct differences in level of difficulty. The first 6 games (@ND, GT, @Clem, UVA, NC State, @Miami) look manageable - easing into the league schedule. Our second six is a brutal stretch with four tough road games, ending at Carolina (FSU, @Pitt, @Syracuse, Wake, @BC, @UNC). Our third six is somewhere in the middle in terms of level of difficulty - we get Syracuse and UNC again, but this time both at home (Maryland, @GT, Syracuse, VT, @Wake, UNC).


Sounds reasonable to me.

That's actually a great idead game7, so thanks for the suggestion. We will definitely go with that set up. It is a new league after all and change is sometimes good. I believe either Superdave or Bob Green is up to author Phase III, so we will make sure we go with the 3 "6 game set" for the conference season.

Thanks again!

[Newton_14]

Duke has wrapped up Phase I with a record of 7-2, with both losses to teams ranked in the Top 5 (Kansas/Arizona). There was some great, good, bad, and ugly during those 9 games. We learned a few things, like: Jabari is for real, Hood is for real, we have a high octane offense when things are clicking, our defense is a mess and work in process, we struggle against teams with a lot of size, we struggle to keep the ball in front of us on the perimeter, the rotation and roles are still being defined, the guys are still learning each other as well as themselves, and finally, the refs are flip flopping at times with the new rules, with the charge call becoming an egnigma. We also unfortunately said good-bye to Alex Murphy, a great teammate, a great person, and a skilled guy who just could not seem to put it together in his 2.5 years at Duke. We wish him nothing but the best in his future, and wish it could have worked out for him at his dream school, Duke.

So it is on to Phase II, a short, but important set of 4 games, (Gardner-Webb, UCLA, Eastern Michigan, Elon) where K will get to continue tinkering, (at least should be able to in 3 or the 4 games), guys will have one final chance to show they are ready and can be trusted in conference games and big games. Also gives the guys four more games to "find themselves" so to speak, establish an identity, and grow as a team. In my mind, we are a team with great potential, plenty of room to grow, and a team that can be much better 2 months from now than they are right now.

Here are the key things I will look for during this Phase:
1. Health-

We have been fairly fortunate thus far. We did have a setback with Andre due to a back injury that he looks to still be trying to fully recover on. Outside of that though, besides Rasheed having flu like symptoms for about a week, we have made it this far without suffering a major injury, knock on wood. MP3 appears to be on the comeback trail from the foot surgery, and everyone else appears to be as healthy as one could hope for.


2. Deeefeennssee


Or lack thereof. Whew, we were 176 in Pomeroy at one point, and I am not the dork stat member of the board, and do not follow Pomeroy, but it was hard to miss that gem of a number. The good news is we are trending up the last three games, but for the purpose of this category, the question is, how much better can this team get on defense? The answer will go a long way in determining our fate in the new ACC regular season, and the tourney's. Here are the 3 biggest problems with our defense right now as I saw it in the 9 games:
Communication- It just has not been there in the early going. I was able to attend 4 of the 9 games, and also the two exhibition games. Have to tell you it was painful watching Drury, ECU, and Vermont carve us up like sliced Turkey on Thanksgiving. The guys have to stop playing 1 on 1 defense as individuals, and get to playing K's 5 Man Team Defense Man To Man, where 5 guys are acting as 1. We are not good enough to survive otherwise.
Perimeter Defense- Pick on Dawkins all you want, but truth is all of the perimeter guys got blown by with regularity in one or more of these games. I do think the new rules are impacting this but not in the manner the haters are suggesting (HA HA Duke can't grab and hold like they always do with these new rules). Not about that. The kids have first of all just not moved their feet well, but 2nd of all, and to my point on the rules, they have been hesitant to cut off penetrators not knowing what would be called a foul or not. I look for that to settle down soon actually, but they have to move their feet better, get down in that stance, and cut the penetrator off.
Protecting the Paint-Here's the thing. We are not getting killed on straight up post play against big men. Kansas game aside. It is much more about poor switching, poor help defense by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, at times just being totally lost on where one is supposed to be, and unfortunately, since rebounding is part of protecting the rim and paint, poor boxing out. Josh Hairston is the only kid I have seen box someone out all year. With all that, slashers on penetration, and good offensive rebounders following shots have feasted. The new rules are a factor here too, as the weapon of taking the charge to protect the paint has been elminated totally in the early games, but maybe just maybe seems to be allowed again recently.


Honorable mentions were poor hedging, poor ability to press/generate turnovers, and poor success on defending the dreaded high ball screen. If we can get improvement on the 3 key items I listed, we might actually become a decent defensive team. Admittedly a long way to go, but like I said, lately has been better.

3. Can Rasheed come out of his funk?


Really love this kid. Hope he can figure it out soon, and we really really need him playing at a high level to be all that we can be. I am not in the camp that the presence of Jabari and Hood is the reason he is struggling. He is searching for his role on this team sure, and the make up is different than last year, so I get that. However, this is mostly mental. It has to start on defense, not offense anyway. Tyler is starting at the 2 because of his defense. Rasheed needs to get back to being a great on the ball and team defender, and let that fuel him on offense. On offense, he needs to use his mid-range game more, seek and initiate the contact when he does drive all the way to the rack, and keep a positive outlook, embracing Next Play mentality such that he eliminates the sulking and stops getting down on himself. These next 4 games are an opportunity for Rasheed to step it up and win back his starting spot. It is absolutely key to Duke's success in the long run. Which way will this go?


4. Can Amile stay on the floor?

In the Davidson and Kansas games, Amile looked really good, and looked to be the most improved player among the returnee's from last year. Looked good in the exhibition games too for that matter. Taking guys off the dribble for scores, getting opportune garbage buckets, rebounding well, moving to the right spot down low to receive dump down passes from Rodney, and Jabari, and just doing a lot of things well. Two things started keeping him on the pine over the next 7 games and his numbers and minutes dropped significantly. Foul trouble. Game after game, Amile picked up 2 early fouls, seemingly before the first TV timeout every game. To the bench he went. Shortly after that his defense and rebounding went south on him. 411 to everyone: Forgetting how to play defense is a really fast path to the end of K's bench. Amile was getting lost in the motion and switching, time and time again, still fouling, and just struggling mightily. I thought he looked better in the Michigan game, and I am hoping Amile bounces back in a big way over these next 4 games. Like Rasheed, the next 4 games present an opportunity for Amile to get it together and reclaim his starting spot, and like Rasheed it is absolutely key to Duke's success in the long run for this to happen. Same question: Which way will this go?


5. Can Marshall improve enough to earn solid minutes?

Note: "Solid Minutes" does not mean 25 mpg. If we can get, say 12 to 17 mpg of solid play from MP3, good defense, shotblocking threat, good rebounder, a garbage basket here an there, it will greatly help this team and take pressure off of Jabari and Amile. Like with Amile, I thought MP3 looked pretty darn good in limited minutes in the Michigan game. One nice block, and then rewarded on the other end after running the floor, catching in transition, and going hard to the hoop drawing the foul. Most of us stated losing the summer would set him back and it has, but he is possibly coming around to the point where he can help if only in limited minutes. Don't need him to be a star, and don't need him to play 25 minutes. Let's see where MP3 is in a month.


6. Rotation/Minutes allocation/Identity

With Murph departing, it leaves us with 11 scholarship players. To be honest, throughout the 9 games, all 11 had moments of really solid play, which is good, but K will certainly trim that number down to say 8 once conference play begins. Who's in? Who's out? One other question I will throw at you: Will we see K channel some of the NBA approach in him, and play certain reserves in some games, and other reserves in other games, based soley on matchups? He has never really done that before, but with this team the opportunity at least, seems to be present. K has kind of sorta done this a wee little bit already. Using just the eye test, he seems to have played Andre more (not counting Kansas DNP due to injury) in some games and less in others based on whether or not Andre could adequately defend someone on the other team. I thought against Arizona, the matchups on defense did not favor Andre, and that is why K did not give him many minutes. I could be off in left field here but thought it worth mentioning. That said, where are we headed with the rotation, and identity of this team? It is safe to say the Top 7 as of right now are Jabari, Hood, Cook, Thornton, Hairston, Amile, Rasheed. Next seems to be Andre/Matt, and then finally MP3/Semi. I will make no predictions here other than expecting Amile and Rasheed to reclaim their starting spots at some point, and we may be surprised in the end on who steps up and who doesn't. As for identity, I think it goes hand in hand with the rotation sorting itself out, which as of now is still very much a work in progress.


So there you have it. Discuss away and add things you will be looking for in Phase II.

Ok so Phase II has come to a close with the team (as expected) going 4-0. No huge suprise, though some, maybe even many, felt like UCLA was going to torch our defense and get the victory. That was based on both our defense so far in the season at that point, and the fact that we laid a stinker in our first game of Phase II in the ugly win against Gardner-Webb. I attributed that performance to long break and stress of exams. Some scoffed, but I believe I was right. Then starting with UCLA, the guys stepped it up a notch and got progressively better over the 4 game stretch. On the whole I honestly feel like the team made great strides in Phase II and are a much improved team now, than prior to the GW game. Over recent years we have not seen a lot of significant improvement in Phase II, but this year I feel strongly we did. Bob Green will be authoring Phase III which will cover the first 6 games of conference play (1/3 of the conference slate). Look for that to come out by Friday.

So let's go through the categories and see how I feel things played out.

1. Health

Out side of Rodney Hood catching what I coined the "Bobby Hurley 1990 Final Four Runs" just before tipoff against Eastern Michigan, which was actually a stomach bug that slowed him in both that game and against Elon, we made it through the Phase unscathed in the injury department, which is great. Even though we are deep, recent years have shown us that the injury gods can wreak havoc at any time of the season. With that, everyone needs to perform whatever rituals you ascribe to, to stave off the injury gods in Phase III. Grade in Phase II: A-


2 Defense

Have not checked Pomeroy since Elon game (sorry) but I think our defense got better during the Phase. I was especially pleased with the defense in the last two games, with Elon being the best defensive effort of the season by quite a bit. And before anyone screams "But N_14, it was freaking Elon for gosh sakes!", Vermont, Drury, and ECU all say Hello. The team defense got better in all major categories which was refreshing. We saw more turnovers forced, more steals, more dives on the floor, etc. I commented in the Andre thread, that had this game been played a month ago, Elon very possibly would have had much better success offensively and I doubt we would have had the ability to stifle them as badly as we did yesterday. Just an opinion, but the Vermont, Drury, and ECU games make me believe it. We gave up 66 (GW) 63 (UCLA) 59 (EM) and 48 (Elon) points. Better game by game. Now that is the kind of defense scoring wise we expected from a Duke team with this type of talent, playing against opponents of that caliber.


Communication


The communication of calling out screens and switches, the recognition of guys releasing their man to a teammate, when the opponent is trying to use screens to switch sides of the court (this is a staple of the defense and both Duke kids have to recognize the release and new assignment immediately for it to work) got a lot better. We saw much less of two Duke kids ending up on one offensive player leaving another guy wide open during this Phase. Much more talking than earlier in the season. Another point on this that was noticeable to me in the Elon game. When there were switches that created mismatches for the opponent, the off the ball Duke defenders did a tremendous job of swapping assignments to get back to similar sized defenders on similar sized offensive players before the Elon guy with the ball could get it to a teammate with a smaller or bigger guy on him. That is great communication and recognition, that makes life more difficult for the opponent. Communication Grade: B+

Perimeter Defense

Nice improvements here as well with a couple of exceptions at various points in the UCLA game. We limited the dribble penetration, took away the 3-Ball, especially against Elon who uses the 3 as a main weapon. In addition to the guards and wings defending the perimeter better, the bigs also did a good job in flashing at cutters coming off of screens to delay them just enough until the guard could get through the screen to stop a good look from 3. The bigs also switched appropriately to takeover as primary defender on the guard, when it was called for. Josh used to have a bad habit of always switching to the guard even when our guard had gotten through the screen and the switch was unnecessary for example. Neither Josh nor any of the other bigs made that mistake very often during this Phase. They flashed or hedged and then released the man back to the Duke guard when it was the right play, and they switched and stayed on the guard when it was the right play. All in all I thought Tyler, Quinn, Andre, and Rasheed played better defense as individuals and as a team. Same for the bigs when they had to defend out there. Stats wise, we forced 12 TO's against GWU, 13 against UCLA, 15 against EMU, and 22 against Elon. GWU made 5 three's, UCLA 8, EMU 4, and Elon 5. Perimeter Defense Grade: B+


Protecting the Paint

Outside of the Trautman kid from Elon, none of the teams had a dangerous back to the basket big man who was adept at scoring, so there was not much to be learned in that aspect. We did make life difficult for Trautman most of the day. He had moderate success later in the game, but not enough to hurt us. We gave up 34 points in the paint against GWU, 26 against UCLA, 26 against EMU, and 24 against Elon. Again I think it shows the GWU game was an outlier due to the long break/exams, and the guys got much better those final 3 games. While that is good, the next two Phases in Conference play will give us a much better indicator on how much improvement the guys have made in this Category. PTP Grade: B+ (factoring in opponents strength) So, overall Defense Grade for Phase II: B+ (That is quite a bit of improvement since the Vermont debacle. Definitely need to revisit the progress here after completion of Phase III)


3. Can Rasheed come out of his Funk?



Very excited to state that Rasheed made really good progress over the course of Phase II starting with the UCLA game (8 points, 5 Rebounds, 4 assists in 18 minutes) including a couple of dagger 3's. He was excited, his teammates were excited, the coaches were excited, and DBR was estatic. This was a great first step in getting back on track to becoming the player we all know he can be. He followed that up with 13 points, 3 assists, 2 rebounds, and 2 steals in 22 minutes against EMU, and then finished the Phase with 11 points, 4 rebounds, and 2 assists in 20 minutes against Elon. He also played excellent defense in the games including one spectacular sequence against EMU where he harassed the EMU guard trying to get the ball up court, almost forcing the 10 second violation, before stripping the guy right at halfcourt then drawing the intentional foul on the ensuing fast break. He is slowly regaining K's trust, and played a role in the team as a whole experiencing growth, improvement, and development during this Phase. Wonderful news. Let's see if he can build on that in Phase III and push those numbers up just a tad bit more. He doesn't need to score 18 a night, especially with how Andre and Tyler are playing. Those 3 make up a nice 3 headed monster at the 2 slot, while also being able to spell Rodney at the Small Forward slot as they showed the last two games with Rodney under the weather.


4 Can Amile stay on the floor?

Another positive story in this category with Amile's play in this Phase. Earlier, foul trouble and poor defense were keeping Amile on the pine. Like his pal Rasheed, Amile had a very solid Phase II. His numbers: GWU: 10 Rebounds, 4 points, 1 assist, 1 block, in just 12 minutes. UCLA: 11 points, 7 boards, 2 assists, 2 blocks, in 23 minutes. EMU: 14 boards, 7 points, 1 block in 21 minutes. Elon: 9 points, 6 boards, 1 block, 1 steal, in 18 minutes. As for the fouls, in the 4 games he had 2, 2, 3, 2. Great progress with the foul situation and his defense was much better. Not only did he "stay on the floor", he played darn well while he was out there. Even hit a few free throws.


5. Can Marshall improve enough to earn solid minutes?

Baby steps, but the big fella is starting to make positive plays in his limited minutes. K gave him 5, 3, 11, and 17 minutes over the 4 games. In the Elon game he had 4 points 4 boards, 1 assist, 1 steal, and 1 block. Not bad considering he has still yet to hit a free throw. That situation is to the point where we may be in need of a vigil until he finally hits one. His form is actually not bad which makes the situation all the more bizarre. He also made a couple of good contributions against Michigan, so the kid is improving. I am curious to see how/if K uses MP3 in Phase III in conference games. I am guessing anything from a DNP-CD to 5 minutes to a ceiling of 10 minutes is possible in any given game. I would love to see him progress to the point where he can give us 8 to 10 minutes per game with consistent solid defense and rebounding. Even that little bit would help out with our interior defense and ease the pressure just a bit on Jabari and Amile.


6. Rotation/Minutes allocation/Identity

I have to admit it has been both fascinating and fun to me watching the ever changing rotations K has used thus far. There have been surprises, changes, etc, except for recently where K has settled in on a starting lineup of Cook, Thornton, Hood, Jabari, Josh, much to the chagrin of many here on DBR. We had a good debate today in the Andre thread over the merits of Tyler and Josh. Personally I believe both are very solid basketball players who play the role they are asked to play well, especially Tyler, but Josh has also played really well, especially in the latter part of Phase I and early part of Phase II. Both play Duke defense well, and quite frankly have played better defense all year than some of our younger offensive stars. I still think the biggest mistake a person can make is judging how good a basketball player is based on how many points they score each game. Scoring is only one part of the game. We have plenty of scoring, which is why we can average 85 points a game even with Tyler and Josh playing a lot of minutes. They both are opportunistic scorers, who do many other things, most importantly defense, well. Both know the system well, are in the right place at the right time, and when they get beat it is almost always due to physical limitations not mental breakdowns. But back to rotation and identity. I like the recent uptick in disruptive defense by this team. They are finally showing signs of being the type of defensive team I thought they would be out of the gate. The made life miserable for Elon yesterday on defense. Scoring is a definite strength with Jabari, Hood, Quinn, and Andre. Andre's play in this Phase has been a thing of beauty. The kid is killing it and from all reports including the news article today, he is working his tail off, and begging managers and coaches on a daily basis to meet him in the practice gym to get up extra shots. He is also starting to mix in pump fakes, and drives, which makes him even more dangerous. Andre makes a really good offense a great offense, taking full advantage of all the attention Jabari and Hood draws and that works both ways. Jabari and Hood can now take advantage of all the attention required for Andre.
For now K has settled in to the aforementioned 5 starters, then subs in Andre and Amile off the bench first, followed by Rasheed, and then Marshall. Semi has become the odd man out which is not surprising as there is just a ton of talent in front of him. Same thing for Matt, except that I believe K will use Matt situationally for defense like he did in the Michigan game for example. So Matt will get minutes situationally where as Semi likely won't. Depending on the opponent, some nights Matt will get more minutes than Marshall, and vice versa. Also, should either of Andre or Rasheed hit a mini-slump or something, I don't think K will hesistate one bit to give Matt extra minutes.
To sum it all up, I really like the progress this team made in Phase II, and I like where they are right now as a team heading into conference play. If Rasheed, and Amile keep progressing, Andre sustains what he is currently doing, and the team defense on the whole keeps improving, they can progress from a Top 10 team to a Top 5 team by Feb. Note I did not mention Quinn, but I like where he is at. Barring a disaster, Quinn will continue getting 35+ mpg in non blowouts, and lead this team on both ends. I have been hard on him at times, but I do like where he is at. If he can eliminate the one or two bad habits he sometimes falls prey to (Posing after a made shot instead of getting back on D, and the occasional out of control drive) he can become the outstanding PG and complete player I feel he can be.


So it is time for big boy hoops starting with Notre Dame on the road. Be prepared to hear the "You know this is Duke's first real road game of the season as K refuses to play real road games in the early season" drivel often before, during, and possibly after (if the worst happens and we lose to ND). We hear it every year, and this year will be no different.

[wk2109]

So it is time for big boy hoops starting with Notre Dame on the road. Be prepared to hear the "You know this is Duke's first real road game of the season as K refuses to play real road games in the early season" drivel often before, during, and possibly after (if the worst happens and we lose to ND). We hear it every year, and this year will be no different.

Duke has lost its first true high-major road game in each of the last four seasons. Hopefully the defense can continue its improved efficiency and come out with the W.

[kAzE]

I was really excited to see that we went back to the full court press at the beginning of the 2nd half in the Elon game, and that it worked beautifully. We were causing a ton of turnovers in the open court, leading to easy transition buckets. I think our lack of communication earlier in the year caused this strategy to fizzle out, but hopefully, we've learned from those mistakes to become more of a pressing team to take advantage of our obvious strengths in the transition game.

[Furniture]

It will be interesting to see the amount of rotation in the ND game. I suspect that it will depend on many things. If we are blowing them out we will get a deeper rotation but if we have a tough game what will K do? I wonder....

[Dukeblue91]

It will be interesting to see the amount of rotation in the ND game. I suspect that it will depend on many things. If we are blowing them out we will get a deeper rotation but if we have a tough game what will K do? I wonder....

The same as always, play his 5 best players as long as possible.

[-jk]

The same as always, play his 5 best players as long as possible.

Close, but not quite. Or "possible" needs to be clarified to go beyond exhaustion and into the mental. K does track effectiveness v. playing time. Some players max out after "so" many minutes - long before a body gives out. It's never simple...

K is a genius. Glad he's ours.

-jk

[Dukeblue91]

Close, but not quite. Or "possible" needs to be clarified to go beyond exhaustion and into the mental. K does track effectiveness v. playing time. Some players max out after "so" many minutes - long before a body gives out. It's never simple...

K is a genius. Glad he's ours.

-jk

Agreed and I did not mean to make it sound that simple although in a way it is.
And yes K is a genius even though some people keep questioning his decisions. ;)