MBB: Duke vs NCSU Pregame and In-Game Thread (Sat 1400 EST, CBS)

[hurleyfor3]

It says something about the Virginia game that there's no thread up for this game yet. State is 11-5, 1-2 but plays at Wake tonight.

Game is in Cameron at 1400 EST. Teevee is CBS, and is national, but there may be an overrun with Tennessee @ Kentucky. Not sure who the announcers are (won't be Nantz; he'll be in Denver manloving the Brady/Peyton matchup); if someone finds out, post it.

[CDu]

Well, I don't know about that. We didn't have a game thread up for UVa until the day of the game. And we don't play State for another 3 days, right?

Anyway, another must-win. We need to start/keep building confidence. State is a very bad team this year. A loss, at home, to State would be VERY bad.

[roywhite]

With a good stretch of practice time between UVa and State, I'm very interested to see what adjustments are made.

Does the platoon system survive? -- I'm guessing yes
Does Jabari begin to climb out of his slump? -- hitting some shots would be nice, but the key IMO is recognizing the double teams and passing out of it quickly
Do Amile and Rasheed continue their high level of performance? -- gotta like the way they're coming along
Do the team and Coach K demonstrate a high level of energy and motivation? --- heck, yeah

I tend to be an optimist, and certainly if these questions are answered in the affirmative, we should see a good performance.

Devils by 15.

[Kedsy]

Does the platoon system survive? -- I'm guessing yes

I hope so, but I'd say it's not better than 50/50.


Do Amile and Rasheed continue their high level of performance? -- gotta like the way they're coming along

I think the question is more complicated when it comes to Rasheed. For one thing, his "high level of performance" goes back all of one game. Yeah, he was great against UVa, but after the Clemson game, some people were calling for him to step aside for Matt, and that was less than a week ago.

For Rasheed to be a consistent performer, one of two things have to happen: either (a) he has to learn and accept playing as more or less a fourth option alongside Jabari, Rodney, and Quinn; or (b) Coach K has to find minutes where Rasheed is the top slashing option. The line change thing did that against Virginia. If it continues, then I think Rasheed's a good bet to shine. If it doesn't, either Coach K or Rasheed have to make some sort of adjustment.


Do the team and Coach K demonstrate a high level of energy and motivation? --- heck, yeah

This might be the most important thing to take from the game.

[CDu]

I think the question is more complicated when it comes to Rasheed. For one thing, his "high level of performance" goes back all of one game. Yeah, he was great against UVa, but after the Clemson game, some people were calling for him to step aside for Matt, and that was less than a week ago.

It's more than just one game. In the 7-game stretch beginning with UCLA, Sulaimon has shot 52.5% from the field and 66.7% from 3pt range. His eFG% is off the charts.

And it's not just driven by one awesome game against UVa. He's had only two games with an eFG% below 55% during that stretch (the 12 minute, 0-2 game against Clemson and a 1-4 game with a 3 against Notre Dame).

If anything, one might argue that the Clemson game was the potential outlier and not the UVa game.

[Troublemaker]

Anyway, another must-win. We need to start/keep building confidence. State is a very bad team this year. A loss, at home, to State would be VERY bad.

Absolutely. I would say all of the next 3 games are must-wins to keep conference title hopes alive. NCSU is the weakest opponent of the three, so they are perhaps slightly mustier. In any case, need to be 5-2 heading into the Pitt/Cuse week.



Does the platoon system survive? -- I'm guessing yes


I've been thinking about this and I'm starting to lean yes. I think there are more than just two choices (not that you suggested there were only two) of (a) Platoons continue every game and (b) Platoons are discontinued altogether at some point.

Maybe platooning is just another weapon like the press that can be deployed some games and not others. Maybe Coach K platoons against NCSU but not against the zones of Syracuse and Miami because he wants 4 shooters on the court against zones. Something like that. Or maybe platoon when having only 1 or 2 days of rest between games (Sat-Mon combo or Sat-Tue combo) and no platoon with more rest.

Another tool in the toolbox.

[Bob Green]

Does the platoon system survive? -- I'm guessing yes

I hope so as it was exciting to watch the two distinct line-ups play. As long as subbing all five players at once stays productive, I think we will see it to some degree.

[FerryFor50]

Well, I don't know about that. We didn't have a game thread up for UVa until the day of the game. And we don't play State for another 3 days, right?

Anyway, another must-win. We need to start/keep building confidence. State is a very bad team this year. A loss, at home, to State would be VERY bad.

I think it said a lot more about the Clemson game... ugh.

[flyingdutchdevil]

With a good stretch of practice time between UVa and State, I'm very interested to see what adjustments are made.

Does the platoon system survive? -- I'm guessing yes
Does Jabari begin to climb out of his slump? -- hitting some shots would be nice, but the key IMO is recognizing the double teams and passing out of it quickly
Do Amile and Rasheed continue their high level of performance? -- gotta like the way they're coming along
Do the team and Coach K demonstrate a high level of energy and motivation? --- heck, yeah

I tend to be an optimist, and certainly if these questions are answered in the affirmative, we should see a good performance.

Devils by 15.

I tend to agree with everything here.

1) Absolutely love the platoon system. It keeps players fresh, it brings in new talent, and it keeps Hairston from playing the 5. All good things.

2) Jabari is in a slump. Like you, I'm looking for better decision makings in the double team. I'm also looking for a lack of ill-advised jump shots and hero ball.

3) Amile and Rasheed are playing well. There is no question about that. If we can couple their play with Hood / Cook / Jabari, we'll be looking really good.

4) I think that is Coach K's challenge this year. Need to keep them motivated and high energy. He's the best motivator in town. If Coach K can't do it, then no one can.

Outcome: Duke is okay, State is bad, and we're playing at home. A 15 point win sounds very reasonable.

[killerleft]

With a good stretch of practice time between UVa and State, I'm very interested to see what adjustments are made.

Does the platoon system survive? -- I'm guessing yesDoes Jabari begin to climb out of his slump? -- hitting some shots would be nice, but the key IMO is recognizing the double teams and passing out of it quickly
Do Amile and Rasheed continue their high level of performance? -- gotta like the way they're coming along
Do the team and Coach K demonstrate a high level of energy and motivation? --- heck, yeah

I tend to be an optimist, and certainly if these questions are answered in the affirmative, we should see a good performance.

Devils by 15.

I'm hoping yes. That we can put 10 guys out there with good talent makes it obvious (to me) we have an advantage over virtually everybody we play in that regard. May as well use it.

[Bob Green]

Another thing to watch for is Andre Dawkins breaking out of his 3-point shooting mini-slump. After going 5-7 on 3s against Elon, on 12/31/13, Dawkins has went 1-4, 1-5, 0-4 and 1-1 for a combined 3-14 in 2014.

[FerryFor50]

As far as the NCSU game, I am concerned about three things:

- Can Duke contain TJ Warren (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/tj-warren-1.html)?

He's good at getting to the FT line (averages 5FTA per game). He's a great scorer (22.2 ppg) and pretty decent rebounder (7.5 rpg/10.8% ORB, 14.1% DRB). Decent defender (100.4 Drtg).

Compare that to our best rebounder (Amile Jefferson - 6.8 rpg, 15.2% ORB, 27.3% DRB) and Warren doesn't rebound as well as Amile. :)

His shooting % has suffered from last season, as he's now THE man and has to carry the offensive load, whereas last season, he was able to play against 2nd units while CJ Leslie, Lorenzo Brown and Richard Howell carried most of the offensive load.

Virginia seemed to figure him out, holding him to 4 points on 1-9 shooting. Hopefully Duke can do the same.


- Will NCSU get solid PG play?

Last season, NCSU had Lorenzo Brown when they beat Duke. When they had to use Tyler Lewis in their next game (Brown was injured), Lewis went for 13 points and 6 assists with 0 turnovers in the infamous "how's your grandma (http://thebiglead.com/2013/02/08/duke-fans-allegedly-chanted-hows-your-grandma-at-nc-states-tyler-lewis-whose-grandma-just-died-but-this-sounds-like-past-your-bedtime/)" game.

This season, Lewis is playing a reduced role in lieu of "Cat" Barber (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/anthony-cat-barber-1.html). He's nicknamed "Cat" because of how fast he is, and we know how much trouble Duke has with fast guards.

His PG play has been very sporadic, though. With great speed often comes great inability to play under control. He averages 4 apg, but also 2 turnovers per game. He also shoots for a low % (40.8% from the field, 29.8% from 3pt). Naturally that means he's likely to go 10-10 from the field against Duke...


- NCSU's size

They have big (though not necessarily skilled) frontcourt guys.

Jordan Vandenberg (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jordan-vandenberg-1.html), who couldn't get off the bench his first 3 seasons, is 7'1". Duke had a guy like that once... Fortunately, Vandenburg is no Zoubek (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/brian-zoubek-1.html).

Beejay Anya (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/beejay-anya-1.html) (6'9" 325 lbs) is one of those big and round guys.... like Keith Bean (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/keith-bean-1.html) or Nigel "Jellybean" Dixon (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/nigel-dixon-1.html). However, Beejay can't stay on the floor due to conditioning and foul trouble, which are often correlated.

Lennard Freeman (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/lennard-freeman-1.html) (6'8", 245) plays the most minutes of their bigs (outside of Warren) but is a terrible FT shooter and more of a rebounder than a scorer.

Kyle Washington (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/kyle-washington-2.html) (6'9" 225) is similar in size to Amile, but much less effective on the glass.

None of these guys will confuse you with Richard Howell, in other words. Duke can win the inside battle, but they need to bring effort.

NC State is 94 in Kenpom (107 in offense, 116 in defense). Duke is 21 in Kenpom (2 in offense, 105 in defense). So State, by the numbers, is way worse on offense and actually lower in defense than Duke. Doesn't mean much, but hopefully that means the offense won't have as tough of a time with going into dry spells as against Clemson (8th in defense) and UVA (3rd in defense). And hopefully State finds as much difficulty scoring as they have all year.

Three of State's losses this year to top 100 teams (Cincinnati - 22, Missouri - 63, Pitt - 8) were all close until the end, and State even led at the half against Mizzou and Pitt. They seem to run into the same 2nd half wall Duke has this season.

They also have some brutal losses (NCCU - 127, Detroit - 181) on their resume. By comparison, Vermont (Duke's "worst" win) is 112. Notre Dame (Duke's worst loss) is 72.

This is not the same NC State teams of years past. They are depleted and young.

If Duke brings the same effort as Monday, they should be fine.

[azzefkram]

NCSU seems like a team where it would make sense to dial back the pressure a bit on the perimeter. They are pretty bad from 3-pt land and fairly respectable from 2. Closely guarding Barber 25 ft from the hoop seems like a recipe for a lay-up drill.

[CDu]

NCSU seems like a team where it would make sense to dial back the pressure a bit on the perimeter. They are pretty bad from 3-pt land and fairly respectable from 2. Closely guarding Barber 25 ft from the hoop seems like a recipe for a lay-up drill.

I would agree with this. Aside from Warren, they have no consistent 3pt shooting. Turner and Lee can do it sometimes, but not so much that they warrant overplay. And Barber's only value is beating his man off the dribble. If ever there was a matchup that screamed "pack it in!" this is it. We really shouldn't get caught in the overplay out of the perimeter.

Granted, I think we can win even if we go with the overplay approach. State is just that bad. I just think it introduces a risk that we make life much tougher for ourselves by doing so.

[-jk]

I keep hearing folks say state is "so bad". Kenpom has them top-100 - that's not that bad.

I think we shouldn't be too confident.

-jk

[CDu]

I keep hearing folks say state is "so bad". Kenpom has them top-100 - that's not that bad.

I think we shouldn't be too confident.

-jk

For a BCS school, that's pretty bad. Doesn't make it a cake walk. But if you're losing to teams ranked around 100, at home, then you have problems.

[Clay Feet POF]

With a good stretch of practice time between UVa and State, I'm very interested to see what adjustments are made.

Does the platoon system survive? -- I'm guessing yes
Devils by 15.

I hope we use the platoon lines, but I really want it to develop into a real 10 man rotation(No Garbage time players) If we’re going to win the Big Dance we need everyone on this team on the court and not just in their warm up suits

[Troublemaker]

Another big-time SF matchup for Rodney as he faces off against TJ Warren in this one.

The ACC is absolutely loaded at SF this year. We've already seen Clemson's McDaniels and UVA's Harris. About to see Warren.

Still ahead: Syracuse's Fair, Pitt's Patterson, Miami's Rion Brown, VaTech's Jarrell Eddie

Counting Rodney, that's 8 high-quality SFs total in the ACC. I would say so far in the head-to-head within games, McDaniels outplayed Rodney and Harris probably edged him out as well.

Not that it matters if the team wins, but I'd like to see Rodney start to win some of these matchups. (Of course, it would certainly improve Duke's chances to win if he does do that). It's weird. Rodney is projected as a mid-first round pick, and I think he probably deserves that status. But at the same time, he might be the 3rd or 4th best at his position in conference.

[Troublemaker]

I hope we use the platoon lines, but I really want it to develop into a real 10 man rotation(No Garbage time players)

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between platoon lines and 10-man rotation here. Could you elaborate?


If we’re going to win the Big Dance we need everyone on this team on the court and not just in their warm up suits

All the best teams are playing less than a 10-man rotation, though, aren't they? #1 Arizona plays the dreaded 7-man rotation, for example. Duke is deeper than Arizona and should play more than 7, but I don't think playing 10 or 11 is necessary.

[weezie]

I keep hearing folks say state is "so bad". Kenpom has them top-100 - that's not that bad.

I think we shouldn't be too confident.

-jk

That's one thing I don't think any of us are this year....:(
But, I'm pinning plenty of hopes on those incredibly long Amile Jefferson wings.

[sagegrouse]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between platoon lines and 10-man rotation here. Could you elaborate?


.

Platoon lines is a lesser included subset of 10-man rotation.

[Troublemaker]

Correct, and therefore platoon lines constitute a "real" 10-man rotation. I guess it's the word "real" I need clarification on.

[BD80]

"Sat 1400 ES'T"

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but an estimated 1400 on the SAT is low even by Wolfpack standards. Of course, it is genius level for a tarheel.

How do you say "S.A.T." in Swahili?

IIRC, under the ancient, 2 part scoring, 1400 was really good, and then they had a scoring "bump" (in the late 90s?) which made 1400 more readily attainable.

[77devil]

"Sat 1400 ES'T"

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but an estimated 1400 on the SAT is low even by Wolfpack standards. Of course, it is genius level for a tarheel.

How do you say "S.A.T." in Swahili?

IIRC, under the ancient, 2 part scoring, 1400 was really good, and then they had a scoring "bump" (in the late 90s?) which made 1400 more readily attainable.

This is an odd selection for a national network broadcast. The powers that be must have expected a better N.C. State team but not sure why.

As for the SAT, 1400 was still an outstanding score for the 2 part exam in the early 2000's; probably better than 90th percentile. Now 1400 for the new three part exam is likely way above average for our athlete friends down 15-501.

Question: What does UNC have that Duke does not?
Answer: A world class university 8 miles away.

[MCFinARL]

This is an odd selection for a national network broadcast. The powers that be must have expected a better N.C. State team but not sure why.

As for the SAT, 1400 was still an outstanding score for the 2 part exam in the early 2000's; probably better than 90th percentile. Now 1400 for the new three part exam is likely way above average for our athlete friends down 15-501.

Question: What does UNC have that Duke does not?
Answer: A world class university 8 miles away.

A really ugly school color? Oh, wait, I didn't see your answer; thought you would post it later--excellent! Of course, my answer, while not nearly so clever, is also correct.

[Bob Green]

Compare that to our best rebounder (Amile Jefferson - 6.8 rpg, 15.2% ORB, 27.3% DRB) and Warren doesn't rebound as well as Amile. :)



Jabari Parker is our leading rebounder at 7.3 rpg. I don't know Parker's ORB/DRB percentages so I cannot refute your assertion Jefferson is our best rebounder.

[FerryFor50]

Jabari Parker is our leading rebounder at 7.3 rpg. I don't know Parker's ORB/DRB percentages so I cannot refute your assertion Jefferson is our best rebounder.

Jabari plays many more minutes than Jefferson.

Amile's per 40 min rebound totals - 14.5 per game
(15.2% ORB, 27.3% DRB, 21.4% TRB)

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/amile-jefferson-1.html

Jabari's per 40 min rebound totals - 10 per game
(8% ORB, 21.2% DRB, 14.7% TRB)

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jabari-parker-1.html

Amile's TOTAL rebound % is higher than Jabari's defensive rebounding numbers. Jefferson has been elite on the boards, which is remarkable for someone as seemingly light as he is.

Plus, just on eye test alone, Amile has been by fat the best rebounder the past few weeks.

[MChambers]

Amile's TOTAL rebound % is higher than Jabari's defensive rebounding numbers. Jefferson has been elite on the boards, which is remarkable for someone as seemingly light as he is.

Plus, just on eye test alone, Amile has been by fat the best rebounder the past few weeks.

I see what you did there.

[FerryFor50]

I see what you did there.

Ha! Thanks autocorrect!

[devildeac]

I see what you did there.


Ha! Thanks autocorrect!

I was going to mention that I don't think I've ever seen or never expected "Amile" and ""fat" in the same sentence but that would have been nit-picking an otherwise solid analysis from FerryFor50. I'm glad someone else caught the unintended humor:o.

[Dukehky]

We have to keep Cat Barber out of the lane in this game. If he goes off from points in the paint and starts kicking it out to open shooters or dump offs (a huge problem for us) that's really their only chance to win this game I think. But if Quinn just pressures the ball starting 45 feet from the hoop, Cat is going to be in the lane starting meow.

[Clay Feet POF]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between platoon lines and 10-man rotation here. Could you elaborate?



All the best teams are playing less than a 10-man rotation, though, aren't they? #1 Arizona plays the dreaded 7-man rotation, for example. Duke is deeper than Arizona and should play more than 7, but I don't think playing 10 or 11 is necessary.

My definition of a line strategy is a 5 for 5 swap, whereas a 10 man rotation is using any combination of number exchanges. It’s been lamented that we are not big and we are not strong, and some think we are tiring (I think K mention that) in the latter part of the game.

With that in mind I think help in on the bench. My thinking is I would gamble 2 or 3 more losses in order to:

1) Giving more players meaningful minute to speed up their development under game conditions and maybe see if we have more talent than we think we have. (It might end some of the debates on this Board as well.)

2) Win by wearing the other teams energy level down at the late part of the game so we have a better chance for the win. .This would also help conserving our strength and energy for the rest of season and the NT.

3) Truly bind as a Band of Brothers, there not much worse than being in the locker room after a game and 3 or 4 “talented” guys trying to put on a happy face and not much to talk about. That a tough steady diet to stomach

As far as Arizona and the 7 man rotation (As we use to say “We’re happy for ya”) I don’t follow them and don’t know their problems. But watching our games and reading this Board I have an opinion as to ours problems. What we done is not working. Last game was a step in the right direction, but I’m looking for a bigger step.

[Kedsy]

My thinking is I would gamble 2 or 3 more losses in order to...


First of all, the thing about "gambl[ing]...losses" is that there's no guarantee you get what you want in exchange. Second of all, the time for risking wins is past. Two or three more losses (in addition to losses that might happen, whether you plan for them or not) at this point in the season would put us in a position where we might be looking at too low a seed to realistically fight for the Final Four. I mean, yeah, it could happen, but it's a lot easier from a #1 or #2 seed than a #5 or #6.

So if Coach K thinks playing a deep rotation will help the team win, then great. I love it when everyone plays. If he thinks doing it might risk a few losses in exchange for maybe (or maybe not) "developing" the lower bench for the possibility that we may (or may not) need them during the tournament, then in my opinion just isn't worth it.

Your opinion may vary, of course.

[hurleyfor3]

IIRC, under the ancient, 2 part scoring, 1400 was really good, and then they had a scoring "bump" (in the late 90s?) which made 1400 more readily attainable.

I've been asked for my SAT scores in job interviews as recently as 2011. More than 20 years after I last took it! When I get to explaining there have been at least two "recenterings" since then, the interview's pretty much over.

The first bump was before the 1994-95 school year. I taught SAT prep for a couple years in the mid-90s, so I know way more about the test than I should.

[greybeard]

Amile gets rebounds that surprise; an extraordinary rebounder.

[JNort]

Seems to me State is not getting treats to seriously. I can honestly say I'd rather play UVA again than play State. State is very talented they just have a moron of an in game coach. State is just the kind of team we are weak against: big guys on the inside like Vandenberg who is much better than you think and can you see Amile holding his ground against Anya who out weighs him by another human being. TJ and Cat Barber are good at getting into the lane where we have trouble keeping people out of as it is.

[hurleyfor3]

Wake beats State 70-69 on a last-second shot. So State comes in 11-6, 1-3. Lone win is @ND (grrrr).

[Troublemaker]

Closely guarding Barber 25 ft from the hoop seems like a recipe for a lay-up drill.


Barber's only value is beating his man off the dribble. If ever there was a matchup that screamed "pack it in!" this is it. We really shouldn't get caught in the overplay out of the perimeter.


We have to keep Cat Barber out of the lane in this game. If he goes off from points in the paint and starts kicking it out to open shooters or dump offs (a huge problem for us) that's really their only chance to win this game I think. But if Quinn just pressures the ball starting 45 feet from the hoop, Cat is going to be in the lane starting meow.

I think unless Gottfried shifts TJ Warren to the 4, Duke should handle Barber's penetration just fine. State usually plays Warren at the 3 alongside two non-shooting big men: Vandenberg/Anya at the 5 and Freeman/Washington at the 4. That's not going to spread Duke out enough, and our big men will hopefully be in good position most of the time. Barber's a talented guard, and he'll make some plays, but I don't think he's going to have an efficient night unless Gottfried is willing to go small, which he has rarely done this season.

[Troublemaker]

State is just the kind of team we are weak against: big guys on the inside like Vandenberg who is much better than you think and can you see Amile holding his ground against Anya who out weighs him by another human being. TJ and Cat Barber are good at getting into the lane where we have trouble keeping people out of as it is.

Actually, yummy, yummy, yummy. State, please play your four-man rotation of non-shooting big men all day long. Don't think to spread Duke out. Pound it into your big men, please! Play in a compacted space so Duke can big-to-big double or Matt Jones and Tyler Thornton can dig down and strip your big men and Cat Barber has to meet the long arms of Amile Jefferson in the lane or the leaping ability of Jabari Parker (or the short arms plus height of Marshall Plumlee).

I would love for State to play their normal game and not play TJ at the 4. Duke's defense has played well against some good offenses this season (UCLA, Michigan) and poorly against some bad offenses. KenPom's O-ranking for opponents almost doesn't matter.

What matters is if opponents are willing to ditch their normal offense and play in a way to specifically exploit Duke. Spread us out and drive. Spread us out and backdoor.

[Bob Green]

Barber's a talented guard, and he'll make some plays, but I don't think he's going to have an efficient night unless Gottfried is willing to go small, which he has rarely done this season.

Hopefully, Gottfried hasn't watched any game tape from the Notre Dame 2nd half.

[FerryFor50]

Seems to me State is not getting treats to seriously. I can honestly say I'd rather play UVA again than play State. State is very talented they just have a moron of an in game coach. State is just the kind of team we are weak against: big guys on the inside like Vandenberg who is much better than you think and can you see Amile holding his ground against Anya who out weighs him by another human being. TJ and Cat Barber are good at getting into the lane where we have trouble keeping people out of as it is.

What? You'd rather play UVA, who has SKILLED big men *and* Joe Harris, who is arguably as talented as TJ Warren? Plus, UVA plays ACTUAL defense. Not just whatever NCSU claims is defense.

Vandenberg has not played much for the past 3 seasons for 2 reasons; injury and he's not that great. He's slow and foul prone. His best asset is blocking shots. He's not as good of a rebounder as a 7'1" guy should be. (5.4 rpg, 8.9 rebounds per 40 min, 9.9% ORB, 15.6% DRB, 12.8% TRB).

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jordan-vandenberg-1.html

Plus, he's about as smart as Steve "Johnny Rockets" Blake (http://deadspin.com/5588289/americas-dumbest-student+athlete-steve-blake-university-of-maryland):

http://deadspin.com/5586930/americas-dumbest-student+athlete-nominee-jordan-vandenberg-north-carolina-state

As for Anya, he outweighs EVERYONE by nearly 100 lbs. Not just Amile. He doesn't play nearly as much as the other bigs I mentioned earlier in the thread (forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?32854-MBB-Duke-vs-NCSU-Pregame-and-In-Game-Thread-(Sat-1400-EST-CBS)&p=694789#post694789). This is the minute distribution of State's bigs:

TJ Warren: 33.9 min per game
Lennard Freeman: 25 min per game
Vandenberg: 24.2 min per game
Kyle Washington: 16.8 min per game
Beejay Anya: 11.2 min per game

Anya played 11 min versus Wake. Scored 1 point. Grabbed 4 boards. Had 2 turnovers. Ate a cheeseburger (probably). Anya's season high in points is 6. His season high in rebounds is 6. He does have some impressive block totals, but that's about it. You don't have to worry about Beejay Anya.

This is, in order, who you should worry about from State:

1. TJ Warren
1a. TJ Warren
2. Cat Barber
3. Ralston Turner (He's not Scott Wood, but he can shoot)
4. Lennard Freeman
5. Mr Wuff
6. Ms. Wuff
7. Jordan Vandenberg

This is not the NCSU from the past 3-4 years. This team lacks in NBA talent. It's very young. And there is only 1 guy who can consistently beat you (TJ Warren) and 1 guy who will either beat you or shoot his team out of the game (Cat Barber). The rest are role players or re-treads. That said, State *could* beat Duke, because this is the ACC, and it's an in-state rivalry and we're not UNC, who NCSU seems to have a mental block against.

[FerryFor50]

To help quell some fear of Vandenberg...

Kaleb Tarczewski (Arizona), an actual skilled 7-footer, went for 10 points and 9 boards in 28 min (good numbers, but not world beaters. Plus, he went over the back uncalled a lot)
Mitch McGary (Michigan), near 7 feet, went for 15 and 14 in 27 min (with a balky back, but also most of his points and boards came in garbage time in the final couple minutes)
Gerrick Sherman (ND) went for 14 and 8 in 21 min (head to head against Vandenberg, he went for 21 and 18, holding Vandenberg to 4 pts and 11 boards)
Joel Embiid (KU) had 2 pts and 7 boards in 20 min; however, Perry Ellis had 24 and 9 (This is close to the line I'd expect Vandeberg and TJ Warren to have. Luckily, State has no Andrew Wiggins)
Akil Mitchell (UVA) had 7 points and 9 boards and an airballed FT in 33 min while Mike Tobey had 8 points and 4 boards in 25 min

All of the above are light years better than Vandenberg. The scariest thing about Vandenberg is that he sounds like he'd be a bad guy in the "Sound of Music" that looks like a bad guy from James Bond.

[gus]

Another thing to watch for is Andre Dawkins breaking out of his 3-point shooting mini-slump. After going 5-7 on 3s against Elon, on 12/31/13, Dawkins has went 1-4, 1-5, 0-4 and 1-1 for a combined 3-14 in 2014.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Dawkins is one of the most consistent shooters I've ever seen. His "mini slump" is mostly illusory, but game situation required him to shoot a little more hurried and off balance in the clemson game (IIRC correctly 3 of the 4 misses were in the very end when Duke was rushing possessions and forcing 3 pointers). The more he shoots, the better off we'll be.

[Kedsy]

Barber's a talented guard, and he'll make some plays, but I don't think he's going to have an efficient night unless Gottfried is willing to go small, which he has rarely done this season.


Hopefully, Gottfried hasn't watched any game tape from the Notre Dame 2nd half.

Or tape from any game, really. I didn't see the Clemson game, so I don't know about that one, but almost every bad streak we've had this season has come when the other team went small (including Virginia's run the other night -- came with only one of Tobey/Mitchell in the game -- they subbed in and out for each other).

[Troublemaker]

Or tape from any game, really. I didn't see the Clemson game, so I don't know about that one, but almost every bad streak we've had this season has come when the other team went small (including Virginia's run the other night -- came with only one of Tobey/Mitchell in the game -- they subbed in and out for each other).

Yeah, it's really uncanny. Even Arizona made their run with Gordon playing the 4, although since he is 6'9" 225 and their SF during the run was Hollis-Jefferson who is 6'7" 215, I might say Arizona was playing their "less big" lineup rather than their small lineup. Kansas played Wiggins at the 4 and Perry Ellis at the 5 in the last four minutes of that game. And, of course, Notre Dame, ECU, Vermont.

As for Clemson, they are the one team that did not downsize and was able to pound Duke on the glass and outscore us soundly that way. Clemson is also the only recent opponent where Jabari was the primary defender at the 5. I don't think that was coincidence.

[Kedsy]

Yeah, it's really uncanny. Even Arizona made their run with Gordon playing the 4, although since he is 6'9" 225 and their SF during the run was Hollis-Jefferson who is 6'7" 215, I might say Arizona was playing their "less big" lineup rather than their small lineup. Kansas played Wiggins at the 4 and Perry Ellis at the 5 in the last four minutes of that game. And, of course, Notre Dame, ECU, Vermont.

As for Clemson, they are the one team that did not downsize and was able to pound Duke on the glass and outscore us soundly that way. Clemson is also the only recent opponent where Jabari was the primary defender at the 5. I don't think that was coincidence.

On the one hand it's kind of funny that it's really the smaller lineups that are giving us defensive fits, rather than the bigger lineups that everybody says should give us trouble.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I can figure out why those smaller lineups flummox our defense? Is it simply that smaller lineups tend to be quicker and we just don't have enough lateral quickness? Or is there something more subtle going on?

[FerryFor50]

On the one hand it's kind of funny that it's really the smaller lineups that are giving us defensive fits, rather than the bigger lineups that everybody says should give us trouble.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I can figure out why those smaller lineups flummox our defense? Is it simply that smaller lineups tend to be quicker and we just don't have enough lateral quickness? Or is there something more subtle going on?

Teams are Duke-ing Duke. Remember when Duke played small ball and all anyone could talk about was how small and unathletic the team was, despite winning tons of games in the process?

Now we have the most athletic Duke team in recent memory, with plenty of size. And what do teams do to beat Duke? Small ball.

[MChambers]

On the one hand it's kind of funny that it's really the smaller lineups that are giving us defensive fits, rather than the bigger lineups that everybody says should give us trouble.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I can figure out why those smaller lineups flummox our defense? Is it simply that smaller lineups tend to be quicker and we just don't have enough lateral quickness? Or is there something more subtle going on?
Or that we're just playing too aggressive of a defense, so that when teams go small, they beat us off the dribble.

Or it's just that we have a team generally composed of poor defenders. I dimly recall that before the last two seasons, during the offseason, some of us worried about who the lockdown defenders and defensive leaders would be. I'm still wondering if we have anyone like that.

[flyingdutchdevil]

To help quell some fear of Vandenberg...

Kaleb Tarczewski (Arizona), an actual skilled 7-footer, went for 10 points and 9 boards in 28 min (good numbers, but not world beaters. Plus, he went over the back uncalled a lot)
Mitch McGary (Michigan), near 7 feet, went for 15 and 14 in 27 min (with a balky back, but also most of his points and boards came in garbage time in the final couple minutes)
Gerrick Sherman (ND) went for 14 and 8 in 21 min (head to head against Vandenberg, he went for 21 and 18, holding Vandenberg to 4 pts and 11 boards)
Joel Embiid (KU) had 2 pts and 7 boards in 20 min; however, Perry Ellis had 24 and 9 (This is close to the line I'd expect Vandeberg and TJ Warren to have. Luckily, State has no Andrew Wiggins)
Akil Mitchell (UVA) had 7 points and 9 boards and an airballed FT in 33 min while Mike Tobey had 8 points and 4 boards in 25 min

All of the above are light years better than Vandenberg. The scariest thing about Vandenberg is that he sounds like he'd be a bad guy in the "Sound of Music" that looks like a bad guy from James Bond.

The best part of Jordan Vandenberg is his phenomenal last name.

Unfortunately, he makes us Dutch look like terrible basketball players. Paging Rik Smits...

[FerryFor50]

The best part of Jordan Vandenberg is his phenomenal last name.

Unfortunately, he makes us Dutch look like terrible basketball players. Paging Rik Smits...

Well, technically he's from Australia, so you should probably bring in Andrew Bogut.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Well, technically he's from Australia, so you should probably bring in Andrew Bogut.

Lets just agree that he makes the Dutch and Australians look bad.

I'm looking forward to playing Vandenberg. Should be plenty of fun.

[FerryFor50]

Lets just agree that he makes the Dutch and Australians look bad.

I'm looking forward to playing Vandenberg. Should be plenty of fun.


Nigel Powers: All right Goldmember. Don't play the laughing boy. There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295178/quotes)

3807

[flyingdutchdevil]

Nigel Powers: All right Goldmember. Don't play the laughing boy. There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295178/quotes)

3807

Do you love Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooold?

[jv001]

Or that we're just playing too aggressive of a defense, so that when teams go small, they beat us off the dribble.

Or it's just that we have a team generally composed of poor defenders. I dimly recall that before the last two seasons, during the offseason, some of us worried about who the lockdown defenders and defensive leaders would be. I'm still wondering if we have anyone like that.

I don't know about lockdown defenders, but in my eye test, Matt Jones and Rasheed look like the best "on the ball defenders'. GoDuke!

[Troublemaker]

On the one hand it's kind of funny that it's really the smaller lineups that are giving us defensive fits, rather than the bigger lineups that everybody says should give us trouble.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I can figure out why those smaller lineups flummox our defense? Is it simply that smaller lineups tend to be quicker and we just don't have enough lateral quickness? Or is there something more subtle going on?

Yeah, we just can't seem to defend the drive against small lineups. We don't defend it well against normal lineups either, but it seems to get exacerbated when the opponent is small. Just as important, small lineups seem to defend us really well leading to lopsided runs by the opponent. I think we have to do better defending ball screens. That will help.

Giving it some more thought, Michigan probably should've been a team that gave us fits because they spread people out and play a small 4 in Glenn Robinson. Did we do something different in that game? Did Michigan? Or was it just random variation, i.e. Duke hasn't played poorly against literally every small lineup, just many small lineups. My sense was we did a good job on backdoors in that game, but eventually Levert just decided to drive and drive and drive, and we couldn't stop him. Still, an overall good defensive game from us against the Wolverines. It probably helped that Michigan's leading scorer was a 2-guard that shoots great. We can defend that. All Duke teams typically do well against that. That's perhaps the answer there.

[FerryFor50]

Yeah, we just can't seem to defend the drive against small lineups. We don't defend it well against normal lineups either, but it seems to get exacerbated when the opponent is small. Just as important, small lineups seem to defend us really well leading to lopsided runs by the opponent. I think we have to do better defending ball screens. That will help.

Giving it some more thought, Michigan probably should've been a team that gave us fits because they spread people out and play a small 4 in Glenn Robinson. Did we do something different in that game? Did Michigan? Or was it just random variation, i.e. Duke hasn't played poorly against literally every small lineup, just many small lineups. My sense was we did a good job on backdoors in that game, but eventually Levert just decided to drive and drive and drive, and we couldn't stop him. Still, an overall good defensive game from us against the Wolverines. It probably helped that Michigan's leading scorer was a 2-guard that shoots great. We can defend that. All Duke teams typically do well against that. That's perhaps the answer there.

A lot of the Michigan game depended on how Duke defended Stauskus (and possibly his injured ankle).

[CDu]

Or that we're just playing too aggressive of a defense, so that when teams go small, they beat us off the dribble.

Let's take a look at these recent runs a little more closely:

1. Notre Dame: ND went small by replacing the stationary Sherman with a Vasturia. The issue wasn't really our defense struggling against ND; it was our offense (which went over 4 minutes without scoring and scored only 8 points over the next 9 minutes). From 11:39 to 2:12 (9:27) ND outscored us 22-8, with 4 of those 22 coming in transition directly off of bad offensive possessions. 18 points in 9+ minutes isn't great, but it isn't atrocious. The bigger atrocity was our failure to score any points.

2. Clemson: never really went small, although their PF (Blossomgame) is a slightly-undersized, stretch-PF at 6'7" 215. And Clemson didn't really make an offensive run. Instead, we just went on HUGE scoring droughts (2 separate 3-minute stretches without a point) while Clemson kept plugging away.

3. UVa: The run occurred over a 3-minute stretch where UVa outscored us 13-1. During that time, I assume that they went with either Anderson or Harris as the nominal PF. I don't have the substitutions to know if Tobey and Mitchell were subbing offense/defense at that point, but there were only two minutes during the game that UVa didn't have two bigs on the floor. I assume that those 2 minutes came during this 3-minute stretch, but I just don't know. In any case, UVa was in rush mode. They attempted a shot within 15 seconds of the shot clock on every possession. One was a made 3, one was a put-back layup and a foul, one was a breakaway layup off a steal, one was a made layup, and the last was when Thornton fell down and fouled intentionally (Brogdon made the basket and the foul shot).

So in the first game, the issue was that we played "meh" defense throughout the game but just failed to score for a long stretch. In the second game, we played "meh" defense throughout and just failed to make shots in the second half. The third game was a frantic late-game surge combined with us not making shots (we scored just 1 point while UVa scored in transition.

I think the last game was a bit of a fluke occurrence. But the other two games suggest to me that the "run" issue is really a result of change in our offensive effectiveness - not our defense. Our defense has just been consistently bad, and our offense has been up-and-down. So what we are seeing is that when the offense goes into a slump, we are susceptible to big runs.

So then the question would seem to be "why does it seem that we're more susceptible to offensive slumps when teams go small against us?" I'll posit this theory: so much of our offense is based on creating space with our perimeter shooters. Against bigger teams, that means that a big is going to get caught in an uncomfortable position of trying to run out to the perimeter and/or chase someone off the dribble. When teams go with four perimeter players, that risk is greatly diminished. They have guys who are used to covering on the perimeter, and as such are better equipped to recover as we space the floor and move the ball around the perimeter.

So when teams go small, we aren't used to not having that advantage, and as such struggle to create good shots.


Or it's just that we have a team generally composed of poor defenders. I dimly recall that before the last two seasons, during the offseason, some of us worried about who the lockdown defenders and defensive leaders would be. I'm still wondering if we have anyone like that.

I think we have a few poor defenders, a few okay defenders, a few inconsistent defenders, and a couple of good defenders. I'd say that Jones and Sulaimon are the only ones I'd consider truly good defenders - especially on the perimeter.

[Kedsy]

Or that we're just playing too aggressive of a defense, so that when teams go small, they beat us off the dribble.

Or it's just that we have a team generally composed of poor defenders. I dimly recall that before the last two seasons, during the offseason, some of us worried about who the lockdown defenders and defensive leaders would be. I'm still wondering if we have anyone like that.

Perhaps, but as Troublemaker pointed out, that should hurt us all the time, not just when the other team goes small. Could it be that, at the college level, the biggest guys are often not as skilled scorers as the smaller guys, so when a team goes small they simply have more scorers on the floor?

Last night I played pickup and one of the guys was (for our level) a very gifted scorer. Nobody on the court could stop him if he was determined to score. He was somewhat indifferent about defense, though, playing a lot of centerfield, not switching well, and so on. This led to a lot of defensive scrambling when the man he was supposedly guarding got the ball. If the other team moved the ball well, then when it (either sooner or later) got to a wide open and good offensive player, they usually scored. Thing is, if the guy he was guarding wasn't that good an offensive player, it didn't matter nearly as much because it wasn't as urgent for the other defenders to deal with it if his man got the ball wide open on the perimeter. Even if his guy was a good scorer, if there was one guy the defenders could leave open without too much fear of getting burned, it could work with proper rotations. Thus, the more guys that could score well, the worse his indifferent defense cost his team.

I'm not saying Jabari is indifferent on defense, but maybe a similar mechanism is in play here. Just a thought.

[Kedsy]

I don't have the substitutions to know if Tobey and Mitchell were subbing offense/defense at that point, but there were only two minutes during the game that UVa didn't have two bigs on the floor. I assume that those 2 minutes came during this 3-minute stretch, but I just don't know.

I went through the play-by-play, and Tobey and Mitchell were subbing in for each other during the entire 3 minute stretch. According to the play-by-play they were never on the floor together during that time period.

[CDu]

Perhaps, but as Troublemaker pointed out, that should hurt us all the time, not just when the other team goes small. Could it be that, at the college level, the biggest guys are often not as skilled scorers as the smaller guys, so when a team goes small they simply have more scorers on the floor?

Last night I played pickup and one of the guys was (for our level) a very gifted scorer. Nobody on the court could stop him if he was determined to score. He was somewhat indifferent about defense, though, playing a lot of centerfield, not switching well, and so on. This led to a lot of defensive scrambling when the man he was supposedly guarding got the ball. If the other team moved the ball well, then when it (either sooner or later) got to a wide open and good offensive player, they usually scored. Thing is, if the guy he was guarding wasn't that good an offensive player, it didn't matter nearly as much because it wasn't as urgent for the other defenders to deal with it if his man got the ball wide open on the perimeter. Even if his guy was a good scorer, if there was one guy the defenders could leave open without too much fear of getting burned, it could work with proper rotations. Thus, the more guys that could score well, the worse his indifferent defense cost his team.

I'm not saying Jabari is indifferent on defense, but maybe a similar mechanism is in play here. Just a thought.

See my post above. I think we may be chasing a red herring here in trying to figure out why our defense is suffering against smaller teams. It appears that our defense is suffering against ANY teams, and it is our offense that is the main culprit during those runs.

[roywhite]

Or tape from any game, really. I didn't see the Clemson game, so I don't know about that one, but almost every bad streak we've had this season has come when the other team went small (including Virginia's run the other night -- came with only one of Tobey/Mitchell in the game -- they subbed in and out for each other).

Oh, man, didn't see the Clemson game?

Don't know whether to envy you or scold you for not being there to share the misery. :)

[Kedsy]

See my post above. I think we may be chasing a red herring here in trying to figure out why our defense is suffering against smaller teams. It appears that our defense is suffering against ANY teams, and it is our offense that is the main culprit during those runs.

It's possible. In keeping with the example of my game last night, the guy playing the part of Jabari tended to take every shot when his team got behind down the stretch (what people around here have started to call "hero ball"). A couple games he scored on every possession and his team won, but at least as many times he made one or two mistakes and his team lost.

That said, I'm not sure why a smaller lineup would be able to defend Duke better than a larger lineup. Why do you think that's the case?

[Kedsy]

Oh, man, didn't see the Clemson game?

Don't know whether to envy you or scold you for not being there to share the misery. :)

Yeah, the game wasn't on cable here, so I couldn't DVR it, and I just didn't have a good opportunity to access ESPN3 that day. I probably could have watched an ESPN3 replay the next day, but once I heard about the game, it didn't seem like the wisest investment of my time.

[CDu]

It's possible. In keeping with the example of my game last night, the guy playing the part of Jabari tended to take every shot when his team got behind down the stretch (what people around here have started to call "hero ball"). A couple games he scored on every possession and his team won, but at least as many times he made one or two mistakes and his team lost.

That said, I'm not sure why a smaller lineup would be able to defend Duke better than a larger lineup. Why do you think that's the case?

I posted a theory on that:

Our offense this season has been based in large part on the following:
- great floor spacing with 4-5 excellent perimeter shooters on the court for most of the game
- forwards with the ability to beat bigger players off the dribble

When we face bigger teams, that usually means they have two guys on the floor that don't really feel comfortable defending on the perimeter and/or are too slow to defend off the dribble. When teams go a bit smaller (especially when they bring in a 6'6"-6'7", 210+ SF to play PF), that mitigates some of the problem. Generally speaking, guys who play the wing are much more comfortable defending the perimeter and defending dribble penetration from the perimeter than big guys are.

So by going with 4 wings, teams are able to match up with us on the perimeter. And in doing so, they also mitigate some of our bigger guys' advantage off the dribble. And our offense isn't always able to offset that through good decision-making or by posting guys up. And that's because we don't really have great post scorers. Parker just isn't physical enough down there. Jefferson is more of an opportunistic "garbage bucket" guy rather than a go-to guy. Hairston and Plumlee just don't have much offensive skill. And Hood isn't very comfortable in the post. So we haven't been consistently able to punish teams for going small against us.

[Kedsy]

I posted a theory on that:

Our offense this season has been based in large part on the following:
- great floor spacing with 4-5 excellent perimeter shooters on the court for most of the game
- forwards with the ability to beat bigger players off the dribble

When we face bigger teams, that usually means they have two guys on the floor that don't really feel comfortable defending on the perimeter and/or are too slow to defend off the dribble. When teams go a bit smaller (especially when they bring in a 6'6"-6'7", 210+ SF to play PF), that mitigates some of the problem. Generally speaking, guys who play the wing are much more comfortable defending the perimeter and defending dribble penetration from the perimeter than big guys are.

So by going with 4 wings, teams are able to match up with us on the perimeter. And in doing so, they also mitigate some of our bigger guys' advantage off the dribble. And our offense isn't always able to offset that through good decision-making or by posting guys up. And that's because we don't really have great post scorers. Parker just isn't physical enough down there. Jefferson is more of an opportunistic "garbage bucket" guy rather than a go-to guy. Hairston and Plumlee just don't have much offensive skill. And Hood isn't very comfortable in the post. So we haven't been consistently able to punish teams for going small against us.

That sounds reasonable. Not sure it completely explains our scoring droughts at the end of games, but it could certainly be a contributing factor.

[CDu]

That sounds reasonable. Not sure it completely explains our scoring droughts at the end of games, but it could certainly be a contributing factor.

Well, I'm not sure we have an "end-of-game" scoring drought problem. Our 2+ minute scoring droughts in the past 4 games have come as follows:

1. ND: 1st half (13:26-9:52); 1st half (6:15-4:05); 2nd half (11:39-7:19); 2nd half (5:57-3:24)
2. GT: 1st half (14:21-12:15); 1st half (11:18-8:23); 2nd half (16:43-14:35); 2nd half (10:04-7:16)
3. Clemson: 1st half (20:00-17:15); 1st half (10:26-7:03); 1st half (4:43-2:13); 2nd half (11:51-8:48); 2nd half (6:28-3:19); 2nd half (2:06-0:00) - this was when we were in chucker mode trying to scramble back
4. UVa: 1st half (15:07-11:49); 1st half (11:49-9:38); 2nd half (18:23-14:58); 2nd half (8:01-4:58); 2nd half (3:44-0:55)

Only one of those stretches is one that I would call a real end-of-game drought. The Clemson game was a situation where, down a bunch, we tried to bomb our way back, missed, and lost possession. Not a real reflection of our offense, just a reflection of trying a hail mary. Conversely, we've had several long scoring droughts throughout each of these games.

Which leads me to my next theory: that MAYBE all of this "problem with giving up runs" is just random chance. We're talking about just 3 games in which we've given up big score swings, and each of the three happened in different ways. So maybe we're all guilty of trying to find some causation when it could be that we're simply a streaky offense that happened to have a "valley" at a bad time in a couple of instances.

[Wander]

Which leads me to my next theory: that MAYBE all of this "problem with giving up runs" is just random chance. We're talking about just 3 games in which we've given up big score swings, and each of the three happened in different ways. So maybe we're all guilty of trying to find some causation when it could be that we're simply a streaky offense that happened to have a "valley" at a bad time in a couple of instances.

I argued this in a different thread. The only thing I'd change in your statement is that this doesn't imply we're a streaky offense - I'd bet the vast majority of games in college basketball history contain runs like this (as an example, every Duke loss last season contained a similar run). Kedsy thinks the timing of these runs might be a signature weakness of our team - there may be something to that, but I remain unconvinced with the sample size so far. But games like the Duke/Butler title game, where neither team ever strings together more than a few baskets and stops together, are a rare exception, for every team.

[Kedsy]

Well, I'm not sure we have an "end-of-game" scoring drought problem. Our 2+ minute scoring droughts in the past 4 games have come as follows:

1. ND: 1st half (13:26-9:52); 1st half (6:15-4:05); 2nd half (11:39-7:19); 2nd half (5:57-3:24)
2. GT: 1st half (14:21-12:15); 1st half (11:18-8:23); 2nd half (16:43-14:35); 2nd half (10:04-7:16)
3. Clemson: 1st half (20:00-17:15); 1st half (10:26-7:03); 1st half (4:43-2:13); 2nd half (11:51-8:48); 2nd half (6:28-3:19); 2nd half (2:06-0:00) - this was when we were in chucker mode trying to scramble back
4. UVa: 1st half (15:07-11:49); 1st half (11:49-9:38); 2nd half (18:23-14:58); 2nd half (8:01-4:58); 2nd half (3:44-0:55)

Only one of those stretches is one that I would call a real end-of-game drought. The Clemson game was a situation where, down a bunch, we tried to bomb our way back, missed, and lost possession. Not a real reflection of our offense, just a reflection of trying a hail mary. Conversely, we've had several long scoring droughts throughout each of these games.

Which leads me to my next theory: that MAYBE all of this "problem with giving up runs" is just random chance. We're talking about just 3 games in which we've given up big score swings, and each of the three happened in different ways. So maybe we're all guilty of trying to find some causation when it could be that we're simply a streaky offense that happened to have a "valley" at a bad time in a couple of instances.

Maybe. It also happened against Kansas, Arizona, and Vermont, though, so now it's 6 games. Which of course still could be random chance.

Also, we might be being too literal here. Clemson didn't hold us scoreless during their 18-5 run, but that run started with the game tied and ended at the buzzer. Notre Dame's 20-4 run happened from 11:35 to 4:18, so not strictly speaking the exact end of the game, but close enough for discussion purposes. Arizona's 24-8 run was like Notre Dame's, coming from 13:48 to 3:58. Kansas's 15-4 run was like Clemson's, turning a tie game into a double-digit loss in the last 3 minutes. Virginia's 11-1 run also came in the last 3 minutes.

But more than that, they all looked and felt the same, at least to me. Actually, Virginia's felt least like the others because it was only a few possessions. So you could be totally right about the random chance thing or maybe not. I honestly don't know what to think about this.

[Bob Green]

...Dawkins is one of the most consistent shooters I've ever seen. His "mini slump" is mostly illusory...

I hope you are correct. As a huge Dawkins fan, I'm really excited about his overall level of play so I'm looking forward to more court time and another 5-7 performance on 3-pointers.


The more he shoots, the better off we'll be.

I definitely agree!

[Troublemaker]

Very good stuff, CDu. I would assign the blame for our struggles against small lineups as closer to 50/50 between offense and defense than what you are saying (with an edge to offense as more to blame). For example, UVA went small with 7:49 left trailing 56-43 and then scored every trip down the floor except for the first and last. Prior to that, 43 points in 32 minutes is pretty good defensively for Duke. (Obviously we're both too lazy to do ppp calcs for this discussion). So we held them off by scoring with them for about 4 minutes, then went cold during the 13-1 run.

(Note re: UVA big men minutes. Evan Nolte is a SF for UVA who didn't play at all down the stretch except the last 4 secs. Take away his 6 minutes from your total, and UVA only had 72 min total by big men. 80 - 72 = 8 minutes. The final 8 minutes, as mentioned.
Subs can be found on school's official boxscores: http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=209370807 )

Duly noted that sample size may be small. While Kansas, ECU, Vermont, and Arizona have been mentioned as well, those games were relatively long ago and only Notre Dame and UVa were recent. Duke vs small lineups is something to keep track of, though. As samples grow, we may be able to come to a more definitive conclusion.

[CDu]

Maybe. It also happened against Kansas, Arizona, and Vermont, though, so now it's 6 games. Which of course still could be random chance.

Also, we might be being too literal here. Clemson didn't hold us scoreless during their 18-5 run, but that run started with the game tied and ended at the buzzer. Notre Dame's 20-4 run happened from 11:35 to 4:18, so not strictly speaking the exact end of the game, but close enough for discussion purposes. Arizona's 24-8 run was like Notre Dame's, coming from 13:48 to 3:58. Kansas's 15-4 run was like Clemson's, turning a tie game into a double-digit loss in the last 3 minutes. Virginia's 11-1 run also came in the last 3 minutes.

But more than that, they all looked and felt the same, at least to me. Actually, Virginia's felt least like the others because it was only a few possessions. So you could be totally right about the random chance thing or maybe not. I honestly don't know what to think about this.

You could argue that we're being too literal with the terminology, and I might not disagree. However, I would argue that you're being too liberal with the terminology in this post.

1. In the Vermont game, we snuck out to a 12-point lead early in the second half. But that 12-point lead was brief: Vermont went on a 10-0 run from 15:06 to 11:28 to cut it to 2. From then onward the game was never more than 5 points apart. It was a two-possession game for the last 13:05. Both teams essentially scored at will for the last quarter of the game. I counted just 10 possessions total in the final 12 minutes that didn't result in points, and the two teams combined for 63 points in the last 12 minutes. That is nothing like the other games.

2. Arizona's game and Notre Dame's games do indeed seem somewhat similar: basically, they both outplayed us for the last quarter of the game. So we have a sample size of two of games where the opponent just completely outplayed us for the last quarter of the game.

3. You didn't see the Clemson game so I'll give you a pass here, but the Kansas game was NOTHING like the Clemson game. The Kansas game was a one-possession game with under 2 minutes left. They then hit a shot, we made a turnover, and they hit another shot. From there, it was a foul-fest as we were down 6 with just over a minute to go. The Clemson game was very different. They very slowly and methodically overtook us throughout the second half, and with about 5 minutes to go they had a 7-point lead. From there, we panicked and started chucking long jumpers. We never really challenged them again down the stretch, only briefly getting within 6.

4. The UVa game is indeed unlike any of the others. In that game, we controlled the game for 37 minutes, then over a 3-minute stretch UVa bombed away and we self-destructed, before things finally swung our way again.

So we have:
- 2 games where we 5-10 points ahead through 25-30 minutes before getting killed steadily over the last 10-15 minutes (Arizona and Notre Dame). Though it must be noted that the Arizona game is very unlike the Notre Dame game in that Arizona did not go small against us for that stretch, whereas Notre Dame did.
- 1 game where we played dead-even for about 38 minutes but blew it on a couple of possessions late and lost the "foul and chuck 3s" game (Kansas). And again, Kansas didn't go small against us.
- 1 game where we controlled the game for 37 minutes and let them off the mat in the final minutes (UVa)
- 1 game where we just stunk for pretty much the entire second half, and then started taking panic shots for the final 5 minutes (Clemson)
- 1 game where we let up for about 3 minutes midway through the second half, but then went blow-for-blow for the last 10 minutes (Vermont)

I don't think it's at all reasonable to lump those together as a sample size of 6 similar games, unless you want to make your argument as liberal as calling them "games in which we got outplayed for some stretch during in the second half," or "games we lost or almost lost."


Very good stuff, CDu. I would assign the blame for our struggles against small lineups as closer to 50/50 between offense and defense than what you are saying (with an edge to offense as more to blame). For example, UVA went small with 7:49 left trailing 56-43 and then scored every trip down the floor except for the first and last. Prior to that, 43 points in 32 minutes is pretty good defensively for Duke. (Obviously we're both too lazy to do ppp calcs for this discussion). So we held them off by scoring with them for about 4 minutes, then went cold during the 13-1 run.

(Note re: UVA big men minutes. Evan Nolte is a SF for UVA who didn't play at all down the stretch except the last 4 secs. Take away his 6 minutes from your total, and UVA only had 72 min total by big men. 80 - 72 = 8 minutes. The final 8 minutes, as mentioned.
Subs can be found on school's official boxscores: http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=209370807 )

Duly noted that sample size may be small. While Kansas, ECU, Vermont, and Arizona have been mentioned as well, those games were relatively long ago and only Notre Dame and UVa were recent. Duke vs small lineups is something to keep track of, though. As samples grow, we may be able to come to a more definitive conclusion.

I must disagree with you on this, troublemaker. Evan Nolte is 6'8", 225 lb, and slower afoot than anyone on our roster not named Todd Zafirovski (sorry, Todd!). He is a poor-man's Ryan Kelly. That is to say that he is a PF/C who is very much a "stretch-4/5." He is in no way, shape, or form a SF. He is best suited to play C defensively and a stretch-4 offensively.

[Troublemaker]

I must disagree with you on this, troublemaker. Evan Nolte is 6'8", 225 lb, and slower afoot than anyone on our roster not named Todd Zafirovski (sorry, Todd!). He is a poor-man's Ryan Kelly. That is to say that he is a PF/C who is very much a "stretch-4/5." He is in no way, shape, or form a SF. He is best suited to play C defensively and a stretch-4 offensively.

So it is just not true that UVa went small from 7:49 on. There were just 2-3 minutes in which two of their bigs (Tobey, Mitchell, Gill, Atkins, and Nolte) weren't on the floor together. That stretch apparently did exactly correspond with the 13-1 stretch near the end of the game. But it was not at all a prolonged stretch of small-ball.

CDu, just look at the play-by-play I had linked: http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=209370807

At 7:49 left in the game, Bennett subbed Joe Harris in, Mike Tobey out.

Then just look at the UVA players involved in plays from then on, and then look at the subs. It is clear Perrantes, Brogdon, Harris, and Anderson stayed on the court the entire time until the final seconds. On the other hand, Tobey and Mitchell were subbed in and out for each other frequently during that stretch.

If necessary, you could also confirm on ESPN3 replay.

UVA went small from 7:49 on. I did enjoy your description of Nolte, though. But he played SF in that game and presumably other UVA games.

Interestingly, UVA actually went big for only 1 play during that stretch. It was the play Amile intercepted the pass, fumbled it away, got the rebound, and sank his free throws to seal the game. I had counted that as a stop against smallball, but in actuality, we only stopped smallball on one trip, the first trip after UVA went small at 7:49. (Not counting the very, very last possession with 4 secs left after Amile sank the free throws.)

[CDu]

CDu, just look at the play-by-play I had linked: http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=209370807

At 7:49 left in the game, Bennett subbed Joe Harris in, Mike Tobey out.

Then just look at the UVA players involved in plays from then on, and then look at the subs. It is clear Perrantes, Brogdon, Harris, and Anderson stayed on the court the entire time until the final seconds. On the other hand, Tobey and Mitchell were subbed in and out for each other frequently during that stretch.

If necessary, you could also confirm on ESPN3 replay.

UVA went small from 7:49 on. I did enjoy your description of Nolte, though. But he played SF in that game and presumably other UVA games.

Interestingly, UVA actually went big for only 1 play during that stretch. It was the play Amile intercepted the pass, fumbled it away, got the rebound, and sank his free throws to seal the game. I had counted that as a stop against smallball, but in actuality, we only stopped smallball on one trip, the first trip after UVA went small at 7:49. (Not counting the very, very last possession with 4 secs left after Amile sank the free throws.)

Oh I'm not doubting you. Just saying that he's not a SF. He may have played some SF that night, but he's a PF. If you look at the minutes distribution of the team, adding up the minutes of Mitchell, Tobey, Gill, Atkins, and Nolte gets you really close to 80 mpg. So clearly he played some SF that night (I guess UVa tried to go big), but he's typically a PF for them.

Regardless, if they went small at 7:50, that actually goes against the "small-ball hurts us" argument. We had a 13-point lead with 7:50 to go. We had a an 11-point lead with 3:44 to go. So for over 4 minutes, UVa's small-ball lineup gained just one possession on us. Then, they magically had a 13-1 run. So is that a result of small-ball (even though we kept pace with them for over 4 minutes), or is it just happenstance?

[Troublemaker]

Personally I think it IS smallball instead of happenstance. We stopped scoring during the 13-1 run, in part because small lineups defend us well for the reasons you previously noted. Small lineups also seem to score really well on us.

Happenstance can not be ruled out, of course.

All I know is four games ago, Notre Dame went to smallball with 11 minutes left to beat us badly down the stretch. And last game UVA went to smallball with 8 minutes left and beat us badly down the stretch. It is worth observing how we fare against future small lineups.

I would even tie it back to ECU, Vermont, Kansas (for the portion they played small), and Arizona (for the portion they played less big), except as I said, I'm uncomfortable doing so because those games were at the beginning of the season. Duke has changed a lot since then. Amile and Sheed are playing much better now than they were then, for example.

If at any point in the season including now, small lineups were a problem, the problem does not have to continue, of course. But I am leaning towards them being an actual problem instead of happenstance at this point and will observe how we play the small lineups going forward.

[CDu]

Personally I think it IS smallball instead of happenstance. We stopped scoring during the 13-1 run, in part because small lineups defend us well for the reasons you previously noted. Small lineups also seem to score really well on us.

Happenstance can not be ruled out, of course.

But if small ball is the main culprit, why were we able to essentially play to a draw for 4 minutes against small-ball before suddenly small-ball took over? I think happenstance is the much more likely answer.


All I know is four games ago, Notre Dame went to smallball with 11 minutes left to beat us badly down the stretch. And last game UVA went to smallball with 8 minutes left and beat us badly down the stretch. It is worth observing how we fare against future small lineups.

I would even tie it back to ECU, Vermont, Kansas (for the portion they played small), and Arizona (for the portion they played less big), except as I said, I'm uncomfortable doing so because those games were at the beginning of the season. Duke has changed a lot since then. Amile and Sheed are playing much better now than they were then, for example.

Kansas didn't beat us because of small ball. We played them dead-even for 38 minutes. They beat us because we happened to not score on one possession, they scored, and then we had a turnover which resulted in another score. From then on it was "foul them, hope they miss, then chuck a 3". I hardly think that's a victory for small ball against us. If one or two possessions go differently, we stand a good chance of winning that game.

And Arizona never went not big. They played Tarczewski, Gordon, and Ashley for 85 minutes, and they played Hollis-Jefferson (6'7" 215) for 27 minutes. So for all but 8 minutes of the game they had 3 players 6'7" or taller on the floor, and for every minute of the game they had two true PF/C on the floor. Gordon happens to play SF for some of each game in order to get their best players on the floor, but he is really a college PF who happens to be able to play SF. He's 6'9", 225.


If at any point in the season including now, small lineups were a problem, the problem does not have to continue, of course. But I am leaning towards them being an actual problem instead of happenstance at this point and will observe how we play the small lineups going forward.

Oh, feel free to continue to keep track of it. I'm just saying don't fall prey to confirmation bias. Because I think folks are doing that in this case to come up with correlations that really aren't there.

[tommy]

Regardless, if they went small at 7:50, that actually goes against the "small-ball hurts us" argument. We had a 13-point lead with 7:50 to go. We had a an 11-point lead with 3:44 to go. So for over 4 minutes, UVa's small-ball lineup gained just one possession on us. Then, they magically had a 13-1 run. So is that a result of small-ball (even though we kept pace with them for over 4 minutes), or is it just happenstance?

Moreover, much (if not all) of their comeback would be pretty hard to attribute to having gone small, when you look at the actual plays. First of all, even during the last 4 minutes, Bennett was subbing Tobey in and out, for offense-defense. He was in for most of the offensive possessions until the very end, and out for most of the defensive ones, so Virginia was not really playing pure small ball at all.

But then look at the plays. We're up 11 with 3:44 to go after Quinn hit 2 FT's. UVA comes down, with Tobey on the floor, and Perrantes drives baseline, is in a bit of trouble, and kicks it out near the top of the key where Anderson hits a 3 with Rasheed running at him and almost getting there. Result of "small ball?"

Tobey goes out. We have Jabari, Amile, Rodney, Rasheed, and Quinn in the game. Quinn gets fouled on the perimeter with clock running down, they bring Tobey in, and Quinn then misses the front end.

Then UVA runs a play where they post Tobey, feed him, we play good post D on him and force a miss, but Anderson somehow makes that miracle tip-in and gets a foul call on Rasheed to boot. This -- a big man post-up followed by an offensive rebound/putback was in no way a "small ball" play. It's now a 5 point game.

This is when Rasheed got stuck near half court, but he only actually had one defender on him as he was pivoting around. A little more patience, or of course a timeout, and he gets out of that. Is this play a result of perimeter pressure/UVA small ball? I'm not sure I would categorize it as such. There was pressure, but it was made possible by Rasheed picking up his dribble unnecessarily and unwisely, and then not figuring out a way to get out of trouble, when there were options there. In any event, Harris takes the steal for the easy layup and it's 63-60. Timeout Duke.

Now UVA has Tobey out of the game again, and the shot clock runs down, Rodney loses the handle as he tried to make a move into the lane, it goes to Jabari who has no choice but to jack up a long 3 to beat the shot clock. A result of small ball on the defensive side for UVA? Maybe, but far from clear.

Then Brogdon drives past Rasheed and into the lane, but both Jabari and Rodney have their backs to the play and aren't looking -- not seeing the ball -- so they're too late to help. Rodney actually never turns around at all. Jabari fouls Brogdon for the and-one. Tie game. Is it "small ball" when the 6'5" 217 pound Brogdon drives past the 6'4" 190 pound Sulaimon and into the lane?

That was UVA's 11-0 run to tie the game. I'd have a hard time saying that going small was anywhere close to a decisive factor in their making that run.

The rest of the game went like this: Rasheed took it to the rack, got fouled and hit 1 of 2. Tobey came in. Brogdon, seeing his defender Thornton slip and fall down, took it past him to the hoop, and Ty comes from behind and fouls him on the shot. Brogdon hits 2. Result of small ball? How?

Then Tobey went out and Sheed hit his big 3 that bounced in and we took it home from there.

[Troublemaker]

But if small ball is the main culprit, why were we able to essentially play to a draw for 4 minutes against small-ball before suddenly small-ball took over? I think happenstance is the much more likely answer.

Well, I'm sure BC is capable of playing Syracuse to a draw for 4 minutes for example, even though Syracuse is advantaged. In the end, it's tough to keep pace though if one side continues scoring every trip down the floor. Like I said, UVA scored 43 points in 32 minutes, went small, then scored 22 points in 8 minutes. On the heels of what Notre Dame did, this is alarming to me. But not definitive.

You have convinced me, though, that I shouldn't count runs made by KU's small and Zona's "less big" lineups.

The set of struggles against smallball looks more like [ECU, Vermont….. Notre Dame, UVA] with ellipses denoting a long passage of time between games.


Moreover, much (if not all) of their comeback would be pretty hard to attribute to having gone small, when you look at the actual plays.

Tommy,

Thanks for the great detailed breakdown, as always.

My question would be this. You've examined the plays with more of an emphasis at the point of attack (e.g. X drives by Y), except for the one play where you noted Jabari and Rodney weren't in proper position to help. My concern with smallball is very much about help position, though. Did UVA start scoring at a much higher rate with 8 minutes to go because not having both Tobey and Mitchell in at the same time unclogged the lanes and spread Duke out? (In the end, though, the solution to that might have to come at the point of attack. If helpers can't help or aren't getting there in time because of being spread, we are probably best served to deny 1-on-1 drives and ball screen drives better.)

[CDu]

Like I said, UVA scored 43 points in 32 minutes, went small, then scored 22 points in 8 minutes.

Did UVA start scoring at a much higher rate with 8 minutes to go because not having both Tobey and Mitchell in at the same time unclogged the lanes and spread Duke out?

See, this is what I'm talking about with respect to being too liberal with the terminology and/or falling prey to confirmation bias.

UVa didn't start scoring at a much higher rate with about 8 minutes to go. It is true that they had a 22-8 stretch over a 7+ minute span. But the reality is that they slogged along slowly for the next 4 minutes, scoring 9 (four of which came on offensive rebounds) on 3-7 shooting from the field. Then they exploded for 11 points in a 2-minute stretch before cooling off again and scoring just 2 points in the final 1.5 minutes.

If they miss that transition 3 and if Harris doesn't get the steal and breakaway layup, are we even talking about this? Then we're looking at a 7+ minute stretch of 17-8, and a comfortable Duke win. And most of that 17 in 7+ minutes was a function of there being more possessions down the stretch (UVa plays at a slow pace unless they need to come from behind).

The UVa game just screams "UVa made a nice last-gasp push with about 4 minutes to go, and we panicked, and suddenly it was a ballgame." That's not a smallball problem to me. That just seems like a fluke.

[flyingdutchdevil]

See, this is what I'm talking about with respect to being too liberal with the terminology and/or falling prey to confirmation bias.

UVa didn't start scoring at a much higher rate with about 8 minutes to go. It is true that they had a 22-8 stretch over a 7+ minute span. But the reality is that they slogged along slowly for the next 4 minutes, scoring 9 (four of which came on offensive rebounds) on 3-7 shooting from the field. Then they exploded for 11 points in a 2-minute stretch before cooling off again and scoring just 2 points in the final 1.5 minutes.

If they miss that transition 3 and if Harris doesn't get the steal and breakaway layup, are we even talking about this? Then we're looking at a 7+ minute stretch of 17-8, and a comfortable Duke win. And most of that 17 in 7+ minutes was a function of there being more possessions down the stretch (UVa plays at a slow pace unless they need to come from behind).

The UVa game just screams "UVa made a nice last-gasp push with about 4 minutes to go, and we panicked, and suddenly it was a ballgame." That's not a smallball problem to me. That just seems like a fluke.

Well, big line-up or small line-up, it also screams poor defense to me. I agree with you that playing against a small line-up or big line-up doesn't really matter, but I don't think UVa making a comeback was a fluke. It's bad, lazy defense.

[gus]

I hope you are correct. As a huge Dawkins fan, I'm really excited about his overall level of play so I'm looking forward to more court time and another 5-7 performance on 3-pointers.



I definitely agree!

Where 1 is made three point attempt, and 0 is a missed three point attempt, one of these is a snap shot of Andre this season, and the other four are from a random number generator (using Andre's current 45.2% 3pt goal percentage). Can you pick out Andre?

A. 11101011100100111100000110110010010111101101100
B. 00101001000011111100001010001000011111111100100
C. 10000111011000101010100011010100001111111011111
D. 00011100110011101011010000001000001001100110101
E. 11010001101110000001101100010010111011011110010

[CDu]

Well, big line-up or small line-up, it also screams poor defense to me. I agree with you that playing against a small line-up or big line-up doesn't really matter, but I don't think UVa making a comeback was a fluke. It's bad, lazy defense.

The fluke-ish part of it is how quickly those points came. I agree that part of it is our poor defense, but beyond that I think there was some fluke-ishness there. I completely agree that we have just been a bad defense - regardless of type/size of opponent.

[GGLC]

I agree with CDu entirely in this debate. I also agree that people aren't crediting our periodic, sustained offensive struggles as much as they could in trying to explain our losses.

[roywhite]

The fluke-ish part of it is how quickly those points came. I agree that part of it is our poor defense, but beyond that I think there was some fluke-ishness there. I completely agree that we have just been a bad defense - regardless of type/size of opponent.

Points came in bunches....a 3-pt shot by a mediocre shooter (Justin Anderson) and then 3-pt plays via basket and foul shot, and a steal mixed in. Points came quickly from Notre Dame and Clemson also.

Not sure what the exact diagnosis is, but this recurrent late second half malady is nasty and needs to be countered for the overall health of this team.

[FerryFor50]

I agree with CDu entirely in this debate. I also agree that people aren't crediting our periodic, sustained offensive struggles as much as they could in trying to explain our losses.

Agreed. The defense is generally consistently bad all game. It's the offense that is inconsistent at times.

[Kedsy]

Where 1 is made three point attempt, and 0 is a missed three point attempt, one of these is a snap shot of Andre this season, and the other four are from a random number generator (using Andre's current 45.2% 3pt goal percentage). Can you pick out Andre?

A. 11101011100100111100000110110010010111101101100
B. 00101001000011111100001010001000011111111100100
C. 10000111011000101010100011010100001111111011111
D. 00011100110011101011010000001000001001100110101
E. 11010001101110000001101100010010111011011110010

It's a trick question. None of them show 3 for 14 on either end, and that's what he's shot in his last 14 attempts. So I say none of the above.

Also, I don't quite get the point of your exercise. If you assume Andre is a 45.2% three-point shooter, then there will always be the same number of 1s and 0s in any such line of digits. And the 1s will be randomly bunched. But in Andre's career before this season, he'd only been a 40.1% three-point shooter. And before the last four games, he was shooting 50.8% from three this season. So is he a 40% shooter who's shooting better than normal so far? Is he a 50% shooter who went into a slump? Or is he a 45% shooter and the fluctuation is random? Or something else? You don't know. Andre doesn't even know.

[FerryFor50]

It's a trick question. None of them show 3 for 14 on either end, and that's what he's shot in his last 14 attempts. So I say none of the above.

Also, I don't quite get the point of your exercise. If you assume Andre is a 45.2% three-point shooter, then there will always be the same number of 1s and 0s in any such line of digits. And the 1s will be randomly bunched. But in Andre's career before this season, he'd only been a 40.1% three-point shooter. And before the last four games, he was shooting 50.8% from three this season. So is he a 40% shooter who's shooting better than normal so far? Is he a 50% shooter who went into a slump? Or is he a 45% shooter and the fluctuation is random? You don't know. Andre doesn't even know.

His point is that Andre is a machine and can only understand binary code.

[gus]

His point is that Andre is a machine and can only understand binary code.

You'd have another spork, except "[I] must spread some Comments around before commenting on FerryFor50 again."

[FerryFor50]

You'd have another spork, except "[I] must spread some Comments around before commenting on FerryFor50 again."

That's ok. Continue your fine work, Dr Magnus!

[gus]

It's a trick question. None of them show 3 for 14 on either end, and that's what he's shot in his last 14 attempts. So I say none of the above.

Also, I don't quite get the point of your exercise. If you assume Andre is a 45.2% three-point shooter, then there will always be the same number of 1s and 0s in any such line of digits. And the 1s will be randomly bunched. But in Andre's career before this season, he'd only been a 40.1% three-point shooter. And before the last four games, he was shooting 50.8% from three this season. So is he a 40% shooter who's shooting better than normal so far? Is he a 50% shooter who went into a slump? Or is he a 45% shooter and the fluctuation is random? Or something else? You don't know. Andre doesn't even know.

The point is that Andre is a consistent shooter, and that any "slumps" or "streaks" are primarily a result of the clustering illusion.

And one of them absolutely is a snap shot of Dawkin's shots this season. If I chose his last 14, it wouldn't be much of a challenge. I could take a larger sample, and it will still be difficult to see which is Dawkins, and which is a machine.

[FerryFor50]

The point is that Andre is a consistent shooter, and that any "slumps" or "streaks" are primarily a result of the clustering illusion.

And one of them absolutely is a snap shot of Dawkin's shots this season. If I chose his last 14, it wouldn't be much of a challenge. I could take a larger sample, and it will still be difficult to see which is Dawkins, and which is a machine.

Statistics has been, and always will be, about sample size.

Sure, you could take the last 14 and say "Andre is a bad shooter" (not saying that's what Kedsy is saying). Or you could take a stretch where he shot 8-14 (57% on 11/15 and 11/18) or 11-17 (65% on 12/28 and 12/31) (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/andre-dawkins-1/gamelog/2014/) and say Andre is the best shooter in the history of basketball.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics)

[Kedsy]

The point is that Andre is a consistent shooter, and that any "slumps" or "streaks" are primarily a result of the clustering illusion.

And one of them absolutely is a snap shot of Dawkin's shots this season. If I chose his last 14, it wouldn't be much of a challenge. I could take a larger sample, and it will still be difficult to see which is Dawkins, and which is a machine.

I agree that Andre is a consistent shooter. But in order for your exercise to make sense you'd have to know (1) what is Andre's "true" shooting percentage; (2) that all shots are of equal difficulty; and (3) that there's no psychological component to shooting.

There's no way of knowing #1; #2 is clearly untrue; and you seem to believe in #3, but you've never explained why.

[Wander]

The point is that Andre is a consistent shooter, and that any "slumps" or "streaks" are primarily a result of the clustering illusion.

And one of them absolutely is a snap shot of Dawkin's shots this season. If I chose his last 14, it wouldn't be much of a challenge. I could take a larger sample, and it will still be difficult to see which is Dawkins, and which is a machine.

Nice demonstration. A quantitative next step would be to look at how often 1's follow other 1's, and if that percentage is significantly different than 45%.

[gus]

Nice demonstration. A quantitative next step would be to look at how often 1's follow other 1's, and if that percentage is significantly different than 45%.

I did that with Andre's first 3 seasons some time ago. Whether he made a shot, a series of shots, a miss or a series of misses had absolutely no predictive value on the next shot.

[gus]

I agree that Andre is a consistent shooter. But in order for your exercise to make sense you'd have to know (1) what is Andre's "true" shooting percentage; (2) that all shots are of equal difficulty; and (3) that there's no psychological component to shooting.

There's no way of knowing #1; #2 is clearly untrue; and you seem to believe in #3, but you've never explained why.

(1) I don't see the point of trying to distinguish between actual and "true" shooting percentage.
(2) One of Andre's strengths is that he rarely takes bad shots, and rarely passes on good ones. That's part of why he's consistent. Other players will think the're "hot" and take a crazy off balance, guarded, step back three pointer. *cough* parker *cough*. Elsewhere I argued that Dawkin's Clemson shooting percentage (0-4) is a bit of an outlier, because the game situation required him to force 3 shots at the end of the game. So no- I disagree with your contention that my analysis requires that all shots are of equal difficulty.
(3) I've never argued that. Rather, I've argued that the psychological component to shooting is vastly overrated. And we're talking about Dawkins, who had well publicized emotional struggles, and yet his shooting remained robotically consistent.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I would just like to take a moment to appreciate this level of discourse. Perhaps the difference between DBR and Inside Carolina goes deeper than which team has players that can't read, but this sort of analysis is much more engaging than the whining and bickering I hear tell of at that website just 9 miles down the road.

Go Duke!
Go Andre!
Beat State!

[roywhite]

I would just like to take a moment to appreciate this level of discourse. Perhaps the difference between DBR and Inside Carolina goes deeper than which team has players that can't read, but this sort of analysis is much more engaging than the whining and bickering I hear tell of at that website just 9 miles down the road.

Go Duke!
Go Andre!
Beat State!

Yeah, I think we're close to requiring certification and continuing education requirements. ;)

[devildeac]

Where 1 is made three point attempt, and 0 is a missed three point attempt, one of these is a snap shot of Andre this season, and the other four are from a random number generator (using Andre's current 45.2% 3pt goal percentage). Can you pick out Andre?

A. 11101011100100111100000110110010010111101101100
B. 00101001000011111100001010001000011111111100100
C. 10000111011000101010100011010100001111111011111
D. 00011100110011101011010000001000001001100110101
E. 11010001101110000001101100010010111011011110010

I couldn't figure it out. Perhaps I need a different/better binary translator:o.

[Lar77]

I agree with CDu entirely in this debate. I also agree that people aren't crediting our periodic, sustained offensive struggles as much as they could in trying to explain our losses.

The comebacks against us have seemed to result from poor judgment on defense and offense often leading to offensive struggles. I understand, and support, slowing the game down when we are ahead, but we seem to wait until countdown time before thinking about execution. Result > missed shot, rebound to the other team, not getting back on defense or trying for a steal leading to an open shot and basket for other team. We know that this is coached, but as someone (Greybeard? Sagegrouse?) has said before, it takes time to unlearn previously successful but bad habits and learn new habits. And that process forces a lot of thinking until it becomes learned and a lot of mistakes along the way.

[Kedsy]

(1) I don't see the point of trying to distinguish between actual and "true" shooting percentage.

Your machine can't spit out a series of 1s and 0s without you telling it what percentage should be 1s. The true clusters only resemble the random clusters if the data you fed the computer is accurate.


(2) One of Andre's strengths is that he rarely takes bad shots, and rarely passes on good ones. That's part of why he's consistent. Other players will think the're "hot" and take a crazy off balance, guarded, step back three pointer. *cough* parker *cough*. Elsewhere I argued that Dawkin's Clemson shooting percentage (0-4) is a bit of an outlier, because the game situation required him to force 3 shots at the end of the game. So no- I disagree with your contention that my analysis requires that all shots are of equal difficulty.

This seems circular to me. He's consistent therefore he's consistent? Andre isn't as bad about this as some players, but he clearly takes "heat check" shots from time to time.



(3) I've never argued that. Rather, I've argued that the psychological component to shooting is vastly overrated. And we're talking about Dawkins, who had well publicized emotional struggles, and yet his shooting remained robotically consistent.

Or, maybe, he was really a 50% three-point shooter who during his first three seasons suffered myriad short term slumps due to his volatile psychological state, and thus the cold streaks really were cold streaks, even though they looked like random clusters if you assumed he was a 40% shooter. I admit I'm no mathematician, but I don't think there's any way to tell.

[Wander]

(1) I don't see the point of trying to distinguish between actual and "true" shooting percentage.
(2) One of Andre's strengths is that he rarely takes bad shots, and rarely passes on good ones. That's part of why he's consistent. Other players will think the're "hot" and take a crazy off balance, guarded, step back three pointer. *cough* parker *cough*. Elsewhere I argued that Dawkin's Clemson shooting percentage (0-4) is a bit of an outlier, because the game situation required him to force 3 shots at the end of the game. So no- I disagree with your contention that my analysis requires that all shots are of equal difficulty.
(3) I've never argued that. Rather, I've argued that the psychological component to shooting is vastly overrated. And we're talking about Dawkins, who had well publicized emotional struggles, and yet his shooting remained robotically consistent.

I think you can go a step further even. None of these three points is necessary to show streakiness.

1. You don't need to know a "true" shooting percentage to see if a distribution is unusually streaky or not. All you need is the series of 0's and 1's in order.
2. You don't need to make the assumption that all shots are of equal difficulty. There can be variability in difficulty of shot, it just needs to not be strongly correlated with time.
3. Even if the psychological component to shooting was huge and not overrated, it wouldn't matter for your exercise. Once you've shown that Andre is either streaky or consistent, other people could argue that THE REASON for the behavior is due to psychological factors or not, but you don't need to make any assumptions about psychology to simply show if he's streaky.



I did that with Andre's first 3 seasons some time ago. Whether he made a shot, a series of shots, a miss or a series of misses had absolutely no predictive value on the next shot.


Nice. It'd be interesting to know how general this is, and if it applies to other notable three point shooters.

[Kedsy]

I think you can go a step further even. None of these three points is necessary to show streakiness.

1. You don't need to know a "true" shooting percentage to see if a distribution is unusually streaky or not. All you need is the series of 0's and 1's in order.
2. You don't need to make the assumption that all shots are of equal difficulty. There can be variability in difficulty of shot, it just needs to not be strongly correlated with time.
3. Even if the psychological component to shooting was huge and not overrated, it wouldn't matter for your exercise. Once you've shown that Andre is either streaky or consistent, other people could argue that THE REASON for the behavior is due to psychological factors or not, but you don't need to make any assumptions about psychology to simply show if he's streaky.

It's possible Gus and I are arguing different things. Let me ask you this: with the small sample of shots we're talking about, based on your criteria would it be possible as a practical matter to show that anyone is a streaky shooter?

[bluesin]

Having read through the various points trying to determine if it is random chance, fluke happenstance, correlated to our defense, correlated to our offense and whether small ball or large ball have any impact on any or all or none of our struggles I am left thinking that there is in fact one explanation that makes sense to me and explains why it is so hard to pin this down: We have a lack of consistent mental focus and toughness. This is not an unheard of characteristic of a team that lost 3 starting seniors and has 2 star players in their first year of playing for Duke (though I suppose this is less than 100% true for Hood).

Our struggles seem to come when we are later in the game and start to suffer a push-back from other teams. It's a correctable problem, and one that will get better over time, in fact one might even say that we have shown some signs of correcting it stating with the UVa game. Missed foul shots, poor execution, losing men on defense and failing to run the offense efficiently all contributed to losses (though maybe not all of them at once or even in the same game) and I'd put forth that those are mistakes that for the large part are mental. I don't think anyone would argue that we haven't shown we can score, or that we haven't shown that we can play outstanding (or at least top 30) defense, or that we don't have the athletes to compete in most of the areas of the floor (with the possible exception of the 5). I'd be hard pressed to make an argument that we have played smart mentally tough basketball for an entire 40 minute game, or even for more than 30 minutes.

I think, and I'm more than willing to be proven wrong, that our losses have come from not being mentally prepared, or mentally tough, which makes it hard to pin down and even harder to postulate on a solution. We are a team that seems to get rattled easier, right now, than past Duke teams, and when we get rattled we suffer from lapses in judgment - picking up a dribble, making a bad decision to go 1-3 on a drive, losing men to well executed cuts. Effort and ability will only take you so far if you're not playing smart. Maybe it is more a function of being tired and making tired decisions, or maybe it is not being used to playing tough down the stretch as a team, or maybe it's just youth - that I can't pin down and I expect the coaching staff would be much more able to explain and address. I think the reason we can't quite figure out the team's weakness is because it isn't primarily one of match-ups or small ball or any of the other reasons listed further up is - it is a component of all of those things.

I'm not saying we have no weaknesses that aren't mental, but rather we have enough talent and ability to overcome what weaknesses I've seen in those areas when we exhibit toughness and mental fortitude. We aren't doing that consistently right now. We have a bad offensive play and we let it affect our defense, we have a bad defensive segment and we start to rush on offense, we get fouled and need to hit free throws and a couple of misses set us to gambling to get back in the game. We were winning every game we have lost with 12 minutes to play and really if you discount the Arizona game where we were tied with ~10 minutes to go we were winning with 8-9 minutes to go in every game. That seems at least somewhat telling.

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, or I'm speaking nonsense but that's what appears to be the problem to me, and lucky for us I think it's a problem that can be fixed a lot easier I think than being unathletic or out talented or being just plain not smart. I'm a big a fan of statistics, and generally I'll say to look there first for answers, I just think in this case the statistics are pointing to an underlying cause that is affecting our game in different ways.

[Wander]

It's possible Gus and I are arguing different things. Let me ask you this: with the small sample of shots we're talking about, based on your criteria would it be possible as a practical matter to show that anyone is a streaky shooter?

I don't actually think the sample is that small, especially if the result is also true for Andre's other seasons as gus says. There's a subtle difference between this and the hot hand debate - when Andre does have games of 0-4 or 6-7 from three, I think you can legitimately argue that there are reasons for those stat lines beyond random chance, perhaps including psychological factors. But I don't think you can label him a streaky shooter overall given what gus has shown. Fair?

[Kedsy]

I don't actually think the sample is that small, especially if the result is also true for Andre's other seasons as gus says. There's a subtle difference between this and the hot hand debate - when Andre does have games of 0-4 or 6-7 from three, I think you can legitimately argue that there are reasons for those stat lines beyond random chance, perhaps including psychological factors. But I don't think you can label him a streaky shooter overall given what gus has shown. Fair?

Yes, that's fair. That's what I meant when I said we may be arguing different things.

[Eakane]

T.J. Warren: “We definitely want to get in the interior and try to score inside.They don’t really have any bigs so we want to utilize that and get in and score inside.”

Lennard Freeman: “It’s a guard oriented team. They don’t really have any bigs like outside 6’ 8’’. Jabari [Parker] plays the four and he’s not really a four he’s like a three man. So I think the bigs need to show up. They’re going to have a big impact on this game cause they’re not that big.”

Fair enough: let's match the big men up, with big men being guys over 6-8.


MPG PPG RPG SPG BPG TPG
Duke 105.4 46.4 21.3 2.4 2.7 5.2
State 77.2 16.8 17.2 1 4.5 3

Is that smack or not newsworthy fact?
Seems to me the point they are making is that OUTSIDE of 6'8, Duke has no big men. Last time I checked, other than the rarely used MPIII, all of our other big men are 6'8 or less. You cannot convince me that Hood, or Parker, or Jefferson, or Hairston are over 6'8, and I don't care what GoDuke says either. Change that chart to 6'8.5" and I wonder what the new Duke line would read?
It's no secret that the way to attack Duke is on the interior, but three 6'8's across the middle isn't exactly small -- size is not what's wrong with our interior defense. Dennis Rodman and Charles Barkely were also under 6'8.
State has little chance of winning in Cameron, but they need to have something to say to give themselves at least a little confidence. Pointing out what is patently obvious to the rest of the world, and has been since at least the Vermont game, is about what I would suspect from State (where one goes if you can't go to college).

[DukieInBrasil]

I couldn't figure it out. Perhaps I need a different/better binary translator:o.

you might have to go to Mos Eisley for that. and as we all know, you will not find a more retched hive of scum and villainy. besides someone might convince you that this is not the binary translator you're looking for. move along, move along.

[NSDukeFan]

Yeah, I think we're close to requiring certification and continuing education requirements. ;)

Isn't this already true? I spent a year as a lurker before I ever posted, read Throatybeard's manifesto and the other need to know information at the top of the forum page, have now learned about KenPom's 4 factors, and a bunch of other stats, what the heck Occam's razor is, and a bunch of other facts, latin and swahili phrases, some internet and urban lingo (I'm still not exactly sure what a meme is or a strawman argument) and much Duke basketball history,especially from DBR professors Jim Sumner and Olympic Fan, among others and tend to usually read most or all of a thread before posting. Isn't that enough CE? ;)

[chaosmage]

you might have to go to Chapel Hill for that. and as we all know, you will not find a more retched hive of cheating and covering up. Besides, someone might convince you that this is not the binary translator you're looking for. move along, move along.

Fixed it for you. :-)

[Troublemaker]

See, this is what I'm talking about with respect to being too liberal with the terminology and/or falling prey to confirmation bias.

UVa didn't start scoring at a much higher rate with about 8 minutes to go. It is true that they had a 22-8 stretch over a 7+ minute span. But the reality is that they slogged along slowly for the next 4 minutes, scoring 9 (four of which came on offensive rebounds) on 3-7 shooting from the field. Then they exploded for 11 points in a 2-minute stretch before cooling off again and scoring just 2 points in the final 1.5 minutes.

What if we just simplify and talk about their scoring run in terms of trips down the court? Then what you have is UVA went small at 7:49, didn't score on their first trip, then scored on 9 consecutive trips down the court before Amile sealed the win on the final trip with his steal/rebound/free thows sequence (which actually occurred against UVA's big lineup that subbed in for that play).

UVA had several offensive rebounds during those 10 trips. Maybe one way to combat smallball is to stay big or go big, clean the glass, and try to score inside. Because we lost small vs small against UVA and we lost small vs small against Notre Dame. Maybe that's the lesson of Michigan, which I talked about upthread. In that game Jabari kept getting the ball at the elbows and in the post and punished Glenn Robinson from there. So Michigan's smallball didn't hurt our offense. (Of course, Jabari was playing well then.)



If they miss that transition 3 and if Harris doesn't get the steal and breakaway layup, are we even talking about this?

True, true, true. And if Jabari didn't start ACC season in a slump, we might be having 1-seed discussions right now. The margins for college basketball success are sometimes so thin.



The UVa game just screams "UVa made a nice last-gasp push with about 4 minutes to go, and we panicked, and suddenly it was a ballgame." That's not a smallball problem to me. That just seems like a fluke.

You could be right. We could actually both be right. Part fluke, part smallball. In any case, I think we both agree how Duke plays vs smallball lineups warrants attention going forward. It was good discussing this with you, CDu.

[tommy]

Tommy,

Thanks for the great detailed breakdown, as always.

My question would be this. You've examined the plays with more of an emphasis at the point of attack (e.g. X drives by Y), except for the one play where you noted Jabari and Rodney weren't in proper position to help. My concern with smallball is very much about help position, though. Did UVA start scoring at a much higher rate with 8 minutes to go because not having both Tobey and Mitchell in at the same time unclogged the lanes and spread Duke out? (In the end, though, the solution to that might have to come at the point of attack. If helpers can't help or aren't getting there in time because of being spread, we are probably best served to deny 1-on-1 drives and ball screen drives better.)

I was mainly looking at whether the plays that Virginia succeeded on offensively in making their late run to overtake us appeared to be related to their having gone small. As we know, we've been beaten into the lane by perimeter guys all year long. But that happens whether or not the opponent has 3 guys on the perimeter and 2 big and uglies standing underneath, 4 and 1, or 5 guys on the outside who can take it to the hole. Did the Virginia comeback, or any of the plays that drove it, result from their having an advantage with a smaller guy being able to drive or get a quick shot off against a bigger Duke defender, a play that a bigger and/or less athletic offensive player probably wouldn't have been able to make against that same Duke defender?

Take a look at each play again. They're at post #76 in this thread (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?32854-MBB-Duke-vs-NCSU-Pregame-and-In-Game-Thread-(Sat-1400-EST-CBS)&p=695218#post695218). The play where we didn't help against a drive wasn't a play where Jabari and Rodney were spread out and out of the play because Virginia spread us out. No, they were both right there, in the lane, but just exhibited poor position defense and had their heads turned away from the ball, so they didn't see the drive coming in time. (Rodney never saw it at all) I have a hard time attributing that to being spread out by small ball.



Well, big line-up or small line-up, it also screams poor defense to me. I agree with you that playing against a small line-up or big line-up doesn't really matter, but I don't think UVa making a comeback was a fluke. It's bad, lazy defense.

Which plays in their comeback were "bad, lazy defense?" Here they are again, from post #76, this time with numbering to make referring to them easier:


But then look at the plays. We're up 11 with 3:44 to go after Quinn hit 2 FT's.

(defense #1) UVA comes down, with Tobey on the floor, and Perrantes drives baseline, is in a bit of trouble, and kicks it out near the top of the key where Anderson hits a 3 with Rasheed running at him and almost getting there. Result of "small ball?"

(offense #1)Tobey goes out. We have Jabari, Amile, Rodney, Rasheed, and Quinn in the game. Quinn gets fouled on the perimeter with clock running down, they bring Tobey in, and Quinn then misses the front end.

(defense #2) Then UVA runs a play where they post Tobey, feed him, we play good post D on him and force a miss, but Anderson somehow makes that miracle tip-in and gets a foul call on Rasheed to boot. This -- a big man post-up followed by an offensive rebound/putback was in no way a "small ball" play. It's now a 5 point game.

(offense #2) This is when Rasheed got stuck near half court, but he only actually had one defender on him as he was pivoting around. A little more patience, or of course a timeout, and he gets out of that. Is this play a result of perimeter pressure/UVA small ball? I'm not sure I would categorize it as such. There was pressure, but it was made possible by Rasheed picking up his dribble unnecessarily and unwisely, and then not figuring out a way to get out of trouble, when there were options there. In any event, Harris takes the steal for the easy layup and it's 63-60 (that's defense #3 I guess). Timeout Duke.

(offense #3) Now UVA has Tobey out of the game again, and the shot clock runs down, Rodney loses the handle as he tried to make a move into the lane, it goes to Jabari who has no choice but to jack up a long 3 to beat the shot clock. A result of small ball on the defensive side for UVA? Maybe, but far from clear.

(defense #4) Then Brogdon drives past Rasheed and into the lane, but both Jabari and Rodney have their backs to the play and aren't looking -- not seeing the ball -- so they're too late to help. Rodney actually never turns around at all. Jabari fouls Brogdon for the and-one. Tie game. Is it "small ball" when the 6'5" 217 pound Brogdon drives past the 6'4" 190 pound Sulaimon and into the lane?

That was UVA's 11-0 run to tie the game. I'd have a hard time saying that going small was anywhere close to a decisive factor in their making that run.

The rest of the game went like this: (offense #4) Rasheed took it to the rack, got fouled and hit 1 of 2.
(defense #5) Tobey came in. Brogdon, seeing his defender Thornton slip and fall down, took it past him to the hoop, and Ty comes from behind and fouls him on the shot. Brogdon hits 2. Result of small ball? How?

Then Tobey went out and Sheed hit his big 3 that bounced in and we took it home from there.


I'd say that Defense #4 was "bad defense," as you put it, both in failing to stop dribble penetration and failure to be aware of the need to help, by Jabari and particularly Rodney. Was Thornton's slipping and falling and then fouling (#5) bad defense? I don't know. Seems kinda harsh. Guys fall down sometimes. Was #1 bad defense? Maybe you could say Rasheed sagged a little too far into the lane when the baseline drive was happening, so he was half a step away from closing out on the 3, but he got there, put his hand in his face, and the guy hit a tough 3. Sometimes the opponent makes a tough shot, you know?



I agree with CDu entirely in this debate. I also agree that people aren't crediting our periodic, sustained offensive struggles as much as they could in trying to explain our losses.

I don't know how "sustained" it was, but in this particular stretch, I agree that our offense was "worse" than our defense. Quinn's missed front end hurt, though that's not what I traditionally think of when speaking of "bad offense." Rasheed's brain freeze near midcourt, leading to Harris' run-out was bad, as was Rodney's failed attempt to go one-on-one. And that's all it took for them to go on an 11-0 run. A couple of bad plays on offense, really just one on defense, and that's it.

It's easy for folks to throw statements out there like "our defense stunk" or "our offense stunk" but I really do find that going back and analyzing the plays individually and seeing what actually happened, rather than our in-the-moment perception of what was happening, tends to clarify things.

[GGLC]

What if we just simplify and talk about their scoring run in terms of trips down the court? Then what you have is UVA went small at 7:49, didn't score on their first trip, then scored on 9 consecutive trips down the court before Amile sealed the win on the final trip with his steal/rebound/free thows sequence (which actually occurred against UVA's big lineup that subbed in for that play).

But, contrariwise, if we had matched them blow-for-blow (or even close) on the offensive end during that stretch, Virginia wouldn't have been able to get back into the game. So, again, our periodically stagnant offense deserves some "credit" for the second-half collapses that we've seen against Notre Dame, Clemson, and the 'Hoos.

[GGLC]

I don't know how "sustained" it was, but in this particular stretch, I agree that our offense was "worse" than our defense. Quinn's missed front end hurt, though that's not what I traditionally think of when speaking of "bad offense." Rasheed's brain freeze near midcourt, leading to Harris' run-out was bad, as was Rodney's failed attempt to go one-on-one. And that's all it took for them to go on an 11-0 run. A couple of bad plays on offense, really just one on defense, and that's it.

If we're breaking it down by play, let's not forget Rodney dribbling it into the teeth of multiple defenders AGAIN and hoisting up a potentially ill-judged shot on the play where Amile ultimately kicked it out to Rasheed for the miracle three.

We have several players -- Rodney and Jabari are the worst offenders, but Rasheed and Quinn periodically do this as well -- who routinely make things much harder on themselves by taking shots with a higher degree of difficulty than is seemingly warranted. An off-balance floater still only gets you two points if you manage to make it; this isn't HORSE.


It's easy for folks to throw statements out there like "our defense stunk" or "our offense stunk" but I really do find that going back and analyzing the plays individually and seeing what actually happened, rather than our in-the-moment perception of what was happening, tends to clarify things.

I completely agree with this.

[Kedsy]

But, contrariwise, if we had matched them blow-for-blow (or even close) on the offensive end during that stretch, Virginia wouldn't have been able to get back into the game. So, again, our periodically stagnant offense deserves some "credit" for the second-half collapses that we've seen against Notre Dame, Clemson, and the 'Hoos.

If your opponent scores on every possession, you have to be perfect on offense to match them. Not achieving that perfection doesn't mean you can blame the offense for the comeback. Now, in this case we didn't score on any possessions at the same time as Virginia's run (or I guess one free throw, right?), so to the extent that our offense should be able to score some of the time I guess the offense can share the credit. And I'd agree it was similar against Notre Dame, and Arizona for that matter. I didn't see Clemson, so I can't fairly comment, and as CDu points out it was a bit different against Kansas.

[GGLC]

If your opponent scores on every possession, you have to be perfect on offense to match them. Not achieving that perfection doesn't mean you can blame the offense for the comeback. Now, in this case we didn't score on any possessions at the same time as Virginia's run (or I guess one free throw, right?), so to the extent that our offense should be able to score some of the time I guess the offense can share the credit. And I'd agree it was similar against Notre Dame, and Arizona for that matter. I didn't see Clemson, so I can't fairly comment, and as CDu points out it was a bit different against Kansas.

If you are up by eleven at the time, then you don't need to be perfect on offense, or even close, to prevent a comeback. Scoring at our normal efficiency down the stretch of the Virginia game would have sealed the win for us, regardless of how well Virginia was converting at their end, because we had an eleven-point cushion to work with.

I'm not sure how that's a controversial statement.

[CDu]

I don't know how "sustained" it was, but in this particular stretch, I agree that our offense was "worse" than our defense. Quinn's missed front end hurt, though that's not what I traditionally think of when speaking of "bad offense." Rasheed's brain freeze near midcourt, leading to Harris' run-out was bad, as was Rodney's failed attempt to go one-on-one. And that's all it took for them to go on an 11-0 run. A couple of bad plays on offense, really just one on defense, and that's it.

First of all, great posts on this topic. I completely agree with you.

Secondly, I want to point out that I also agree with you that this wasn't a case of "sustained" offensive ineptitude. It was a case of a couple of bad possessions and a missed front end of a one-and-one on offense compounded by a couple of bad possessions on defense and a free basket off a turnover. As you said, an 11-0 run doesn't have to be a result of being big or small. Sometimes, the pendulum can swing that quickly regardless of the lineup. In this case, the 11-0 had little-to-nothing to do with them being small.

A similar story can be seen in the Kansas game. That was a back-and-forth game for pretty much the whole night, with neither team having a lead larger than 6 during the first 38 minutes. It was a 2-point Kansas lead with Kansas taking possession with 1:53 to go. Wiggins hits a jumper (up 4), Hood commits a turnover, and Wiggins got a breakaway dunk (fouling out Parker in the process). Wiggins missed the free throw but KU got the rebound and then got fouled and made 1 of 2. All of the sudden, it is a 7-point game with about a minute to go. And that was essentially spanning one possession each (with a fast-break following the second of those possessions). From there, we were in the foul and pray mode, and it just didn't go our way.

If that 2-possession stretch happens 10 minutes earlier, we don't go into foul mode, and a 5-0 run doesn't necessarily turn into an 11-2 finish. But because that 5-0 run happened right near the end of the game, its magnitude increases. And again, that's not a small ball issue. That's just a time-and-score issue.

[DBFAN]

When I read that article I just didn't find it to be smack talk at all. Just sounded like some guys trying to point out what their teams strengths are, and how they feel they could use it...BUT I sure hope the boys on the good side take offense to it, and respond by opening a can

[DukieInBrasil]

TJ Warren is a stud player and i would be very surprised if he comes back next year. If Duke can contain everyone else and let Warren get his 20+, I think we'll be fine. If we let Barber get in the lane at will by trying to pressure him from 40ft on in, i think we could be in trouble (not terribly original idea).
I think the 5 for 5 substitution pattern could be a boon for us in this game b/c State's depth is pretty thin. The group dynamic for each group of 5 seemed to work really well, and could pay dividends against the weak depth for State b/c we'd have 2 guys on the floor who could start for them (Sulaimon and Dawkins) and another who can make them pay if they forget him (TT) and 2 role players who are solid physically for their roles (Hairston and MP3 at PF and C, respectively).
I'm hoping that we play smart and avoid the late-game meltdown that we've seen in so many games this year.

[Troublemaker]

Marshall could break his scoreless free throw streak in this game.

If he gets similar minutes as last game, odds are he'll get sent to the line at some point. NC State is not nearly as good as UVA at not sending people to the line (and defense in general).

I hope he can relax and show the world his pre-game warmup stroke.

[Newton_14]

The point is that Andre is a consistent shooter, and that any "slumps" or "streaks" are primarily a result of the clustering illusion.

And one of them absolutely is a snap shot of Dawkin's shots this season. If I chose his last 14, it wouldn't be much of a challenge. I could take a larger sample, and it will still be difficult to see which is Dawkins, and which is a machine.

We have been through this over and over and over and over and over again, so I have no idea why I am bothering to respond again. I will state again as a guy who played basketball and baseball for years, your theory is wrong.

I will once again give one example I always give, but there are many factors to shooting. It is much easier to shoot with a 20 point lead or down 20 than it is in a tight game. Same thing with hitting. I once played baseball with a guy who could hit like crazy if the score was out of hand but send up there in a tight game and he was an automatic out.

On to the example. Duke vs Butler, 2010 Title game, late in the 2nd half. Singler drives just to the right of the foul line and loses his balance. He kicks it to the corner to Scheyer who is ready to launch the 3, however right before Jon catches the ball, the ref blows the whistle to stop play and call a travel on Singler. Jon relaxes and shoots it anyway and it swishes. Jumbo always argued that had they not called the walk, the 3 would have put Jon over 20 points and he would have been MVP instead of Kyle. I love Jumbo and his analysis but in that situation, we will never, ever know if Jon would have made the 3 or not had the ref not blown the whistle. Why? Game pressure. Had the whistle not blown, Jon would have taken that shot under tremendous game pressure which affects both the mind and the body. He took that shot in a very relaxed manner with zero game pressure on him. That fact impacted that shot and made it much easier for Jon to drain it. The 10 shots he took prior had zilch to do with the results of that one shot.

Andre took 4 three's late in the Clemson game in the last 3 minutes when he and the team were in full panic mode and he rushed all of them. The panic and the rushing impacted the shot. Game pressure, time an score are all factors that impact whether a shot goes in or not. When a high level athlete gets hot however, they will drain shots even under maximum game pressure.

[Wander]

We have been through this over and over and over and over and over again, so I have no idea why I am bothering to respond again. I will state again as a guy who played basketball and baseball for years, your theory is wrong.

I will once again give one example I always give, but there are many factors to shooting. It is much easier to shoot with a 20 point lead or down 20 than it is in a tight game. Same thing with hitting. I once played baseball with a guy who could hit like crazy if the score was out of hand but send up there in a tight game and he was an automatic out.

On to the example. Duke vs Butler, 2010 Title game, late in the 2nd half. Singler drives just to the right of the foul line and loses his balance. He kicks it to the corner to Scheyer who is ready to launch the 3, however right before Jon catches the ball, the ref blows the whistle to stop play and call a travel on Singler. Jon relaxes and shoots it anyway and it swishes. Jumbo always argued that had they not called the walk, the 3 would have put Jon over 20 points and he would have been MVP instead of Kyle. I love Jumbo and his analysis but in that situation, we will never, ever know if Jon would have made the 3 or not had the ref not blown the whistle. Why? Game pressure. Had the whistle not blown, Jon would have taken that shot under tremendous game pressure which affects both the mind and the body. He took that shot in a very relaxed manner with zero game pressure on him. That fact impacted that shot and made it much easier for Jon to drain it. The 10 shots he took prior had zilch to do with the results of that one shot.

Andre took 4 three's late in the Clemson game in the last 3 minutes when he and the team were in full panic mode and he rushed all of them. The panic and the rushing impacted the shot. Game pressure, time an score are all factors that impact whether a shot goes in or not. When a high level athlete gets hot however, they will drain shots even under maximum game pressure.

This isn't exactly the same thing as the hot hand debate though. When Dawkins hits a few in a row or misses a few in a row, you are welcome to argue that psychology or the specific game situation was a factor; however, I don't see how anyone can argue that Dawkins is a streaky shooter given the data.

[JNort]

What? You'd rather play UVA, who has SKILLED big men *and* Joe Harris, who is arguably as talented as TJ Warren? Plus, UVA plays ACTUAL defense. Not just whatever NCSU claims is defense.

Vandenberg has not played much for the past 3 seasons for 2 reasons; injury and he's not that great. He's slow and foul prone. His best asset is blocking shots. He's not as good of a rebounder as a 7'1" guy should be. (5.4 rpg, 8.9 rebounds per 40 min, 9.9% ORB, 15.6% DRB, 12.8% TRB).

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/jordan-vandenberg-1.html

Plus, he's about as smart as Steve "Johnny Rockets" Blake (http://deadspin.com/5588289/americas-dumbest-student+athlete-steve-blake-university-of-maryland):

http://deadspin.com/5586930/americas-dumbest-student+athlete-nominee-jordan-vandenberg-north-carolina-state

As for Anya, he outweighs EVERYONE by nearly 100 lbs. Not just Amile. He doesn't play nearly as much as the other bigs I mentioned earlier in the thread (forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?32854-MBB-Duke-vs-NCSU-Pregame-and-In-Game-Thread-(Sat-1400-EST-CBS)&p=694789#post694789). This is the minute distribution of State's bigs:

TJ Warren: 33.9 min per game
Lennard Freeman: 25 min per game
Vandenberg: 24.2 min per game
Kyle Washington: 16.8 min per game
Beejay Anya: 11.2 min per game

Anya played 11 min versus Wake. Scored 1 point. Grabbed 4 boards. Had 2 turnovers. Ate a cheeseburger (probably). Anya's season high in points is 6. His season high in rebounds is 6. He does have some impressive block totals, but that's about it. You don't have to worry about Beejay Anya.

This is, in order, who you should worry about from State:

1. TJ Warren
1a. TJ Warren
2. Cat Barber
3. Ralston Turner (He's not Scott Wood, but he can shoot)
4. Lennard Freeman
5. Mr Wuff
6. Ms. Wuff
7. Jordan Vandenberg

This is not the NCSU from the past 3-4 years. This team lacks in NBA talent. It's very young. And there is only 1 guy who can consistently beat you (TJ Warren) and 1 guy who will either beat you or shoot his team out of the game (Cat Barber). The rest are role players or re-treads. That said, State *could* beat Duke, because this is the ACC, and it's an in-state rivalry and we're not UNC, who NCSU seems to have a mental block against.

Yes I would rather play UVA over NC State. I fear teams we can't contain on offense rather than teams with good defense. I don't worry about our O against other teams, it's our D that worry a me and I feel state has more to worry about. No I would not agree with your assessment that TJ and Joe are equally a talented, TJ is the best player in the Acc IMO and easily at that. I am typing on my phone andwant to make this short so let me just say that State is the 2nd team I always cheer for behind Duke mostly because I love the program and because most of my family goes there or graduated from there so my opinion is a little biased

[Bob Green]

Duke is currently favored by 13.5 points in Vegas.

[TKG]

State is a poor outside shooting team. It will be interesting to see if Duke plays any zone at all. Statistically, that is an area of real weakness for the Pack.

[FerryFor50]

Yes I would rather play UVA over NC State. I fear teams we can't contain on offense rather than teams with good defense. I don't worry about our O against other teams, it's our D that worry a me and I feel state has more to worry about. No I would not agree with your assessment that TJ and Joe are equally a talented, TJ is the best player in the Acc IMO and easily at that. I am typing on my phone andwant to make this short so let me just say that State is the 2nd team I always cheer for behind Duke mostly because I love the program and because most of my family goes there or graduated from there so my opinion is a little biased

State and UVA are not that far off in offensive efficiency.

UVA is 115 in offense. State is 86.

We really couldn't contain UVA on offense either. Until Duke figures out their defense, I'd much rather see teams that cannot stop Duke on offense.

Again, this is not the State team of years past.

[Troublemaker]

Duke is currently favored by 13.5 points in Vegas.

I feel pretty good about Duke covering that, Bob. UVA is absolutely destroying a good FSU team right now, and we had them comfortably beat until the last 8 minutes on Monday.

[FerryFor50]

I feel pretty good about Duke covering that, Bob. UVA is absolutely destroying a good FSU team right now, and we had them comfortably beat until the last 8 minutes on Monday.

That and the 30 pt drubbing UVA put on the Pack.

[Troublemaker]

We're using math, Ferry. Transitive property. What could go wrong?

[FerryFor50]

We're using math, Ferry. Transitive property. What could go wrong?

Absolutely nothing at all. Math is infallible.

[tommy]

I feel pretty good about Duke covering that, Bob. UVA is absolutely destroying a good FSU team right now, and we had them comfortably beat until the last 8 minutes on Monday.

Im in Vegas. It's down to 12.5. From 14 last night.

[Troublemaker]

You should get on that, then.

[Newton_14]

Im in Vegas. It's down to 12.5. From 14 last night.

So I go into every conference game, home or away, no matter the opponent and view it as a losable game. It is just how conference play works. The 12.5 line may very well be legit, and if both teams play there normal, average game, it may absolutely go that way. However, there is always the chance that one of the teams is on, and playing at a high level, and the other team is off their normal game. If that happens, Duke could win by 15-20, or State could pull the upset. With all the variables involved with young kids, anything can happen on any given day. So i always go into it expecting any scenario.

I do think the State kids made a huge mistake dissing our big men in their interview. That was really dumb. Not respecting your opponent is a big no no. I thought it interesting that Jabari answered back in a big way. He stated that "Well we looked at the roster, and just did not see a lot, especially with their bigs." I suspect our bigs with come out today and play like mad men and take advantage of State's youth. I look for big game from Amile, Jabari, and Hood. If we can limit Warren a little bit, and force Barber to play erractic and either settle for jumpers or be out of control with his drives, it will help us alot. Outside of the those two and Turner, State just does not have good scorers in their supporting cast.

I want to see the same effort, same deep bench, and lots of motion offense. If we can do that we can make life really difficult for NC State on both ends.

Either way, if we come out of there with a win today, be it 1 point victory or 20, I personally will be satisfied.

Go Duke

[riverside6]

Live tempo-based stats for Duke/NC State, starters posted ...

http://www.scacchoops.com/ViewHDGame.asp?hSchedule=20056

[FerryFor50]

Live tempo-based stats for Duke/NC State, starters posted ...

http://www.scacchoops.com/ViewHDGame.asp?hSchedule=20056

Matt Jones starting again... looks like we'll keep seeing the line changes!

[Newton_14]

Live tempo-based stats for Duke/NC State, starters posted ...

http://www.scacchoops.com/ViewHDGame.asp?hSchedule=20056

Tried to givve you trident points for this but could not, so just wanted to thank you personally for providing this service each game. Much appreciated.


Matt Jones starting again... looks like we'll keep seeing the line changes!
Great sign indeed. Hope K plays the rotation today very similarly to the UVA game and tweaks it a little to give players on either platoon that are playing at a really high level, more burn with the other platoon line. That would be a great move.

[MChambers]

Calipari and the Tennessee coach are trading timeouts so that we can't see Duke!

[Troublemaker]

President George HW Bush in the house. Sitting near Duke bench. Here to recognize Coach K's work fighting cancer.

[HateCarolina]

Calipari and the Tennessee coach are trading timeouts so that we can't see Duke!

At least when ESPN runs over I can rely on the Watch ESPN app. And Kentucky keeps fouling like a bunch of dummies.

[MChambers]

At least when ESPN runs over I can rely on the Watch ESPN app. And Kentucky keeps fouling like a bunch of dummies.
At least Kellogg can't be in Durham!

[HateCarolina]

Let's Go Duke!!!

[HateCarolina]

What's up with all the ads?

[burns15]

I'm sorry, but that was an incredibly stupid foul by Tyler.

[Troublemaker]

Tyler needs to let that dunk go. Silly foul.

[Trinity09]

That was an incredibly silly foul by TT.

[GGLC]

I'm sorry, but that was an incredibly stupid foul by Tyler.

Yup.

[Trinity09]

Great drive by Matt.

I think State is making a huge mistake in playing the game at such a fast pace.

[Dukehky]

Oh man, Tyler trying to be the tough guy again. He hurts our team when he tries to hard to be the "tough guy" and he does it so often.

[dukelion]

Dear god

[uh_no]

We have been through this over and over and over and over and over again, so I have no idea why I am bothering to respond again. I will state again as a guy who played basketball and baseball for years, your theory is wrong.

I will once again give one example I always give, but there are many factors to shooting. It is much easier to shoot with a 20 point lead or down 20 than it is in a tight game. Same thing with hitting. I once played baseball with a guy who could hit like crazy if the score was out of hand but send up there in a tight game and he was an automatic out.

you can provide all the anecdotal evidence you want, but the numerical analysis demonstrates that whether a shooter has made or missed their last shot has no bearing on whether they will make or miss their next.....just because you played a sport doesn't on its own grant you some special authority....if that were the case, then why did coaches kow tow to the all mighty "win" stat for starting pitchers for so many years when in the end it has shown to be a poor indicator of actual pitching ability?

perhaps you should call over to Mr. Pomeroy about your declaration that his theory is wrong. I'll trust Mr pomeroy's years and years of pouring over data to your anecdote about a guy you played ball with years ago.

that said, the defense is again playing worse than our season average....which is unfortunate....i was hoping we'd see some improvement....perhaps the rest of the game will be better.

[Trinity09]

If I had a dollar for every time I've thought "Marshall is wide open on the roll; K/the team must have zero confidence in his finishing ability" today, I'd have five or six bucks.

[dairedevil]

If I had a dollar for every time I've thought "Marshall is wide open on the roll; K/the team must have zero confidence in his finishing ability" today, I'd have five or six bucks.

The team probably isn't used to him being in there

[Troublemaker]

Jabari making some plays defensively. Not coincidentally, now making some plays offensively.

[Troublemaker]

IMO, I don't want our guards to hit MP3 on the roll. I don't trust his hands. If the guards drive and he's wide open for a dumpoff, then yes.

MP3 should defend and rebound to the best of his ability.

[grounds0405]

When a commentator confuses Parker & Thornton, it's probably time for him/her to hang up the mic (and I'm not just saying that bc college basketball commentating is my dream job).

Damn, Lundquist!

[Troublemaker]

3 assists to 15 turnovers for State at the half. They've unleashed our athleticism in this game.

Already covering the spread at the half. Unless something very unexpected happens, we should cruise to an easy win.

[MChambers]

When a commentator confuses Parker & Thornton, it's probably time for him/her to hang up the mic (and I'm not just saying that bc college basketball commentating is my dream job).

Damn, Lundquist!
Harlan, not Lundquist.

[Kfanarmy]

Hero ball from about 5 to 2 mins left, recovered on the line change a bit. They have a cpl players who aren't getting the concept of the block out. Some really good exterior and run out passing. Interior passing is coming on in excruciatingly small increments, seem to be doing a bit better on interior d. MP3 was wide open on the interior a couple of times, ball didn't get there for the pass or shot. I think both posessions came up empty. overall playing Pretty well. Great energy so far!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If I had a dollar for every time I've thought "Marshall is wide open on the roll; K/the team must have zero confidence in his finishing ability" today, I'd have five or six bucks.

Haven't you heard? The entire Duke team from K on down is involved in a mass conspiracy to hold back the Talent that is MP3.

Seriously though, I have been hoping for pressure D and taking chances on the ball for a week now, and it gels so nicely with the increased rotation.

The boys look good today. Let's close it out and win going away. Start the second half with a run and slam the door on the WolfPups.

Go Duke!

[MPandolfi]

Unless something very unexpected happens, we should cruise to an easy win.

The way this team has let leads collapse, I wish I didn't expect the unexpected in the back of my mind. Liking what I see so far though - especially Jabari being very active on both ends.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Davis and Gottlieb said Jabari has "heavy legs" and needs to lose weight.

[Troublemaker]

The way this team has let leads collapse, I wish I didn't expect the unexpected in the back of my mind. Liking what I see so far though - especially Jabari being very active on both ends.

The only unexpected thing Gottfried can do is to go small with Warren at the 4.

This big, slow fumbly bumbly lineup can't handle Duke's pressure.

Terrible gameplan by Gottfried

[gocanes0506]

31-2 points off turnovers with more than 11 minutes left is absolutely ridiculous. The team is getting after it.

[dukelifer]

31-2 points off turnovers with more than 11 minutes left is absolutely ridiculous. The team is getting after it.

Team is having fun now. State just wants to figure out how to get the clock guy to push the fast forward button.

[dukelifer]

Davis and Gottlieb said Jabari has "heavy legs" and needs to lose weight.

Making shots will get them to feel a lot lighter

[h8lightblue]

Welcome back Jabari Parker:)

[Dukehky]

16-2. Called it. We have been absolutely incredible today.

[Troublemaker]

Tip dunk by Josh!

[pfrduke]

The "If you can't go to college go to State" chant just came through loud and clear. Well done crowd.

[slower]

Up by 30 and doing the "if you can't go to college..." Chant? Slightly tacky.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

18 assists so far... I like

[Trinity09]

Up by 30 and doing the "if you can't go to college..." Chant? Slightly tacky.

Lighten up. That chant is a classic!

[grounds0405]

In light of Kuralinah's academic failures & improprieties, I think we should suspend the "If you can't go to college, go to State" chant. At least State students attend their classes...

[NYBri]

Lovin' playing 11. We have talent. Use it and play pressure. Beautiful to watch.

[slower]

Lighten up. That chant is a classic!

Actually, I disagree. Seems like a UNC-level chant. To each his own. We're up by 30 - no need for the crowd to go into a-hole mode. Celebrate Duke, don't kick State when they're getting killed. Their team hasn't played dirty or anything.

[FerryFor50]

So as I said numerous times.... This is not the State team of years' past... Atrocious.

[Trinity09]

So as I said numerous times.... This is not the State team of years' past... Atrocious.

Agree. We're playing well, but let's not lose site of how bad State is. #99 in KenPom. Nice performance by Duke, but State's ineptitude has certainly helped.