PDA

View Full Version : MBB: Duke 94, Indiana 74 Post-Game Thread



rsvman
12-02-2015, 11:05 PM
impressive effort by the team tonight. Indiana ran into a buzz saw.

Bluedevil114
12-02-2015, 11:35 PM
That was a beautiful game. I thought every player did well. Thornton drove nicely with some nice banks. He had a couple of turnovers but overall a nice bounce back game. Ingram was amazing. Defense took a step forward. No zone tonight.

tux
12-02-2015, 11:35 PM
Brandon, Amile, and Matt all had great games.

I wanted to mention the play of Thornton. Tonight was the first game (except vs UK) that I was able to pretty much sit down and watch from beginning to end. I thought Derryck played well. He had two turnovers where he drove and tried to find someone inside, but the defense was able to get a hand on the ball. Those were very close to good plays, minus the end result. I think he's still getting used to the speed of the college game. But he has a lot of skill, and I think he'll continue to get better with more time.

Surprised Chase didn't get a few minutes as he seemed like a more favorable matchup against Indiana than Marshall.

NYBri
12-02-2015, 11:39 PM
Best defense Duke has played in a long time. Great game.

Love watching this team grow and come together. Scoring is not going to be a problem, it seems.

fuse
12-02-2015, 11:39 PM
Our defense was porous throughout against a bad team.
Not sure what to make against the first half being simply atrocious D, eye test says D in second half was much better until garbage time.

DukieTiger
12-02-2015, 11:49 PM
Our defense was porous throughout against a bad team.
Not sure what to make against the first half being simply atrocious D, eye test says D in second half was much better until garbage time.

Indiana has one of the best offenses in the country and the type of penetrators that give Duke trouble. They went without a FG for almost half the 2nd half and picked up a significant % of their points when Duke went small and were avoiding fouling. I don't think it was a perfect defensive performance but they did some things in the middle 20 minutes of the game that were encouraging.

mike88
12-02-2015, 11:49 PM
Our defense was porous throughout against a bad team.
Not sure what to make against the first half being simply atrocious D, eye test says D in second half was much better until garbage time.

Iniana is a decent team offensively, and they started out hot from 3 point range. Our defense after the first 10 minutes was quite good.

FireOgilvie
12-02-2015, 11:51 PM
Discuss here.

Ballboy1998
12-03-2015, 12:06 AM
Outstanding second half defense. Great confidence builder for Ingram. Amile was a monster from beginning to end. Good win!

NYBri
12-03-2015, 12:10 AM
Outstanding second half defense. Great confidence builder for Ingram. Amile was a monster from beginning to end. Good win!

Nailed it.

huey
12-03-2015, 12:12 AM
What a game by Ingram. Scoring plus grabbing boards, steals, and pretty sure he had a block or two even if it wasn't credited in the box score.

So have all of our freshman had their "break out" games now?

tbyers11
12-03-2015, 12:19 AM
Our defense was porous throughout against a bad team.
Not sure what to make against the first half being simply atrocious D, eye test says D in second half was much better until garbage time.

Our defense was not very good the first 10 min of the first half. Pretty good the last 10 min of the first half except for the 2 3s in the last minute.

I thought the defense was outstanding the second half until the last 6 min or so when the game was over. Indiana had 4 pts and no FGs for I think it was the first 8.5 min of the second half.

jipops
12-03-2015, 12:23 AM
Nice play all around really. Though I'm trying to keep this grounded in the fact that we beat up on a really bad team that plays no defense whatsoever. Still, it was nice to see our guys really lock it down defensively in the 2nd half. I thought Amile was once again terrific on that end.

Chicago 1995
12-03-2015, 12:24 AM
Our defense was porous throughout against a bad team.
Not sure what to make against the first half being simply atrocious D, eye test says D in second half was much better until garbage time.

Indiana's a bad defensive team. But they are a potent, talented and balanced offensive team. That they'd shoot well and take care of the ball shouldn't surprise. When you consider how we limited Williams and Bryant and how quiet Ferrell was until the game was out of hand, as well as the two stretches where we really shut them down and we pushed out our lead, I thought it was a pretty good defensive performance. Rebounding was a part of that too.

Outside of UNC, I don't know that we're going to see an offense that talented again the rest of the regular season.

Duke95
12-03-2015, 12:29 AM
Nice play all around really. Though I'm trying to keep this grounded in the fact that we beat up on a really bad team that plays no defense whatsoever. Still, it was nice to see our guys really lock it down defensively in the 2nd half. I thought Amile was once again terrific on that end.

Indiana hates playing defense almost as much as UNC hates going to class.

Ima Facultiwyfe
12-03-2015, 01:08 AM
Don't understand it. Those Indiana guys could do it all. They had three point shooters, several guys with great moves and after burners, plenty of size in the middle. Why did they settle for just punching people (including Coach K)? I don't see this coach being around long if he can't do more with the talent he has available, bless his heart.
Love, Ima

Isaac Sours
12-03-2015, 01:16 AM
Nice play all around really. Though I'm trying to keep this grounded in the fact that we beat up on a really bad team that plays no defense whatsoever. Still, it was nice to see our guys really lock it down defensively in the 2nd half. I thought Amile was once again terrific on that end.

Our defense has been surprisingly terrific. Unlike a few years ago when we gave up 90 points to Vermont, we're shutting down the teams we need to shut down.

mo.st.dukie
12-03-2015, 01:24 AM
Nice play all around really. Though I'm trying to keep this grounded in the fact that we beat up on a really bad team that plays no defense whatsoever. Still, it was nice to see our guys really lock it down defensively in the 2nd half. I thought Amile was once again terrific on that end.

IU has some real talent. Ferrell, Williams, and Blackmon are as good of an offensive trio as we'll face all year and they were all big time players coming out of high school. There's a lot of good speed and athleticism on that team, they are just so poorly coached. Crean is just not good, he was lucky that Wade and Oladipo turned out better than anyone would have thought(both were three star prospects, maybe even lower rated than that) and that he was able to get Zeller, that's basically his career right there.

burnspbesq
12-03-2015, 02:04 AM
It's likely to be quite a while before we see Duke exceed tonight's offensive efficiency of 1.53 points per possession. That is a sick number.

Isaac Sours
12-03-2015, 02:44 AM
Three thoughts about defense:

a) Anyone else see Amile play at the top of the zone several times? Rare to see someone who plays the 4 at the top of the defense, but he's such a great defender that it still stymied Indiana's guards. Having two long defenders like Kennard and Ingram on the wings behind him is a lot of arms to throw passes around. Should be interesting to see how opposing teams deal with that look.

b) I would rather have Plumlee protecting the basket than Okafor -- right now. I understand Okafor has much more potential, but Plumlee has learned not to foul, and was always a and as such he can be trusted to hold down the paint. It's a huge asset to the zone D to have a rim protector.

c) Brandon Ingram's defense was pleasantly surprising today. His steal with 17:38 :) left in the second half was a perfect example of how big an asset his length can be when paired with effort.

Overall? Most impressive to me was holding a potent Indiana offense to ZERO points for seven minutes to start the second half.

uh_no
12-03-2015, 03:23 AM
Our defense has been surprisingly terrific. Unlike a few years ago when we gave up 90 points to Vermont, we're shutting down the teams we need to shut down.

Isn't that like saying the 1963 mets were a good team, because at least they won more often than the washington generals? The parker/hood team played atrocious defense...so passing that bar is not much to write home about.

So now that we know we can hurdle an anthill, can we hop any realistic heights?

We've fallen from 9th to 36th in defensive efficiency, and had relatively poor showings vs sienna, bryant, vcu, georgetown. tonight wasn't especially great either...given we gave up 120 pts/100pos...which is not a good, let alone terrific number.

Given indiana's offense is very good...but not THAT good. we missed a lot of back door cuts, and recovered better than I think we have been, but guys were just open enough to make and take some decent shots.

I see improvement though. fewer massive breakdowns, indiana hit some tough shots out there, there's a lot of communication (love to see ingram out there talking on D....really had a great game all around). We're still slow on the perimeter, and nothing is going to change grayson and matt....and derryck got beat a few times as well....but we have the length and grey matter underneath to deal with that better than some of the matador teams have.

I think the D will continue to improve, perhaps even to levels better than the team played in the tournament last year.

OldPhiKap
12-03-2015, 07:10 AM
If we can develop consistent defense over the course of the season, we could be scary good by March. Our four returning players have definitely stepped up to the challenge over the summer, to go from role players to leaders and starter-quality play. Brandon had a great game, Like had one last time out. Derryk and Jeter are developing and have high ceilings. K has become King of Polyglot Defenses -- channeling Jimmy V. after all these years!

Fun, fun, fun.

wsb3
12-03-2015, 07:24 AM
Hard to find much to complain about with this performance & I won't. Great to see Ingram get off the way he did in the first half.

Amile...he stuffed the stat sheet. 8 assists..Wow! It is nice that in the era of OAD to be able to watch the progress of a player who plays for four years. Love watching him play.

budwom
12-03-2015, 07:50 AM
saw somewhere Indiana average 1.22 points/possession and still lost by 20.

Have we mentioned Duke had but six turnovers in a face paced game? I guess Indiana deserves some credit on that, too.

Saratoga2
12-03-2015, 08:17 AM
We started with the experienced lineup

Matt
MP3
Amile
Grayson
Brandon

And we only substituted two players, Luke and Derryck despite a lopsided win.

We held a significant rebounding advantage with Amile doing his usual thing and our guards active on the boards as well. We also played solid defense for the most part. I think at the end of the game we weren't fouling so it turned into a trade of baskets and made our defensive efficiency look a little worse. Still we gave up 74 points and at the end of the first half we were out of position on 3's twice in a row. More to be learned, but we have shown we can play good defense for extended periods.

I think the Indiana defensive plan was to stop Grayson from getting opportunities. He only took one 3 and missed but still put up 16 on a very efficient scoring night. Matt does what he has been doing, looking for opportunities to score and Indiana gave him those. He takes good shots and is hitting a very good percentage of those, plus his handle is good enough for him to play point against an athletic team. Brandon just went off in the first half. Amile fought hard for his points and had assists to go with his excellent defense and rebounding. MP3 is limited offensively but did get 4 and acted like a rim protector. His is a little slow to guard against quick, athletic scorers and his PT reflected the better choice of Amile and Brandon giving us size.

Both Luke and Derryck came in and are clearly capable of scoring and are learning the defense. Luke has the size to bother those he guards and Derryck is extremely quick and has a very good handle. I think he got 12 points in quite limited PT.

I wondered why Chase didn't play at least a few minutes. Was he injured? Maybe he didn't have a good practice period?

It appears that our lineup is pretty much established, especially when we play top level opponents. We appear to have a very competitive team who can only get better as the youngsters gain experience. It's fun being along for the ride.

91_92_01_10_15
12-03-2015, 08:35 AM
Why did they settle for just punching people (including Coach K)?

Can anyone who was there provide an eyewitness account of the halftime incident involving the Indiana player and Coach K?

ESPN totally missed it, with the exception of a two-second shot of Crean and K interacting, which must have been just after it happened. It was tough to tell from that, but Crean looked ticked.

wsb3
12-03-2015, 08:58 AM
I wondered why Chase didn't play at least a few minutes. Was he injured? Maybe he didn't have a good practice period?

Coach K addressed it in his post game conference. It was about match ups with Indiana. I would link the press conference but each time I do it reads event no longer available. Maybe someone far more tech savvy than me can figure this out.

Also on another subject he was asked about Jah around the 11:30 mark. I loved his response..

91_92_01_10_15
12-03-2015, 09:11 AM
Can anyone who was there provide an eyewitness account of the halftime incident involving the Indiana player and Coach K?

ESPN totally missed it, with the exception of a two-second shot of Crean and K interacting, which must have been just after it happened. It was tough to tell from that, but Crean looked ticked.

Just found this link with some video of the bump of Coach K by the player and K's initial reaction, but nothing yet on the subsequent interaction with Crean.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/only-drama-in-duke-s-rout-of-indiana-came-during-halftime-063351398.html

91_92_01_10_15
12-03-2015, 09:17 AM
Coach K addressed it in his post game conference. It was about match ups with Indiana. I would link the press conference but each time I do it reads event no longer available. Maybe someone far more tech savvy than me can figure this out.

Also on another subject he was asked about Jah around the 11:30 mark. I loved his response..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea0ZAju_984

dyedwab
12-03-2015, 09:22 AM
Indiana's a bad defensive team. But they are a potent, talented and balanced offensive team. That they'd shoot well and take care of the ball shouldn't surprise. When you consider how we limited Williams and Bryant and how quiet Ferrell was until the game was out of hand, as well as the two stretches where we really shut them down and we pushed out our lead, I thought it was a pretty good defensive performance. Rebounding was a part of that too.

Outside of UNC, I don't know that we're going to see an offense that talented again the rest of the regular season.

Oddly, according to KenPom - and recognizing that early season, pre-conference #s can be misleading - IU is the 5th most efficient offense in the country, with the other 4 being ACC teams. In order, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, and UNC, with UVA just behind IU at 6th. So, good prep for ACC season?

AvlDukie
12-03-2015, 09:42 AM
Love the way our assistants had Coach's back after the halftime "bump".
Looked like Nate Dogg was ready to kick some Hoosier butt...

Leelee902
12-03-2015, 09:47 AM
Yeah, I was at the scorer's table and IU's #0 definitely gave K a little, but noticeable shove. It may have been incidental, but he did not hesitate to just keep running, no apology or any sign of acknowledgement. Coach Capel actually took off trying to get to the kid, Coach James yelled a few "WTF?!"s. Then K literally yelled at Crean to come talk to him about the situation and he definitely let him have it. Ricky Price was right behind me and yelled out, "hey man, don't you know we have Jahlil Okafor"?

Who knows? Maybe that gave the team that edge coming out of halftime!

flyingdutchdevil
12-03-2015, 09:51 AM
A few thoughts in my head:

a) Ingram had his coming out party, Matt Jones scored a career high, AJ nearly had a triple-double, and Grayson was...well...Grayson. TEAM effort. Loved it.

b) Is Duke's offense that good, or is Indiana just that bad? I mean, I would be embarrassed if I was an Indy fan. Fortunately, I won a bet off a Hoosiers fan on this game! Indiana's D is just awful!

c) When Matt Jones and Luke Kennard have their feet set, good things happen. When they don't, bad things happen. Moral of the story: have your feet set. It looks like Grayson Allen is the only one on the team who can pop threes off the dribble.

d) Anyone else love Ingram's midrange game? I'd be happy with him taking as many of those shots as he wants.

e) Ingram has so much potential on offense and on defense, but he has zero potential in 50/50 ball situations. His lack of strength is so obvious when opposing players can literally take the ball from Ingram. And that won't change this year.

f) MP3 had a great game defensively. He had an Alley-Oop. He is such an improved FT shooter. But you know what he's not good out? Iso offense plays. Please, Duke, please...don't let MP3 have anymore ISO players. They probably have a <20% success rate.

sagegrouse
12-03-2015, 09:57 AM
Coach K addressed it in his post game conference. It was about match ups with Indiana. I would link the press conference but each time I do it reads event no longer available. Maybe someone far more tech savvy than me can figure this out.

Also on another subject he was asked about Jah around the 11:30 mark. I loved his response..

He said, basically, "Jah is one of the all-time great kids. He is loving; he is fun.... and he's a pretty damned good basketball player." Also, "He made a couple of mistakes, he got dinged, and now let's move on." Also, "He needs security. We had security for everyone on the US team because, let's face it, they're all targets."

Billy Dat
12-03-2015, 10:06 AM
What a game by Ingram. Scoring plus grabbing boards, steals, and pretty sure he had a block or two even if it wasn't credited in the box score.

This was obviously extremely encouraging. It was really the first time he looked like the player we all hoped he'd be, confident, decisive, hunting all kinds of shots - 3s, drives, pull ups. His hot start also gave him an extra bounce in his step on defense. He has steadily gotten better these past few games and I hope he keeps it rolling.

As others have said, Amile was just fantastic in all aspects - 8 assists! - and Matt Jones was a rock and scored like crazy, too....Old Man Jones Granted, he had an unprecedented number of open looks which reflects...


It's likely to be quite a while before we see Duke exceed tonight's offensive efficiency of 1.53 points per possession. That is a sick number.

This statistic inspired SI's Luke Winn to write an entire piece, http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/12/03/duke-brandon-ingram-indiana-defense, which starts out praising Ingram but really spends most of its time destroying Indiana's horrendous defense.


Best defense Duke has played in a long time. Great game.

Our defense was porous throughout against a bad team. Not sure what to make against the first half being simply atrocious D, eye test says D in second half was much better until garbage time.

So now that we know we can hurdle an anthill, can we hop any realistic heights? We've fallen from 9th to 36th in defensive efficiency, and had relatively poor showings vs sienna, bryant, vcu, georgetown. tonight wasn't especially great either...given we gave up 120 pts/100pos...which is not a good, let alone terrific number. I think the D will continue to improve, perhaps even to levels better than the team played in the tournament last year.

I think these three quotes tell a great Rashomon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect) story but I generally net out with uh_no's take. I am not sure we can reach the defensive heights that magically materialized last March, but these guys will continue to get better as I don't sense any of them are bad defenders ala Jabari.


Brandon, Amile, and Matt all had great games. I wanted to mention the play of Thornton. Tonight was the first game (except vs UK) that I was able to pretty much sit down and watch from beginning to end. I thought Derryck played well. He had two turnovers where he drove and tried to find someone inside, but the defense was able to get a hand on the ball. Those were very close to good plays, minus the end result. I think he's still getting used to the speed of the college game. But he has a lot of skill, and I think he'll continue to get better with more time.
Surprised Chase didn't get a few minutes as he seemed like a more favorable matchup against Indiana than Marshall.

Just to nitpick a little, while he played well at the end when the game was not in doubt, I didn't think Derryck gave us much, which is why Matt Jones spent nearly the whole game running the point - and doing a pretty great job of it as well. Saratoga2 made the point that Matt showed he can handle PG duties against athletic teams but I will also respectfully disagree. Matt was able to run point last night because of all the aforementioned talk of how horrible Indiana is on defense. I thought Derryck looked pretty bad in his first half minutes and he sat for most of the decisive parts of the game. I am not reading anything into it, I just didn't watch the game thinking it was an impressive Thornton performance. Anytime Matt Jones is running PG is, to me, because Derryck isn't on his game.


a) Anyone else see Amile play at the top of the zone several times? Rare to see someone who plays the 4 at the top of the defense, but he's such a great defender that it still stymied Indiana's guards. Having two long defenders like Kennard and Ingram on the wings behind him is a lot of arms to throw passes around. Should be interesting to see how opposing teams deal with that look.

We actually didn't play much 1-3-1 last night, but Amile has been at the top of that zone all season, and when he isn't K has had Ingram playing up there. So, I feel like "K putting a 4 at the top of the 1-3-1" has actually become a regular thing as far as this year is concerned.

One last note on Grayson. I keep Twitter open during games and noticed that, among college basketball writers and pundits, "Grayson can only go right" has become a thing. It'll be interesting to see if better defensive teams start forcing him left. I honestly hadn't noticed his propensity for conservative drive vs liberal drives, not to venture into public policy...

tbyers11
12-03-2015, 10:07 AM
He said, basically, "Jah is one of the all-time great kids. He is loving; he is fun... and he's a pretty damned good basketball player." Also, "He made a couple of mistakes, he got dinged, and now let's move on." Also, "He needs security. We had security for everyone on the US team because, let's face it, they're all targets."

Coach K's full statement here (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/duke-now/article47684725.html).

Laura Keeley said on Twitter said that when K was asked about Okafor, he seemed "very adamant" to make a statement about the matter suggesting that he feels strongly about his response.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
12-03-2015, 10:18 AM
Our defense was porous throughout against a bad team.
Not sure what to make against the first half being simply atrocious D, eye test says D in second half was much better until garbage time.

I'm really not sure that we were watching the same game. We took one of the best offenses in the nation (statistically) and shut them down for huge sections of the game. When the story of the night was supposed to be whether Indiana had the defensive moxie to take down Duke (they didn't), Duke's defense was a great surprise. I'm loving watching this team develop, and I like what Coach K is experimenting with as far as different looks on the defensive end. There's so much room for growth when you have young, talented, smart kids and a coach that is willing to mold things to match his players.

Lots of positives to take away from this game. I love the direction we are heading in and can't wait to see what we can pull together come conference play in a few weeks.

kAzE
12-03-2015, 10:20 AM
I was watching the pre-game analysis with the guys in the ESPN studio, and although I normally don't mind Seth Greenberg's commentary, he might have said the dumbest thing I've ever heard come out of his mouth: That Indiana would have success with their "small" lineup. Well, that's exactly what Tom Crean did, except our small lineup (which I believe we used for the majority of the second half), with Ingram at the 4, is WAY BETTER. We outrebounded them 38-25 on the game, +10 on the offensive glass.

I think we'd love to play this lineup on a much more consistent basis, but Amile and Brandon just aren't bulky enough to bang with 2 traditional bigs. Amile is still a skinny guy, his jersey probably came untucked about 40 times that game because his shorts were likely too loose. So, you're going to play smaller, and allow us to put our 5 best offensive players on the floor at once? Sure, let's play that game.

I think that's also the main reason Chase logged a DNP. We didn't need to play another big, because they were basically playing Bryant and 4 guards out there.

Billy Dat
12-03-2015, 10:23 AM
I'm loving watching this team develop, and I like what Coach K is experimenting with as far as different looks on the defensive end. There's so much room for growth when you have young, talented, smart kids and a coach that is willing to mold things to match his players.

Defense and Offense. We really have the tools to adjust to any match-up, big or small. Last night, once K fully realized that Amile could handle the "big" defensive assignments, we went 100% small ball. MPIII only played 20 minutes and Chase never got off the bench. When we see a team like Carolina with their size, we'll be able to go bigger if we have to, but also have the ability to go smaller to challenge them to match us. K has a ton of chess pieces to mix and match this year.

johnb
12-03-2015, 10:29 AM
I was watching the pre-game analysis with the guys in the ESPN studio, and although I normally don't mind Seth Greenberg's commentary, he might have said the dumbest thing I've ever heard come out of his mouth: That Indiana would have success with their "small" lineup. Well, that's exactly what Tom Crean did.....

Well, they did have offensive success; they just didn't have any defensive success.

Ichabod Drain
12-03-2015, 10:37 AM
We've fallen from 9th to 36th in defensive efficiency, and had relatively poor showings vs sienna, bryant, vcu, georgetown. tonight wasn't especially great either...given we gave up 120 pts/100pos...which is not a good, let alone terrific number.

When were we 9th in defensive efficiency?

dukelifer
12-03-2015, 10:42 AM
I was watching the pre-game analysis with the guys in the ESPN studio, and although I normally don't mind Seth Greenberg's commentary, he might have said the dumbest thing I've ever heard come out of his mouth: That Indiana would have success with their "small" lineup. Well, that's exactly what Tom Crean did, except our small lineup (which I believe we used for the majority of the second half), with Ingram at the 4, is WAY BETTER. We outrebounded them 38-25 on the game, +10 on the offensive glass.

I think we'd love to play this lineup on a much more consistent basis, but Amile and Brandon just aren't bulky enough to bang with 2 traditional bigs. Amile is still a skinny guy, his jersey probably came untucked about 40 times that game because his shorts were likely too loose. So, you're going to play smaller, and allow us to put our 5 best offensive players on the floor at once? Sure, let's play that game.

I think that's also the main reason Chase logged a DNP. We didn't need to play another big, because they were basically playing Bryant and 4 guards out there.

Amile may be skinny but he much stronger this year than last. He is getting tough rebounds in traffic. His spin move is patented. Amile is playing like a senior leader. Great to see.

If Ingram plays like last night- Duke is at another level. But I don't expect it yet. We saw the brilliance and what he may become. If he has turned the corner- watch out. I also expect Kennard to play much better from here on out. Duke has a lot of pieces. Defense is coming but lots of issues stopping the other team near the rim.

tbyers11
12-03-2015, 10:53 AM
Isn't that like saying the 1963 mets were a good team, because at least they won more often than the washington generals? The parker/hood team played atrocious defense...so passing that bar is not much to write home about.

So now that we know we can hurdle an anthill, can we hop any realistic heights?

We've fallen from 9th to 36th in defensive efficiency, and had relatively poor showings vs sienna, bryant, vcu, georgetown. tonight wasn't especially great either...given we gave up 120 pts/100pos...which is not a good, let alone terrific number.

Given indiana's offense is very good...but not THAT good. we missed a lot of back door cuts, and recovered better than I think we have been, but guys were just open enough to make and take some decent shots.

I agree that in total, the D was not particularly impressive statistically. KenPom predicted us to give up 75 pts on 72 possessions, or 1.04 PPP. As you noted we ended up at 1.2 PPP.


I see improvement though. fewer massive breakdowns, indiana hit some tough shots out there, there's a lot of communication (love to see ingram out there talking on D...really had a great game all around). We're still slow on the perimeter, and nothing is going to change grayson and matt...and derryck got beat a few times as well...but we have the length and grey matter underneath to deal with that better than some of the matador teams have.

I think the D will continue to improve, perhaps even to levels better than the team played in the tournament last year.

However, I agree with uh_no on the optimism for our defense. If you look at the game in segments our D was awful at the beginning, then good-to-great for the remainder the game that mattered, and then poor again the last 6 minutes. KenPom had the game at 62 possessions. If I then use the rough estimate of 15.5 poss for each 10 minute game segment, the data looks like this

1st 10 min: 24 pts/15.5 poss for 1.55 PPP. We were awful here. Got beat back door. Gave up several wide open 3s and gave up way too many off rebs
2nd 10 min: 18 pts/15.5 poss for 1.16. Much better than first 10 but not good. A bit skewed by the 2 wide open 3s we gave up on Indiana's last 2 possessions. Other than those last 2 trips I thought the D was good in this stretch
1st 10 of the 2nd half: 9 pts/15.5 poss for 0.58 PPP. We were awesome here. Indiana had only 4 pts and no FG in the first 8 1/2 min
2nd 10 of the 2nd half: 23 pts in 15.5 poss for 1.48 PPP. Not good at all but skewed heavily by the last 5-6 minutes when the game was out of reach. If you look at the 1st 14 min of the second half we were approximately 0.87 PPP, which is darn good


Indiana is a potent offensive team, particularly on the dribble drive which historically gives us trouble. In total the numbers don't show great or even good D, but if you look at the 24 minutes of game time (10 min mark of 1st half to 6 min of 2nd half) where we made some adjustments (better help on drivers, not getting beat backdoor, helping out better on their baseline drives that tried to dump the ball back to cutters coming down the lane, and controlling the defensive glass) to put the game out of reach we were quite good (~ 0.73 PPP).

Now, I know that breaking data into small segments can often lead to some misleading data, but these numbers give strong support to what I saw as I watched the game. Our D was awful the first 10 min or so, but it was good-to-great for the remainder of the time that the game was in doubt. We need more consistency as you can't come out flat the first 10 min against good teams because you aren't likely going to be scoring 1.5 PPP against them on your offensive end, but I am much more optimistic about our man-to-man D than I was a week ago.

CDu
12-03-2015, 10:56 AM
My thoughts on the game:

1. Indiana is a terrific offensive team. Tons of shooters, a couple of good slashers. But they are ATROCIOUS defensively, and similarly bad at rebounding. Those were the areas in which I figured we'd win, and sure enough Indiana didn't disappoint (if you're a Duke fan like me). It is no shock that they lost to a big and experienced team like Wake. They are just not well-coached, and they don't play defense.

That being said...

2. It was great to see Ingram finally have the type of game everyone hoped for from him. He was hitting 3s. He was driving for layups, using his ridiculous length to soar above the defense and lay it in from well away from the rim. He was hitting midrange shots over shorter defenders (seriously? Crean thought Ferrell could guard Ingram?). He was playing with his head up and found teammates for open looks. He was a menace in the passing lanes. He reached over defenders for offensive rebounds. It was just a really impressive game from him. Hopefully this gives him confidence. I don't expect dominance like this moving forward, but it is nice to know he has it in him. Hopefully it sparks better play the rest of the way as he figures out the college game.

3. As effective as Ingram was, my player of the game was Jefferson. Yeah, he scored only 8 points. But he absolutely dominated the paint, getting 11 rebounds and 3 blocks. And he facilitated the offense quite well, dishing 8 assists, usually from the high post. There was one possession where he battled 3 defenders for an offensive rebound, then fought through them and contact to finish the layup. It was just a man's move, and just a highlight of a man's game from Jefferson last night. I can't say enough good things about his play.

4. Allen didn't have a huge game, but he did a good job of picking his spots and not forcing the action. He was often guarded by Ferrell, and I think Ferrell's quickness bothered him. But he did identify the angles at appropriate times, and scored very efficiently. I was watching with the sound off as my wife was sleeping, but I think he may have sold the forearm shove a bit in the second half in drawing that flagrant. But I'll take the free points. He's an opportunistic players and he knows how to play to the refs. That will serve him and us well.

5. Matt Jones is just a steady, steady player. He doesn't wow me ever, but he just seems to know what to do out there on both ends. 23 pts (5-11 from 3), 3 rebounds, 1 assist, two steals, 1 block, and 0 turnovers. Solid, solid production from a veteran.

6. Plumlee was, again, about what should be expected from him. Energetic, physical, not very skilled. His stat line (20 mpg, 4 pts, 5 rebounds, 4 fouls) is about what I envisioned coming into the season. But it's useful to have him, even if he's only able to give 20-25 mpg of mediocre play. His size is an asset for this team. It just wasn't an asset in this game, because Indiana spread the floor so much.

7. After a great game, Kennard had a step back last night. He again took good shots, but those shots just didn't go in. He has a huge reputation as a shooter and scorer, and it's clear that he knows how to find good shots. But it's baffling how few of them are going in right now. The coaches love his game, though, so hopefully it starts turning around soon. Again, the good thing is that he's taking good shots, not chucking bad ones. But eventually they have to start going in.

8. Thornton played primarily off-ball last night, and played solidly. There's not much to say right now. He's obviously green as a PG, but he obviously has physical gifts that should lead to effective PG play eventually. Not sure if we'll get there this year though. But given how far behind the curve he was in arriving this Fall, I'm willing to wait and see.

9. Interesting that Jeter was a DNP. I didn't have the sound on, so I'm not sure why. But I suspect that it has to do with Indiana not having much size and not having much interest in utilizing their size. This was a matchup where we didn't need to play two bigs, so he just wasn't necessary. He's clearly the 8th man in a 7.5 man rotation.

10. Didn't see the incident at halftime, but did see the animated conversation between K and Crean. Unfortunately, the video doesn't really capture what happened. Bielfeldt appeared to be stationary and facing away from Coach K as K was walking by. But right as K reaches him, a Duke player walks in front of the camera, and all we see is Bielfeldt trotting toward the locker room and Coach K glaring back at him. My guess is that he turned toward his locker and bumped into Coach, and without looking gave a little shove (perhaps thinking it was a Duke player?) as he headed to the locker. But again, it's really hard to say. I hope it is as simple as that - haven't seen anything from him to make me think he'd intentionally shove Coach K, so I do hope it was an accident.

Anyway, this was a game we were expected to win comfortably, and we did. There is really nothing negative to take away from it. After a rough first few minutes, we dominated the game and won easily. Go Duke!

FerryFor50
12-03-2015, 11:10 AM
What an offensive showing.

- Ingram had his coming out party, but can he keep it going?
- Matt scored 23 pts... but it took 19 shots. I don't think we want Matt hoisting up that many shots per game, do we?
- Allen was a wizard on some of his shots. Just amazing how some of them went in...
- Thornton finally started finishing at the rim - that had been a problem for him the first few games. He can definitely get to the rim... just gotta make the other team pay.
- Indiana's defense was about what it has been all season - awful. It's like no one has any interest trying. That falls onto the coaching staff.
- Duke's defense has potential - it was bad at times last night, but most of that seemed to be due to communication. When a guy cuts back door, your teammates need to rotate over or call it out. And there were a few botched assignments, such as an inbounds play where Allen ran directly AWAY from Indiana's best shooter for a wide open 3. That can improve - it's not like other seasons where the issues were more about perimeter quickness/athleticism. This team has ability. It just needs to gel.

I suspect K left his starters in while up 20 to send a message about the halftime bump.

Ichabod Drain
12-03-2015, 11:24 AM
What an offensive showing.

- Ingram had his coming out party, but can he keep it going?
- Matt scored 23 pts... but it took 19 shots. I don't think we want Matt hoisting up that many shots per game, do we?
- Allen was a wizard on some of his shots. Just amazing how some of them went in...
- Thornton finally started finishing at the rim - that had been a problem for him the first few games. He can definitely get to the rim... just gotta make the other team pay.
- Indiana's defense was about what it has been all season - awful. It's like no one has any interest trying. That falls onto the coaching staff.
- Duke's defense has potential - it was bad at times last night, but most of that seemed to be due to communication. When a guy cuts back door, your teammates need to rotate over or call it out. And there were a few botched assignments, such as an inbounds play where Allen ran directly AWAY from Indiana's best shooter for a wide open 3. That can improve - it's not like other seasons where the issues were more about perimeter quickness/athleticism. This team has ability. It just needs to gel.

I suspect K left his starters in while up 20 to send a message about the halftime bump.

Considering he's shooting 48% from three I'm not really opposed to it.

FerryFor50
12-03-2015, 11:39 AM
Considering he's shooting 48% from three I'm not really opposed to it.

Right but we have plenty of other more capable scorers. I'd like to see Allen taking more shots as he's more efficient. (31.8 PER vs 19.9 for Matt)

Matt's shooting great - but he's also forcing things on occasion.

kAzE
12-03-2015, 11:52 AM
7. After a great game, Kennard had a step back last night. He again took good shots, but those shots just didn't go in. He has a huge reputation as a shooter and scorer, and it's clear that he knows how to find good shots. But it's baffling how few of them are going in right now. The coaches love his game, though, so hopefully it starts turning around soon. Again, the good thing is that he's taking good shots, not chucking bad ones. But eventually they have to start going in.

I'm not fazed at all . . . Luke said himself that shooters have off games. He's used to taking all of his team's shots. As soon as he adjusts to not being a volume scorer, but rather being a offensive spark off the bench, he will begin taking over games like he did against Utah St more consistently. He's still shooting over 50% for the last 2 games. It's great to have a guy who can potentially drop 20 off the bench, because if he's not hot, we have plenty of other options to turn to. But if he is hot, he can blow open the game literally by himself.



8. Thornton played primarily off-ball last night, and played solidly. There's not much to say right now. He's obviously green as a PG, but he obviously has physical gifts that should lead to effective PG play eventually. Not sure if we'll get there this year though. But given how far behind the curve he was in arriving this Fall, I'm willing to wait and see.

He's trying to make plays for his teammates, but he's forcing it. Last game, he missed guys on wide open cuts, this game, he's trying to squeeze the ball in windows that don't exist. His natural instinct is to score, and he's very good at that. He's an awesome ball handler (did you guys see the ridiculous size up moves he was flashing prior to a post entry pass to Amile in the first half?), he very creative getting open shots for himself, and finishing around the rim (missed dunk attempt aside). I'm still holding out hope that the point guard light bulb turns on later this season. I said it when we got his verbal commitment, and I still stand by it: Derryck is the best dribbler we've had in the last ~15 years other than Kyrie. The ball looks like it's on a string when he's dribbling it. He just needs to develop his vision and passing accuracy. The accuracy can be worked on, but the vision is something that can't really be taught. He's just got to get a feel for where his teammates are, and where he expects them to go. Part of it is playing more with these guys, but the other part is just having those instincts. We'll see if he can get it this year.



9. Interesting that Jeter was a DNP. I didn't have the sound on, so I'm not sure why. But I suspect that it has to do with Indiana not having much size and not having much interest in utilizing their size. This was a matchup where we didn't need to play two bigs, so he just wasn't necessary. He's clearly the 8th man in a 7.5 man rotation.


Coach K said this was due to matchups, and it was obviously because Indiana was playing 1 big man almost the entire game. We had Amile was our only true big for long stretches in this game, with Brandon playing most of the 2nd half at the 4. But you are right, he's definitely going to be the odd man out when we shorten the rotation to 7. I'm not sure why he didn't at least relieve Amile for a few spot minutes though, because he's always made at least 1 positive contribution when he's gotten in the game. He must not be a great practice player or something, because he's played well in the few sparse minutes he's gotten.

Ichabod Drain
12-03-2015, 11:55 AM
Right but we have plenty of other more capable scorers. I'd like to see Allen taking more shots as he's more efficient. (31.8 PER vs 19.9 for Matt)

Matt's shooting great - but he's also forcing things on occasion.

Eleven of those shots were threes and he hit five of them. He leads the team in three point percentage at 48% (barely ahead of Allen).

Also a lot more goes into PER than just scoring so I'm not sure that's the best metric to use when trying to ascertain how capable of a scorer someone is.

Grayson forces things sometimes as well.

ETA: I'm not saying Matt should be our go to guy, just that it's not going to bother me if he leads this team in shot attempts on occasion.

kAzE
12-03-2015, 12:03 PM
Right but we have plenty of other more capable scorers. I'd like to see Allen taking more shots as he's more efficient. (31.8 PER vs 19.9 for Matt)

Matt's shooting great - but he's also forcing things on occasion.

Was he? I thought for the most part, he took wide open shots. Indiana just didn't want to guard him for some reason.

yancem
12-03-2015, 12:04 PM
Amile may be skinny but he much stronger this year than last. He is getting tough rebounds in traffic. His spin move is patented. Amile is playing like a senior leader. Great to see.

If Ingram plays like last night- Duke is at another level. But I don't expect it yet. We saw the brilliance and what he may become. If he has turned the corner- watch out. I also expect Kennard to play much better from here on out. Duke has a lot of pieces. Defense is coming but lots of issues stopping the other team near the rim.

Can you imagine how good he would be if he was only comfortable taking 15-18" shots????? With his driving ability and close to the basket creativity/touch, he would be almost impossible to guard at the college level. It will be interesting to see if he is able to make it at the next level. He is a much better scorer and rebounder than Lance Thomas and pretty much on par defensively but without even a semblance of an outside shot, he will have a tough road to hall.

kAzE
12-03-2015, 12:08 PM
Can you imagine how good he would be if he was only comfortable taking 15-18" shots????? With his driving ability and close to the basket creativity/touch, he would be almost impossible to guard at the college level. It will be interesting to see if he is able to make it at the next level. He is a much better scorer and rebounder than Lance Thomas and pretty much on par defensively but without even a semblance of an outside shot, he will have a tough road to hall.

Lance is actually a semi-capable shooter now. He's putting up 1.4 threes a game off the bench and hitting about a third of them. He's actually playing most of his minutes at SF in the NBA now (He's a solid defensive player even on the perimeter), and I'm almost certain Amile would never make it as a 3. The reason Lance has made it in the league is because of his versatility on defense and at least the hint of a threat shooting the 3, which helps space the floor. Amile probably can't cover NBA SFs on defense and he surely can't hit NBA 3s. They aren't as comparable as you would think.

Amile's ticket to the NBA is either developing that mid range jumper or getting ALOT stronger and thicker. He can realistically only play power forward at the next level.

COYS
12-03-2015, 12:12 PM
Eleven of those shots were threes and he hit five of them. He leads the team in three point percentage at 48% (barely ahead of Allen).

Also a lot more goes into PER than just scoring so I'm not sure that's the best metric to use when trying to ascertain how capable of a scorer someone is.

Grayson forces things sometimes as well.

ETA: I'm not saying Matt should be our go to guy, just that it's not going to bother me if he leads this team in shot attempts on occasion.

Also, scoring isn't always just about an individual player's efficiency. It's about team efficiency. If Matt didn't take and make a good percentage of his shots, defenses would simply pay him no attention at all and Grayson (and Brandon, who has, admittedly, been inefficient prior to tonight) would face more double-teams and probably become less efficient. Matt was absolutely wide open for many of his shots last night. He might have had one or two "heat check" shots, but again, mostly he's just shooting wide open threes. That is exactly what we want him to be doing. As was mentioned earlier, Indiana really keyed in on Grayson. Grayson stayed patient and picked his spots, netting an efficient 16. If Matt had been missing his open shots or had been passing them up, altogether, the pressure would have been on Grayson to make things happen. Grayson might have scored more points, but I'd be willing to bet he would have been far less efficient. Matt, Amile, and even Marshall need to take and make their shots to keep our offense balanced. Matt will probably never be as efficient as Grayson, but you could do way, way, way worse than getting 1.21 points per shot from your 3rd/4th option on offense.

The most efficient shots in the basketball are threes, layups at the rim, and free throws. Grayson is incredibly efficient because he takes and makes all three of those shots in high volume. Matt doesn't really drive or get to the lane, all that often, but the bulk of his shots still come from three point land, which is exactly what we want. If he starts taking four or five pull up 18-footers per game, then maybe it's time to make sure he shoots a little less. However, if defenses want to keep leaving him open on the perimeter or allowing him the occasional wide-open lane to the basket, I've got no problem with him bombing away.

Billy Dat
12-03-2015, 12:14 PM
It will be interesting to see if he is able to make it at the next level. He is a much better scorer and rebounder than Lance Thomas and pretty much on par defensively but without even a semblance of an outside shot, he will have a tough road to hall.

It's certainly a long shot, as Lance was, but Lance proves that some guys can make it if they just keep grinding. Watching the NBA, I am convinced that nearly anyone with some modicum of touch, and Amile has shown deft touch around the hoop, can become a good shooter if they are coached properly and work at it relentlessly. Lance Thomas is now hitting 3 pointers in the NBA. Demarcus Cousins is taking 4.5 3-pointers a game and making 34%. Al Horford is taking 3 per game and making 36%. I realize that shooting under 40% is not great, but in the pace and space NBA, these bigs are making them enough to keep the floor spread and keep the defense honest. If you want to see the floor in the NBA, you must not be someone who can be ignored while you roam the perimeter.

Indoor66
12-03-2015, 12:18 PM
I agree that in total, the D was not particularly impressive statistically. KenPom predicted us to give up 75 pts on 72 possessions, or 1.04 PPP. As you noted we ended up at 1.2 PPP.



However, I agree with uh_no on the optimism for our defense. If you look at the game in segments our D was awful at the beginning, then good-to-great for the remainder the game that mattered, and then poor again the last 6 minutes. KenPom had the game at 62 possessions. If I then use the rough estimate of 15.5 poss for each 10 minute game segment, the data looks like this

1st 10 min: 24 pts/15.5 poss for 1.55 PPP. We were awful here. Got beat back door. Gave up several wide open 3s and gave up way too many off rebs
2nd 10 min: 18 pts/15.5 poss for 1.16. Much better than first 10 but not good. A bit skewed by the 2 wide open 3s we gave up on Indiana's last 2 possessions. Other than those last 2 trips I thought the D was good in this stretch
1st 10 of the 2nd half: 9 pts/15.5 poss for 0.58 PPP. We were awesome here. Indiana had only 4 pts and no FG in the first 8 1/2 min
2nd 10 of the 2nd half: 23 pts in 15.5 poss for 1.48 PPP. Not good at all but skewed heavily by the last 5-6 minutes when the game was out of reach. If you look at the 1st 14 min of the second half we were approximately 0.87 PPP, which is darn good


Indiana is a potent offensive team, particularly on the dribble drive which historically gives us trouble. In total the numbers don't show great or even good D, but if you look at the 24 minutes of game time (10 min mark of 1st half to 6 min of 2nd half) where we made some adjustments (better help on drivers, not getting beat backdoor, helping out better on their baseline drives that tried to dump the ball back to cutters coming down the lane, and controlling the defensive glass) to put the game out of reach we were quite good (~ 0.73 PPP).

Now, I know that breaking data into small segments can often lead to some misleading data, but these numbers give strong support to what I saw as I watched the game. Our D was awful the first 10 min or so, but it was good-to-great for the remainder of the time that the game was in doubt. We need more consistency as you can't come out flat the first 10 min against good teams because you aren't likely going to be scoring 1.5 PPP against them on your offensive end, but I am much more optimistic about our man-to-man D than I was a week ago.

When was KenPom in the game? I never heard his name called.

Isaac Sours
12-03-2015, 12:52 PM
Isn't that like saying the 1963 mets were a good team, because at least they won more often than the washington generals? The parker/hood team played atrocious defense...so passing that bar is not much to write home about.

I see improvement though. fewer massive breakdowns, indiana hit some tough shots out there, there's a lot of communication (love to see ingram out there talking on D...really had a great game all around). We're still slow on the perimeter, and nothing is going to change grayson and matt...and derryck got beat a few times as well...but we have the length and grey matter underneath to deal with that better than some of the matador teams have.

I think the D will continue to improve, perhaps even to levels better than the team played in the tournament last year.

I only meant we're farther along than I expected. Picked the first example of terrible defense early in the season that I could think of.

Isn't matt considered to be a solid defender? I've never had an issue with him.

tbyers11
12-03-2015, 01:03 PM
When was KenPom in the game? I never heard his name called.

Just giving statistical backup for what my eyes saw in the game. I like to have reference points (KenPom predictions) based on body of work that suggest how we should perform and then measure our performance against them. Also, I'm not going through the boxscore to determine how many possessions were in the game.

My post actually said that I thought relying on the final PPP values (which is all you would know if you didn't watch the game) was misleading and undersold our defensive performance. Lots of important critical analysis is lost if you rely on stats too much but I think that analytics do bring a great deal of value. Far more than wondering if KenPom recently joined our team as a walk-on.

COYS
12-03-2015, 01:05 PM
I agree that in total, the D was not particularly impressive statistically. KenPom predicted us to give up 75 pts on 72 possessions, or 1.04 PPP. As you noted we ended up at 1.2 PPP.

However, I agree with uh_no on the optimism for our defense. If you look at the game in segments our D was awful at the beginning, then good-to-great for the remainder the game that mattered, and then poor again the last 6 minutes. KenPom had the game at 62 possessions. If I then use the rough estimate of 15.5 poss for each 10 minute game segment, the data looks like this

1st 10 min: 24 pts/15.5 poss for 1.55 PPP. We were awful here. Got beat back door. Gave up several wide open 3s and gave up way too many off rebs
2nd 10 min: 18 pts/15.5 poss for 1.16. Much better than first 10 but not good. A bit skewed by the 2 wide open 3s we gave up on Indiana's last 2 possessions. Other than those last 2 trips I thought the D was good in this stretch
1st 10 of the 2nd half: 9 pts/15.5 poss for 0.58 PPP. We were awesome here. Indiana had only 4 pts and no FG in the first 8 1/2 min
2nd 10 of the 2nd half: 23 pts in 15.5 poss for 1.48 PPP. Not good at all but skewed heavily by the last 5-6 minutes when the game was out of reach. If you look at the 1st 14 min of the second half we were approximately 0.87 PPP, which is darn good


Indiana is a potent offensive team, particularly on the dribble drive which historically gives us trouble. In total the numbers don't show great or even good D, but if you look at the 24 minutes of game time (10 min mark of 1st half to 6 min of 2nd half) where we made some adjustments (better help on drivers, not getting beat backdoor, helping out better on their baseline drives that tried to dump the ball back to cutters coming down the lane, and controlling the defensive glass) to put the game out of reach we were quite good (~ 0.73 PPP).

Now, I know that breaking data into small segments can often lead to some misleading data, but these numbers give strong support to what I saw as I watched the game. Our D was awful the first 10 min or so, but it was good-to-great for the remainder of the time that the game was in doubt. We need more consistency as you can't come out flat the first 10 min against good teams because you aren't likely going to be scoring 1.5 PPP against them on your offensive end, but I am much more optimistic about our man-to-man D than I was a week ago.


Nice breakdown. I think this reflects the eye-test, as well. Early on we struggled to rotate and recover to shooters or to help on drives to the hoop. Indiana made us pay by hitting almost everything. In addition, I think the deep range some of their shooters flashed caught us off guard. I can't remember who did it, but one of our guards (I think it was Matt, who usually wouldn't make this mistake) went under a screen when defending an Indiana guard a good five feet behind the three point line. It caught Matt totally by surprise when the Indiana guard launched and swished a three from probably a half step beyond NBA range. The range of Indiana's shooters meant that recovering defenders had to cover even more ground than we were used to.

However, when the second half started, we were recovering to shooters with far more energy and urgency. We consistently forced them to put the ball on floor and leave the three point line. As you mentioned, we kept this up until there were about 6 minutes remaining and we were trying not to foul. I'm still not completely satisfied with our defense from that point onward. I think we can learn to do a better job of balancing quality defense with avoiding fouls, but I still weigh this section of the game less when evaluating our performance on D.

So, given that we played horrendous D early in the game but played phenomenal D later in the game after we had a chance to adjust, I'm actually inclined to be pretty happy with our performance despite the efficiency numbers not looking particularly good. We have let teams get off to good starts, but we have also managed to adjust and play far better D later in games. Georgetown (the final, furious comeback notwithstanding). VCU, Georgetown, Yale, and Indiana all gave us their best early in the game. And in all four situations, we responded with better D later in the game (the final, furious comeback attempt by the Hoyas, notwithstanding). The best thing about the game against Indiana is that we proved we could shut down a top 10 offense when we are locked in and focused. To me, that means that this team already looks different than 2012 or (shudder) 2014. When an opposing offense punches us in the mouth, the team has the ability to pick itself off the mat and change its approach and amp up the intensity.

My hope, moving forward, is that all the adjustments that team is making during the course of the game will become automatic so we can start out playing well on defense. Hopefully during our next game we'll close out faster on three point shooters from the beginning instead of waiting for the second half. We might never be as good as some of the elite defensive teams of Duke's past. But I feel that our stretches of good defense have been impressive enough to show that this team is capable of being very good on that end.

Also, from a team psyche standpoint, I feel like we've come a loooooong way from the Kentucky game, already. Grayson made adjustments immediately to stop over penetrating. Brandon had to break his game down and build it back up, taking small steps until his breakout last night. Derryck has been up and down. Luke still can't seem to get his shot to fall, consistently, yet. Still, through all of that, the team has made progress. They've learned how to handle real game pressure. They've demonstrated that they are capable of playing good D, even if it's not consistent. Also, as seems to always be the case with a K coached team, the team has proven they can score like crazy even when individual players are going through slumps. Most of all, it seems like all of the guys have bought in to the idea that the season is a marathon and that while some of the early hills can seem steep, teammates and coaching staff can help them get over the hump.

We've said it before but I'll say it again, in a year when college basketball has no dominant teams, I'm pretty excited about how far this group can go. The team is already playing well despite its youth and inconsistent play from the freshmen. They have a chance to accomplish a great deal if they continue to develop.

Olympic Fan
12-03-2015, 01:23 PM
We actually didn't play much 1-3-1 last night, but Amile has been at the top of that zone all season, and when he isn't K has had Ingram playing up there. So, I feel like "K putting a 4 at the top of the 1-3-1" has actually become a regular thing as far as this year is concerned.


We actually didn't play ANY 1-3-1 against Indiana -- not a single possession.

We played two possessions of 2-3 zone -- the first two possessions of the second half. The rest of the game was man-to-man.

I think this is significant. We know this team's defense is a work in progress. Two weeks ago, in back to back games against VCU and Georgetown, we had to go to the zone (mostly the 1-3-1) to stay in the game. A week ago, we were trailing Yale midway through the first half when we switched to the 1-3-1.

But last night - against one of the best offensive teams in college basketball (no. 5 in Kenpom and the top Big Ten scoring team and offensive efficiency team over the last three seasons) -- we played man-to-man almost the entire way.

I agree that the success was mixed. The defensive struggled early in the game and (as K noted) once the lead reached 20, the team lost defensive intensity and began to trade baskets. But in between, Duke played championship level man-to-man defense against a very good offensive team (Indiana stinks on defense and is weak on the boards, but they are first-rate on offense). Okay, "championship level" is probably a little strong, because to me, that means playing at a high level for 40 minutes. But that stretch from the midpoint of the first half to the midpoint of the second half was quality man-to-man defense.

Last year's team didn't "magically" start playing great man-to-man defense in March. It was the product of a lot of work and a lot of trial and error. This team is undergoing the same process. I think last night was a sign of progress. Obviously they are not there yet, but the defensive progress between Georgetown-Yale-Indiana is amazing. I am very encouraged for the future.

Offensively, the big numbers are less impressive because Indiana is a BAD defensive team. But I was encouraged that Brandon made shots, which he hasn't been doing with any regularity, and also that Grayson showed what I thought was improving judgment at the offensive end -- he never forced anything (and BTW for those who insist that he can only go right, go back and watch his first drive and basket of the game).

jipops
12-03-2015, 01:26 PM
My thoughts on the game:

1. Indiana is a terrific offensive team. Tons of shooters, a couple of good slashers. But they are ATROCIOUS defensively, and similarly bad at rebounding. Those were the areas in which I figured we'd win, and sure enough Indiana didn't disappoint (if you're a Duke fan like me). It is no shock that they lost to a big and experienced team like Wake. They are just not well-coached, and they don't play defense.

That being said...

2. It was great to see Ingram finally have the type of game everyone hoped for from him. He was hitting 3s. He was driving for layups, using his ridiculous length to soar above the defense and lay it in from well away from the rim. He was hitting midrange shots over shorter defenders (seriously? Crean thought Ferrell could guard Ingram?). He was playing with his head up and found teammates for open looks. He was a menace in the passing lanes. He reached over defenders for offensive rebounds. It was just a really impressive game from him. Hopefully this gives him confidence. I don't expect dominance like this moving forward, but it is nice to know he has it in him. Hopefully it sparks better play the rest of the way as he figures out the college game.

3. As effective as Ingram was, my player of the game was Jefferson. Yeah, he scored only 8 points. But he absolutely dominated the paint, getting 11 rebounds and 3 blocks. And he facilitated the offense quite well, dishing 8 assists, usually from the high post. There was one possession where he battled 3 defenders for an offensive rebound, then fought through them and contact to finish the layup. It was just a man's move, and just a highlight of a man's game from Jefferson last night. I can't say enough good things about his play.

4. Allen didn't have a huge game, but he did a good job of picking his spots and not forcing the action. He was often guarded by Ferrell, and I think Ferrell's quickness bothered him. But he did identify the angles at appropriate times, and scored very efficiently. I was watching with the sound off as my wife was sleeping, but I think he may have sold the forearm shove a bit in the second half in drawing that flagrant. But I'll take the free points. He's an opportunistic players and he knows how to play to the refs. That will serve him and us well.

5. Matt Jones is just a steady, steady player. He doesn't wow me ever, but he just seems to know what to do out there on both ends. 23 pts (5-11 from 3), 3 rebounds, 1 assist, two steals, 1 block, and 0 turnovers. Solid, solid production from a veteran.

6. Plumlee was, again, about what should be expected from him. Energetic, physical, not very skilled. His stat line (20 mpg, 4 pts, 5 rebounds, 4 fouls) is about what I envisioned coming into the season. But it's useful to have him, even if he's only able to give 20-25 mpg of mediocre play. His size is an asset for this team. It just wasn't an asset in this game, because Indiana spread the floor so much.

7. After a great game, Kennard had a step back last night. He again took good shots, but those shots just didn't go in. He has a huge reputation as a shooter and scorer, and it's clear that he knows how to find good shots. But it's baffling how few of them are going in right now. The coaches love his game, though, so hopefully it starts turning around soon. Again, the good thing is that he's taking good shots, not chucking bad ones. But eventually they have to start going in.

8. Thornton played primarily off-ball last night, and played solidly. There's not much to say right now. He's obviously green as a PG, but he obviously has physical gifts that should lead to effective PG play eventually. Not sure if we'll get there this year though. But given how far behind the curve he was in arriving this Fall, I'm willing to wait and see.

9. Interesting that Jeter was a DNP. I didn't have the sound on, so I'm not sure why. But I suspect that it has to do with Indiana not having much size and not having much interest in utilizing their size. This was a matchup where we didn't need to play two bigs, so he just wasn't necessary. He's clearly the 8th man in a 7.5 man rotation.

10. Didn't see the incident at halftime, but did see the animated conversation between K and Crean. Unfortunately, the video doesn't really capture what happened. Bielfeldt appeared to be stationary and facing away from Coach K as K was walking by. But right as K reaches him, a Duke player walks in front of the camera, and all we see is Bielfeldt trotting toward the locker room and Coach K glaring back at him. My guess is that he turned toward his locker and bumped into Coach, and without looking gave a little shove (perhaps thinking it was a Duke player?) as he headed to the locker. But again, it's really hard to say. I hope it is as simple as that - haven't seen anything from him to make me think he'd intentionally shove Coach K, so I do hope it was an accident.

Anyway, this was a game we were expected to win comfortably, and we did. There is really nothing negative to take away from it. After a rough first few minutes, we dominated the game and won easily. Go Duke!

I thought that was the highlight of the game and signifies what Amile has become as a player.

duke74
12-03-2015, 01:41 PM
Lance is actually a semi-capable shooter now. He's putting up 1.4 threes a game off the bench and hitting about a third of them. He's actually playing most of his minutes at SF in the NBA now (He's a solid defensive player even on the perimeter), and I'm almost certain Amile would never make it as a 3. The reason Lance has made it in the league is because of his versatility on defense and at least the hint of a threat shooting the 3, which helps space the floor. Amile probably can't cover NBA SFs on defense and he surely can't hit NBA 3s. They aren't as comparable as you would think.

Amile's ticket to the NBA is either developing that mid range jumper or getting ALOT stronger and thicker. He can realistically only play power forward at the next level.

Not being the expert that many on this board are (admittedly) but knowing a little bit and watching the Knicks here in NY, I was very pleasantly surprised with Lance's offensive game. Always in control it seems - eg, not forcing the shots. Passing as appropriate and finishing. (He has this cute little baseline floater that he used last night v Philly.) A really good addition to the NYK from the bench I think.

Billy Dat
12-03-2015, 01:43 PM
"So it’s not exactly stretching the truth to say that Indiana, on Wednesday night in Durham, North Carolina, put together one of the worst defensive performances in NCAA history."

http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2015/12/03/breaking-down-indianas-historically-bad-defense-and-why-their-seasons-at-a-crossroads/

Saratoga2
12-03-2015, 01:55 PM
I agree that in total, the D was not particularly impressive statistically. KenPom predicted us to give up 75 pts on 72 possessions, or 1.04 PPP. As you noted we ended up at 1.2 PPP.



However, I agree with uh_no on the optimism for our defense. If you look at the game in segments our D was awful at the beginning, then good-to-great for the remainder the game that mattered, and then poor again the last 6 minutes. KenPom had the game at 62 possessions. If I then use the rough estimate of 15.5 poss for each 10 minute game segment, the data looks like this

1st 10 min: 24 pts/15.5 poss for 1.55 PPP. We were awful here. Got beat back door. Gave up several wide open 3s and gave up way too many off rebs
2nd 10 min: 18 pts/15.5 poss for 1.16. Much better than first 10 but not good. A bit skewed by the 2 wide open 3s we gave up on Indiana's last 2 possessions. Other than those last 2 trips I thought the D was good in this stretch
1st 10 of the 2nd half: 9 pts/15.5 poss for 0.58 PPP. We were awesome here. Indiana had only 4 pts and no FG in the first 8 1/2 min
2nd 10 of the 2nd half: 23 pts in 15.5 poss for 1.48 PPP. Not good at all but skewed heavily by the last 5-6 minutes when the game was out of reach. If you look at the 1st 14 min of the second half we were approximately 0.87 PPP, which is darn good



.

I was wondering if the defensive efficiency changes coincides with particular lineups in the game. A for instance is that I thought that MP3 was in during the first 10 minutes and he was getting beaten to the basket by smaller athletic players. Perhaps I noticed something or perhaps it is just seeing something that I expect to be true.

uh_no
12-03-2015, 01:57 PM
When were we 9th in defensive efficiency?

Start of the year. I actually think we started at 8, but don't have the data saved.

yancem
12-03-2015, 01:59 PM
Lance is actually a semi-capable shooter now. He's putting up 1.4 threes a game off the bench and hitting about a third of them. He's actually playing most of his minutes at SF in the NBA now (He's a solid defensive player even on the perimeter), and I'm almost certain Amile would never make it as a 3. The reason Lance has made it in the league is because of his versatility on defense and at least the hint of a threat shooting the 3, which helps space the floor. Amile probably can't cover NBA SFs on defense and he surely can't hit NBA 3s. They aren't as comparable as you would think.

Amile's ticket to the NBA is either developing that mid range jumper or getting ALOT stronger and thicker. He can realistically only play power forward at the next level.

That's basically my point. Until Thomas' senior year no one wanted him shooting from outside of 5' but in his senior year he developed a half way decent 15-18' shot and has continued to improved it over the years since. If Jefferson can't develop an outside shot, he is stuck on the interior where his size becomes more of an issue. I think you may be selling Jefferson short on his ability to guard the SF position. He isn't quite as good defending the perimeter as Thomas but he has good footwork and could get there.


It's certainly a long shot, as Lance was, but Lance proves that some guys can make it if they just keep grinding. Watching the NBA, I am convinced that nearly anyone with some modicum of touch, and Amile has shown deft touch around the hoop, can become a good shooter if they are coached properly and work at it relentlessly. Lance Thomas is now hitting 3 pointers in the NBA. Demarcus Cousins is taking 4.5 3-pointers a game and making 34%. Al Horford is taking 3 per game and making 36%. I realize that shooting under 40% is not great, but in the pace and space NBA, these bigs are making them enough to keep the floor spread and keep the defense honest. If you want to see the floor in the NBA, you must not be someone who can be ignored while you roam the perimeter.

It is definitely a long shot but Jefferson is a hard worker and great teammate which seems to make a difference when teams are looking to fill the last couple of roster spots. But you are right that if he can't help space the floor his chances are even more slim than Thomas even though in many ways he is a better player. Jefferson is averaging almost twice as many points and rebounds as Thomas did as a senior in a about 5 more mpg but he is no threat to shoot from outside which makes it easy for opposing teams to crowd the lane.

jimsumner
12-03-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: Jefferson.

He certainly doesn't have the body to comfortably carry much more than his currently listed 225 pounds. But as someone who has seen him up close for four years, let me tell you that he has most definitely put in the time in the weight room. He's about as sculpted as a 6-9, 225 pound human being can be. And you can see it on the floor, in his increased ability to play through contact, in his increased ability to get tough rebounds in traffic.

Now, that doesn't mean I want him to spend too much time guarding the Kennedy Meeks' of the world. He's a 4, not a 5. But he's not skinny in the same way he was even a year ago.

Jeter? K said after the game that it wasn't a good opportunity for Jeter, because IU played five perimeter players.

Which isn't entirely accurate. Thomas Bryant got 26 minutes and he's 6-10, 245 and appears to have an effective shooting range of about two feet. So, there might have been some chances for Jeter.

BTW, did anyone else notice Bryant's stat-line. Six points. Okay. But zero rebounds. Yikes. How does a player that big play that many minutes and not grab a single rebound? Yes, he fumbled an easy one out of bounds with no Duke player near him. But no rebounds.

Ichabod Drain
12-03-2015, 02:12 PM
Start of the year. I actually think we started at 8, but don't have the data saved.

There's no relevant data to back that up though. That's based off of guesses on returning players, incoming freshman, and trends in past years. To say we fell from #9 to #36 isn't really indicative of this team playing worse defense as the year progresses. Later in the season when more data is collected we are likely to see a more accurate representation of how good our defense is.

kAzE
12-03-2015, 02:26 PM
There's no relevant data to back that up though. That's based off of guesses on returning players, incoming freshman, and trends in past years. To say we fell from #9 to #36 isn't really indicative of this team playing worse defense as the year progresses. Later in the season when more data is collected we are likely to see a more accurate representation of how good our defense is.

We're going to improve on defense as we get deeper in to the season. That's just a given, based on our youth and on Coach K's track record over his tenure at Duke. These players are going to get more and more accustomed to playing as a unit on the defensive end.

Also, we played against a REALLY good offensive team in Indiana. As much as they stink on defense, they are the #5 rated team in offensive efficiency on KenPom, so it's not a surprise to see our defensive rating take a hit despite the win.

Interestingly, there's another team in our own league who is very similarly elite offensively and simultaneous terrible defensively: Notre Dame, who are currently the #3 offensive team, and #126 defensive team, which is even worse than Indiana, who are currently rated as the #121 defense.

Incredibly, the ACC has 5 of the 6 best offensive teams in the country according to Kenpom:

#1: Duke
#2: Miami
#3: Notre Dame
#4: UNC
#6: Virginia

Should be some high flying fast paced action in the conference slate, and it's going to be very difficult for anyone to post a top 10 defensive rating in the ACC this year with the kind of firepower these teams are bringing to the court.

uh_no
12-03-2015, 02:38 PM
There's no relevant data to back that up though. That's based off of guesses on returning players, incoming freshman, and trends in past years. To say we fell from #9 to #36 isn't really indicative of this team playing worse defense as the year progresses. Later in the season when more data is collected we are likely to see a more accurate representation of how good our defense is.

This is true, but the fact that we had a high initial ranking indicates that 36 is actually BETTER than the actual defensive performances....since it's still biased by an incorrectly high preseason ranking.

What isn't disputable, though, is the defensive efficiency on a game to game basis. Whether it started good and got worse, or has just been not good all along is irrelevent, since the argument is that the defense right NOW isn't good, which is the point I was trying to contradict.

I don't think there is evidence that overall the defense is playing as well as it should or can, and it really hasn't for most of the season. I think there is evidence that it is heading the right direction, though, as was pointed about by the splits in the game yesterday.

MChambers
12-03-2015, 03:09 PM
"So it’s not exactly stretching the truth to say that Indiana, on Wednesday night in Durham, North Carolina, put together one of the worst defensive performances in NCAA history."

http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2015/12/03/breaking-down-indianas-historically-bad-defense-and-why-their-seasons-at-a-crossroads/
I usually like Rob Dauster, but I think he's got this one backwards. The truth is that Duke put together one of the best offensive performances in NCAA history.

I suppose it is all a matter of perspective.

Billy Dat
12-03-2015, 03:12 PM
I usually like Rob Dauster, but I think he's got this one backwards. The truth is that Duke put together one of the best offensive performances in NCAA history.

I suppose it is all a matter of perspective.

Maybe, but how many 3s did we take where there wasn't a defender within 4 feet of our shooters? Nearly every 3 Matt Jones took was of that ilk.

I agree that we were great, but this reaction was predictable. Indiana had been piling up horrendous defensive performances and then did so spectacularly on a huge national stage. This story was writing itself for the past 2 weeks.

kAzE
12-03-2015, 03:24 PM
Maybe, but how many 3s did we take where there wasn't a defender within 4 feet of our shooters? Nearly every 3 Matt Jones took was of that ilk.

I agree that we were great, but this reaction was predictable. Indiana had been piling up horrendous defensive performances and then did so spectacularly on a huge national stage. This story was writing itself for the past 2 weeks.

I agree, nothing we did on offense was that amazing, just typical ball screens, and penetration/kick outs. We just hit open shots. I just watched the UK game in the 1992 elite 8 about a couple days ago. There was some amazing ball movement in that game by both teams. We weren't doing that, just taking what Indiana gave us, which was just about anything we wanted.

OZ
12-03-2015, 03:48 PM
I think a great example of Indiana's "matador" defense was how they just stood around and let Allen hit that uncontested layup at the end of the first half.

wilko
12-03-2015, 04:06 PM
Amile may be skinny but he much stronger this year than last. He is getting tough rebounds in traffic. His spin move is patented. Amile is playing like a senior leader. Great to see.
Amile who?
I swear I thought we had John Salley wearing no 15 last nite. Hope he can keep that level of play up.


If Ingram plays like last night- Duke is at another level. But I don't expect it yet. We saw the brilliance and what he may become. If he has turned the corner- watch out.
Groot came to play last night. That's the Dude everyone was expecting to see. Guess he had some stage fright.
Heck, I would too. I suspect last night will go along way to building confidence. Glad to know he's got a gear like that.

Billy Dat
12-03-2015, 04:15 PM
Groot came to play last night. That's the Dude everyone was expecting to see. Guess he had some stage fright.
Heck, I would too. I suspect last night will go along way to building confidence. Glad to know he's got a gear like that.

"Groot" is a pretty great nickname for him.

kAzE
12-03-2015, 04:40 PM
5741

hallcity
12-03-2015, 04:45 PM
Will Duke be playing Indiana again soon in a different sport in NYC?

sagegrouse
12-03-2015, 04:57 PM
9. Interesting that Jeter was a DNP. I didn't have the sound on, so I'm not sure why. But I suspect that it has to do with Indiana not having much size and not having much interest in utilizing their size. This was a matchup where we didn't need to play two bigs, so he just wasn't necessary. He's clearly the 8th man in a 7.5 man rotation.



We played a smaller lineup. There were only 20 minutes for Marshall, which meant there were no minutes left over for Chase. Being ever-optimistic, I think Chase Jeter will get some burn in the next game.

flyingdutchdevil
12-03-2015, 05:00 PM
Raise your hand if you had a 7-man rotation by December 2? Anyone? ;)

Billy Dat
12-03-2015, 05:07 PM
Raise your hand if you had a 7-man rotation by December 2? Anyone? ;)

K keeps saying 8, he always includes Chase. But, when the match-up dictates small ball, we'll often only play 2 or 1 big. If Chase wants to get burn in those games, like last night, he's going to have to try and pass MPIII on the depth chart which is a long shot right now.

MChambers
12-03-2015, 05:10 PM
Maybe, but how many 3s did we take where there wasn't a defender within 4 feet of our shooters? Nearly every 3 Matt Jones took was of that ilk.

I agree that we were great, but this reaction was predictable. Indiana had been piling up horrendous defensive performances and then did so spectacularly on a huge national stage. This story was writing itself for the past 2 weeks.
It takes a great offense to get guys that wide open!

DukieInBrasil
12-03-2015, 05:12 PM
that was an impressive win. I liked how Grayson scored the most nonchalant 16pts ever. Nice to see that Ingram's shot was falling. I love Amile Jefferson's game this year. Good to very good defense for about half the game. Sweet birthday win for DiB!

Skitzle
12-03-2015, 06:15 PM
Just getting around to watching the game. Normally I don't like to know the score, but I stumbled across it on accident.

One quick question:

Does anyone know what time Ingram got to Cameron yesterday? It wasn't really clear during the broadcast, and its normally something they talk about.

kmspeaks
12-03-2015, 06:29 PM
Just getting around to watching the game. Normally I don't like to know the score, but I stumbled across it on accident.

One quick question:

Does anyone know what time Ingram got to Cameron yesterday? It wasn't really clear during the broadcast, and its normally something they talk about.

Haha I made the same comment in the in-game thread. I think it was around 4:40....or maybe it was 4:45.

Indoor66
12-03-2015, 06:34 PM
Raise your hand if you had a 7-man rotation by December 2? Anyone? ;)

FDD, I think that you are way off base with this, assuming you are not being tongue-in-cheek. K tailored the makeup of the team to deal with the opposition, as makes good coaching sense. K is always out to win and always play the combination of and numbers of players he believes give the best chance to win. He also plays players and combinations of players to that same end. IMO, we will see Chase when the circumstances call for it. I see no hesitancy to play anyone who fits the situation.

Indoor66
12-03-2015, 06:36 PM
that was an impressive win. I liked how Grayson scored the most nonchalant 16pts ever. Nice to see that Ingram's shot was falling. I love Amile Jefferson's game this year. Good to very good defense for about half the game. Sweet birthday win for DiB!

What really impresses me about Grayson is that he does not feel driven to try to score all the time. He seems to have developed the maturity to allow the game to come to him and to play to involve everyone in the offense.

flyingdutchdevil
12-03-2015, 06:41 PM
FDD, I think that you are way off base with this, assuming you are not being tongue-in-cheek. K tailored the makeup of the team to deal with the opposition, as makes good coaching sense. K is always out to win and always play the combination of and numbers of players he believes give the best chance to win. He also plays players and combinations of players to that same end. IMO, we will see Chase when the circumstances call for it. I see no hesitancy to play anyone who fits the situation.

I am being slightly tongue in cheek, although I can easily see scenarios where the rotation is only 7 players deep with Jeter being the odd man out. Physically, he isn't ready, and he doesn't have the sheer talent that Ingram has. Also, a 7 man rotation isn't outside of the question for Coach K. He's used this before.

Also, I want to bring up that Duke demolished Indiana midday through the second half. Given how well we were doing and how Indiana had zero chance of winning, why wouldn't Coach K deviate from his plan and play Jeter (if Jeter is indeed part of the rotation)? I think this game is very indicative of what the first half of ACC play will look like. We all thought an 8 man rotation (some even 9), but it could very well be 7. Is Jeter the odd man out? Let's see what happens when we play some of the tougher ACC opponents (and there are a lot of them).

-jk
12-03-2015, 08:47 PM
Also, scoring isn't always just about an individual player's efficiency...

Indeed.

I draw the line between "hitting hard shots" and "getting easy shots". Both seem "lucky". The latter takes a lot more (team) work, but the results are well worth it.

-jk

lotusland
12-03-2015, 10:25 PM
"Groot" is a pretty great nickname for him.

I'd go with "Sleepy" if Eric Floyd didn't already own it.

Skitzle
12-04-2015, 12:34 AM
We have 8 starters, Jeter is almost there,

Then Jeter gets a Dnp-cd. Sounds like some tough love.

Probably would have played but didn't get.to Cameron at 4:45.

Anything Duke gets from Jeter is bonus. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

uh_no
12-04-2015, 08:01 AM
We have 8 starters, Jeter is almost there,

Then Jeter gets a Dnp-cd. Sounds like some tough love.

Probably would have played but didn't get.to Cameron at 4:45.

Anything Duke gets from Jeter is bonus. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

I think you're reading far too much into a bad matchup for him.

As was pointed out, plumlee even only got 20 minutes.

whereinthehellami
12-04-2015, 08:30 AM
I've noticed in past games that if Jeter switches and is guarding anyone on the perimeter, he gets destroyed. Foul or layup. On the offensive side he has shown a few nice moves, surprising even. But we all know that PT starts with defense. Still IMHO it seems he could have got some action in the second half. We will need him at some point this year and especially for next year.

I love how Allen is playing right now. He has fixed his somewhat questionable attitude issues that he had before and seems so steady right now. Kid is a quick learner.

I love Kennard's game. He is just a winner but i think he is forcing things right now and just needs to relax a bit. It's like he is trying to force the game to slow down. But i think that is what makes these kids so special. They have so much want to.

Duke76
12-04-2015, 08:40 AM
I've noticed in past games that if Jeter switches and is guarding anyone on the perimeter, he gets destroyed. Foul or layup. On the offensive side he has shown a few nice moves, surprising even. But we all know that PT starts with defense. Still IMHO it seems he could have got some action in the second half. We will need him at some point this year and especially for next year.

I love how Allen is playing right now. He has fixed his somewhat questionable attitude issues that he had before and seems so steady right now. Kid is a quick learner.

I love Kennard's game. He is just a winner but i think he is forcing things right now and just needs to relax a bit. It's like he is trying to force the game to slow down. But i think that is what makes these kids so special. They have so much want to.


My guess is if Luke quit lifting weights in the playing season his shot would revert to his historic norm.....just a theory...but lifting can screw with some people's form

sagegrouse
12-04-2015, 09:17 AM
This may have been linked up-thread, but I wanted to highlight some of the "money quotes" in the NBC Sports article (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2015/12/03/breaking-down-indianas-historically-bad-defense-and-why-their-seasons-at-a-crossroads/) by Rob Dauster:


But that’s what happens when a defense allows an opponent to more-or-less look like the Harlem Globetrotters. Chew on this for a minute: Duke finished the night, according to KenPom, scoring 1.52 PPP, an insanely high number regardless of who the opponent is. This didn’t come against some run-of-the-mill opponent that Duke paid five figures to fill a spot on their schedule. It came against Indiana. The last time a team scored more than 1.5 PPP against a high-major opponent came in March of 2011, when Ohio State whipped up on Wisconsin at home.

That night, the Buckeyes shot 14-for-15 from three.

That was an NCAA record.

So it’s not exactly stretching the truth to say that Indiana, on Wednesday night in Durham, North Carolina, put together one of the worst defensive performances in NCAA history.

Let me add a bit. Duke shot "only" 11-24 from three-point range versus 14-15 when Ohio State beat Wisconsin. The Devil's edge was the insane offensive rebounding, securing more OR's than Indiana got defensive rebounds. And, when you are shooting 53 percent overall, those offensive rebounds turn into points. I dunno where the research is, but this is obviously Duke's strongest offensive performance, at 1.52 points per possession, against a major opponent in five years, maybe much longer.

MChambers
12-04-2015, 09:41 AM
This may have been linked up-thread, but I wanted to highlight some of the "money quotes" in the NBC Sports article (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2015/12/03/breaking-down-indianas-historically-bad-defense-and-why-their-seasons-at-a-crossroads/) by Rob Dauster:



Let me add a bit. Duke shot "only" 11-24 from three-point range versus 14-15 when Ohio State beat Wisconsin. The Devil's edge was the insane offensive rebounding, securing more OR's than Indiana got defensive rebounds. And, when you are shooting 53 percent overall, those offensive rebounds turn into points. I dunno where the research is, but this is obviously Duke's strongest offensive performance, at 1.52 points per possession, against a major opponent in five years, maybe much longer.
Luke Winn says it was Duke's best offensive performance against a major opponent since 2002:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/12/03/duke-brandon-ingram-indiana-defense

sagegrouse
12-04-2015, 09:45 AM
Luke Winn says it was Duke's best offensive performance against a major opponent since 2002:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/12/03/duke-brandon-ingram-indiana-defense

Actually, it may be much longer. Here's a quote from the article:


They’ll discover that whatever was done still does not surpass Dec. 2, 2015, when the Blue Devils scored 1.53 PPP in a 94–74 rout of Indiana: Duke’s most efficient game against a major-conference team in an advanced-stats era that dates back to 2002, and Indiana’s least-efficient defensive game in a Tom Crean coaching era that began in 2008. Those analytically conscious sportswriters will be curious about how this happened. How did a team that was re-tooling after a national championship deliver a historic scorching of an opponent that had least three NBA-level athletes and was ranked No. 15 in the preseason?

The 2002 date was the beginning of the "advanced statistics era," not the last time Duke reached a 1.5+ PPP.

yancem
12-04-2015, 10:07 AM
I think you're reading far too much into a bad matchup for him.

As was pointed out, plumlee even only got 20 minutes.

While I agree that Indiana presented a bad matchup for Jeter, I do find it interesting that K didn't extend the bench at all until the last 30 or so seconds and then only put in Pagliuca even though we were up by 20+ points. That does seem to be in direct contrast to saying that we have 8 starters. 6 of the eight played at least 20 minutes, the 7th played 16 (a guard by the way) and the eighth gets a goose egg? Not saying it means that Jeter is doomed to sit the bench for the rest of the season but it does make me question the 8 starters comment.

FerryFor50
12-04-2015, 10:10 AM
While I agree that Indiana presented a bad matchup for Jeter, I do find it interesting that K didn't extend the bench at all until the last 30 or so seconds and then only put in Pagliuca even though we were up by 20+ points. That does seem to be in direct contrast to saying that we have 8 starters. 6 of the eight played at least 20 minutes, the 7th played 16 (a guard by the way) and the eighth gets a goose egg? Not saying it means that Jeter is doomed to sit the bench for the rest of the season but it does make me question the 8 starters comment.

I think K was running it up after the halftime bump by the IU player. I wouldn't call 1 game a trend by any means.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2015, 10:23 AM
I think K was running it up after the halftime bump by the IU player. I wouldn't call 1 game a trend by any means.

If that's the case, then that is the pettiest thing a man can do. I highly doubt that. I think it had more to do with this game being extremely intense and Coach K only playing players he thought are "ready". It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Coach K play 7 men until the second half of the ACC, when Jeter may be more ready.

While I agree that 1 game isn't a trend, it is curious that Coach K didn't play Jeter AT ALL despite being up 25 points.

jipops
12-04-2015, 10:32 AM
This may have been linked up-thread, but I wanted to highlight some of the "money quotes" in the NBC Sports article (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2015/12/03/breaking-down-indianas-historically-bad-defense-and-why-their-seasons-at-a-crossroads/) by Rob Dauster:



Let me add a bit. Duke shot "only" 11-24 from three-point range versus 14-15 when Ohio State beat Wisconsin. The Devil's edge was the insane offensive rebounding, securing more OR's than Indiana got defensive rebounds. And, when you are shooting 53 percent overall, those offensive rebounds turn into points. I dunno where the research is, but this is obviously Duke's strongest offensive performance, at 1.52 points per possession, against a major opponent in five years, maybe much longer.

The discussion could be was Duke's efficiency on offense more of a product of the team coming together on that end of the floor or was it more because IU simply stinks at that end? I'm inclined to lean towards the latter. We are by no means a great offensive team... still hoping for a natural facilitator/pg, no real post threat, etc...

Much more than anything I'm impressed that we actually prevented them from scoring a field goal for almost 10 minutes in the 2nd half.

But overall, I'm actually not taking away too much from this win other than we're starting to do a better job on defending in the man-to-man. It's hard to use this win to gauge how we would stack up against a top 15 or 20 opponent. And it doesn't look like we'll get to see that until maybe around the middle of January.

FerryFor50
12-04-2015, 10:36 AM
If that's the case, then that is the pettiest thing a man can do. I highly doubt that. I think it had more to do with this game being extremely intense and Coach K only playing players he thought are "ready". It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Coach K play 7 men until the second half of the ACC, when Jeter may be more ready.

While I agree that 1 game isn't a trend, it is curious that Coach K didn't play Jeter AT ALL despite being up 25 points.

Intense? When you're up 20-30 for at least the last 5 min of the 2nd half?

And if he didn't think Jeter was "ready" he would have called it out in the presser, rather than citing "matchups."

And petty is bumping a 70 year old head coach.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2015, 10:45 AM
Intense? When you're up 20-30 for at least the last 5 min of the 2nd half?

And if he didn't think Jeter was "ready" he would have called it out in the presser, rather than citing "matchups."

And petty is bumping a 70 year old head coach.

Intense from a pre-game feel. And the game was on ESPN.

So you think retaliating by jacking up the score is the way that a 70 year old, who is one of the most revered men in the game, should act? Did you see the "bump"? The player was jogging in a straight line to the locker room and Coach K didn't see the dude. They bumped, but to call that intentional is pushing it. Sure, the kid should have apologized. If Coach K really did jack up the score because of that, then I have lost some respect for him. And this is right before he went on a rant about the press not jumping on Jah - who got into multiple fights and drove +100mph.

sagegrouse
12-04-2015, 10:48 AM
But overall, I'm actually not taking away too much from this win other than we're starting to do a better job on defending in the man-to-man. It's hard to use this win to gauge how we would stack up against a top 15 or 20 opponent. And it doesn't look like we'll get to see that until maybe around the middle of January.

I totally agree, Jipops, and also a coming-out party for Brandon Ingram.

FerryFor50
12-04-2015, 10:51 AM
Intense from a pre-game feel. And the game was on ESPN.

So you think retaliating by jacking up the score is the way that a 70 year old, who is one of the most revered men in the game, should act? Did you see the "bump"? The player was jogging in a straight line to the locker room and Coach K didn't see the dude. They bumped, but to call that intentional is pushing it. Sure, the kid should have apologized. If Coach K really did jack up the score because of that, then I have lost some respect for him. And this is right before he went on a rant about the press not jumping on Jah - who got into multiple fights and drove +100mph.

Are you comparing the ethics of running up the score in a basketball game to getting into fights or doing 100+?

I saw the bump. Hard to judge intent from the shoddy video we saw. And definitely should have apologized.

We also don't know what Crean said to K during their discussion.

brlftz
12-04-2015, 10:53 AM
If Coach K really did jack up the score because of that, then I have lost some respect for him. And this is right before he went on a rant about the press not jumping on Jah - who got into multiple fights and drove +100mph.

my interpretation of the playing time decisions was that we were clicking in a way that K has been wanting to see, and he wanted to let them feel it as long as possible. this basically became a practice where they were able to repeat good habits over and over. it was just Indiana's bad fortune to be the practice fodder.

jeter will get his chance, but the IU game became about locking in those good habits with the current core group.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2015, 10:57 AM
Are you comparing the ethics of running up the score in a basketball game to getting into fights or doing 100+?

I saw the bump. Hard to judge intent from the shoddy video we saw. And definitely should have apologized.

We also don't know what Crean said to K during their discussion.

No, I'm comparing "overreacting" in one situation (ie in the super, crazy hypothetical that Coach K would jack up the score because of a bump) to the media "overreacting" to Jah's situation and Coach K calling them out on it (which he did).

I don't know the reasons for not playing Jeter or walk ons with more time remaining (which Coach K usually does), but I'd be shocked if was because of the bump.

I may be off base - does anyone think the bump had anything to do with the score/playing time? I'd be curious to hear from the old guard whether Coach K would do anything like this.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2015, 10:58 AM
my interpretation of the playing time decisions was that we were clicking in a way that K has been wanting to see, and he wanted to let them feel it as long as possible. this basically became a practice where they were able to repeat good habits over and over. it was just Indiana's bad fortune to be the practice fodder.

jeter will get his chance, but the IU game became about locking in those good habits with the current core group.

This is the best argument I've heard. Makes a lot of sense. Thanks brlftz.

FerryFor50
12-04-2015, 11:01 AM
No, I'm comparing "overreacting" in one situation (ie in the super, crazy hypothetical that Coach K would jack up the score because of a bump) to the media "overreacting" to Jah's situation and Coach K calling them out on it (which he did).

I don't know the reasons for not playing Jeter or walk ons with more time remaining (which Coach K usually does), but I'd be shocked if was because of the bump.

I may be off base - does anyone think the bump had anything to do with the score/playing time? I'd be curious to hear from the old guard whether Coach K would do anything like this.

I don't think it's that "crazy." K and the staff were pretty heated after it happened. And like I said, who knows what Crean said. Crean does have a history of being a bit acerbic.

But at the end of the day, it's an opinion. You think he didn't; I think he might have.

Doesn't matter and doesn't warrant getting into an argument over.

flyingdutchdevil
12-04-2015, 11:04 AM
I don't think it's that "crazy." K and the staff were pretty heated after it happened. And like I said, who knows what Crean said. Crean does have a history of being a bit acerbic.

But at the end of the day, it's an opinion. You think he didn't; I think he might have.

Doesn't matter and doesn't warrant getting into an argument over.

No....no it really doesn't.

Lar77
12-04-2015, 11:48 AM
This is the best argument I've heard. Makes a lot of sense. Thanks brlftz.

I have to agree as well. It was a good game to try out some things against a team that, despite their defensive woes, was a good team.

We clearly were not trying to run up the score because we could have easily scored over 100.

I'm disappointed we didn't see Jeter (or Obi or Vrank), but it's early and he has some development to do. Our top player this year spent a lot of team watching last year.

Speaking of whom, an earlier post made mention of a Grayson "attitude" issue. The first I've heard anything like that. It appears that he has the most competitive attitude on the team and is always encouraging the younger (relatively) guys. My only concern with Grayson's attitude is that he might get hurt by some bozo thinking this is football not basketball (like Maryland did with Nolan a few years ago).

MChambers
12-04-2015, 12:05 PM
The discussion could be was Duke's efficiency on offense more of a product of the team coming together on that end of the floor or was it more because IU simply stinks at that end? I'm inclined to lean towards the latter. We are by no means a great offensive team... still hoping for a natural facilitator/pg, no real post threat, etc...

Much more than anything I'm impressed that we actually prevented them from scoring a field goal for almost 10 minutes in the 2nd half.

But overall, I'm actually not taking away too much from this win other than we're starting to do a better job on defending in the man-to-man. It's hard to use this win to gauge how we would stack up against a top 15 or 20 opponent. And it doesn't look like we'll get to see that until maybe around the middle of January.
I agree with almost all of your points, but want to point out that Duke has been #1 in offensive efficiency all season long, by a good margin. May not be a great offensive team, but it's been pretty darned good. I think it will get better as Ingram, Kennard, and Thornton adjust to college ball.

COYS
12-04-2015, 12:34 PM
I agree with almost all of your points, but want to point out that Duke has been #1 in offensive efficiency all season long, by a good margin. May not be a great offensive team, but it's been pretty darned good. I think it will get better as Ingram, Kennard, and Thornton adjust to college ball.

I second this. To say that Duke is "by no means a great offense team" might be true when you look across seasons and see years in which the overall talent in college was better. But, if we look at this season, Duke is definitely a great offensive team. Grayson is a very efficient volume scorer (guys like him that can take a lot of shots, score a lot of points, and do so while remaining efficient are rare) flanked by two efficient secondary scorers in Amile and Matt. Both of these guys know their roles and are comfortable putting points on the board without needing the ball in their hands. Amile is a beast on the offensive glass, which helps us extend possessions. That is an excellent foundation for a really good offense. More consistent scoring from Luke and Brandon (two things that I think are more or less inevitable, given their talent levels) would easily push us into great offense territory.

Actually, sometimes I think that the style of an offense has more to do with how good we think it is than anything else. I think the eye test and counting stats can reasonably identify a good offense, but it has it's limits. Without efficiency stats, I'm not sure I would have been willing to peg the 2010 team's offense as tops in the land. The team's slow pace and reliance on only three scorers would probably have led me to favor a faster paced team with more options on offense. Similarly, the brilliance of individual players can sometimes hide what is a less remarkable team offense. The 2006 Redick-led offense was solid, but still only 4th in the nation. So far, there is little to indicate that the offense for this season will be any worse than last year's offense, even after losing our top four scorers. But we don't have the ball movement of last year's team nor the fast pace of the Williams/Battier/Dunleavy/Boozer squads so it's harder to recognize just how good the team really is on that end. I know Indiana is a bad defensive team, but great offense should destroy bad defenses. That is exactly what we did. We beat Indiana's defense worse than any other major conference team's offense has beaten another major conference team's defense in five years. We have a long way to go before the season is over, but it is encouraging that Duke has been dominant on offense despite inconsistent play from Luke, Brandon, and Derryck. All we really need to do is prove that we can play great offense against a really good team. The game against UK is a strike against the offense, for sure, but I really think we'll see continued improvement. If we're not ready to label this team as great on offense right now, I think we will be pretty soon.

luvdahops
12-04-2015, 12:38 PM
I agree with almost all of your points, but want to point out that Duke has been #1 in offensive efficiency all season long, by a good margin. May not be a great offensive team, but it's been pretty darned good. I think it will get better as Ingram, Kennard, and Thornton adjust to college ball.

Agreed. Worth noting that per kenPom, Grayson has been absurdly efficient offensively so far this year, and currently rates #2 in the site's NPOY ratings behind Denzel Valentine. Matt and Amile have both been very efficient without requiring a lot of touches, and Luke's rating is pretty solid, too, despite not shooting as well as expected. And the scary thing is, we could get better - and possibly much better - offensively with more consistency from the frosh, as MChambers notes. Funny in hindsight to think that most of the off-season questions marks, at least here on DBR, were around offense.

Saratoga2
12-04-2015, 01:15 PM
The Big Ten/ACC championship went to the Big Ten again by an 8 to 6 differential.This is 7 years in a row, so top to bottom, the ACC hasn't matched up well. Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville all lost theirs so no help from the newbies. Not sure how Notre Dame fared.

MChambers
12-04-2015, 01:16 PM
Agreed. Worth noting that per kenPom, Grayson has been absurdly efficient offensively so far this year, and currently rates #2 in the site's NPOY ratings behind Denzel Valentine. Matt and Amile have both been very efficient without requiring a lot of touches, and Luke's rating is pretty solid, too, despite not shooting as well as expected. And the scary thing is, we could get better - and possibly much better - offensively with more consistency from the frosh, as MChambers notes. Funny in hindsight to think that most of the off-season questions marks, at least here on DBR, were around offense.
You might think that we would learn, based on the last decade, that we should be more worried about the defense.

devildeac
12-04-2015, 01:46 PM
I don't think it's that "crazy." K and the staff were pretty heated after it happened. And like I said, who knows what Crean said. Crean does have a history of being a bit acerbic.

But at the end of the day, it's an opinion. You think he didn't; I think he might have.

Doesn't matter and doesn't warrant getting into an argument over.


No...no it really doesn't.

Pistols at Dawn for you two.

http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/lonerider-pistols-at-dawn/191576/

;)

jimsumner
12-04-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: K and Okafor.

I think the term "rant" is not even close to anything K said or the way he said it.

And I was in the room and I have been in the room when K went on a rant and everyone knew it.

K defended Okafor as a good person and suggested that Okafor needed better handling.

But I don't think anyone heard a rant from K.

Edouble
12-04-2015, 03:07 PM
Amile may be skinny but he much stronger this year than last. He is getting tough rebounds in traffic. His spin move is patented. Amile is playing like a senior leader. Great to see.

If Ingram plays like last night- Duke is at another level. But I don't expect it yet. We saw the brilliance and what he may become. If he has turned the corner- watch out. I also expect Kennard to play much better from here on out. Duke has a lot of pieces. Defense is coming but lots of issues stopping the other team near the rim.

First of all, Amile is jacked up top, in his upper body. His shoulders are huge.

Power comes from the legs, in the area between the knees and the butt... your quads, hams, glutes. I have seen many powerful squatters and deadlifters that have huge upper legs, but fairly pedestrian lower legs. It is tough to know how much muscles Amile has in this upper leg area, due to the baggy shorts that everyone wears today, but I would venture to guess that he has more muscle in this "power area" than he's getting credit for. Watching his play tells me that he is much stronger than just your average "skinny" power forward.

JNort
12-04-2015, 07:56 PM
Wonder what got Grayson and that Indiana guard to start getting rough towards the end. I know at one point they were fairly close to each other (maybe after a foul) and the guy said somthing and Grayson immidialty turned to him took a step and said somthing back before a ref stepped over. Also during the game away from the play the guy pushed Grayson in the back which in turn led to Grayson returning the favor. It was the same guard who tried to steal the ball at the end of the game when Grayson was trying to "pump up the crowd".

jipops
12-04-2015, 08:21 PM
I second this. To say that Duke is "by no means a great offense team" might be true when you look across seasons and see years in which the overall talent in college was better. But, if we look at this season, Duke is definitely a great offensive team. Grayson is a very efficient volume scorer (guys like him that can take a lot of shots, score a lot of points, and do so while remaining efficient are rare) flanked by two efficient secondary scorers in Amile and Matt. Both of these guys know their roles and are comfortable putting points on the board without needing the ball in their hands. Amile is a beast on the offensive glass, which helps us extend possessions. That is an excellent foundation for a really good offense. More consistent scoring from Luke and Brandon (two things that I think are more or less inevitable, given their talent levels) would easily push us into great offense territory.

Actually, sometimes I think that the style of an offense has more to do with how good we think it is than anything else. I think the eye test and counting stats can reasonably identify a good offense, but it has it's limits. Without efficiency stats, I'm not sure I would have been willing to peg the 2010 team's offense as tops in the land. The team's slow pace and reliance on only three scorers would probably have led me to favor a faster paced team with more options on offense. Similarly, the brilliance of individual players can sometimes hide what is a less remarkable team offense. The 2006 Redick-led offense was solid, but still only 4th in the nation. So far, there is little to indicate that the offense for this season will be any worse than last year's offense, even after losing our top four scorers. But we don't have the ball movement of last year's team nor the fast pace of the Williams/Battier/Dunleavy/Boozer squads so it's harder to recognize just how good the team really is on that end. I know Indiana is a bad defensive team, but great offense should destroy bad defenses. That is exactly what we did. We beat Indiana's defense worse than any other major conference team's offense has beaten another major conference team's defense in five years. We have a long way to go before the season is over, but it is encouraging that Duke has been dominant on offense despite inconsistent play from Luke, Brandon, and Derryck. All we really need to do is prove that we can play great offense against a really good team. The game against UK is a strike against the offense, for sure, but I really think we'll see continued improvement. If we're not ready to label this team as great on offense right now, I think we will be pretty soon.

After a sample size of 8 games, only one of which came against a ranked opponent, combined with relying on quite a bit of youth that is not at all like last season's...I'm in no way ready to anoint this group "definitely a great offensive team", even for this year. And if they are indeed already a great offensive team, why would they have to prove it against a good team?

I'm not denying that the potential is there. But at this point it is still potential. It is still very early for efficiency stats to have that much meaning and drawing conclusions based on this last game could be misleading. I'm not convinced right now that Duke is one of the elites this season (whoever that might be), but I'm not resigned to thinking they won't be either. There is still so much ball left to be played with a group that is still figuring itself out. Some forms of adversity are inevitable, we don't know how this team will be able to handle it.

COYS
12-04-2015, 09:31 PM
After a sample size of 8 games, only one of which came against a ranked opponent, combined with relying on quite a bit of youth that is not at all like last season's...I'm in no way ready to anoint this group "definitely a great offensive team", even for this year. And if they are indeed already a great offensive team, why would they have to prove it against a good team?

I'm not denying that the potential is there. But at this point it is still potential. It is still very early for efficiency stats to have that much meaning and drawing conclusions based on this last game could be misleading. I'm not convinced right now that Duke is one of the elites this season (whoever that might be), but I'm not resigned to thinking they won't be either. There is still so much ball left to be played with a group that is still figuring itself out. Some forms of adversity are inevitable, we don't know how this team will be able to handle it.

Fair enough. How about this? Duke has done more than any other team this year to flash the potential for greatness on the offensive end. Sure there is still a lot of ball to be played, but The offense has been about as good as we could have realistically hoped. Brandon's had his struggles, but Grayson and Matt have exceeded expectations. Personally, I'm pretty optimistic about the future, given that coach K teams are generally really good on offense. But you never know.