PDA

View Full Version : Luke Kennard, 3pt Shooting, FT Shooting and some stats.



dyedwab
01-17-2016, 08:22 PM
Figured this would be a good place to continue a conversation about Luke Kennard and his 3pt shooting and whether he is a "good" 3pt shooter or not and what his incredible FT shooting percentage means with respect to his likelihood of being an elite 3 point shooter.

Very quick and dirty look at some relevant stats.

Coming into this season, 7 of the Top 10 FT shooters by percentage in Duke history also played during the 3 pt shooting era. Here they are, along with there career 3pt shooting percentage.

Career FT %Rank 3pt Shooting %
1. J.J. Redick .406
2. Trajan Langdon .426
3. Jon Scheyer, .381
4. Quinn Cook .375
6. Seth Curry .420
9. Christian Laettner .485
10. Ryan Kelly .379

So, what we think is true intuitively seems to be provable, which is that good FT shooter tend to be high level 3pt shooters. Also notable, is that it's not necessarily a straight line. Ryan Kelly (.263) and Quinn Cook (.250) were not good 3pt shooter their freshmen years. And Laettner shot a grand total of 13 3pters in his first two seasons.

I think what this says is that Luke Kennard should be a better 3pt shooter than his current percentages show, but that it's not necessarily an instant correlation.

uh_no
01-17-2016, 08:45 PM
Figured this would be a good place to continue a conversation about Luke Kennard and his 3pt shooting and whether he is a "good" 3pt shooter or not and what his incredible FT shooting percentage means with respect to his likelihood of being an elite 3 point shooter.

Very quick and dirty look at some relevant stats.

Coming into this season, 7 of the Top 10 FT shooters by percentage in Duke history also played during the 3 pt shooting era. Here they are, along with there career 3pt shooting percentage.

Career FT %Rank 3pt Shooting %
1. J.J. Redick .406
2. Trajan Langdon .426
3. Jon Scheyer, .381
4. Quinn Cook .375
6. Seth Curry .420
9. Christian Laettner .485
10. Ryan Kelly .379

So, what we think is true intuitively seems to be provable, which is that good FT shooter tend to be high level 3pt shooters. Also notable, is that it's not necessarily a straight line. Ryan Kelly (.263) and Quinn Cook (.250) were not good 3pt shooter their freshmen years. And Laettner shot a grand total of 13 3pters in his first two seasons.

I think what this says is that Luke Kennard should be a better 3pt shooter than his current percentages show, but that it's not necessarily an instant correlation.

kp talks about it. among the entire country ft sitting is the best predictor of 3pt shooting aside from last year's 3pt shooting

CDu
01-17-2016, 10:04 PM
This came up in another thread, but Kennard shot 2-18 to start his career. Since then, he has shot 24-62 (38.7%). I will not be at all surprised if he ends this season with a 3pt% of 37% or higher.

kAzE
01-17-2016, 10:18 PM
I've been on the Kennard train since game 1, I think he's already our best all-around offensive player. Looking forward to seeing what he can do over the next several games until Amile returns.

Kedsy
01-17-2016, 10:41 PM
This came up in another thread, but Kennard shot 2-18 to start his career. Since then, he has shot 24-62 (38.7%). I will not be at all surprised if he ends this season with a 3pt% of 37% or higher.

After your lecture in the other thread about small sample sizes, I'm surprised to hear this line from you.

Luke's 3-pt shooting cannot be fairly described as "bad at the beginning, then good." He's had three good distance games (12 for 19 in the three games) and in his other 15 games he shot a collective 23% (14 for 61). The three good games were not particularly close to each other (they came in games 7, 12, and 18), and two of them were against Utah State and Elon.

It's possible the Notre Dame breakout game will put him on a hot streak from downtown -- and I have no doubt that in future seasons his three-point shooting will come around and mirror his excellent FT shooting -- but at the moment I don't see any strong reasons to believe, for this season at least, that he's really a 37+% shooter in a 32.5% package.

westwall
01-17-2016, 11:17 PM
After your lecture in the other thread about small sample sizes, I'm surprised to hear this line from you.

Luke's 3-pt shooting cannot be fairly described as "bad at the beginning, then good." He's had three good distance games (12 for 19 in the three games) and in his other 15 games he shot a collective 23% (14 for 61). The three good games were not particularly close to each other (they came in games 7, 12, and 18), and two of them were against Utah State and Elon.

It's possible the Notre Dame breakout game will put him on a hot streak from downtown -- and I have no doubt that in future seasons his three-point shooting will come around and mirror his excellent FT shooting -- but at the moment I don't see any strong reasons to believe, for this season at least, that he's really a 37+% shooter in a 32.5% package.

Sigh! Statistics may be useful, but in this case they deny what we see with our eyes.

uh_no
01-18-2016, 12:47 AM
He's had three good distance games

what the heck is your "good" game metric? He's had 6 games of > 40%

If 40+% doesn't fit your definition of good three point shooting, then I understand why you're so hard to please in this case.

Grayson has had about as many poor long range shooting nights as luke recently, yet I don't hear anyone calling for him to stop shooting. he only has 3 games >40% since the start of december to luke's 5...and nearly as many clunkers.

Ultimately I see your point. either side can morph the data to their side...but the ancillary evidence (the FTs, the history, the green light) does not support your case.

Ultimately we have the same problem that any evaluation of a largely random process has. Is the result we have seen due to a statistical aberration, or is our model wrong? I hold the belief, and have since the very beginning that luke was simply in that streak of tails...and has since regressed towards the mean. Before he got "hot" i had a post detailing how every shooter of near 40% is likely to have a streak as bad as luke's start to the season at least once in their 4 year college career.

so neither of us will be able to prove our case by simply citing irrelevent breakdowns of the three point data. We will view it in a way that supports our beliefs. Unfortunately, to successfully argue your position, you must also explain:
1) why is luke one of the best FT shooters in the country, and yet can't hit threes at a good clip, despite the incredibly strong correlation between the two?
2) how did luke go from being a great high school shooter, winning the national three point contest even, to being a mediocre shooter? Speed of the game? could be, IDK...but for your thesis to be plausible, there needs to be an explanation for this evidence
3) why does he have the green light? Is coach K simply wrong about him? does he not have any other options?

You may have some reasons or hypotheses for any or all of those. but in the world of bayesian probabilities, and given my observations, there is a massively higher confidence that luke is an innately good three point shooter that had a poor streak than anything else.

Kenpom lists the following stats in order of predicting three point shooting percentage in the long run, derived from actual data on a large scal (and incidently deals with the exact same situation we're dealing with here...) http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/villanovas_deceptive_3_point_percentage

1. 3-point percentage
1. 2-point percentage
3. FT percentage
4. 3-point attempt rate
5. Turnovers

Luke was known as a shooter coming out of high school and won the HS three point contest.
Luke has the best 2 point % among guards on the team 57% to grayson's 53%
Luke has the best FT% on the team, and 8th best FT % in the country
Luke has the highest 3 point attempt per minute of the team
luke has the best TO % on the team and is ranked 81st in the country

So in all five indicators, which were empirically determined to be the best way to predict three point shooting in the long run, luke is the best on the team. Is Luke the aberration? maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

But right now, I have 6 strong pieces of evidence in my favor (the 5 best indicators, and a green light from the best coach in history), and you have a a slump in the first few games of a college career. I think even you have to agree, my priors are far stronger. Maybe you've hit on that 1% when all of them are true, and the guy ends up not being a good shooter. But I'll take my chances with the 99%.

Wander
01-18-2016, 01:07 AM
Stephen Curry, the best 3 point shooter in college basketball history, shot under 40% his last year at Davidson. JJ Redick, the second best shooter in college basketball history, only led Duke in 3 point % one out of four seasons.

Duke tends to have lots of good 3 point shooters, which I think has skewed our fanbase's opinion a little bit about what constitutes a good 3 point shooter. Kennard's number of 3 point shots made would rank second on UNC or Kansas, who will both be ranked in the top 3 tomorrow. He's a good shooter.

CDu
01-18-2016, 08:44 AM
After your lecture in the other thread about small sample sizes, I'm surprised to hear this line from you.

Luke's 3-pt shooting cannot be fairly described as "bad at the beginning, then good." He's had three good distance games (12 for 19 in the three games) and in his other 15 games he shot a collective 23% (14 for 61). The three good games were not particularly close to each other (they came in games 7, 12, and 18), and two of them were against Utah State and Elon.

It's possible the Notre Dame breakout game will put him on a hot streak from downtown -- and I have no doubt that in future seasons his three-point shooting will come around and mirror his excellent FT shooting -- but at the moment I don't see any strong reasons to believe, for this season at least, that he's really a 37+% shooter in a 32.5% package.

No, he has had three phenomenal games (50% or more), 2 other good games (40%), and 3 other okay games(33%). He has had 2 low-attempt (<=2) games totalling 1-3. So he has a whopping 8 games of 18 on the not good side. My point was that 4 of them were clustered at the beginning, and that particular cluster was worse than any other bad game cluster since. Since then, he has been a good, though not consistent, shooter.

And again, he is literally 4 makes from having a good %, 6 makes from a very good %. Given the circumstantial evidence that has been provided previously, I think it is much more likely that he is a good shooter who has fallen prey to the sample size demons rather than he has somehow forgotten his shot and yet Coach K has let him keep firing.

Obviously it remains to be seen. He might not continue to rebound from the cold start. Yes, he is a streaky shooter, not a metronomic shooter. But it won't take some phenomenal hot streak for him to get to 37%. He just needs to be 4 shots better than 37% in his next 80 attempts to counteract the 4-shot dropoff. I am not saying he definitely will get there. Just that, given ALL the information (both production and contextual), it would not surprise me at all to see him get to 37% by season's end.

CDu
01-18-2016, 10:24 AM
Kenpom lists the following stats in order of predicting three point shooting percentage in the long run, derived from actual data on a large scal (and incidently deals with the exact same situation we're dealing with here...) http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/villanovas_deceptive_3_point_percentage

1. 3-point percentage
1. 2-point percentage
3. FT percentage
4. 3-point attempt rate
5. Turnovers

Luke was known as a shooter coming out of high school and won the HS three point contest.
Luke has the best 2 point % among guards on the team 57% to grayson's 53%
Luke has the best FT% on the team, and 8th best FT % in the country
Luke has the highest 3 point attempt per minute of the team
luke has the best TO % on the team and is ranked 81st in the country

So in all five indicators, which were empirically determined to be the best way to predict three point shooting in the long run, luke is the best on the team. Is Luke the aberration? maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

I obviously totally agree with your overall point. But it is probably fair to say that the 3-point percentage evidence is the best on the team. I'd say, though, that his historical data (when combined with his current-year data) say he should be a pretty good 3pt shooter though. And when you combine that with the other 4 indicators, the evidence strongly suggest that he is indeed a good 3pt shooter who happens to have had a bad stretch so far in his career.

And to Kedsy's comment about my use of small samples in the evidence, my point was not to say that the 2-18 start is definitely distinct from his more recent 24-62 stretch. My point was a part of a larger point that his sample is very small, and that a small stretch of bad shooting can sway overall results over such a short stretch. Had he merely gone 6-18 instead of 2-18 in that stretch, he's a 37.5% shooter on the season and nobody is questioning his shooting prowess. Are we really going to decide to throw out all of the supporting evidence that suggests he is a good 3pt shooter based on a difference of 4 shots?

If we had no prior information regarding Kennard's shooting ability, I'd be inclined to take a hypothesis that maybe he is a mediocre 3pt shooter. But we aren't lacking that information. We know he was a great shooter in high school. We know he is a great 2pt shooter and FT shooter. We know that Coach K has given him the green light, which suggests that he's hitting them in practice (otherwise, there is just no way Coach K is okay with him continuing to put up such a high volume of 3s). All of that information, in my opinion, outweighs the small sample of attempts he's had so far. I think it's FAR more likely that the 2-18 start is the anomaly, and that he really is the shooter that his past and Coach K's opinion suggests he is.

Or, for another perspective, let's say Kennard goes 11-20 in his next 4 games. He'd then be a 37% shooter for the season. Are you going to throw out your view that he's not a good 3pt shooter simply because of that hot stretch? That's the problem with basing everything on such a small sample of attempts at this point in his career.

In the same way that Battier probably wasn't a bad 3pt shooter as a freshman despite making only 4 of 24 attempts that year. He was a good shooter in high school and a good shooter his sophomore through senior years. So it's far more likely that he was a good shooter in his freshman year who just happened to miss 5-6 more attempts than he should have based on his abilities.

huey
01-18-2016, 10:47 AM
Oooh- can I add another highly anecdotal, low-sample size variable to the debate?

What about the types of shots Luke's been hitting? Against Notre Dame, I swear he must have pulled up at least 30 feet from the basket. Who does he think he is, a Curry? With his lightning quick release, he also puts up shots with a defender pretty darn close. I'd say <50% of his shots are the Matt Jones, set and open, variety. Wish they had SportsVu (or whatever) camera data online for college like the NBA (and that I, well, knew how to manipulate it).

All I know is that he's put up some shots that would've gotten most Duke players, let alone freshman yanked immediately. I hope it's K's faith in his three point shooting.

But the more important question, is he ever going to be as good a three-point shooter as Lance Thomas? I'm not sure what his sample size said about that at Duke...

uh_no
01-18-2016, 10:52 AM
But the more important question, is he ever going to be as good a three-point shooter as Lance Thomas? I'm not sure what his sample size said about that at Duke...

nobody can touch marshall, who I believe shot 100% over the past 2 years

Indoor66
01-18-2016, 11:04 AM
nobody can touch marshall, who I believe shot 100% over the past 2 years

I think you sell him short. IRRC, he is 100% over 5 years.

CDu
01-18-2016, 11:14 AM
I obviously totally agree with your overall point. But it is probably fair to say that the 3-point percentage evidence is the best on the team. I'd say, though, that his historical data (when combined with his current-year data) say he should be a pretty good 3pt shooter though. And when you combine that with the other 4 indicators, the evidence strongly suggest that he is indeed a good 3pt shooter who happens to have had a bad stretch so far in his career.

Typing fail on my part. I meant to say "not the best on the team."

Wander
01-18-2016, 11:19 AM
Typing fail on my part. I meant to say "not the best on the team."

I would like to propose that total number of 3's made (or equivalently, 3's made per game) is the best metric of the "simple stats" to tell how good a 3 point shooter someone is.

CDu
01-18-2016, 11:29 AM
I would like to propose that total number of 3's made (or equivalently, 3's made per game) is the best metric of the "simple stats" to tell how good a 3 point shooter someone is.

On a well-coached team, there is probably a good argument to be made for this as best proxy of the "simple stats". The underlying assumption being that a good coach will not let a bad (or even mediocre) shooter take a lot of 3s. And as such, the fact that a shooter takes enough shots to make a bunch of 3s (without getting benched or being told to stop shooting them) is a good indicator that said shooter is a good 3pt shooter.

I like your outside-the-box thinking.

kAzE
01-18-2016, 11:35 AM
I just go by the eye test. Does the guy have a good form/arc on his jump shot? Does he get it off quickly? Does his shot look comfortable from 25 feet? Is he a good free throw shooter? In all cases, if it's a yes, he's probably a good shooter. All shooters have hot and cold streaks. Even half a season's worth of games is nowhere near a large enough sample size to pass final judgment on anyone's ability to shoot.

gumbomoop
01-18-2016, 12:09 PM
Starting the year out, Luke had to adjust to playing with this team and finding his role, but now he's starting to get comfortable. I think his move into the starting lineup is permanent going forward, and he's probably going to be trusted with more and more minutes given the way he's played.


Kennard is one of the smartest offensive players in the league.

Although this thread focuses on Kennard's 3-pt shooting, I see no reason to post a new thread on a separate Luke-topic. I've imported a couple of previous comments from other threads.

I don't know whether Kennard will continue to start, and sure don't want Thornton to get discouraged, so I'll hope Derryck is getting plenty of encouragement. It's not good if several [all but Derryck?] of our perimeter players are consistently going 37-40 minutes. Although in a sense we're "deeper" on the perimeter than inside, it's not at all deep. But if Derryck can give us a steady 20 mpg, then the other 4 perimeter guys can stick around 35 each, giving all of them a breather in each half. And obviously we need Chase and Sean to provide a few breather minutes for Marshall, too.

On Kennard specifically, I do assume his 3-pt % will gradually rise into the respectable+ range, but from the beginning -- for me, starting with his announcement for Duke -- I was actually more impressed with his many other talents: handle, passing, vision, smarts, court sense, amphibious drive-finishing. I just didn't pay enough attention to his D in high school, so what I judge to be his very solid D adds meaningfully to his already-significant value. Ditto his willingness to be a vocal leader, even as a new guy. It looks as if, for example, he understands where guys are supposed to be on D, and speaks up.

So, never shy to speak up about Luke's talents, I'm inclined to claim, as a friendly amendment to fdd's comment, that Luke is at least among the smartest defensive players, too, or is likely to develop in that direction. He fights through screens some, moves his feet pretty well, gets in good rebounding position. He'll take a few charges by beating his man to the spot. He communicates.

I welcome the change in the way Luke is being used on O, and do wonder whether his being used earlier in the season mostly as a 3-pt "specialist" partially explains his getting off to a woeful start in that role. I think all posters will agree that he is way more than a 3-bomber, and that he makes plays for himself and for others. I rather expect the ball will be in his hands a little more as the season continues. Not that he will morph into our PG, for he isn't a classic PG, in the way that Derryck can become.

But, extending kAzE's comment, I think Luke is more comfortable because his role has changed noticeably since those early games. His minutes have gone up (1) because Amile went down, but also (2) because his overall play blossomed -- strikingly, at times -- the more he used all of his multiple skills.

loran16
01-18-2016, 12:25 PM
People in this thread are making a whole lot out of very little.

First, yes, free throw shooting is a better predictor of future 3 point shooting than current 3 point shooting. This is also true on the next level - it's why many thought (correctly) that Justise Winslow's shooting last year wouldn't translate to the NBA (and it hasn't). And it's why many feel the same about Ingram. But it works in Kennard's favor.

Second - remember, it's not like we didn't know anything about Kennard coming in - we have PRIOR information - that he's a known HS Sharpshooter. This suggests even more that he's likely to improve his shooting #s from range since it's unlikely the talent scouts from before were very wrong.

Third - regression (which is what we are expecting from Kennard) being likely doesn't mean we'll see it in any particular game going forward. Odds are we do see him hit in the high 30s over the rest of the season. That said, he'll have good games and bad, and may have another cold streak. There's no reason to think it will come in the form of multiple games in a row, as Kedsy tried to argue it should.

Fourth- this hasn't mattered THAT much so far. Kennard currently 3rd on the team in possessions used takes the third highest percentage of shots while on the floor. He's being used a lot. And for guys being used around as often as he is or more (being used on 20% of a team's possessions), Kennard is TWELTH in offensive efficiency (Grayson is 7th actually). Kennard has surprisingly shot a very good % from 2 this year - his 57% rate is actually the highest on the team aside from Marshall and Amile! He doesn't turn the ball over despite using the ball so often. And he makes those free throws.

Kennard might be an elite player at Duke if the 3 comes - which it likely will. At the moment, he's REALLY damn good on offense already, and this whole debate is somewhat academic.

Indoor66
01-18-2016, 12:28 PM
People in this thread are making a whole lot out of very little.

First, yes, free throw shooting is a better predictor of future 3 point shooting than current 3 point shooting. This is also true on the next level - it's why many thought (correctly) that Justise Winslow's shooting last year wouldn't translate to the NBA (and it hasn't). And it's why many feel the same about Ingram. But it works in Kennard's favor.

Second - remember, it's not like we didn't know anything about Kennard coming in - we have PRIOR information - that he's a known HS Sharpshooter. This suggests even more that he's likely to improve his shooting #s from range since it's unlikely the talent scouts from before were very wrong.

Third - regression (which is what we are expecting from Kennard) being likely doesn't mean we'll see it in any particular game going forward. Odds are we do see him hit in the high 30s over the rest of the season. That said, he'll have good games and bad, and may have another cold streak. There's no reason to think it will come in the form of multiple games in a row, as Kedsy tried to argue it should.

Fourth- this hasn't mattered THAT much so far. Kennard currently 3rd on the team in possessions used takes the third highest percentage of shots while on the floor. He's being used a lot. And for guys being used around as often as he is or more (being used on 20% of a team's possessions), Kennard is TWELTH in offensive efficiency (Grayson is 7th actually). Kennard has surprisingly shot a very good % from 2 this year - his 57% rate is actually the highest on the team aside from Marshall and Amile! He doesn't turn the ball over despite using the ball so often. And he makes those free throws.

Kennard might be an elite player at Duke if the 3 comes - which it likely will. At the moment, he's REALLY damn good on offense already, and this whole debate is somewhat academic.

...And on this board, that is shocking HOW, prey tell?

jv001
01-18-2016, 04:14 PM
People in this thread are making a whole lot out of very little.

First, yes, free throw shooting is a better predictor of future 3 point shooting than current 3 point shooting. This is also true on the next level - it's why many thought (correctly) that Justise Winslow's shooting last year wouldn't translate to the NBA (and it hasn't). And it's why many feel the same about Ingram. But it works in Kennard's favor.

Second - remember, it's not like we didn't know anything about Kennard coming in - we have PRIOR information - that he's a known HS Sharpshooter. This suggests even more that he's likely to improve his shooting #s from range since it's unlikely the talent scouts from before were very wrong.

Third - regression (which is what we are expecting from Kennard) being likely doesn't mean we'll see it in any particular game going forward. Odds are we do see him hit in the high 30s over the rest of the season. That said, he'll have good games and bad, and may have another cold streak. There's no reason to think it will come in the form of multiple games in a row, as Kedsy tried to argue it should.

Fourth- this hasn't mattered THAT much so far. Kennard currently 3rd on the team in possessions used takes the third highest percentage of shots while on the floor. He's being used a lot. And for guys being used around as often as he is or more (being used on 20% of a team's possessions), Kennard is TWELTH in offensive efficiency (Grayson is 7th actually). Kennard has surprisingly shot a very good % from 2 this year - his 57% rate is actually the highest on the team aside from Marshall and Amile! He doesn't turn the ball over despite using the ball so often. And he makes those free throws.

Kennard might be an elite player at Duke if the 3 comes - which it likely will. At the moment, he's REALLY damn good on offense already, and this whole debate is somewhat academic.

Something the tarcheats know little about. GoDuke!

Listen to Quants
01-18-2016, 04:28 PM
People in this thread are making a whole lot out of very little.

First, yes, free throw shooting is a better predictor of future 3 point shooting than current 3 point shooting. This is also true on the next level - it's why many thought (correctly) that Justise Winslow's shooting last year wouldn't translate to the NBA (and it hasn't). And it's why many feel the same about Ingram. But it works in Kennard's favor.

Second - remember, it's not like we didn't know anything about Kennard coming in - we have PRIOR information - that he's a known HS Sharpshooter. This suggests even more that he's likely to improve his shooting #s from range since it's unlikely the talent scouts from before were very wrong.

Third - regression (which is what we are expecting from Kennard) being likely doesn't mean we'll see it in any particular game going forward. Odds are we do see him hit in the high 30s over the rest of the season. That said, he'll have good games and bad, and may have another cold streak. There's no reason to think it will come in the form of multiple games in a row, as Kedsy tried to argue it should.

Fourth- this hasn't mattered THAT much so far. Kennard currently 3rd on the team in possessions used takes the third highest percentage of shots while on the floor. He's being used a lot. And for guys being used around as often as he is or more (being used on 20% of a team's possessions), Kennard is TWELTH in offensive efficiency (Grayson is 7th actually). Kennard has surprisingly shot a very good % from 2 this year - his 57% rate is actually the highest on the team aside from Marshall and Amile! He doesn't turn the ball over despite using the ball so often. And he makes those free throws.

Kennard might be an elite player at Duke if the 3 comes - which it likely will. At the moment, he's REALLY damn good on offense already, and this whole debate is somewhat academic.

That seems sensible to me.

The 95% confidence interval based on his 3 pt stats thus far (given the usual assumptions, stationarity etc.) is from about 23% to 43%. Pretty wide and no reason in the limited numbers available to believe that there was or wasn't a shakeout period. The priors and FT% are pretty firm.

FerryFor50
01-18-2016, 10:57 PM
After tonight's showing, maybe close this thread? :p

uh_no
01-18-2016, 11:08 PM
After tonight's showing, maybe close this thread? :p

i stand by everyhing i said, and would say it again in the same situation, but MANNN did he look bad tonight...after the first couple, he wasn't even close. it was painful to watch....

The guys looked wiped out there at the end of the game...they played a track meet on saturday and then tried to beat the zone....with 4 of 5 starters playing almost the entire game? oof.

Furniture
01-18-2016, 11:16 PM
Is this thread of analysis paralysis jinxing this young man?

uh_no
01-18-2016, 11:22 PM
Is this thread of analysis paralysis jinxing this young man?

the backdoor weauxf

kAzE
01-19-2016, 12:34 AM
Well, everyone here arguing on Luke's behalf, including myself, looks pretty foolish right about now. He just came off a 30 point game. So he forgot how to play basketball? Not likely . . . he just had no idea how to attack the zone, and since his shot wasn't falling, he just started being very passive, which doesn't help. Not surprised he was benched for Derryck down the stretch. Sigh. Frustrating game. Frustrating week.

Luke will bounce back. Next play . . .

dukelifer
01-19-2016, 01:50 PM
Well, everyone here arguing on Luke's behalf, including myself, looks pretty foolish right about now. He just came off a 30 point game. So he forgot how to play basketball? Not likely . . . he just had no idea how to attack the zone, and since his shot wasn't falling, he just started being very passive, which doesn't help. Not surprised he was benched for Derryck down the stretch. Sigh. Frustrating game. Frustrating week.

Luke will bounce back. Next play . . .

Freshman are like this. They start to think and everything falls apart. Luke showed what he can do and showed he is still learning. Yesterday- Jones, Thornton and Kennard were all very tentative in the second half. Nobody trusted their shot. Thornton finally hit one and his confidence went up. Basketball is a funny game - sometimes it is not your night or your week or your season. This team has talent but the ACC grind is not easy. In a bad stretch right now.

mkirsh
01-19-2016, 04:00 PM
Freshman are like this. They start to think and everything falls apart. Luke showed what he can do and showed he is still learning. Yesterday- Jones, Thornton and Kennard were all very tentative in the second half. Nobody trusted their shot. Thornton finally hit one and his confidence went up. Basketball is a funny game - sometimes it is not your night or your week or your season. This team has talent but the ACC grind is not easy. In a bad stretch right now.

Not just freshman, all players can go through prolonged hot and cold streaks. Remember Kyle Singler's senior year (career 36% from 3), where he shot 40% from 3 for the first 16 games, and then went into a slump shooting only 23% for the final 20 games? Or John Scheyer, a career 38% three point shooter, who shot only 20% during the first 8 games of March his senior year before breaking out against Baylor and WVU? Kennard is definitely struggling, but there is precedent for in-season swings in shooting performance so I think it's too soon to write him off as a bad shooter this year.

Kedsy
01-19-2016, 04:04 PM
Kennard is definitely struggling, but there is precedent for in-season swings in shooting performance so I think it's too soon to write him off as a bad shooter this year.

Well, except Luke isn't "struggling." He had his best game of the season one game ago.

Just as people probably shouldn't have been too over the moon after Luke's performance in the Notre Dame game, we shouldn't get too down about the Syracuse game. Each was just one game.

moonpie23
01-19-2016, 04:07 PM
empty magazine both games...

CDu
01-19-2016, 05:30 PM
Well, except Luke isn't "struggling." He had his best game of the season one game ago.

Just as people probably shouldn't have been too over the moon after Luke's performance in the Notre Dame game, we shouldn't get too down about the Syracuse game. Each was just one game.

Agreed. If one thought Kennard was a good shooter 7 attempts ago, one should still think that way now. If one thought Kennard was a mediocre shooter three games ago, they should still have thought so before yesterday. It will take a lot more shots to figure out what he really is. That said, it sure was a rough night for him.

mkirsh
01-19-2016, 06:32 PM
Well, except Luke isn't "struggling." He had his best game of the season one game ago.

Just as people probably shouldn't have been too over the moon after Luke's performance in the Notre Dame game, we shouldn't get too down about the Syracuse game. Each was just one game.

I'm definitely a believer in shooting your way out of a slump (just ask anyone who's ever played pickup hoops with me) so I'm not on the side of curtailing his attempts. I'm of the opinion that Luke will shoot better than his current 30% over the course of a season and career, so I would call his season so far from behind the line a "struggle" for him. I guess if you believe what he has shown through the first 19 games is what he will be, then he is just performing as expected and neither struggling or over-performing. I think can and will do more.

Indoor66
01-19-2016, 06:46 PM
I'm definitely a believer in shooting your way out of a slump (just ask anyone who's ever played pickup hoops with me) so I'm not on the side of curtailing his attempts. I'm of the opinion that Luke will shoot better than his current 30% over the course of a season and career, so I would call his season so far from behind the line a "struggle" for him. I guess if you believe what he has shown through the first 19 games is what he will be, then he is just performing as expected and neither struggling or over-performing. I think can and will do more.

Who was it that said you miss 100% of the shots you don't take? A shooter's got to shoot.

Kedsy
01-27-2016, 04:02 PM
This came up in another thread, but Kennard shot 2-18 to start his career. Since then, he has shot 24-62 (38.7%). I will not be at all surprised if he ends this season with a 3pt% of 37% or higher.

At this point, I think it's clear the pattern is not, "he shot poorly from three in his first few games then shot well thereafter." Maybe there's no meaningful pattern at all.

But I did notice something that approaches a pattern, with the caveat that three-point shooting is prone to low sample size:

-- In our last exhibition game, against Livingstone, Luke shot 6 for 11 from three. He followed that by only hitting 2 of his next 18 three-point shots (to "start his career").

-- Against Utah State, Luke shot 4 for 5 from three. He followed that by only hitting 3 of his next 18 three-point shots (including first three attempts against Utah).

-- Against Elon, Luke shot 4 for 8 from three. He followed that by only hitting 3 of his next 12 three-point shots.

-- Against Notre Dame, Luke shot 4 for 6 from three. He followed that by only hitting 3 of his next 18 (and counting).

So I know some people say there's no such thing as a streaky shooter, and others will say this is only four data points, blah, blah, blah. But I find it interesting.

kAzE
01-27-2016, 04:10 PM
At this point, I think it's clear the pattern is not, "he shot poorly from three in his first few games then shot well thereafter." Maybe there's no meaningful pattern at all.

But I did notice something that approaches a pattern, with the caveat that three-point shooting is prone to low sample size:

-- In our last exhibition game, against Livingstone, Luke shot 6 for 11 from three. He followed that by only hitting 2 of his next 18 three-point shots (to "start his career").

-- Against Utah State, Luke shot 4 for 5 from three. He followed that by only hitting 3 of his next 18 three-point shots (including first three attempts against Utah).

-- Against Elon, Luke shot 4 for 8 from three. He followed that by only hitting 3 of his next 12 three-point shots.

-- Against Notre Dame, Luke shot 4 for 6 from three. He followed that by only hitting 3 of his next 18 (and counting).

So I know some people say there's no such thing as a streaky shooter, and others will say this is only four data points, blah, blah, blah. But I find it interesting.

Woohoo! Huge game coming up against GTech! (Followed by several games of awful shooting)

Saratoga2
01-28-2016, 09:17 AM
At this point, I think it's clear the pattern is not, "he shot poorly from three in his first few games then shot well thereafter." Maybe there's no meaningful pattern at all.

But I did notice something that approaches a pattern, with the caveat that three-point shooting is prone to low sample size:

-- In our last exhibition game, against Livingstone, Luke shot 6 for 11 from three. He followed that by only hitting 2 of his next 18 three-point shots (to "start his career").

-- Against Utah State, Luke shot 4 for 5 from three. He followed that by only hitting 3 of his next 18 three-point shots (including first three attempts against Utah).

-- Against Elon, Luke shot 4 for 8 from three. He followed that by only hitting 3 of his next 12 three-point shots.

-- Against Notre Dame, Luke shot 4 for 6 from three. He followed that by only hitting 3 of his next 18 (and counting).

So I know some people say there's no such thing as a streaky shooter, and others will say this is only four data points, blah, blah, blah. But I find it interesting.

I agree that Luke has the pattern of a streaky shooter. I asked why previously and surmised one possibility that he seldom gets a shooters roll, in fact many are in the cylinder and come back out. He seems to have to be perfect to make the shot. How often are people perfect in general? My thought, stated previously, is that Luke might try putting more arc on his shot, which increases the angle of approach and provides more leeway for inaccuracy. I pointed to three great shooters who did and currently do as examples. Of course there are naysayer(s) who took exception to my comment and said let the coaches coach. Okay, but if the shooting remains so streaky, on a kid who is the best FT shooter in the ACC then shouldn't we expect he has a higher potential as a three point shooter?

Furniture
01-28-2016, 09:53 AM
Just a thought and it's probably wrong but I wonder if Luke's shooting numbers/form has suffered a bit since he has been starting?

kAzE
01-28-2016, 10:09 AM
Just a thought and it's probably wrong but I wonder if Luke's shooting numbers/form has suffered a bit since he has been starting?

First game he started, he scored 30.

Kedsy
01-28-2016, 11:29 AM
Just a thought and it's probably wrong but I wonder if Luke's shooting numbers/form has suffered a bit since he has been starting?


First game he started, he scored 30.

No, his first start was against Georgia Southern and he shot 1 for 7 from three and scored 11 points.

So far, in five starts, Luke has shot 25.8% from three as a starter (31 attempts) and 31.3% from three as a reserve (67 attempts). Considering the low number of attempts, I don't think there's a true difference between those percentages.

To put forward my own oddball theory, I'd note that the three point line is a foot further in college than it is in high school and I wonder (despite the fact that a lot of Luke's three-point shots are way behind the line) whether that extra foot is making a difference.

CDu
01-28-2016, 11:47 AM
No, his first start was against Georgia Southern and he shot 1 for 7 from three and scored 11 points.

So far, in five starts, Luke has shot 25.8% from three as a starter (31 attempts) and 31.3% from three as a reserve (67 attempts). Considering the low number of attempts, I don't think there's a true difference between those percentages.

To put forward my own oddball theory, I'd note that the three point line is a foot further in college than it is in high school and I wonder (despite the fact that a lot of Luke's three-point shots are way behind the line) whether that extra foot is making a difference.

Your theory is certainly possible. It is also possible that this is still a small sample size randomness issue. He is 5 makes off 35% shooting. even ignoring any prior information, 35% is within the 75% CI, and 40% is within the 95% CI.

cato
01-28-2016, 11:58 AM
No, his first start was against Georgia Southern and he shot 1 for 7 from three and scored 11 points.

So far, in five starts, Luke has shot 25.8% from three as a starter (31 attempts) and 31.3% from three as a reserve (67 attempts). Considering the low number of attempts, I don't think there's a true difference between those percentages.

To put forward my own oddball theory, I'd note that the three point line is a foot further in college than it is in high school and I wonder (despite the fact that a lot of Luke's three-point shots are way behind the line) whether that extra foot is making a difference.

Ah! I have thought that Luke was hitting a very high percentage on shots just a step inside the line -- the kind that are not ideal, but happen after a ball fake, drive, and help rotates over. I assumed it was a pressure issue -- that he was more likely to hit the shot when he wasn't worried about his relative troubles from the bonus sphere. But perhaps it is just adjusting to the location of the line.

January has unfortunately supported my feeling from a few weeks back: at this point, Luke will likely be a 30% 3 point shooter for this year. Hopefully he puts together some high percentage games when it counts, but I suspect it will take an off season of work to really improve his consistency.

House P
01-28-2016, 12:26 PM
Luke was known as a shooter coming out of high school and won the HS three point contest.


Now that this thread has been revived, I thought it might be interesting to look the college performance of past McDonald’s AA three point contest winners. The first contest was in 1989, so there have been 26 winners prior to Luke.

Here’s a summary:

- The median college career 3pt% of the previous winners is 39.2%.

- 65% (17/26) of previous winners have a career 3pt% greater than 37.5%.

- Only 4 of the 26 previous winners have a career 3pt% less than 33.3%.

So, it looks like past winners have generally gone on to be pretty good 3pt shooters in college.

To be clear, while it may be fun to look at past winners, I am not suggesting that 75 or so shots taken in a skills competition is a great predictor of future success for Luke. FWIW, I personally think the biggest indicator that Luke will eventually start hitting a respectable percentage of threes is the fact that, despite his poor 3pt% to date, Luke still seems to have the green light from Coach K. If Coach K thinks he is a good shooter, that’s more than good enough for me.

A couple other notes regarding past winners:

- The highest career 3pt% of the group is Pat Graham at 47.3%.

- The least likely 3 point winner of all time is almost certainly Sharone Wright. Wright won the 1991 contest, but ended his college career shooting 0 for 6 from behind the arc. Wright went on to make only 1 of 12 three point attempts in his NBA career. That's a combined college/NBA career 3pt% of 5.6%.

- Of past winners, JJ Redick went on to attempt the most 3pt shots per game (8.10). The previously mentioned Sharone Wright (0.07 3pa/g) and Pat Graham (1.72 3pa/g) went on to attempt the fewest.

Finally, a quick Duke-related trivia question:

One third of past McD’s AA 3pt contenst winners have gone on to sign with Duke. In addition to Luke and JJ, kudos to anyone who can name the other 7 Duke winners without looking it up.

(I'd post the answer using a "spoilers" tag, but I am still pretty new to posting here and haven't figured out how to do that yet).

Doria
01-28-2016, 12:34 PM
Hopefully he puts together some high percentage games when it counts, but I suspect it will take an off season of work to really improve his consistency.

I agree that I expect we'll see real consistency from outside more likely next year, but I am very willing to take a few ... or more... "randomly" consistent games from 3 down the back end of our season. :)

The most serious complaint I have right now is that he seems a bit gun shy at the end games when we've needed 3-point shots, and he's passed on some arguably open (relatively) ones. I'm very okay with him shooting the ball in the end game, even when his shot hasn't seemed to be falling. Apropos of this, though, I've noticed Thornton seems to be willing to shoot in those situations, and the past few games has made a couple big shots, albeit in losing efforts.

(Seriously, though, I'm in the camp that it's really just a matter of when, and until then, Luke's more than lived up to my admittedly high expectations coming into the season, as someone who also followed him a little in HS. Just seems like a great kid, and rather than get down about his 3-pt. shot, he's used the opportunity to work on other facets of his game.)

Indoor66
01-28-2016, 12:40 PM
My theory is that he is about 19 years old, trying really hard, has some nerves, tries really hard, misses some shots, has some nerves, tries really hard and he will settle down with time. That said, people on internet boards will over analyze the young man to death. :cool:

Doria
01-28-2016, 12:46 PM
House P, I'm willing to bet one is Trajan Langdon. Not sure on the others. Maybe Duhon, but the memory isn't what it used to be (and it wasn't much!).

CDu
01-28-2016, 12:50 PM
Finally, a quick Duke-related trivia question:

One third of past McD’s AA 3pt contenst winners have gone on to sign with Duke. In addition to Luke and JJ, kudos to anyone who can name the other 7 Duke winners without looking it up.

(I'd post the answer using a "spoilers" tag, but I am still pretty new to posting here and haven't figured out how to do that yet).

Kudos to you on the analysis! And fun trivia question. I have four that I'm fairly sure about: Battier, Kelly, Irving, Duhon. Still working on the others. Maybe these two won it? Langdon and Collins.

ETA: Ahh, got 6 of the 7. Had to look to get the 7th: James. Whoops, got one of the above wrong: Sulaimon, not Irving. 5 of 7 ain't bad.

fraggler
01-28-2016, 12:51 PM
Now that this thread has been revived, I thought it might be interesting to look the college performance of past McDonald’s AA three point contest winners. The first contest was in 1989, so there have been 26 winners prior to Luke.

Here’s a summary:

- The median college career 3pt% of the previous winners is 39.2%.

- 65% (17/26) of previous winners have a career 3pt% greater than 37.5%.

- Only 4 of the 26 previous winners have a career 3pt% less than 33.3%.

So, it looks like past winners have generally gone on to be pretty good 3pt shooters in college.

To be clear, while it may be fun to look at past winners, I am not suggesting that 75 or so shots taken in a skills competition is a great predictor of future success for Luke. FWIW, I personally think the biggest indicator that Luke will eventually start hitting a respectable percentage of threes is the fact that, despite his poor 3pt% to date, Luke still seems to have the green light from Coach K. If Coach K thinks he is a good shooter, that’s more than good enough for me.

A couple other notes regarding past winners:

- The highest career 3pt% of the group is Pat Graham at 47.3%.

- The least likely 3 point winner of all time is almost certainly Sharone Wright. Wright won the 1991 contest, but ended his college career shooting 0 for 6 from behind the arc. Wright went on to make only 1 of 12 three point attempts in his NBA career. That's a combined college/NBA career 3pt% of 5.6%.

- Of past winners, JJ Redick went on to attempt the most 3pt shots per game (8.10). The previously mentioned Sharone Wright (0.07 3pa/g) and Pat Graham (1.72 3pa/g) went on to attempt the fewest.

Finally, a quick Duke-related trivia question:

One third of past McD’s AA 3pt contenst winners have gone on to sign with Duke. In addition to Luke and JJ, kudos to anyone who can name the other 7 Duke winners without looking it up.

(I'd post the answer using a "spoilers" tag, but I am still pretty new to posting here and haven't figured out how to do that yet).
Fun stuff! I know that Langdon, Battier, Duhon, and Ryan Kelly won it. There has to be one between Kelly and Kennard. Can't be Dawkins because he came early and wasn't an official AA. Rasheed?

Saratoga2
01-28-2016, 01:24 PM
Fun stuff! I know that Langdon, Battier, Duhon, and Ryan Kelly won it. There has to be one between Kelly and Kennard. Can't be Dawkins because he came early and wasn't an official AA. Rasheed?

Kelly was one of them

CDu
01-28-2016, 01:25 PM
Kelly was one of them

Per the trivia question post itself, Kennard was a winner but is not included in the question (he and Redick were the two referenced explicitly in the post).

sagegrouse
01-28-2016, 01:28 PM
I believe Ricky Price was a winner.

luburch
01-28-2016, 01:32 PM
No, his first start was against Georgia Southern and he shot 1 for 7 from three and scored 11 points.

So far, in five starts, Luke has shot 25.8% from three as a starter (31 attempts) and 31.3% from three as a reserve (67 attempts). Considering the low number of attempts, I don't think there's a true difference between those percentages.

To put forward my own oddball theory, I'd note that the three point line is a foot further in college than it is in high school and I wonder (despite the fact that a lot of Luke's three-point shots are way behind the line) whether that extra foot is making a difference.

Could be. Someone else suggested that he might be better shooting off the dribble than he is catching and shooting and he doesn't have the ball in his hands as much as he did in high school. It's certainly possible.

CDu
01-28-2016, 01:53 PM
I believe was a winner.

Ricky Price was not a 3pt winner. He was a slam dunk winner though.

devildeac
01-28-2016, 05:05 PM
Well, you can add Singler, too, because even though he didn't win the contest (IIRC), when someone asked K what position Kyle played he replied, "winner."

;)

House P
01-28-2016, 05:54 PM
Finally, a quick Duke-related trivia question:

One third of past McD’s AA 3pt contenst winners have gone on to sign with Duke. In addition to Luke and JJ, kudos to anyone who can name the other 7 Duke winners without looking it up.

(I'd post the answer using a "spoilers" tag, but I am still pretty new to posting here and haven't figured out how to do that yet).

Highlight the text below to see the answer to the trivia question.

1. Luke Kennard (2015)
2. JJ Redick (2002)
3. Rasheed Suliamon (2012)
4. Ryan Kelly (2009)
5. Chris Duhon (2000)
6. Shane Battier (1997)
7. Nate James (1996)
8. Trajan Langdon (1994)
9. Chris Collins (1992)


Of the 8 winners prior to Luke, the only Duke winners who failed to make at least 37.5% of their career three pointers are Nate James (33.5%) and Chris Duhon (32.1%).

Kedsy
01-28-2016, 06:05 PM
Of the 8 winners prior to Luke, [only two] Duke winners... failed to make at least 37.5% of their career three pointers...

Two out of eight sounds like a lot to me. That said, I'm hopeful Luke's career three-point percentage will exceed 37%. I'm just not convinced it'll happen this season.

jv001
01-28-2016, 07:25 PM
Two out of eight sounds like a lot to me. That said, I'm hopeful Luke's career three-point percentage will exceed 37%. I'm just not convinced it'll happen this season.

I thought Matt Jones was a winner? GoDuke!

gumbomoop
03-02-2016, 10:06 PM
We've been saying this about Kennard all year and every time someone mentions it I remember there was another Duke player who some thought had a little sideways spin on the ball that caused more shots to rim out. I can't for the life of me remember who that was, can anybody help me out? I'm pretty certain it was someone in the last 5 years.

Anyways, any shot docs think Luke's shot has a funky spin that's causing all these halfway down 3's to bounce out?

[Imported from Wake postgame thread, as it's all Kennard.]

I think Luke, despite his inconsistency, has been a pleasant surprise to lots of people on EK. I've been just a little bit disappointed, as I was so high on him coming in. My high expectation was based not so much on his outside shooting as on his handle, court sense, vision, driving, passing, smarts. Still, he has not shot as well as I assumed he would.

I hadn't noticed any funky spin, but maybe it's there. But I continue to think Luke's game has suffered simply from the understandable circumstance that Brandon and Grayson have the ball a lot. As they should, as they both do marvelous things. But the fact that Grayson and Brandon often take their man one-on-one, plus Derryck's gradual improvement, means that Luke just doesn't have the ball that much. Too often -- if, again, understandably -- he's assigned to lurk outside waiting for a pass to launch a 3.

That's not his game. He needs more touches to be in rhythm; to drive to the rim and shoot effectively with either hand; dish it to [alas, sometimes unsuspecting] Marshall or Chase; or whip it back out to a teammate for an open 3. But Grayson and Brandon need the ball, too, and no one could argue they've been ineffective. Derryck, for all his improvement, doesn't immediately impress as a classic PG who gets others involved. I think Luke would perform that "PG-like" job a little better, and in doing so shoot 3s better, too. But he's a bit of a victim of circumstances.

Olympic Fan
03-03-2016, 12:38 AM
Luke Kennard vs. the preseason ACC player of the year

I was just checking some numbers and saw something interesting -- the ACC numbers after 16 games for Duke and UNC (not counting the earlier Duke or UNC games this week) for Luke Kennard vs. Marcus Paige.

Fascinating comparison. In ACC play:

Luke is averaging 12.8 ppg (in an average of 27.7 minutes a game) ... Paige is averaging 11.4 ppg (in an average of 32.7 minutes a game)

Luke is shooting 46.7 percent from the floor ... Paige is averaging 36.9 percent from the floor

Luke is hitting 35.8 from 3-point range ... Paige is hitting 30.2 percent from 3-point range

Luke is hitting 84.4 from the foul line ... Paige is hitting 72.5 from the foul line.

Paige does have more assists (52 to 27), but Kennard has more rebound (48 to 39) and less turnovers (13 to 23).

Now, as I said, these numbers don't reflect the UNC-Syracuse game or the Duke-Wake game ... both players had terrible shooting nights, so I doubt the relative numbers change very much.

It just goes to show that for all his problems, Kennard has been a better offensive player in ACC play that the preseason ACC player of the year.

PS I just checked the KenPom numbers and he has Paige with a 117.3 offensive rating on an 18.2 useage rate ... Luke is 124.0 (almost the same as Brice Johnson) on a 20.2 percent useage rate.

And that's for the entire season ... Pom doesn't break it down for conference play, but Kennard has been MORE effective in ACC play, while Paige has been LESS effective in conference.

Still, what do you want to bet that Paige earns second-team All-ACC honors?

Wander
03-03-2016, 01:49 AM
Luke Kennard vs. the preseason ACC player of the year


Agree with this take... it's just so strange to me. I remember him being actually good two years ago. He's gotten worse in basically every category, even things that don't really make sense like free throw percentage. I don't think the injury fully explains it. Who was the last Duke player that actually regressed? I remember thinking Sulaimon was not as good as I expected last year, but there was obviously behind the scenes stuff going on. Paulus lost minutes late in his career, but I'd argue that was due to being overrated as a freshman surrounded by JJ and Shelden, not actual regression. I can't think of a Duke example of this.

uh_no
03-03-2016, 02:13 AM
Agree with this take... it's just so strange to me. I remember him being actually good two years ago. He's gotten worse in basically every category, even things that don't really make sense like free throw percentage. I don't think the injury fully explains it. Who was the last Duke player that actually regressed? I remember thinking Sulaimon was not as good as I expected last year, but there was obviously behind the scenes stuff going on. Paulus lost minutes late in his career, but I'd argue that was due to being overrated as a freshman surrounded by JJ and Shelden, not actual regression. I can't think of a Duke example of this.

it's the carolina way...

mr. synellinden
03-03-2016, 02:38 AM
Agree with this take... it's just so strange to me. I remember him being actually good two years ago. He's gotten worse in basically every category, even things that don't really make sense like free throw percentage. I don't think the injury fully explains it. Who was the last Duke player that actually regressed? I remember thinking Sulaimon was not as good as I expected last year, but there was obviously behind the scenes stuff going on. Paulus lost minutes late in his career, but I'd argue that was due to being overrated as a freshman surrounded by JJ and Shelden, not actual regression. I can't think of a Duke example of this.

Off the top of my head, Singler's senior year was not as good statistically as his junior year - at least shooting-wise.

Same is true for Thomas Hill's senior year.

Paulus definitely regressed after his freshman year.

Ricky Price.

Of course there are many more Zoubekian examples than the reverse.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-03-2016, 06:52 AM
Agree with this take... it's just so strange to me. I remember him being actually good two years ago. He's gotten worse in basically every category, even things that don't really make sense like free throw percentage. I don't think the injury fully explains it. Who was the last Duke player that actually regressed? I remember thinking Sulaimon was not as good as I expected last year, but there was obviously behind the scenes stuff going on. Paulus lost minutes late in his career, but I'd argue that was due to being overrated as a freshman surrounded by JJ and Shelden, not actual regression. I can't think of a Duke example of this.

It is very strange. Stranger yet, it puts me in an unfamiliar situation of (clearly not this weekend or for the rest of the season, but in the grand scheme of things) rooting for the guy. I have always respected and enjoyed Paige on and off the court. By all accounts he is what you would want a student athlete to be - good citizen, diligent and sharp student, and fierce competitor.

For most of his career at UNC he was also "guy you didn't want with the ball in a close game" because he was tough and clutch. I felt for him last year, carrying that team while playing through injury.

Anyway, Paige's season has certainly not gone the way he hoped, ever since he wasn't able to participate in his "homecoming" at Northern Iowa, with memorable repurcussiona.

He sure doesn't have the build of an NBA player, but I suspect he will do well in life.

Now, let's go crush his spirit and knock UNC off that top seed line!

LET'S GO DUKE! LET'S GO DUKE!!!

johnb
03-03-2016, 08:53 AM
Re Kennard: he's a great shooter. Just watch him. Quick release. Pure form. Takes reasonable shots. Not sure how to quantify misses, but many of his seem to just rim out--very few clangs. I doubted that Grayson would become a star this year, and he's been awesome. My hunch is that Kennard will make much the same jump next year.

Indoor66
03-03-2016, 09:38 AM
Re Kennard: he's a great shooter. Just watch him. Quick release. Pure form. Takes reasonable shots. Not sure how to quantify misses, but many of his seem to just rim out--very few clangs. I doubted that Grayson would become a star this year, and he's been awesome. My hunch is that Kennard will make much the same jump next year.

It appears to me he puts a little too much oomph on his layups. The same way Marshall does. Check out Grayson - he lays in on the board softly when he doesn't punch it. Additionally, Grayson has large hands and can control the ball better than Kennard does.

azzefkram
03-03-2016, 10:19 AM
It appears to me he puts a little too much oomph on his layups. The same way Marshall does. Check out Grayson - he lays in on the board softly when he doesn't punch it. Additionally, Grayson has large hands and can control the ball better than Kennard does.

Luke (63.2%) is shooting about the same % at the rim as Grayson (64.6%) and he is our best 2pt jumper (46.3%) shooter (2nd somewhat surprisingly is Matt). Luke's issue has been his 3pt shot which aside from his recent cold streak has improved in conference play.

Olympic Fan
03-03-2016, 10:49 AM
Off the top of my head, Singler's senior year was not as good statistically as his junior year - at least shooting-wise.

Same is true for Thomas Hill's senior year.

Paulus definitely regressed after his freshman year.

Ricky Price.

Of course there are many more Zoubekian examples than the reverse.

Kyle Singler's 3-point shooting did drop from 39.9 as a junior to 32.1 as a senior. But his overall shooting went UP from 41.5 to 43.0. His FT shooting also went up ...

Thomas Hill's 3-point shooting also dropped -- after being over 40 percent as a soph and junior, he dropped to 35.4 as a senior. His overall percentage also dropped from 53.4 to 47.9

Paulus shot 31.4 on 3's and 37.3 overall as a freshman ... he shot higher in both categories in every year after that -- his playing time did fluctuate in his later years due to a series of injuries. Not sure if that qualifies as "regression"

Price definitely flopped as a senior, but that had more to do with missing the first semester due to an academic suspension, then not finding a role when he finally rejoined the team.

None of these examples even remotely corresponds to Paige's collapse as a shooter this season.