PDA

View Full Version : Phase 0 -- 2017-18, CTC and Exhibitions



Kedsy
10-12-2017, 06:36 PM
Rev up the hype machine, stomp your feet on the bleachers, and chant "airball" at someone. It's time for the first Phase report of the 2017-18 Duke basketball season, and we're all feeling good.

The phase includes CTC and our two exhibitions. To make the post manageable, I'm splitting it into two parts.

Without further ado, let's go phasing!

(1) HEALTH!

After last season, could there be any doubt that this would be first? I sure hope not. In fact, I'm going to officially petition the DBR powers-that-be that "Health" needs to be the first topic in every phase report. Ever.

Javin DeLaurier missed some practices last week, but his condition is not supposed to be serious. And I imagine Duke nation will just have to perpetually hold its breath every time Grayson Allen flings his body into mortal danger (which I predict will be approximately every play). But as far as I can tell (I'm knocking vigorously on wood, though I strongly suspect it's only wood veneer), the team seems in pretty good health at the moment.

As far as our ability to sustain injuries, we appear to have plenty of depth in the frontcourt but our perimeter is perilously thin. If the worst happens and either Trevon Duval or Grayson Allen get injured, we could be in major you-know-what.

But let's not think about that. Here's hoping this topic stays on the back-burner.


(2) HEALTH!!

In deference to the weauxf gods, who saw fit to derail our 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016, and (especially) 2017 seasons with critical injuries to important players, I'm making this topic both first and second. Gotta take this seriously, right?


(3) HEALTH!!!

Enough?


(4) ROTATION

As most of you probably know, I came up with a system which blends recruiting ranking and experience to predict Duke's rotation under Coach K. The rules are as follows (slightly tweaked this year to take into account our recent low-ranked recruits):

Freshmen players are assigned a number from 1 to 4 (lower being better), based on their RSCI recruting ranking, as follows:

1 to 10: 1
11 to 20: 2
21 to 35: 3
36 to 150: 4
151 to 250: 5
251+: 6

Non-freshmen players take their freshman number and subtract half a point (0.5) for each year they've been in college. Redshirt years count as a year in college, although if the player is away from the team (like Andre Dawkins in 2013), this could be debatable. A redshirt year due to a transfer counts an extra half point, because if the player hadn't exceeded the expectations of his recruiting ranking, Coach K probably wouldn't have accepted him as a transfer (Sean Obi notwithstanding).

Assuming a 7-man rotation, the theory is that the seven guys who play the most minutes will be the perimeter players with the four lowest numbers and the interior players with the three lowest numbers. If we have five perimeter guys with numbers of 2.5 or lower, the rotation should be 8 guys (5 perimeter, 3 interior).

In cases of ties, I generally go with the player who has more experience. If two players from the same class are tied for the last spot in the rotation, it's impossible to predict in advance which will be chosen, but if history is our guide, whoever wins the competition will play rotation minutes and the other won't play very much.

OK, off the bat, I'm going to dismiss the idea of a greater than 7-man rotation (Sorry, Sage). I know some people think it should happen every year, but (spoiler alert) it almost never does (and when it does, it's only when we have five or more perimeter guys with a "score" of 2.5 or better). Also, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm talking about guys with at least 10 mpg. Less than that and you're not in the rotation, per my definition. If you don't like that definition, sorry but I guess you ought to skip to the next section.

This year, absent injury or a major surprise, the top six in Duke's 7-man rotation are fairly obvious: Trevon Duval, Grayson Allen, Gary Trent, Marvin Bagley, Wendell Carter, and Marques Bolden. So in my opinion, the only question is who's going to be the 7th man?

There are two possible answers to this question, and which way we go is dependent on the answer to another question: whether one of our big men (i.e., Marvin Bagley or Javin DeLaurier) is capable of playing on the perimeter for part of the game? If either of them can do this, the system predicts a rotation as follows:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Trevon Duval (1.0), Grayson Allen (1.5), Gary Trent (2.0), Javin DeLaurier (2.5)

Predicted interior rotation: Marvin Bagley (1.0), Wendell Carter (1.0), Marques Bolden (1.5)

Other perimeter players: Jordan Tucker (4.0), Alex O'Connell (4.0), Jack White (4.5), Jordan Goldwire (6.0)
Other interior players: Antonio Vrankovic (4.0)

If neither Javin nor Marvin are capable of 10 to 15 mpg on the wing, then Javin would move into "other interior players," and either Jordan T or Alex (can't know which at this point) would move to the fourth spot in the "predicted perimeter rotation."

At the moment, I'm guessing that either Javin or Marvin will be able to play 10 to 15 mpg on the wing. We may know more on this point after this phase is over.


(5) INEXPERIENCE

No way to sugarcoat it. This is the least experienced team Coach K has ever had. How much does that matter? Well, that's less clear.

Here's a table of every Duke team under Coach K, along with how many upperclassmen played 300+ minutes in the season vs. how many underclassmen did so:



Year jr/sr fr/so fr in top 6 NCAA finish
2018 1 6 4 ?
1999 2 6 1 2
2008 2 6 1 32
2001 2 5 1 1
2004 2 5 1 4
1984 2 5 1 32
2007 2 5 2 64
1983 2 5 4 n/a
2016 2 4 3 16
1998 3 6 3* 8
2011 3 6 1* 16
1987 3 5 0 16
2017 3 4 2 32
2014 3 4 1 64
2000 3 3 3 16
2002 3 3 1 16
1981 3 3 0 NIT
1991 4 5 1 1
1992 4 5 0 1
2015 4 5 3 1
1990 4 5 1 2
2003 4 4 2 16
1995 4 4 3 n/a
2006 4 3 2 16
1996 4 3 1 64
1982 4 2 1 n/a
1988 5 4 0 4
1993 5 4 0 32
2010 5 3 0 1
2013 5 3 1 8
2012 5 3 1 64
1986 5 2 1 2
1994 5 2 1 2
1985 5 2 0 32
2009 6 3 0 16
1997 6 3 0 32
1989 6 2 1 4
2005 6 1 1 16


* I'm counting Kyrie Irving (2011) and Elton Brand (1998) as "top 6," even though (due to injury) they weren't in the top 6 based on minutes played.

While no Duke team in at least the last 37 years had only one upperclassman play 300+ minutes, as this year's edition will, there have been eight Duke teams under Coach K that had just two upperclassmen, and three of those eight made the Final Four, including the powerhouse 1999 team and the 2001 national champions.

The obvious conclusion is that talent can overcome experience. For example, all three of the above-mentioned Final Four teams had four or more players who were top 15 coming out of high school.

This year's team has five (Trevon, Marvin, Wendell, Gary, and Marques). Since the dawn of the RSCI 20 years ago, it will be Duke's ninth team with four or more top 15 players on its roster:



Year jr/sr fr/so top 15 top 25 top 35 top 100 NCAA finish
2004 2 5 5 6 7 7 4
2017 3 4 5 8 10 10 32
2018 1 6 5 6 7 9 ?
2015 4 5 4 6 8 9 1
1999 2 6 4 8 9 9 2
2003 4 4 4 6 8 9 16
2009 6 3 4 7 8 12 16
2001 2 5 4 6 7 7 1
2006 4 3 4 6 6 9 16


This year's team will be only the third Duke team with five top 15 players, though of course one of those teams was last year's, proving that talent doesn't guarantee anything, either. For what it's worth, we've only had four teams with two or fewer top 15 players, including the 2012 and 2014 first round busts, but also the very experienced 2013 Elite Eight team and the 2010 national champions, perhaps showing the value of upperclassmen.

It's also worth noting that the youth on the 1999, 2001, and 2004 teams were mostly sophomores, rather than freshmen (each of those teams had just one freshman in the rotation). The only other Duke team under Coach K with four freshmen in its top 6 players (based on minutes played) was the 1983 team that went 11-17.

This will be just the eleventh Duke team under Coach K with multiple freshmen in the top 6 (four of those eleven have come in the past four seasons). It's a mixed bag:

4: 2018, 1983
3: 2015, 1998, 2016, 2000, 1995
2: 2006, 2003, 2017, 2007

So the jury's still out on the effect of our lack of experience. This phase won't provide the answer.


(6) HYPE

Like last year's team, this season's edition is getting a lot of hype. That happens when you have a returning All-American and three of the country's best seven freshmen. But can we expect them to be as good as advertised?

Let's first take a look how these sorts of youngsters have fared in the past. For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to look at minutes per game, because it gives an indication of (a) whether Coach K thought the player was deserving of playing time; (b) whether conditioning (often an issue for young players) limited playing time; and (c) whether foul trouble (again something with which young players often have trouble) limited playing time. For the purposes of this discussion, I've split the players into five groups -- top 10 interior players; 2nd 10 (11 to 20) interior players; top 10 perimeter players; 2nd 10 perimeter players; top 20 swing forwards (i.e., players who can probably best be described as SF but who played a lot of PF at Duke) (there were only two 2nd 10 swing forwards, so I lumped them in with the others). Here's the data:

TOP 10 INTERIOR PLAYERS


Player Rank Frosh min Soph min
J Okafor 1 30.1
J McRoberts 1 24.5 35.3
C Boozer 8 23.7 25.6
S Williams 8 19.2 26.0
H Giles 2 11.5
M Bagley 1 ?
W Carter 7 ?


The only exception to heavy usage was Harry Giles, whose injuries obviously affected him. The only such freshman who played 30+ mpg was Jahlil Okafor, but (again) times have changed, though it's also possible there's a difference between top-ranked players and, e.g., 8th ranked players. I think we can expect 30+ mpg from Marvin Bagley and 25+ from Wendell Carter.

SECOND 10 INTERIOR PLAYERS


Player Rank Frosh min Soph min
Mas Plumlee 18 14.1 25.6
L Thomas 20 14.0 18.5
S Randolph 14 10.6 19.2
C Jeter 14 7.1 14.9
M Bolden 11 5.8 ?
R Kelly 14 5.7 20.1
C Sanders 16 4.2 9.6


Looking at this, Marques Bolden's freshman numbers were not really out of line, especially considering he was slowed by his various injuries. Looking at the sophomore numbers for this group, I think we can expect 20+ mpg from Marques.

TOP 10 PERIMETER PLAYERS


Player Rank Frosh min Soph min
J Williams 3 34.0 31.8
Ty Jones 7 33.9
A Rivers 2 33.2
C Duhon 7 27.8 35.1
K Irving 2 27.5
G Henderson 10 19.3 26.2
T Duval 5 ?


Gerald Henderson was at the cusp of the 2nd 10 and also had asthma/conditioning problems as a freshman. Kyrie Irving also would have been higher if not for his injury. It seems clear Trevon Duval will be well over 30 mpg, probably in the 34 mpg range.

SECOND 10 PERIMETER PLAYERS


Player Rank Frosh min Soph min
G Paulus 13 32.3 32.4
J Redick 11 30.7 31.1
R Sulaimon 12 29.2 24.9
D Thornton 13 26.0
F Jackson 14 24.9
C Maggette 16 17.7
E Williams 15 15.2
N Smith 18 14.7 21.6
G Trent 14 ?


This group ranges from 15 to 32 mpg, with those closer to 10th being in the upper 20s or lower 30s. I'd estimate Gary Trent's minutes in the 28 to 32 range.



Player Rank Frosh min Soph min
B Ingram 4 34.6
J Tatum 3 33.3
L Deng 2 31.1
J Parker 3 30.7
K Singler 6 28.6 32.2
J Winslow 13 29.1
D Nelson 18 19.2 21.5


We don't really have a player like this on Duke's roster this season, but if we did he'd be looking at minutes in the 30s.

What conclusions can we draw from the above analysis? Based on history, it seems likely all four freshman plus sophomore Marques Bolden should be able to play the minutes needed and expected of them. How does that translate into performance? In my view, if Coach K is willing to play a guy 20+, 25+, or 30+ mpg, that guy is probably performing accordingly. If they're not performing, he tends to play someone else.

But why should it be different than our four hyped freshmen from last season? First, Jayson Tatum and Frank Jackson fit right in to the above data. Second, Harry Giles was clearly hampered by injury. And third, based on the above data, those who expected Marques Bolden to carry a significantly heavier load had unrealistic expectations. Based on the data, he was never going to play much more than 10 mpg on last year's team and he had multiple injuries to boot (so to speak).

OK, great, they're all going to play. So how good will the team be? To try to answer that, I've adapted my above-mentioned system to rank this year's team among Duke teams of this millennium, by multiplying each player's score by the percentage of the team's minutes he played, and then adding them all together. For the purpose of this exercise, I've made an educated guess as to each player's minutes, as follows (and I'm assuming either Marvin or Javin can play 10 to 15 mpg at SF):

GUESS
Grayson Allen: 36 mpg
Trevon Duval: 34 mpg
Marvin Bagley: 30 mpg
Gary Trent: 30 mpg
Wendell Carter: 25 mpg
Marques Bolden: 23 mpg
Javin DeLaurier: 14 mpg
Jordan Tucker: 3 mpg
Alex O'Connell: 2 mpg
Jack White: 2 mpg
Antonio Vrankovic: 1 mpg

Here's how that roster and minute distribution would rank:



Year Score NCAAT
2001 112.86 1
2004 120.70 4
2006 123.50 16
2009 127.76 16
2002 133.69 16
2010 138.01 1
2008 142.33 32
2011 148.61 16
2018 152.80 ?
2000 154.09 16
2003 155.17 16
2005 162.14 16
2015 168.87 1
2017 176.05 32
2007 178.38 64
2013 183.29 8
2014 185.19 64
2012 188.23 64
2016 204.66 16


This comparison isn't entirely apples-to-apples, because to rank really high on this list you have to have top 10 players staying multiple years, or at least top 20 seniors (Grayson was #24, so for these purposes he's not a top 20 senior), and that really doesn't happen so much any more. But defining talent as a blend of ability and experience, this year's team should be more talented than any Duke team since Coach K embraced the one-and-done culture, significantly better than even the 2015 team.

So we've got that going for us.

Kedsy
10-12-2017, 06:37 PM
(7) OFFENSE

This year's team looks a lot different than past Duke teams, especially the recent past. We're a lot bigger, we don't really have a swing forward (who most would expect to be a SF but can move up to PF and allow Duke to play small). And most of all, we don't have a lot of shooters.

Last season, we had five players who attempted at least 3.5 threes per game (led by Grayson Allen's 6.5). This year, we'll probably be lucky to have two guys put up that many. Marvin Bagley and/or Javin DeLaurier may heave up one or two a game (but they may not). Marques Bolden and Wendell Carter might put up one or two a season. Trevon Duval reportedly can't hit from out there. And none of Jordan Tucker, Alex O'Connell, or Jack White figure to play enough to take many threes. That leaves us with Grayson Allen and Gary Trent. And the scouting report on Gary is that he's a "streaky" shooter. Supposedly he hit only 33.5% of his threes in high school. So he might put up 3.5 per game, but probably not more than that (and we might wish for less).

That leaves Grayson. He launched 6.0 threes per game as a sophomore and 6.5 as a junior. Coach K says he's going to shoot a lot, so the 6.5 is probably a lower limit. J.J. Redick attempted 9.1 threes per game as a junior and 9.2 as a senior, so that's probably the upper limit. My guess is Grayson is up around that upper limit, but that still leaves us at 17 or 18 three-attempts per game compared to last season's 22 per game.

How big a problem is that going to be? Well, if Coach K has shown anything during his tenure, it's that there's more than one way to skin a [your favorite opposing mascot here]. In other words, offense can come from a lot of places, and Duke's overall offense is almost always really, really good:

FINAL POMEROY DUKE OFFENSIVE RANKINGS
2017: 6
2016: 4
2015: 3
2014: 1
2013: 4
2012: 8
2011: 6
2010: 1
2009: 7
2008: 14
2007: 49
2006: 1
2005: 14
2004: 3
2003: 12
2002: 1

We've been top 8 in each of the past nine seasons, and top 15 in every season but one (#49 in 2007) since Pomeroy's been posting such rankings. We're going to put the ball in the basket. Except what if we can't shoot -- or put another way, what if someone puts a blanket over Grayson to keep him from shooting -- how are we going to score? Though perhaps a better way to phrase that is, when it comes to crunch time and we need an "easy," nearly guaranteed, high efficiency score, how are we going to do it?

There are five different ways to achieve high-efficiency scoring: (1) drain a three (least dependable but most devastating); (2) dump it down low to an unstoppable force in the paint; (3) grab an offensive rebound, leading to a putback or kickout three; (4) score on the fast break; and (5) hit free throws. I'll look at these one at a time, but what we're going to find is that in addition to our overall offensive efficiency, Duke's best teams have been really good at one or more of these things.

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING

We've discussed this recently on the board, and it's something this year's team should be pretty good at, since we'll be really big and really long. It's also a quality that most of our teams that have been successfull in the NCAA tournament have possessed. Since the offensive rebounding stat has been kept (31 years), here's Duke's ten best offensive rebounding performances:



Year OR% NCAA
1999 44.3% 2
1990 40.9% 2
2010 40.6% 1
1988 40.5% 4
1998 39.7% 8
1992 39.5% 1
2004 39.2% 4
1996 38.3% 64
1994 38.0% 2
1991 38.0% 1


Eight Final Fours and an Elite Eight out of the top ten, and those eight Final Fours represent all but three (2015, 2001, 1989) in the 31 year period.

So if we're good at offensive rebounding this season, does that guarantee anything? Absolutely not. Does is prove anything? Maybe not. But does it mean anything? I'm pretty sure it does, because on top of our generally efficient offense, it's one way those teams could get an "easy" score at crunch time, even if other things were going wrong.

FAST BREAKS

There are sites like Hoop Math (http://hoop-math.com/Duke2017.php) that measure transition scoring, but they don't go far back enough to compare to past Duke teams. But we can look at pace (measured by team possessions per 40 minutes) as an imperfect estimator. In other words, the more possessions we have, the faster we're going and the more transition opportunities we probably have. In any event, here are Duke's fastest 12 teams over the past 31 seasons:



Year Poss/gm NCAA
1990 79.34 2
1989 78.91 4
1991 78.53 1
2002 77.19 16
2001 76.65 1
1999 75.39 2
1988 75.02 4
1993 75.01 32
2000 74.82 16
2008 73.98 32
1992 73.67 1
1998 73.44 8


Again, six of the top seven (and 8 of 12) were Final Four teams, including two of the three that didn't make the cut for offensive rebounding.

It's also interesting to note that all four of our round of 64 exits were among our slowest 10 teams in the 31 year period (though two of our championships, 2010 and 2015, were as well).

This year's team, with Trevon Duval running the show and with Grayson, Marvin, et al. running the lanes, could be one of our fastest teams in recent years. Another plus for our 2018 chances.

FREE THROW RATE

No better way when you need points than to get them from the line. Here are Duke's top 10 teams at free throw rate (FTA/FGA) over the past 31 seasons:



Year FT rate NCAA
1992 50.41% 1
1990 48.58% 2
1999 46.86% 2
1991 45.36% 1
2003 45.28% 16
2012 45.12% 64
2006 45.00% 16
1989 44.00% 4
1993 42.97% 32
2005 42.87% 16


Perhaps not as strong an indicator as the first two, but still the teams in the top four spots all played in the NCAA championship game.

How this year's team will fare in this category is unknown at this point. We know Grayson shoots well from the line, and maybe Gary, but the jury's out on Trevon, Marvin, Wendell, Marques, and Javin.

POST GAME

While sites like Hoop Math (again) have numbers for at-the-rim scoring, that's not really the same as having a load down low who can be relied on to get position, make the catch, and put the ball in the hoop. And it doesn't go back far enough in any event. So for this one, I'm left with unscientific analysis (ack, excuse me while I dodge that lightning bolt).

In the past 20 years, Duke has had four beasts in the middle -- Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams, and Jahlil Okafor. Those guys covered the seasons of 1998 to 2006, plus 2015, ten seasons that included two championships, four Final Fours, and five Elite Eights. Think maybe Mason Plumlee as a senior should count here? Add another Elite Eight to the list.

This year? We have three guys who might be able to apply to the club. We won't know yet whether they'll all be unstoppable loads down low, but if only one of them can be, we'll have checked this box.

THREE POINT SHOOTING

Now we're back to three-point shooting. Here's the top 15 Duke three-point shooting teams, by percentage:



Year NCAA 3pt%
1992 1 43.4%
1987 16 40.2%
2013 8 39.9%
1993 32 39.7%
1999 2 39.6%
2014 64 39.5%
1990 2 38.9%
1997 32 38.9%
2006 16 38.8%
2015 1 38.7%
2010 1 38.5%
2001 1 38.5%
2016 16 38.5%
1991 1 38.3%
2000 16 38.3%


The list includes seven of the eight Duke teams that made the NCAA championship game. If Grayson takes the lion's share of the 2018 team's three-pointers, and Gary only takes them when he's wide open, this year's team has a pretty good shot of landing fairly high on this list.

Still not convinced? I have one last table. Whether we shoot a high percentage of our threes is one thing, but it seems clear we'll be shooting fewer three-pointers. How many fewer? Going back 20 years (since the number of threes we've taken seemed to change about 20 years ago), our three-point attempts have always been between 30% and 40% of our overall shots (with one exception on each end). So here's a table showing what percentage of our shots have been three pointers ("%threes"), as well as the corresponding success rate ("3pt%"), in the past 20 seasons:



Year NCAA 3pt% %threes
2001 1 38.5% 41.8%
2016 16 38.5% 39.8%
2005 16 38.0% 39.8%
2014 64 39.5% 39.7%
2008 32 37.7% 39.2%
2012 64 37.1% 38.6%
2017 32 38.9% 38.3%
2002 16 36.3% 37.6%
2011 16 37.4% 35.3%
2006 16 38.8% 35.2%
2009 16 34.9% 35.0%
2000 16 38.3% 34.2%
2003 16 36.3% 33.9%
2015 1 38.7% 33.4%
2004 4 36.4% 33.4%
2013 8 39.9% 33.3%
2010 1 38.5% 32.9%
1998 8 36.9% 32.4%
1999 2 39.6% 30.5%
2007 64 38.1% 29.6%


Crazily enough, six of our seven Elite Eights (or better) in the period were six of our seven lowest number of three-point attempts as a percentage of shots. Proving nothing is absolute, the seventh one, our championship team of 2001, took the highest number of threes, and the team with the absolute lowest number (2007) got knocked out in the first round. Still, it looks like being lower on this list is better than being higher, so maybe the fact that we don't have so many shooters is not such a bad thing. At any rate, it's not going to torpedo our chances.

CONCLUSION

Of the five "easy" ways to score, this team should be really good at four of them, and maybe all five, despite the fact that we won't have a lot of three-point shooters.

Our offense is going to be fine.


(8) DEFENSE

Duke's calling card used to be our D. From the mid-80s to the mid-00s, people feared our ability to take them out of their game on the defensive end. Approximately the time we increased our reliance on freshman, that reputation faded away.

Here's our Pomeroy defensive rank since he's published them. "Pre-T" means pre-NCAA tournament numbers, published at the time, and "Post-T" means final numbers, using his most recent calculation methodology.



Year Pre-T Post-T
2017 39 47
2016 110 86
2015 57 12
2014 102 87
2013 25 26
2012 62 78
2011 3 10
2010 4 5
2009 17 31
2008 7
2007 5
2006 18
2005 2
2004 3
2003 16
2002 1


The big question here is why? Has our defense eroded because of our increased reliance on freshmen? That may play a part, but since our 2012 and 2014 teams each had just one freshman in its top six minute-getters, there's obviously something else. Especially since our freshman-dominated 2015 team managed to see the light in the post-season and move it's defensive ranking all the into the top 12. It might simply be that we've recruited offensive-minded players, or players who weren't physically built for defense.

For example, let's compare the measurements for this year's probable top 7 versus the 2014 team notorious for its poor defense:



2014 Height Wingspan Standing Reach 2018 Height Wingspan Standing Reach
Amile Jefferson 6'9 7'0 8'5 Marques Bolden 6'11 7'5 9'3
Jabari Parker 6'8.5 6'11.5 8'8 Wendell Carter 6'10 7'3 9'0
Rodney Hood 6'8.5 6'8.5 8'7 Marvin Bagley 6'10.5 7'0.5 8'9
Andre Dawkins 6'4.5 6'8.5 8'2.5 Javin DeLaurier 6'9 7'0 8'10
Rasheed Sulaimon 6'4 6'7 8'5.5 Gary Trent 6'6 6'8.5 8'4
Quinn Cook 6'2 6'4 8'0.5 Grayson Allen 6'4.5 6'6.5 ?
Tyler Thornton 6'1 ? ? Trevon Duval 6'2.5 6'9.5 8'3


Sure, bigger and longer doesn't always equal better, but looking at the above, which team would you guess could play better defense? By a lot. Which team should better be able to bother the passing lanes? Which team should better be able to erase perimeter mistakes at the rim?

Obviously with so many newcomers we can't know yet how good (or not) this year's team will be on the defensive end. It's worth noting that Marvin, Wendell, and Trevon (as well as Marques) all came out of high school with reasonable defensive reputations, something we couldn't say about Austin Rivers, Jabari Parker, Tyus Jones, or Jahlil Okafor.

Personally, I have high hopes.


(9) THE EXHIBITIONS

I enjoy CTC, but I think as a preview of the team we get less out of it than some think we do. Mostly because the team plays against each other every day and knows each others habits, predilections, and proclivities. For example, the observation that Jordan Goldwire may seem to shut down Trevon Duval (or he may not, it's just an example) might mean that Jordan G is a plus-plus defender, it might mean Trevon isn't nearly as lightning quick as we'd hoped, or most probably it simply means that Jordan has guarded Trevon every day for a month and knows what he's going to do.

For that reason, I say enjoy the spectacle but don't read too much into it.

We can't read too much into the exhibitions, either, mostly because our team will be sooooo much bigger and better than our opponents. But at least we'll be playing against players we haven't seen, and who haven't seen us. And we should at least get a look at all 12 of our recruited scholarship players.

For the ninth straight year, we're playing against the reigning Division II champion. This year it's Northwest Missouri State, a team that went 35-1 last season. They return five of their eight rotation players, including Division II national player of the year Justin Pitts, a 5'10" guard who averaged 20.9 ppg and 5.1 apg, and shot 39.2% from three-point range. I've never seen him play, but for a 5'10" guy to be national POY, he must be quick and savvy. So it should give us our first picture of how we deal with a quick opposing PG.

NW Mo St shot a lot of threes last season, though two of their top three gunners (by volume) are no longer on the team (the third being Pitts). They're also pretty small (by Division I standards, anyway), with nobody taller than 6'8" and only one player taller than 6'7" (junior Dray Starzl), and he hardly played last season. Their front line will primarily consist of 6'6" senior Chris-Ebou Ndow and 6'6" senior Brett Dougherty. They're both decent Division II players, but if our gigantic front line doesn't dominate these guys, then we'll have something to talk about. We'll also get to see how well our bigs can chase smaller guys around the perimeter.

Other than Pitts, the guy on NW Mo St. I'm most interested in watching is 6'7" sophomore guard Ryan Welty, who last season as a freshman playing 18 mpg attempted more than two threes per game, and made 66.7% (!!!) of them (52 for 78). It was such an accomplishment that Luke Winn wrote an article about him (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/05/03/ryan-welty-three-point-shooting-northwest-missouri-state).

I don't know anything about their freshmen, but NW Missouri State is a good, veteran Division II team, and the game should be entertaining. That said, I'll be surprised if the Bearcats hang around for more than a few minutes.

Our other exhibition is against the CIAA champion Bowie State, whose overall record last season was a mediocre 16-14. They also lack anybody taller than 6'8" and return three seniors: 6'0 guard Ahmaad Wilson, 6'1 guard Dayshawn Wells, and 6'3 swingman Omari George. I imagine this will give us another look at how we deal with quick, savvy guards, but beyond that this shouldn't be much of a game.


(10) LET'S GO DUKE!!!

That's all for Phase 0. The season is finally here.

ChillinDuke
10-12-2017, 06:56 PM
(7) OFFENSE

This year's team looks a lot different than past Duke teams, especially the recent past. We're a lot bigger, we don't really have a swing forward (who most would expect to be a SF but can move up to PF and allow Duke to play small). And most of all, we don't have a lot of shooters.

Last season, we had five players who attempted at least 3.5 threes per game (led by Grayson Allen's 6.5). This year, we'll probably be lucky to have two guys put up that many. Marvin Bagley and/or Javin DeLaurier may heave up one or two a game (but they may not). Marques Bolden and Wendell Carter might put up one or two a season. Trevon Duval reportedly can't hit from out there. And none of Jordan Tucker, Alex O'Connell, or Jack White figure to play enough to take many threes. That leaves us with Grayson Allen and Gary Trent. And the scouting report on Gary is that he's a "streaky" shooter. Supposedly he hit only 33.5% of his threes in high school. So he might put up 3.5 per game, but probably not more than that (and we might wish for less).

That leaves Grayson. He launched 6.0 threes per game as a sophomore and 6.5 as a junior. Coach K says he's going to shoot a lot, so the 6.5 is probably a lower limit. J.J. Redick attempted 9.1 threes per game as a junior and 9.2 as a senior, so that's probably the upper limit. My guess is Grayson is up around that upper limit, but that still leaves us at 17 or 18 three-attempts per game compared to last season's 22 per game.

How big a problem is that going to be? Well, if Coach K has shown anything during his tenure, it's that there's more than one way to skin a [your favorite opposing mascot here]. In other words, offense can come from a lot of places, and Duke's overall offense is almost always really, really good:

FINAL POMEROY DUKE OFFENSIVE RANKINGS
2017: 6
2016: 4
2015: 3
2014: 1
2013: 4
2012: 8
2011: 6
2010: 1
2009: 7
2008: 14
2007: 49
2006: 1
2005: 14
2004: 3
2003: 12
2002: 1

We've been top 8 in each of the past nine seasons, and top 15 in every season but one (#49 in 2007) since Pomeroy's been posting such rankings. We're going to put the ball in the basket. Except what if we can't shoot -- or put another way, what if someone puts a blanket over Grayson to keep him from shooting -- how are we going to score? Though perhaps a better way to phrase that is, when it comes to crunch time and we need an "easy," nearly guaranteed, high efficiency score, how are we going to do it?

There are five different ways to achieve high-efficiency scoring: (1) drain a three (least dependable but most devastating); (2) dump it down low to an unstoppable force in the paint; (3) grab an offensive rebound, leading to a putback or kickout three; (4) score on the fast break; and (5) hit free throws. I'll look at these one at a time, but what we're going to find is that in addition to our overall offensive efficiency, Duke's best teams have been really good at one or more of these things.

OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING

We've discussed this recently on the board, and it's something this year's team should be pretty good at, since we'll be really big and really long. It's also a quality that most of our teams that have been successfull in the NCAA tournament have possessed. Since the offensive rebounding stat has been kept (31 years), here's Duke's ten best offensive rebounding performances:



Year OR% NCAA
1999 44.3% 2
1990 40.9% 2
2010 40.6% 1
1988 40.5% 4
1998 39.7% 8
1992 39.5% 1
2004 39.2% 4
1996 38.3% 64
1994 38.0% 2
1991 38.0% 1


Eight Final Fours and an Elite Eight out of the top ten, and those eight Final Fours represent all but three (2015, 2001, 1989) in the 31 year period.

So if we're good at offensive rebounding this season, does that guarantee anything? Absolutely not. Does is prove anything? Maybe not. But does it mean anything? I'm pretty sure it does, because on top of our generally efficient offense, it's one way those teams could get an "easy" score at crunch time, even if other things were going wrong.

FAST BREAKS

There are sites like Hoop Math (http://hoop-math.com/Duke2017.php) that measure transition scoring, but they don't go far back enough to compare to past Duke teams. But we can look at pace (measured by team possessions per 40 minutes) as an imperfect estimator. In other words, the more possessions we have, the faster we're going and the more transition opportunities we probably have. In any event, here are Duke's fastest 12 teams over the past 31 seasons:



Year Poss/gm NCAA
1990 79.34 2
1989 78.91 4
1991 78.53 1
2002 77.19 16
2001 76.65 1
1999 75.39 2
1988 75.02 4
1993 75.01 32
2000 74.82 16
2008 73.98 32
1992 73.67 1
1998 73.44 8


Again, six of the top seven (and 8 of 12) were Final Four teams, including two of the three that didn't make the cut for offensive rebounding.

It's also interesting to note that all four of our round of 64 exits were among our slowest 10 teams in the 31 year period (though two of our championships, 2010 and 2015, were as well).

This year's team, with Trevon Duval running the show and with Grayson, Marvin, et al. running the lanes, could be one of our fastest teams in recent years. Another plus for our 2018 chances.

FREE THROW RATE

No better way when you need points than to get them from the line. Here are Duke's top 10 teams at free throw rate (FTA/FGA) over the past 31 seasons:



Year FT rate NCAA
1992 50.41% 1
1990 48.58% 2
1999 46.86% 2
1991 45.36% 1
2003 45.28% 16
2012 45.12% 64
2006 45.00% 16
1989 44.00% 4
1993 42.97% 32
2005 42.87% 16


Perhaps not as strong an indicator as the first two, but still the teams in the top four spots all played in the NCAA championship game.

How this year's team will fare in this category is unknown at this point. We know Grayson shoots well from the line, and maybe Gary, but the jury's out on Trevon, Marvin, Wendell, Marques, and Javin.

POST GAME

While sites like Hoop Math (again) have numbers for at-the-rim scoring, that's not really the same as having a load down low who can be relied on to get position, make the catch, and put the ball in the hoop. And it doesn't go back far enough in any event. So for this one, I'm left with unscientific analysis (ack, excuse me while I dodge that lightning bolt).

In the past 20 years, Duke has had four beasts in the middle -- Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams, and Jahlil Okafor. Those guys covered the seasons of 1998 to 2006, plus 2015, ten seasons that included two championships, four Final Fours, and five Elite Eights. Think maybe Mason Plumlee as a senior should count here? Add another Elite Eight to the list.

This year? We have three guys who might be able to apply to the club. We won't know yet whether they'll all be unstoppable loads down low, but if only one of them can be, we'll have checked this box.

THREE POINT SHOOTING

Now we're back to three-point shooting. Here's the top 15 Duke three-point shooting teams, by percentage:



Year NCAA 3pt%
1992 1 43.4%
1987 16 40.2%
2013 8 39.9%
1993 32 39.7%
1999 2 39.6%
2014 64 39.5%
1990 2 38.9%
1997 32 38.9%
2006 16 38.8%
2015 1 38.7%
2010 1 38.5%
2001 1 38.5%
2016 16 38.5%
1991 1 38.3%
2000 16 38.3%


The list includes seven of the eight Duke teams that made the NCAA championship game. If Grayson takes the lion's share of the 2018 team's three-pointers, and Gary only takes them when he's wide open, this year's team has a pretty good shot of landing fairly high on this list.

Still not convinced? I have one last table. Whether we shoot a high percentage of our threes is one thing, but it seems clear we'll be shooting fewer three-pointers. How many fewer? Going back 20 years (since the number of threes we've taken seemed to change about 20 years ago), our three-point attempts have always been between 30% and 40% of our overall shots (with one exception on each end). So here's a table showing what percentage of our shots have been three pointers ("%threes"), as well as the corresponding success rate ("3pt%"), in the past 20 seasons:



Year NCAA 3pt% %threes
2001 1 38.5% 41.8%
2016 16 38.5% 39.8%
2005 16 38.0% 39.8%
2014 64 39.5% 39.7%
2008 32 37.7% 39.2%
2012 64 37.1% 38.6%
2017 32 38.9% 38.3%
2002 16 36.3% 37.6%
2011 16 37.4% 35.3%
2006 16 38.8% 35.2%
2009 16 34.9% 35.0%
2000 16 38.3% 34.2%
2003 16 36.3% 33.9%
2015 1 38.7% 33.4%
2004 4 36.4% 33.4%
2013 8 39.9% 33.3%
2010 1 38.5% 32.9%
1998 8 36.9% 32.4%
1999 2 39.6% 30.5%
2007 64 38.1% 29.6%


Crazily enough, six of our seven Elite Eights (or better) in the period were six of our seven lowest number of three-point attempts as a percentage of shots. Proving nothing is absolute, the seventh one, our championship team of 2001, took the highest number of threes, and the team with the absolute lowest number (2007) got knocked out in the first round. Still, it looks like being lower on this list is better than being higher, so maybe the fact that we don't have so many shooters is not such a bad thing. At any rate, it's not going to torpedo our chances.

CONCLUSION

Of the five "easy" ways to score, this team should be really good at four of them, and maybe all five, despite the fact that we won't have a lot of three-point shooters.

Our offense is going to be fine.


(8) DEFENSE

Duke's calling card used to be our D. From the mid-80s to the mid-00s, people feared our ability to take them out of their game on the defensive end. Approximately the time we increased our reliance on freshman, that reputation faded away.

Here's our Pomeroy defensive rank since he's published them. "Pre-T" means pre-NCAA tournament numbers, published at the time, and "Post-T" means final numbers, using his most recent calculation methodology.



Year Pre-T Post-T
2017 39 47
2016 110 86
2015 57 12
2014 102 87
2013 25 26
2012 62 78
2011 3 10
2010 4 5
2009 17 31
2008 7
2007 5
2006 18
2005 2
2004 3
2003 16
2002 1


The big question here is why? Has our defense eroded because of our increased reliance on freshmen? That may play a part, but since our 2012 and 2014 teams each had just one freshman in its top six minute-getters, there's obviously something else. Especially since our freshman-dominated 2015 team managed to see the light in the post-season and move it's defensive ranking all the into the top 12. It might simply be that we've recruited offensive-minded players, or players who weren't physically built for defense.

For example, let's compare the measurements for this year's probable top 7 versus the 2014 team notorious for its poor defense:



2014 Height Wingspan Standing Reach 2018 Height Wingspan Standing Reach
Amile Jefferson 6'9 7'0 8'5 Marques Bolden 6'11 7'5 9'3
Jabari Parker 6'8.5 6'11.5 8'8 Wendell Carter 6'10 7'3 9'0
Rodney Hood 6'8.5 6'8.5 8'7 Marvin Bagley 6'10.5 7'0.5 8'9
Andre Dawkins 6'4.5 6'8.5 8'2.5 Javin DeLaurier 6'9 7'0 8'10
Rasheed Sulaimon 6'4 6'7 8'5.5 Gary Trent 6'6 6'8.5 8'4
Quinn Cook 6'2 6'4 8'0.5 Grayson Allen 6'4.5 6'6.5 ?
Tyler Thornton 6'1 ? ? Trevon Duval 6'2.5 6'9.5 8'3


Sure, bigger and longer doesn't always equal better, but looking at the above, which team would you guess could play better defense? By a lot. Which team should better be able to bother the passing lanes? Which team should better be able to erase perimeter mistakes at the rim?

Obviously with so many newcomers we can't know yet how good (or not) this year's team will be on the defensive end. It's worth noting that Marvin, Wendell, and Trevon (as well as Marques) all came out of high school with reasonable defensive reputations, something we couldn't say about Austin Rivers, Jabari Parker, Tyus Jones, or Jahlil Okafor.

Personally, I have high hopes.


(9) THE EXHIBITIONS

I enjoy CTC, but I think as a preview of the team we get less out of it than some think we do. Mostly because the team plays against each other every day and knows each others habits, predilections, and proclivities. For example, the observation that Jordan Goldwire may seem to shut down Trevon Duval (or he may not, it's just an example) might mean that Jordan G is a plus-plus defender, it might mean Trevon isn't nearly as lightning quick as we'd hoped, or most probably it simply means that Jordan has guarded Trevon every day for a month and knows what he's going to do.

For that reason, I say enjoy the spectacle but don't read too much into it.

We can't read too much into the exhibitions, either, mostly because our team will be sooooo much bigger and better than our opponents. But at least we'll be playing against players we haven't seen, and who haven't seen us. And we should at least get a look at all 12 of our recruited scholarship players.

For the ninth straight year, we're playing against the reigning Division II champion. This year it's Northwest Missouri State, a team that went 35-1 last season. They return five of their eight rotation players, including Division II national player of the year Justin Pitts, a 5'10" guard who averaged 20.9 ppg and 5.1 apg, and shot 39.2% from three-point range. I've never seen him play, but for a 5'10" guy to be national POY, he must be quick and savvy. So it should give us our first picture of how we deal with a quick opposing PG.

NW Mo St shot a lot of threes last season, though two of their top three gunners (by volume) are no longer on the team (the third being Pitts). They're also pretty small (by Division I standards, anyway), with nobody taller than 6'8" and only one player taller than 6'7" (junior Dray Starzl), and he hardly played last season. Their front line will primarily consist of 6'6" senior Chris-Ebou Ndow and 6'6" senior Brett Dougherty. They're both decent Division II players, but if our gigantic front line doesn't dominate these guys, then we'll have something to talk about. We'll also get to see how well our bigs can chase smaller guys around the perimeter.

Other than Pitts, the guy on NW Mo St. I'm most interested in watching is 6'7" sophomore guard Ryan Welty, who last season as a freshman playing 18 mpg attempted more than two threes per game, and made 66.7% (!!!) of them (52 for 78). It was such an accomplishment that Luke Winn wrote an article about him (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/05/03/ryan-welty-three-point-shooting-northwest-missouri-state).

I don't know anything about their freshmen, but NW Missouri State is a good, veteran Division II team, and the game should be entertaining. That said, I'll be surprised if the Bearcats hang around for more than a few minutes.

Our other exhibition is against the CIAA champion Bowie State, whose overall record last season was a mediocre 16-14. They also lack anybody taller than 6'8" and return three seniors: 6'0 guard Ahmaad Wilson, 6'1 guard Dayshawn Wells, and 6'3 swingman Omari George. I imagine this will give us another look at how we deal with quick, savvy guards, but beyond that this shouldn't be much of a game.


(10) LET'S GO DUKE!!!

That's all for Phase 0. The season is finally here.

Annnnndddddddd, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Thanks, Kedsy!!! Too much information for me to even try a response. So I'll just say thanks, reread daily, and let others have at the discussion.

- Chillin

cbarry
10-12-2017, 07:08 PM
Thanks Kedsy. That’s quite an analysis!

I actually DO get a good sense of how the team will do based on the CTC

I’ve correctly predicted exactly how far in the tourney we will go immediately after the CTC for the past 3 seasons.

Hopefully I will get to go to CTC this year— they are only selling tickets as part of a package deal with a football and WBB game that I can’t attend. :( Bring back the individual game ticket for CTC!!!

Indoor66
10-12-2017, 07:16 PM
Too much to read!

BD80
10-12-2017, 07:46 PM
Too much to read!

I have a more basic complaint, too well done! It leaves no room for reasonable argument. Alas, no minutes discussion for an entire year!

Tappan Zee Devil
10-12-2017, 07:47 PM
"You must spread some Comments around before commenting on Kedsy again."

My comment was going to be:
"Wow - but I am a little overwhelmed - give me a day or so to digest this.
So - What does it all mean leading into the year?"

Kedsy
10-12-2017, 08:06 PM
FREE THROW RATE

No better way when you need points than to get them from the line. Here are Duke's top 10 teams at free throw rate (FTA/FGA) over the past 31 seasons:



Year FT rate NCAA
1992 50.41% 1
1990 48.58% 2
1999 46.86% 2
1991 45.36% 1
2003 45.28% 16
2012 45.12% 64
2006 45.00% 16
1989 44.00% 4
1993 42.97% 32
2005 42.87% 16


Perhaps not as strong an indicator as the first two, but still the teams in the top four spots all played in the NCAA championship game.

How this year's team will fare in this category is unknown at this point. We know Grayson shoots well from the line, and maybe Gary, but the jury's out on Trevon, Marvin, Wendell, Marques, and Javin.

I just realized I mashed two concepts together in my conclusion of the free throw section. Free throw rate has nothing to do with how well we shoot free throws. With the driving ability of Grayson, Trevon, and Gary, and with the (hopefully) unstoppability inside of Marvin and Wendell (and maybe Marques), we should get fouled a lot. Our free throw rate should be high and we should rank high on the above list.

My concluding sentence was speaking to whether us shooting a lot of free throws will be a good thing or not. Outside of Grayson, the jury's still out.

Kedsy
10-12-2017, 08:09 PM
"You must spread some Comments around before commenting on Kedsy again."

My comment was going to be:
"Wow - but I am a little overwhelmed - give me a day or so to digest this.
So - What does it all mean leading into the year?"

I think it means that absent injuries we should be really, really good. But with our youth, our as-yet-unproven defensive ability, and the high amount of luck needed to succeed in the NCAA tournament, I don't think we can say more than that.

DukieInBrasil
10-12-2017, 11:14 PM
I like the tradition that K has developed of playing the defending D2 champs, and also trying to get the champ from another of the college leagues. They may not have as much talent, but they are always cohesive and solid.
The point you brought up about true low-post talent is very interesting, we have 3 on the same team whereas we are usually pretty lucky just to have one. Pair that with our dearth of dynamic wing players (as is generally assumed, although it is always possible someone defies expectations), and this is a rather unusual Duke squad.
As for defense, although the height of this team certainly lends itself to rebounding potential and post defense, i hadn't really thought of the length of this team in terms of its effects on disrupting passing lanes and otherwise disrupting the opponent's offense.
The shortest player among those with potential to be "in the rotation" or rotation+, is Duval at 6'3, and then Grayson at 6'5. Those are both average to above-average height for the PG and SG positions. We're not as freakishly tall as FSU has been lately, but we have 5 guys 6'10 or taller (and J Robinson is listed as 6'9 now) 4 of 5 of our 6'10+ guys are excellent athletes, and 4 of the 5 are highly skilled. Vrank is a good not great athlete (he's 7'0 and moves so smoothly) but he doesn't jump really high or run super fast, but he has pretty nice skills, good hands, good coordination, nice touch around the rim. Javin otoh is an excellent run-jump athlete, but hasn't shown much skill. They're almost the inverse of each other.
I'm excited to see what this team can do.

Kedsy
10-12-2017, 11:29 PM
(and J Robinson is listed as 6'9 now)

Wow, I hadn't realized that. I guess genes will out. Another couple inches and maybe Justin can be the answer to our big man shortage in 2018-19...

FerryFor50
10-13-2017, 09:57 AM
(7) OFFENSE
THREE POINT SHOOTING

Now we're back to three-point shooting. Here's the top 15 Duke three-point shooting teams, by percentage:



Year NCAA 3pt%
1992 1 43.4%
1987 16 40.2%
2013 8 39.9%
1993 32 39.7%
1999 2 39.6%
2014 64 39.5%
1990 2 38.9%
1997 32 38.9%
2006 16 38.8%
2015 1 38.7%
2010 1 38.5%
2001 1 38.5%
2016 16 38.5%
1991 1 38.3%
2000 16 38.3%


The list includes seven of the eight Duke teams that made the NCAA championship game. If Grayson takes the lion's share of the 2018 team's three-pointers, and Gary only takes them when he's wide open, this year's team has a pretty good shot of landing fairly high on this list.

Still not convinced? I have one last table. Whether we shoot a high percentage of our threes is one thing, but it seems clear we'll be shooting fewer three-pointers. How many fewer? Going back 20 years (since the number of threes we've taken seemed to change about 20 years ago), our three-point attempts have always been between 30% and 40% of our overall shots (with one exception on each end). So here's a table showing what percentage of our shots have been three pointers ("%threes"), as well as the corresponding success rate ("3pt%"), in the past 20 seasons:



Year NCAA 3pt% %threes
2001 1 38.5% 41.8%
2016 16 38.5% 39.8%
2005 16 38.0% 39.8%
2014 64 39.5% 39.7%
2008 32 37.7% 39.2%
2012 64 37.1% 38.6%
2017 32 38.9% 38.3%
2002 16 36.3% 37.6%
2011 16 37.4% 35.3%
2006 16 38.8% 35.2%
2009 16 34.9% 35.0%
2000 16 38.3% 34.2%
2003 16 36.3% 33.9%
2015 1 38.7% 33.4%
2004 4 36.4% 33.4%
2013 8 39.9% 33.3%
2010 1 38.5% 32.9%
1998 8 36.9% 32.4%
1999 2 39.6% 30.5%
2007 64 38.1% 29.6%


Crazily enough, six of our seven Elite Eights (or better) in the period were six of our seven lowest number of three-point attempts as a percentage of shots. Proving nothing is absolute, the seventh one, our championship team of 2001, took the highest number of threes, and the team with the absolute lowest number (2007) got knocked out in the first round. Still, it looks like being lower on this list is better than being higher, so maybe the fact that we don't have so many shooters is not such a bad thing. At any rate, it's not going to torpedo our chances.

CONCLUSION

Of the five "easy" ways to score, this team should be really good at four of them, and maybe all five, despite the fact that we won't have a lot of three-point shooters.

Our offense is going to be fine.



I think by way of the balance of the offense you mentioned, 3pt shooting should be pretty good. Why? In previous years, teams keyed in on preventing the 3s against Duke. Now, with legit post offense, they have to pick their poison. We might see way more open looks this year than in any other season, outside of the season where the offense was "miss a shot and let Zoubek kick the offensive board out for an open 3."

brlftz
10-13-2017, 02:52 PM
What an amazing, post, can't imagine my only reaction being about length :rolleyes:

My main concern is lack of shooting. You address that in terms of the volume of threes that we'll likely be taking ending up close enough to our desired amount due to Grayson doing his best impersonation of JJ, which when it's put like that gives me some comfort. Still, though, I just hate that opposing defenses really only need to worry about one guy on the perimeter, especially if it makes it easier to defend us when Trevon is running pick and roll with Bagley or Carter. Do you have any comments on what we might do to combat that? Do we use Grayson to run the pick and roll? Or are we just so good in all other aspects offensively that we can overpower teams that plan to chase Grayson and pack everyone else in?

ETA: you also point out that we have reason to think we'll be good at the other "easy bucket" competencies as well, but I worry that looking at them in isolation ignores the fact that all those other areas will be challenged more than we would expect because they exist within the context of not a lot of outside shooting threats.

Kedsy
10-13-2017, 03:25 PM
What an amazing, post, can't imagine my only reaction being about length :rolleyes:

My main concern is lack of shooting. You address that in terms of the volume of threes that we'll likely be taking ending up close enough to our desired amount due to Grayson doing his best impersonation of JJ, which when it's put like that gives me some comfort. Still, though, I just hate that opposing defenses really only need to worry about one guy on the perimeter, especially if it makes it easier to defend us when Trevon is running pick and roll with Bagley or Carter. Do you have any comments on what we might do to combat that? Do we use Grayson to run the pick and roll? Or are we just so good in all other aspects offensively that we can overpower teams that plan to chase Grayson and pack everyone else in?

ETA: you also point out that we have reason to think we'll be good at the other "easy bucket" competencies as well, but I worry that looking at them in isolation ignores the fact that all those other areas will be challenged more than we would expect because they exist within the context of not a lot of outside shooting threats.

I don't think guarding Duke will be nearly as simple as "chase Grayson and pack everyone else in." First of all, I assume we'll be running constant off-ball screens for Grayson, including baseline screens through the crowded paint area, so "chasing Grayson" won't be nearly as easy as it sounds. Second, we haven't spoken much about Gary Trent, but his scouting report says he's a potential big-time scorer. If teams just pack it in, and Gary is not guarded closely and/or is guarded by the opponent's weakest defender, then when Gary gets the ball I assume mostly good things would happen. Finally, if Trevon drives hard at the basket (easy to do if they're laying off him), someone will have to step up to him and he's skilled enough to take advantage when that happens.

Having said all that, you may be right if we really can't shoot at all and it's too crowded in the post to convert down there, but I think we still should be OK if we look at the other "easy bucket" options: (a) fast breaks shouldn't be affected at all by the defensive strategy you're worrying about; (b) even if they pack it in, with our personnel we still have a pretty good chance at offensive rebounds; and (c) with other teams so intent on stopping our big men inside, and with Trevon and Gary and Grayson (and maybe Marvin) driving hard to the rim, we should still get to the line a lot, maybe even more so if it's that crowded inside the restricted arc. So even if a particular opponent manages to keep Grayson from shooting and also deny entry passes, we still should have at least three easy ways to score.

brlftz
10-13-2017, 03:34 PM
I don't think guarding Duke will be nearly as simple as "chase Grayson and pack everyone else in." First of all, I assume we'll be running constant off-ball screens for Grayson, including baseline screens through the crowded paint area, so "chasing Grayson" won't be nearly as easy as it sounds. Second, we haven't spoken much about Gary Trent, but his scouting report says he's a potential big-time scorer. If teams just pack it in, and Gary is not guarded closely and/or is guarded by the opponent's weakest defender, then when Gary gets the ball I assume mostly good things would happen. Finally, if Trevon drives hard at the basket (easy to do if they're laying off him), someone will have to step up to him and he's skilled enough to take advantage when that happens.

Having said all that, you may be right if we really can't shoot at all and it's too crowded in the post to convert down there, but I think we still should be OK if we look at the other "easy bucket" options: (a) fast breaks shouldn't be affected at all by the defensive strategy you're worrying about; (b) even if they pack it in, with our personnel we still have a pretty good chance at offensive rebounds; and (c) with other teams so intent on stopping our big men inside, and with Trevon and Gary and Grayson (and maybe Marvin) driving hard to the rim, we should still get to the line a lot, maybe even more so if it's that crowded inside the restricted arc. So even if a particular opponent manages to keep Grayson from shooting and also deny entry passes, we still should have at least three easy ways to score.

Thanks, and I too am prevented from providing richly deserved sporks.

The thought of Grayson zinging through a maze of screens makes me happy, I'm looking forward to that. Our success with JJ is helping me envision this working even with only 1 shooter. If Gary's reputation as a dangerous scorer carries over into college, though, we'll be in GREAT shape. There's also the possibility that Javin shows a dimension we haven't seen yet. Even just as a spot up shooter, if he's reliable that helps a ton I think.

Billy Dat
10-13-2017, 05:45 PM
Yeoman's work on this Phase post.

Interesting that the for the historical "easy score" categories, we haven't done well in most of them since 2010, save for 3 point shooting.

As someone with no inside sources, all I can do is try and read the tea leaves of K's comments, player comments, etc. My current reading is that Bagley is an absolute monster. We already know that Grayson qualifies as such on the college level. If Duval can orchestrate enough good shots for the two of them, and the other rotation guys are willing to find a niche, our offense will be fine. You basically indicate that Duke's offense is always fine and will be again, and I agree.

Defense? We can only hope.

I do think Bagley is X factor.

gam7
10-13-2017, 08:10 PM
Yeoman's work on this Phase post.

Interesting that the for the historical "easy score" categories, we haven't done well in most of them since 2010, save for 3 point shooting.

As someone with no inside sources, all I can do is try and read the tea leaves of K's comments, player comments, etc. My current reading is that Bagley is an absolute monster. We already know that Grayson qualifies as such on the college level. If Duval can orchestrate enough good shots for the two of them, and the other rotation guys are willing to find a niche, our offense will be fine. You basically indicate that Duke's offense is always fine and will be again, and I agree.

Defense? We can only hope.

I do think Bagley is X factor.

Yeah, Bagley's a monster, but a somewhat wiry monster. I'll be looking for the extent to which he gets pushed around underneath by the Udoka Azuibuikes of the world.

As for Kedsy, we can't be assigning phase posts to people who are going to do a half-arse job with it.

MChambers
10-13-2017, 08:19 PM
Yeoman's work on this Phase post.

Interesting that the for the historical "easy score" categories, we haven't done well in most of them since 2010, save for 3 point shooting.

As someone with no inside sources, all I can do is try and read the tea leaves of K's comments, player comments, etc. My current reading is that Bagley is an absolute monster. We already know that Grayson qualifies as such on the college level. If Duval can orchestrate enough good shots for the two of them, and the other rotation guys are willing to find a niche, our offense will be fine. You basically indicate that Duke's offense is always fine and will be again, and I agree.

Defense? We can only hope.

As usual, I’m more worried about the defense than anything else. The lack of experience is a big concern, because knowing your role and how to work together has always seemed to be key to Duke’s man-to-man. This team is very athletic and, yes, long, and that may mean better defense. Lord knows Calipari has put together some good defenses with young teams. But I’ll believe it when I see it.

Billy Dat
10-13-2017, 09:14 PM
As usual, I’m more worried about the defense than anything else. The lack of experience is a big concern, because knowing your role and how to work together has always seemed to be key to Duke’s man-to-man. This team is very athletic and, yes, long, and that may mean better defense. Lord knows Calipari has put together some good defenses with young teams. But I’ll believe it when I see it.

Kedsy made the point about how maybe as we recruited offensive dynamos the D just suffered regardless of our experience. Our most experienced recent squad, the 2013 team, only got as high as 26..which is a bit of a recent high water mark save for the post-season run in 2015, but that squad also was hurt by Kelly's injury and Curry not being able to practice. It was easy to overlook, during the "lean" immediate post JJ years, that we were very good defensively...and those were some young teams, especially 2007 and that was a top 5 defense. It's really a head scratcher.

Saratoga2
10-14-2017, 04:08 PM
Yeah, Bagley's a monster, but a somewhat wiry monster. I'll be looking for the extent to which he gets pushed around underneath by the Udoka Azuibuikes of the world.

As for Kedsy, we can't be assigning phase posts to people who are going to do a half-arse job with it.

A friend of mine was at the Duke campus store with his daughter and they realized Bagley was standing nearby. He said Bagley is truly a huge looking guy. They are both avid Duke fans so is was a thrill to meet and greet the kid.

superdave
10-15-2017, 01:33 PM
I think by way of the balance of the offense you mentioned, 3pt shooting should be pretty good. Why? In previous years, teams keyed in on preventing the 3s against Duke. Now, with legit post offense, they have to pick their poison. We might see way more open looks this year than in any other season, outside of the season where the offense was "miss a shot and let Zoubek kick the offensive board out for an open 3."

I do wonder if we play inside-out in half-court sets. Will we post Bagley in space a lot and let him go to work? Or will we be playing a quick enough pace that the bigs are getting more fast break opportunities and quick hitting scores?

Kedsy seems to think we play fast with Duval at point. I would agree. With the driving of Trent and Allen as well, our bigs should be able to get rims runs, cuts, dump offs, etc.

Pace ought to be interesting.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-15-2017, 02:41 PM
Was just at the mall for the first time in ages, waiting on new glasses (idiot puppy decided to munch on my spectacles). Saw a shirt in gag-worthy blue with a silhouette of a player in a 3 jersey, with the words "WHY YOU BE TRIPPIN?"

It is going to be a long season.

hallcity
10-15-2017, 03:35 PM
Will CTC be televised?

NSDukeFan
10-15-2017, 06:40 PM
I do wonder if we play inside-out in half-court sets. Will we post Bagley in space a lot and let him go to work? Or will we be playing a quick enough pace that the bigs are getting more fast break opportunities and quick hitting scores?

Kedsy seems to think we play fast with Duval at point. I would agree. With the driving of Trent and Allen as well, our bigs should be able to get rims runs, cuts, dump offs, etc.

Pace ought to be interesting.

I wonder if Bagley could potentially be a monster in the Rodney Hood foul line/ high post area, especially against zones.

UrinalCake
10-15-2017, 11:40 PM
Opposing teams are definitely going to zone us and/or pack it in until we prove we can hit some threes. My hope is that Bagley and Carter can hit enough long two point shots to be able to stretch the defense without hitting threes. Otherwise we'll see defenses just camp under the basket.

Billy Dat
10-16-2017, 09:26 AM
Opposing teams are definitely going to zone us and/or pack it in until we prove we can hit some threes. My hope is that Bagley and Carter can hit enough long two point shots to be able to stretch the defense without hitting threes. Otherwise we'll see defenses just camp under the basket.

If there was ever a year to try and play differently than recent years, it's this one with our speedy, poor-shooting PG, our plethora of bigs and relative lack of 3 point shooting compared to years past. The staff have spoken publily about us wanting to run more based on this year's personnel. I checked www.teamrankings.com stats on "possessions per game" as a pace stat over the past 10 years:

2017 - 197th
2016 - 210th
2015 - 141st (title)
2014 - 263rd
2013 - 116th
2012 - 90th
2011 - 45th
2010 - 225th (title)
2009 - 86th
2008 - 14th

Our 2001 title team ranked 12th, our 2004 FF team ranked 76th.

Aside from the 2010 outlier (a title year!), we've steadily played slower over the past 10 years. I'm not sure we can conclude anything about what player faster or slower will do for us, I only hypothesize that the coaches saying they want to play faster won't necessarily translate to it happening as we've been steadily moving in the other direction for a while.

UrinalCake
10-16-2017, 09:46 AM
If there was ever a year to try and play differently than recent years, it's this one with our speedy, poor-shooting PG, our plethora of bigs and relative lack of 3 point shooting compared to years past. The staff have spoken publily about us wanting to run more based on this year's personnel.

Agree that with Duval and our mobile bigs we should want to run a lot, but the problem is that we have no guard depth. We can't expect Duval, Allen and Trent to play 35 minutes a game at an uptempo pace. You mentioned 2010 as an outlier, but that year's roster is the one that most closely resembles this year's with three guards/wing playing essentially the whole game and then a stable of big men. We knew in 2010 that we had to slow the pace and walk it up every possession in order to manage fatigue and foul trouble. So we'll see. If Tucker, White, or O'Connell could develop to the point of providing real minutes, I would feel better about our ability to run and gun.

Kedsy
10-16-2017, 11:00 AM
Agree that with Duval and our mobile bigs we should want to run a lot, but the problem is that we have no guard depth. We can't expect Duval, Allen and Trent to play 35 minutes a game at an uptempo pace. You mentioned 2010 as an outlier, but that year's roster is the one that most closely resembles this year's with three guards/wing playing essentially the whole game and then a stable of big men. We knew in 2010 that we had to slow the pace and walk it up every possession in order to manage fatigue and foul trouble. So we'll see. If Tucker, White, or O'Connell could develop to the point of providing real minutes, I would feel better about our ability to run and gun.

In 1999-2000, we had basically a 6-man rotation and ranked 23rd in the nation in pace, with three guys getting 34+ mpg. In 2001-02, we also had basically a 6-man rotation and ranked 13th in the nation in pace with our two primary guards playing 34 and 35 mpg. In 2001, we didn't really have any more guard depth than we have now, and ranked 12th nationally in pace. In 2010, we slowed the pace because our personnel wasn't really suited to a running game. These guys are all young and in great shape and personally, I find it much less physically taxing to run and gun than it is to grind it out in the halfcourt.

If K decides to run, our lack of guard depth is unlikely to hold us back.

dukelifer
10-16-2017, 11:05 AM
In 1999-2000, we had basically a 6-man rotation and ranked 23rd in the nation in pace, with three guys getting 34+ mpg. In 2001-02, we also had basically a 6-man rotation and ranked 13th in the nation in pace with our two primary guards playing 34 and 35 mpg. In 2001, we didn't really have any more guard depth than we have now, and ranked 12th nationally in pace. In 2010, we slowed the pace because our personnel wasn't really suited to a running game. These guys are all young and in great shape and personally, I find it much less physically taxing to run and gun than it is to grind it out in the halfcourt.

If K decides to run, our lack of guard depth is unlikely to hold us back.
I am less worried about players running too much- I am more worried about player getting into foul trouble. Reaching- get a block called on a switch- simple mistakes going for a ball. These young guys are going to make mistakes early. Goldwire will be called on. Will need another guard to be solid.

budwom
10-16-2017, 11:10 AM
Opposing teams are definitely going to zone us and/or pack it in until we prove we can hit some threes. My hope is that Bagley and Carter can hit enough long two point shots to be able to stretch the defense without hitting threes. Otherwise we'll see defenses just camp under the basket.

Yes, I'm expecting a lot of zones, but hopefully we'll have the offensive rebounding to diminish the effectiveness of this strategy. Another good reason to get out and run when we can.

flyingdutchdevil
10-16-2017, 11:10 AM
I am less worried about players running too much- I am more worried about player getting into foul trouble. Reaching- get a block called on a switch- simple mistakes going for a ball. These young guys are going to make mistakes early. Goldwire will be called on. Will need another guard to be solid.

I'd bet against you. No way Goldwire is part of the rotation. Hell, I'd be surprised if be totaled 20 minutes in non-conference play.

If Duval is in foul trouble, Grayson steps in.

Kedsy
10-16-2017, 11:38 AM
I'd bet against you. No way Goldwire is part of the rotation. Hell, I'd be surprised if be totaled 20 minutes in non-conference play.

If Duval is in foul trouble, Grayson steps in.

Yeah, I totally agree. Jordan G is garbage-time-only this season. If Trevon gets into foul trouble, Grayson and Gary play PG and SG, and then either Marvin moves to SF or our 7th man (whether that's Javin or Jordan T or Alex or Jack) comes in.

Billy Dat
10-16-2017, 11:49 AM
Yes, I'm expecting a lot of zones, but hopefully we'll have the offensive rebounding to diminish the effectiveness of this strategy. Another good reason to get out and run when we can.

I was thinking about this, too, but I wonder how many teams actually practice zone well enough to execute it well. against us? It seems like there are zone teams (Syracuse) and teams that mix it in frequently to throw teams off (I think of Pitino's Louisville teams), but I wonder if we actually will see more zones from our conference and marquee non-conference opponents?

If we do, I wonder if Grayson can kind of be a one man zone buster? Assuming the zones we see will be 2-3s, our aim is to get it to that foul line slot. That catcher (Bagley? Carter?) needs to be able to quickly read and react...turn and take a 15 footer, feel the guard dig down and redirect to a shooter (Grayson, Gary), or feel the baseline help and dump it or alley oop it to the other big. I think we've attacked zones pretty well in recent years. Now, the UVA packline, which is like a hybrid, will be a great test.

ice-9
10-16-2017, 12:23 PM
Rev up the hype machine, stomp your feet on the bleachers, and chant "airball" at someone. It's time for the first Phase report of the 2017-18 Duke basketball season, and we're all feeling good.



Well hot damn what an amazing series of posts to read! And I can't even spork you so I'm gonna join the chorus and say kudos via comment.

flyingdutchdevil
10-16-2017, 01:56 PM
Yeah, I totally agree. Jordan G is garbage-time-only this season. If Trevon gets into foul trouble, Grayson and Gary play PG and SG, and then either Marvin moves to SF or our 7th man (whether that's Javin or Jordan T or Alex or Jack) comes in.

You can realistically argue that, based on rankings and seniority, Vrank, Tucker, O'Connell, White, and Robinson are all ahead of Goldwire. Garbage time doesn't need PGs; it needs players. And all those players seem to be ahead of Goldwire (again, based purely on a mix between rankings/seniority).

Troublemaker
10-16-2017, 01:57 PM
In 1999-2000, we had basically a 6-man rotation and ranked 23rd in the nation in pace, with three guys getting 34+ mpg. In 2001-02, we also had basically a 6-man rotation and ranked 13th in the nation in pace with our two primary guards playing 34 and 35 mpg. In 2001, we didn't really have any more guard depth than we have now, and ranked 12th nationally in pace. In 2010, we slowed the pace because our personnel wasn't really suited to a running game. These guys are all young and in great shape and personally, I find it much less physically taxing to run and gun than it is to grind it out in the halfcourt.

If K decides to run, our lack of guard depth is unlikely to hold us back.

Coach K says Duke is trying to run this season in the following twitter video posted a few days ago: https://twitter.com/i/videos/918921151363125248

I think we'll follow through because Duke almost HAS to become a great fastbreak team AND great offensive rebounding team in order to be a great offensive team this season. Our first-shot offense in the halfcourt will probably suffer if the general consensus about our shooting prowess proves to be true. We would also be wasting Duval's talents if we're not pushing the pace.

Also, at 0:12 of that video, Bagley nonchalantly pulls off a reverse tip dunk. I'm going to enjoy watching his easy athleticism this season.

Finally, awesome Phase post, Kedsy. As always, would spork if I could.

duke4ever19
10-16-2017, 02:03 PM
Will CTC be televised?

This is from the goduke.com article about CTC:


Fans who are unable to attend Countdown to Craziness have the opportunity to view the action live via ACC Network Extra as Ryan Craig and Chris Spatola provide commentary and analysis. ACC Network Extra is an Atlantic Coast Conference-dedicated live-events digital network available to authenticated subscribers of ESPN3 available on WatchESPN and the ESPN app.

Here's a link to it on ESPN's schedule: http://www.espn.com/watch/schedule/?startDate=20171020&type=upcoming

It's the third event listed under 'Basketball.'

brlftz
10-16-2017, 02:16 PM
I was thinking about this, too, but I wonder how many teams actually practice zone well enough to execute it well. against us? It seems like there are zone teams (Syracuse) and teams that mix it in frequently to throw teams off (I think of Pitino's Louisville teams), but I wonder if we actually will see more zones from our conference and marquee non-conference opponents?

If we do, I wonder if Grayson can kind of be a one man zone buster? Assuming the zones we see will be 2-3s, our aim is to get it to that foul line slot. That catcher (Bagley? Carter?) needs to be able to quickly read and react...turn and take a 15 footer, feel the guard dig down and redirect to a shooter (Grayson, Gary), or feel the baseline help and dump it or alley oop it to the other big. I think we've attacked zones pretty well in recent years. Now, the UVA packline, which is like a hybrid, will be a great test.

I almost hope we see a lot of zone. Grayson alone can punish it, but the other factor is that zone tends to be weaker at limiting offensive rebounds, and that figures to be a huge strength for us. And then there's the ability to lob over zones on the weak side, with a pure point guard on the floor and gobs of athletic finishers near the rim. I think we'd feast against a pure zone.

COYS
10-16-2017, 03:20 PM
Coach K says Duke is trying to run this season in the following twitter video posted a few days ago: https://twitter.com/i/videos/918921151363125248

I think we'll follow through because Duke almost HAS to become a great fastbreak team AND great offensive rebounding team in order to be a great offensive team this season. Our first-shot offense in the halfcourt will probably suffer if the general consensus about our shooting prowess proves to be true. We would also be wasting Duval's talents if we're not pushing the pace.

Also, at 0:12 of that video, Bagley nonchalantly pulls off a reverse tip dunk. I'm going to enjoy watching his easy athleticism this season.

Finally, awesome Phase post, Kedsy. As always, would spork if I could.

I will add to the chorus of people praising Kedsy for a fantastic phase post. I feel sorry for the guy who is writing the next Phase post. Wait . . . what? You mean I'm the one who will be writing the next phase post? Sorry to disappoint everyone.

Anyway, I find pace to be an interesting question for this year's team. While I love the idea of getting Tre, Grayson, and our bevy of athletic big men out on the break and play at a high tempo, I also suspect that our defense will be better if we stay more compact, which would probably mean playing slower on that end. I doubt we see this as Coach K really only did this in 2010 when we had a relatively slow team, but I love the idea of using our length advantage by staying more compact and cutting off driving lanes while also using our athleticism to close out on three point shooters. I would bet that instead of generating turnovers off of high ball pressure, which puts a lot of the onus on Tre to be an excellent on-ball defender from the get-go, we could get a lot of turnovers as opposing guards drive into the teeth of our long, athletic defenders who pick off passes that other teams simply can't get to and then break from there.

So, I guess my hope is that we pack it in a little bit on the defensive end because I think that would play to our strengths while simultaneously cranking up the pace the second we get the ball, whether that be off of a turnover, rebound, or even a made basket. That would probably mean that our overall pace wouldn't be eye-poppingly fast, but our average offensive possession would probably be significantly shorter than our average defensive possession.

There is a partially applicable precedent for this. Our 2015 team played progressively slower as the year went on. While some of that was due to moving from the preseason schedule to the ACC schedule where it is harder to keep the pace up, it also seemed to be intentional, at least on the defensive end. We did seem to play more compact, certainly by the end of the year and throughout the NCAAT. Although that team never played quite as compact as what I'm envisioning.

Again, though, I don't expect us to play this way because it's not Coach K's preferred style and if in fact we CAN apply good high-pressure defense, then that's even better. Also, he's the GOAT so I trust him even though I'd really be curious to see us try a compact D this year.

DukeFanSince1990
10-16-2017, 04:31 PM
I'd bet against you. No way Goldwire is part of the rotation. Hell, I'd be surprised if be totaled 20 minutes in non-conference play.

If Duval is in foul trouble, Grayson steps in.

After watching the scrimmage, I wouldnt be too surprised to see Goldwire log some minutes (not as a starter). He played solid D, I dont remember Duval getting around him at all.

Henderson
10-16-2017, 04:34 PM
Was just at the mall for the first time in ages, waiting on new glasses (idiot puppy decided to munch on my spectacles). Saw a shirt in gag-worthy blue with a silhouette of a player in a 3 jersey, with the words "WHY YOU BE TRIPPIN?"

It is going to be a long season.

He can have the shirt. We've got Grayson and subject-verb agreement.

Furniture
10-16-2017, 10:16 PM
For those of us not going. How can we see CTC?

Kedsy
10-16-2017, 10:39 PM
For those of us not going. How can we see CTC?

I think it's going to be on ESPN3/WatchESPN.

duke4ever19
10-16-2017, 11:59 PM
For those of us not going. How can we see CTC?

Here's a link to it on ESPN's schedule: http://www.espn.com/watch/schedule/?...&type=upcoming

It's the third event listed under 'Basketball.' But make sure you move the calendar date to the 20th.

Furniture
10-17-2017, 09:24 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/DukeMBB/status/920415204328042496

There is no smoke without fire. Javin is really getting hyped up.

Kedsy
10-17-2017, 09:30 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/DukeMBB/status/920415204328042496

There is no smoke without fire. Javin is really getting hyped up.

And they wouldn't put him front and center like that if he wasn't going to play.

BD80
10-17-2017, 09:42 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/DukeMBB/status/920415204328042496

There is no smoke without fire. Javin is really getting hyped up.

I miss the floor-slapping once back on D waiting for the ball to be brought up (not while the ball is advanced past the D)

FerryFor50
10-18-2017, 02:06 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/DukeMBB/status/920415204328042496

There is no smoke without fire. Javin is really getting hyped up.

Nick Horvath 2.0?

Kedsy
10-18-2017, 02:46 PM
Nick Horvath 2.0?

My recollection is that Nick Horvath was hyped by fans, based on uncoached pickup games. Javin is being hyped by the Duke coaching staff and PR machine. That's a big difference, in my mind.

Also, IIRC, Nick was soft-spoken, while Javin has been presented as a vocal team leader. Another big difference.

I suppose we'll soon see whether the Javin hype is justified.

AGDukesky
10-18-2017, 03:55 PM
My recollection is that Nick Horvath was hyped by fans, based on uncoached pickup games. Javin is being hyped by the Duke coaching staff and PR machine. That's a big difference, in my mind.

Also, IIRC, Nick was soft-spoken, while Javin has been presented as a vocal team leader. Another big difference.

I suppose we'll soon see whether the Javin hype is justified.

Until Javin banks in a 3-pointer to win a game, he is no Nick Horvath...

FerryFor50
10-18-2017, 04:58 PM
My recollection is that Nick Horvath was hyped by fans, based on uncoached pickup games. Javin is being hyped by the Duke coaching staff and PR machine. That's a big difference, in my mind.

Also, IIRC, Nick was soft-spoken, while Javin has been presented as a vocal team leader. Another big difference.

I suppose we'll soon see whether the Javin hype is justified.

I was mainly kidding. I think Javin will be a solid player this year.

gam7
10-18-2017, 05:05 PM
Until Javin banks in a 3-pointer to win a game, he is no Nick Horvath...

It didn't win a game, but that wild fast break layup he hit last year (which I can't currently find video of) might have been enough for him to scale Mt. Horvath.

mattman91
10-18-2017, 05:10 PM
My recollection is that Nick Horvath was hyped by fans, based on uncoached pickup games. Javin is being hyped by the Duke coaching staff and PR machine. That's a big difference, in my mind.

Also, IIRC, Nick was soft-spoken, while Javin has been presented as a vocal team leader. Another big difference.

I suppose we'll soon see whether the Javin hype is justified.

Not really disagreeing with you, but the "PR machine" is MUCH larger now than it was during Nick's time.

House P
10-18-2017, 05:31 PM
It didn't win a game, but that wild fast break layup he hit last year (which I can't currently find video of) might have been enough for him to scale Mt. Horvath.


Here's a link to the video (http://www.ncaa.com/video/basketball-men/2017-03-17/2-pointer-javin-delaurier).

As far as advanced analytics are concerned, it appears that Javin scored 2 points on zero shot attempts after Jan 1 last season. That is a true shooting percentage of infinity!

DukieInBrasil
10-18-2017, 07:03 PM
It didn't win a game, but that wild fast break layup he hit last year (which I can't currently find video of) might have been enough for him to scale Mt. Horvath.

genius. does he get his profile carved into the summit?

English
10-19-2017, 02:36 PM
genius. does he get his profile carved into the summit?

It seems you are all arguing a moot point--per SI's ACC preview, Javin isn't cracking the rotation, and it's JTucker we should be annointing:

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/10/18/acc-preview-team-player-rankings-projections

That said, I'm not sure how SI arrives at its basic and advanced-ish stats, but that wouldn't be an unheard of rotation given the assumption that neither Marvin nor Javin can adequately play the 3. I disagree, but thought I would share nonetheless.

Kedsy
10-19-2017, 05:04 PM
The more I think about it, the more I'm interested in seeing how much Wendell Carter stands out. Here's the #7 recruit, an almost certain one-and-done, and we're hardly talking about him.

If our lineup is Trevon/Grayson/Gary/Marvin/Wendell, then Wendell would be the 4th or 5th option on offense (which alone is pretty crazy). Will he have room to operate down low? How often will he get the ball? And if we play three bigs together, will that only clog things up further, making Wendell that much less effective? Will he be able to dominate, or will Marvin (and maybe Marques too) overshadow him?

And on defense, will he be erasing his teammates' mistakes on D, or will they have to cover for his? Are his skills redundant to Marvin's and/or Marques's?

We've been assuming that both opposing defenses and offenses will have to pay a lot of attention to Wendell. If that's not true, the team's a lot different

gam7
10-19-2017, 05:51 PM
Here's a link to the video (http://www.ncaa.com/video/basketball-men/2017-03-17/2-pointer-javin-delaurier).

As far as advanced analytics are concerned, it appears that Javin scored 2 points on zero shot attempts after Jan 1 last season. That is a true shooting percentage of infinity!

Haha, nice! I had forgotten that that happened in the NCAA tourney. I was thinking it happened during a conference game.

gam7
10-19-2017, 05:57 PM
genius. does he get his profile carved into the summit?

He would, but the famous "Horvath Proboscis" rock formation leaves very little room for profile carvings.

SkyBrickey
10-19-2017, 05:58 PM
Wendell will be a great rebounder on both ends, play good defense, and make smart passes. He will finish at the rim and get his share of garbage baskets.

But I agree it will be interesting to see how much the offense moves through him and how he's featured facing or back to the basket. He's got decent but not stellar post moves. And he's got a nice soft jumper but is it consistent enough to go to?

Even if he's not scoring 14 a game, I expect he will be hugely valuable for all the other things he brings.

Kedsy
10-20-2017, 11:41 PM
Here's a crazy Blue/White scrimmage stat: eleven different players attempted three-point shots. Seven guys attempted multiple threes, and all seven made at least one.

Percent of three point shots out of total shots taken: Blue: 42.4% (50% success rate); White: 51.4% (38.9% success rate). So, a LOT more three-point attempts than we expected.

Offensive rebounding percentages: White: 43%; Blue: 50%. Pretty extreme, for both sides (and against fairly large opponents, too). Just as we hoped.

Free throw rate: White: 17.1%; Blue: 15.1%. Pretty anemic, for both sides. Let's hope the refs were just letting them play in this one.

Points per possession (aka, offensive efficiency): Blue: 1.26; White: 1.17. Unadjusted, of course. In 2016-17, our unadjusted rate was 1.24. Our offense will be fine.

Though our unadjusted defensive efficiencies were pretty alarming...

uh_no
10-20-2017, 11:54 PM
Here's a crazy Blue/White scrimmage stat: eleven different players attempted three-point shots. Seven guys attempted multiple threes, and all seven made at least one.

Percent of three point shots out of total shots taken: Blue: 42.4% (50% success rate); White: 51.4% (38.9% success rate). So, a LOT more three-point attempts than we expected.

Offensive rebounding percentages: White: 43%; Blue: 50%. Pretty extreme, for both sides (and against fairly large opponents, too). Just as we hoped.

Free throw rate: White: 17.1%; Blue: 15.1%. Pretty anemic, for both sides. Let's hope the refs were just letting them play in this one.

Points per possession (aka, offensive efficiency): Blue: 1.26; White: 1.17. Unadjusted, of course. In 2016-17, our unadjusted rate was 1.24. Our offense will be fine.

Though our unadjusted defensive efficiencies were pretty alarming...

Guessing our defensive rebounding was correspondingly poor :)
Hard to get too worried about such a scrimmage.

Newton_14
10-21-2017, 09:50 AM
You can realistically argue that, based on rankings and seniority, Vrank, Tucker, O'Connell, White, and Robinson are all ahead of Goldwire. Garbage time doesn't need PGs; it needs players. And all those players seem to be ahead of Goldwire (again, based purely on a mix between rankings/seniority).

After last night, I would put Goldwire very solidly in front of Tucker, White, and Robinson... I saw a kid who was ranked far lower in recruiting rankings than he should of been. I think he will get spot minutes similar to what Tyler Thornton was getting his freshman season prior to Kyrie getting injured. Not a large amount of minutes or anything but definitely spot minutes in situations where say Duval has picked up 2 fouls in the 1st Half and K is trying to prevent him from picking up the 3rd prior to halftime. Jordan was definitely not overmatched out there last night that's for sure.

That said, prior to seeing him play last night I would have agreed with your post 100%.

Troublemaker
10-21-2017, 10:40 AM
"Will the big men continue to shoot threes and with some success?" might be another question for this Phase.

Javin, Wendell, Marques, and Marvin combined to shoot 2-for-6 from three last night, and I was happy to see it. There's been some discussion about how the bigs have to be able to hit long 2s in order to stretch the defense, but the stat geek in me would want them to take a couple of steps back and launch from behind the 3-pt line instead. If the bigs can combine to hit 30-33% from three, it'll be more beneficial to the offense than hitting 35-40% from "long 2" range.

I hope to see the bigs continue to take some threes and hopefully continue to make some in the two exhibition games.

Henderson
10-21-2017, 11:06 AM
Here's a crazy Blue/White scrimmage stat: eleven different players attempted three-point shots. Seven guys attempted multiple threes, and all seven made at least one.

Percent of three point shots out of total shots taken: Blue: 42.4% (50% success rate); White: 51.4% (38.9% success rate). So, a LOT more three-point attempts than we expected.


With our inside players, that should frighten opposing coaches.

Kedsy
10-21-2017, 12:22 PM
I think [Jordan G] will get spot minutes similar to what Tyler Thornton was getting his freshman season prior to Kyrie getting injured. Not a large amount of minutes or anything but definitely spot minutes in situations where say Duval has picked up 2 fouls in the 1st Half and K is trying to prevent him from picking up the 3rd prior to halftime.

For what it's worth, the seven games before Kyrie was hurt included three cupcakes and four "real" games. In the four real games, Tyler played a total of 7 minutes, for an average of 1.8 mpg. If that's what you mean, then I agree Jordan G may see a minute or two in "real" non-ACC games and in ACC games against lower-tier opponents. I'll be surprised if he gets off the bench at all against tough opponents after January 1, except in garbage time.

CajunDevil
10-21-2017, 02:15 PM
The team benefits from having a pass first pg who can hit the 3 and is solid defensively, moreso than having Grayson try to run point, IMO. I like Goldwire and think he could certainly step in and play quality minutes backing up Duval this year, but will K be inclined to do it? Probably not, but Goldwire getting legit burn seems more plausible now than a few months ago.

BD80
10-21-2017, 02:21 PM
Here's a crazy Blue/White scrimmage stat: eleven different players attempted three-point shots. Seven guys attempted multiple threes, and all seven made at least one.

Percent of three point shots out of total shots taken: Blue: 42.4% (50% success rate); White: 51.4% (38.9% success rate). So, a LOT more three-point attempts than we expected.

Offensive rebounding percentages: White: 43%; Blue: 50%. Pretty extreme, for both sides (and against fairly large opponents, too). Just as we hoped.

Free throw rate: White: 17.1%; Blue: 15.1%. Pretty anemic, for both sides. Let's hope the refs were just letting them play in this one.

Points per possession (aka, offensive efficiency): Blue: 1.26; White: 1.17. Unadjusted, of course. In 2016-17, our unadjusted rate was 1.24. Our offense will be fine.

Though our unadjusted defensive efficiencies were pretty alarming...

In retrospect, not so surprising.

With such talented big men, there will be less room for dribble penetration, thus less free throws.

However, the three point shot is still the better percentage shot attempt, particularly with athletic big men for offensive rebounding. Offense will be initiated more from an inside out approach than a drive and kick out attack.

As our post offense improves (it will be a while before they face such a big defense as they do in practice) the free throws will come.

Billy Dat
10-21-2017, 02:36 PM
Other observations:

-Carter and Deslaurier seem like very willing and adept passers
-I like the repeated attempts to go hi/lo with Bagley and Bolden both assuming the passer and poster roles
-Bagley showed some real handles in transition and on a few drives. The fact that he is a lefty is lethal. He needs touches
-Trent Jr. is a tough dude with a lot of confidence and the aura of a real scorer
-O'Connell looks like he belongs, he does not lack for confidence either.
-Grayson has a lot of help out there, which should make the game easier for him

Very very exciting.

Billy Dat
10-21-2017, 02:57 PM
Bagley...

On how the transition from high school to college has gone for him so far:
“It was tough at first, just getting used to the speed of the game and learning new things that I didn’t know in high
school from Coach K and all the other coaches. I’m just learning a lot. I’m just having fun. I love it here. It was the best
decision I ever made – to come here. I’m looking forward to the season."

Furniture
10-21-2017, 07:29 PM
"Will the big men continue to shoot threes and with some success?" might be another question for this Phase.

Javin, Wendell, Marques, and Marvin combined to shoot 2-for-6 from three last night, and I was happy to see it. There's been some discussion about how the bigs have to be able to hit long 2s in order to stretch the defense, but the stat geek in me would want them to take a couple of steps back and launch from behind the 3-pt line instead. If the bigs can combine to hit 30-33% from three, it'll be more beneficial to the offense than hitting 35-40% from "long 2" range.

I hope to see the bigs continue to take some threes and hopefully continue to make some in the two exhibition games.

I had never thought about it but why not. I mean if your opposition thinks you only have two 3 point shooters then they will be all over them. If a big steps up to the 3point line even if they miss we stand a good chance at a rebound.....

DukieInBrasil
10-21-2017, 07:44 PM
After viewing the game today on replay i don't have anything to say that hasn't been said but, still...
I was not as impressed with Duval as i thought i would be, strictly due to the turnovers, and the carelessness it seemed in which they happened. I'm not too worried b/c i'm sure the coaching staff will help him improve there.
I was impressed by Goldwire and O'Connell more than i thought i'd be. I don't know if that will translate to any playing time this year. O'Connell looks more ready for D1 ball than i thought.
Grayson's shot looks really nice. Trent's shot looked nice and i liked seeing his competitive spirit.
I'm glad our bigs were willing to take long jumpers/3s, but going forward i really hope that Bolden eliminates those thoughts from his head. If Javin is gonna play the 3 then hitting the occasional 3 will be important. I really liked how well they passed the ball either hi-low or on the blocks, that bodes well. I was impressed with all of our bigs, perhaps Bolden impressed me least relative to my expectations.

We're real tall. Grayson can shoot the 3 real good. I just hope the coaching staff and players can fill in the other parts.

Newton_14
10-21-2017, 09:24 PM
The team benefits from having a pass first pg who can hit the 3 and is solid defensively, moreso than having Grayson try to run point, IMO. I like Goldwire and think he could certainly step in and play quality minutes backing up Duval this year, but will K be inclined to do it? Probably not, but Goldwire getting legit burn seems more plausible now than a few months ago.

The part I highlighted in bold text doesn't really apply to Duval though. The rest certainly does and I think he may actually be better than "solid" on defense. I do like what I saw out of Goldwire too. He certainly looked like he "belonged" out there and wasn't overmatched which I admit I found surprising given his recruiting ranking. He probably will play no more than spot minutes (as defined by Kedsy earlier today in response to my post), but I don't think K will be scared to put him out there at an important time if the situation calls for it for whatever rare reason. To sum it up.. JGold was a very pleasant surprise...

Kedsy
10-21-2017, 10:55 PM
I was not as impressed with Duval as i thought i would be, strictly due to the turnovers, and the carelessness it seemed in which they happened.

I originally posted the below in the CTC thread, but it probably makes more sense here. Based on past Duke freshman PGs, I think we just have to live with the TOs. It worked pretty well for guys like Hurley, J Williams, and others.


DUKE FRESHMAN PGs WHO WERE TEAM'S ONLY REAL BALLHANDLER


Player G Assists Tos A/to topg
Bobby Hurley 38 288 166 1.73 4.37
Jason Williams 34 220 139 1.58 4.09
Greg Paulus 36 187 118 1.58 3.28
Derryck Thornton 36 93 59 1.58 1.64
Jeff Capel 34 106 68 1.56 2.00
Johnny Dawkins 28 134 103 1.30 3.68
Frank Jackson 36 61 49 1.24 1.36


Note: Jeff Capel, Derryck Thornton, and Frank Jackson might not really belong here, since they weren't necessarily the team's primary ballhandler.

DUKE FRESHMAN PGs WHO SHARED BACKCOURT WITH ANOTHER PG


Player G Assists Tos A/to topg
Tyus Jones 39 217 76 2.86 1.95
Chris Duhon 39 174 61 2.85 1.56
Tommy Amaker 34 163 101 1.61 2.97
Will Avery 35 87 60 1.45 1.71


Note: Will Avery was really more of a backup than a second PG.

My point is that every Duke freshman PG except two turned the ball over a lot and had subpar A/to ratios. And the two who didn't were playing next to older PGs who could rein them in and/or take some of the pressure off them. I'd expect Trevon's numbers to look fairly similar to Jason Williams's freshman numbers. And if he could be freshman Jason Williams, I wouldn't really classify that as a "concern."

DukieInBrasil
10-21-2017, 11:10 PM
I originally posted the below in the CTC thread, but it probably makes more sense here. Based on past Duke freshman PGs, I think we just have to live with the TOs. It worked pretty well for guys like Hurley, J Williams, and others.

yeah, i expect he'll make turnovers. the thing that unimpressed me though was that at several of his turnovers were not b/c he was trying to make a too-fine pass, or got out of control, but b/c he just got his pocket picked or didn't protect the ball. as i said, i'm not too worried about those going forward as it's easy to see how this game might not have had his full attention. i do expect that he'll make some turnovers off trying to thread too fine a needle or over-driving, and i would much prefer those turnovers to the ones he was making in the CTC.

MarkD83
10-28-2017, 02:23 AM
Just a pulse check near the end of phase 0

Health good

Rotation. Nice rotation of bigs. Goldwire will help the guard rotation

Inexperience. Too early to tell

Hype. Living up to it

Offense. Good

DukieInBrasil
10-28-2017, 11:01 AM
Just a pulse check near the end of phase 0

Health good
Rotation. Nice rotation of bigs. Goldwire will help the guard rotation
Inexperience. Too early to tell
Hype. Living up to it
Offense. Good

I agree with your observations, 'cept the bolded part, and i don't really disagree with it. My thought is that Trent helps the guard rotation more than i thought he would. GTjr ain't gonna handle the ball, but when Duval goes out, i think Grayson will get the ball. I do think that Goldwire will play this year though, which will eliminate his red-shirt option, and i was moderately convinced that he would red-shirt.

Kedsy
10-28-2017, 12:30 PM
Here's a crazy Blue/White scrimmage stat: eleven different players attempted three-point shots. Seven guys attempted multiple threes, and all seven made at least one.

Percent of three point shots out of total shots taken: Blue: 42.4% (50% success rate); White: 51.4% (38.9% success rate). So, a LOT more three-point attempts than we expected.

Offensive rebounding percentages: White: 43%; Blue: 50%. Pretty extreme, for both sides (and against fairly large opponents, too). Just as we hoped.

Free throw rate: White: 17.1%; Blue: 15.1%. Pretty anemic, for both sides. Let's hope the refs were just letting them play in this one.

Points per possession (aka, offensive efficiency): Blue: 1.26; White: 1.17. Unadjusted, of course. In 2016-17, our unadjusted rate was 1.24. Our offense will be fine.

Though our unadjusted defensive efficiencies were pretty alarming...

In the first exhibition, ten different players attempted threes, six different guys attempted multiple threes, but only three made at least one (only one player, Grayson, made more than one three).

Percentage of three point shots out of total shots taken: 36.4% (33.3% success rate)

Offensive rebounding percentage: 42.9%; defensive rebounding percentage: 81.3% (both outstanding, as expected)

Free throw rate: 13.6% (pretty anemic)

Points per possession: 1.27

Opponents points per possession: 0.84

DukieTiger
10-28-2017, 01:38 PM
In the first exhibition, ten different players attempted threes, six different guys attempted multiple threes, but only three made at least one (only one player, Grayson, made more than one three).

Percentage of three point shots out of total shots taken: 36.4% (33.3% success rate)

Offensive rebounding percentage: 42.9%; defensive rebounding percentage: 81.3% (both outstanding, as expected)

Free throw rate: 13.6% (pretty anemic)

Points per possession: 1.27

Opponents points per possession: 0.84

To add a stat,

Opponent’s 3pt Rate: 47.1%*

^That’s a huge number for Duke but unsurprising against such a small team. Will be interesting to watch in-season when teams go small-ball against Duke. In the past, Duke has defended small ball lineups by continuing to take away the 3, which sometimes results in some frustratingly easy looks at the basket.

Will the same happen this year with Duke’s rim protectors? Or will Duke concede 3s at a higher rate rather than ask Wendell Carter to chase guys off the 3pt line.

*Edited to add that Duke is consistently in the top 10-20 nationally in limiting opponents’ 3pt attempts. It’s like the most consistent thing about our defense.

slower
10-28-2017, 03:31 PM
What's the start time for the next exhibition game?

jimsumner
10-28-2017, 03:35 PM
What's the start time for the next exhibition game?

One of the clock, next Saturday.

superdave
10-29-2017, 09:35 AM
In the first exhibition, ten different players attempted threes, six different guys attempted multiple threes, but only three made at least one (only one player, Grayson, made more than one three).

Percentage of three point shots out of total shots taken: 36.4% (33.3% success rate)

Offensive rebounding percentage: 42.9%; defensive rebounding percentage: 81.3% (both outstanding, as expected)

Free throw rate: 13.6% (pretty anemic)

Points per possession: 1.27

Opponents points per possession: 0.84

Grayson was 5-10 from the 3, and the rest of the team was 3-14. If Grayson keeps shooting between 7 and 10 3's a game, the rest of the team just needs to pick its spots better, like on secondary breaks, kickouts on offensive rebounds and open catch and shoots.

Will be interesting if any of the bigs consistently attempts a 3 each game.

superdave
10-29-2017, 09:43 AM
I saw our big guys run some high-low plays in the exhibition. It worked reasonably well, and with those guys could become a staple. I think you will see that if there's a big mis-match on the offensive end, like one good big defender gets pulled out from the rim, and our other big with the mis-match immediately posts or runs to the rim for the quick pass.

Should be fun. I was reading up on some of the stuff the Pelicans are trying to do with Cousins and Davis and it boils down to having skilled bigs play two on two with weak defenders.

slower
10-29-2017, 12:39 PM
Just watched the exhibition game. People who were unimpressed with Bagley - I have no idea what they were watching. The guy makes it looks effortless. I'll reserve judgment until the "real" games start, but I have no reason to doubt that he's the real deal.

Kedsy
10-29-2017, 02:30 PM
Just watched the exhibition game. People who were unimpressed with Bagley - I have no idea what they were watching. The guy makes it looks effortless. I'll reserve judgment until the "real" games start, but I have no reason to doubt that he's the real deal.

I agree. I thought Marvin looked fantastic. He reminded me of Chris Webber with an even higher motor.

I also don't understand why some people didn't like our defense. I thought that was fantastic, too. Sure, opposing players sometimes got by Duke defenders, one-on-one, but they almost always had to rush their shots near the rim because at least two and often three Duke defenders were patrolling the skies around the basket like a flock of hungry birds of prey. Sure, NW Mo St was small, but the guys who've given us fits over the recent past have mostly been small, too.

That said, I also agree we need to wait until the real games start before forming firm opinions.

MChambers
10-29-2017, 04:45 PM
I agree. I thought Marvin looked fantastic. He reminded me of Chris Webber with an even higher motor.

I also don't understand why some people didn't like our defense. I thought that was fantastic, too. Sure, opposing players sometimes got by Duke defenders, one-on-one, but they almost always had to rush their shots near the rim because at least two and often three Duke defenders were patrolling the skies around the basket like a flock of hungry birds of prey. Sure, NW Mo St was small, but the guys who've given us fits over the recent past have mostly been small, too.

That said, I also agree we need to wait until the real games start before forming firm opinions.

I thought Marvin looked amazing. I missed the first five minutes, so that probably helped.

I thought the defense was very good, especially because it had to chase around little shooters, supposedly something this team will struggle doing.

UrinalCake
10-29-2017, 09:54 PM
I've only seen parts of the exhibition in broken up spurts, but one play that stood out was when SWMoSt had a 2-on-1 break with only Bagley back defending. The two SWMoSt guards kept passing it back and forth until they ran out of space to run; neither wanted to take the shot because they were too afraid to get blocked. We haven't had that sort of rim protection (where opponents don't even try to shoot inside) in a long time.

phaedrus
10-29-2017, 10:23 PM
I've only seen parts of the exhibition in broken up spurts, but one play that stood out was when SWMoSt had a 2-on-1 break with only Bagley back defending. The two SWMoSt guards kept passing it back and forth until they ran out of space to run; neither wanted to take the shot because they were too afraid to get blocked. We haven't had that sort of rim protection (where opponents don't even try to shoot inside) in a long time.

Maybe not since 1999, the last time we played SWMoSt? ;)

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/1999-03-19-duke.html

subzero02
10-30-2017, 02:41 AM
I thought Marvin looked amazing. I missed the first five minutes, so that probably helped.

I thought the defense was very good, especially because it had to chase around little shooters, supposedly something this team will struggle doing.

Marvin looked amazing, especially on the offensive glass but the player who impressed me the most was Carter. His polished post moves are going to be extremely valuable against stronger opponents. I am very surprised by how advanced he is.

whereinthehellami
10-30-2017, 12:56 PM
Marvin looked amazing, especially on the offensive glass but the player who impressed me the most was Carter. His polished post moves are going to be extremely valuable against stronger opponents. I am very surprised by how advanced he is.

Bagley looks effortless on dunks. He is tall, long, has lots of fast twitch action, and knows what to do with it when he has it.

Carter is a really good passer, especially on the interior. I love how you can't speed him up. If you don't double him down low,
he will score and if you do double him, I think he will find the open guy. Really looking forward to seeing the chemistry that develops with Bagley.

SilkyJ
10-30-2017, 12:57 PM
Marvin looked amazing, especially on the offensive glass but the player who impressed me the most was Carter. His polished post moves are going to be extremely valuable against stronger opponents. I am very surprised by how advanced he is.

I agree re: Carter. He stood out to me as the guy who we'll rely on most after Grayson. Given his size and ability to play the 5, I think he's our 2nd most important player after G as well.

Bagley looked great, he was just effective in a quiet way. He got 16/6 without really needing the ball, did work on the o-glass. Didn't have to force anything. We will have 3-4 very good scorers this year with G, Marvin, and Carter and Gary.

Bolden still looks a year away....too cumbersome and slow down low. He brings the ball down to gather himself, etc. He can be effective when he's the biggest guy on the floor, but when we play bigger/better teams that can match his size, I think his lack of quickness will relegate him to 2nd tier mins, which most of figured he would play anyway.

Our biggest issue will be outside shooting. If G goes cold, we could have some cold nights from outside. Of course, if we gobble up all the O-boards, then maybe those missed shots are just assists...

kAzE
10-30-2017, 01:01 PM
I agree. I thought Marvin looked fantastic. He reminded me of Chris Webber with an even higher motor.

I also don't understand why some people didn't like our defense. I thought that was fantastic, too. Sure, opposing players sometimes got by Duke defenders, one-on-one, but they almost always had to rush their shots near the rim because at least two and often three Duke defenders were patrolling the skies around the basket like a flock of hungry birds of prey. Sure, NW Mo St was small, but the guys who've given us fits over the recent past have mostly been small, too.

That said, I also agree we need to wait until the real games start before forming firm opinions.

I think our defense will be decent to start out the year, but it will be nasty if the young guys figure things out and start playing together instinctually. It'll take time for them jell as a defensive unit, but a couple of them are pretty nice 1 on 1 defenders already. I think Bagley is going to be superb on defense from an individual standpoint. Javin looks great and already seems to be a solid help defender and rim protector.

Duval has the talent to be a great on ball defender, but I'm sure he's going to be embarrassed a few times with the great ACC guards he will face, same as every freshman point guard we've had. I expect him to be a little inconsistent on D.

Our athleticism is going to really help cover mistakes on defense as we learn how to play together, so when we figure it out, I really think this team can be elite on defense.

But then again, I thought we'd be really good on defense last year, too, and that turned out badly. I still think if Harry Giles and Amile Jefferson were 100% the whole year, we would have been really good.

WiJoe
10-30-2017, 05:29 PM
HELP! HELP!

at watchespn, it has the following listing for Saturday exhibition:

MEN'S COLLEGE BASKETBALL
6:00 PM Bowie State vs. Duke (M Basketball) accextra

does this mean it's on delay, or is it an espn snafu?

subzero02
10-30-2017, 10:40 PM
I agree re: Carter. He stood out to me as the guy who we'll rely on most after Grayson. Given his size and ability to play the 5, I think he's our 2nd most important player after G as well.

Bagley looked great, he was just effective in a quiet way. He got 16/6 without really needing the ball, did work on the o-glass. Didn't have to force anything. We will have 3-4 very good scorers this year with G, Marvin, and Carter and Gary.

Bolden still looks a year away...too cumbersome and slow down low. He brings the ball down to gather himself, etc. He can be effective when he's the biggest guy on the floor, but when we play bigger/better teams that can match his size, I think his lack of quickness will relegate him to 2nd tier mins, which most of figured he would play anyway.

Our biggest issue will be outside shooting. If G goes cold, we could have some cold nights from outside. Of course, if we gobble up all the O-boards, then maybe those missed shots are just assists...

I am thrilled that Carter chose the blue devils but if he had gone to Harvard, the Ivy league wouldn't know what to do with him. He'd almost certainly have been the conference POY and probably would put up numbers that would demand national POY consideration.

duketaylor
10-30-2017, 11:59 PM
I've only seen parts of the exhibition in broken up spurts, but one play that stood out was when SWMoSt had a 2-on-1 break with only Bagley back defending. The two SWMoSt guards kept passing it back and forth until they ran out of space to run; neither wanted to take the shot because they were too afraid to get blocked. We haven't had that sort of rim protection (where opponents don't even try to shoot inside) in a long time.

Maybe since Shelden.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-31-2017, 06:37 AM
Bagley looks effortless on dunks. He is tall, long, has lots of fast twitch action, and knows what to do with it when he has it.

Carter is a really good passer, especially on the interior. I love how you can't speed him up. If you don't double him down low,
he will score and if you do double him, I think he will find the open guy. Really looking forward to seeing the chemistry that develops with Bagley.

Be careful with your compliments there...

WiJoe
10-31-2017, 10:06 AM
HELP! HELP!

at watchespn, it has the following listing for Saturday exhibition:

MEN'S COLLEGE BASKETBALL
6:00 PM Bowie State vs. Duke (M Basketball) accextra

does this mean it's on delay, or is it an espn snafu?

Never mind. It's been fixed.

Thanks for the help.

DukieInBrasil
10-31-2017, 10:11 AM
Maybe since Shelden.

Shelden was an excellent shot blocker, in fact the best ever at Duke, but his shot blocking (according to my addled memory) was mostly from the post and just perfect timing on other post players or drives into the lane. Shelden was not feared as a run-jump athlete, but b/c of that perceived lack of explosiveness was able to seduce a lot of players into thinking they could shoot over/around/near him.
So while it's true that we haven't had a feared shot-blocker since Shelden, Bagley (as well as Carter, Bolden and Javin) would strike fear into the hearts of smaller players on the break due to their athleticism, length and height. Shelden otoh wasn't as tall as any of our 5 bigs this year, and probably ranks closer to Vrank in terms of elevation gain than to the others. Shelden and Bolden are probably pretty similar in terms of raw athleticism, but Bolden is both taller and insanely long.

IrishDevil
10-31-2017, 10:39 AM
Shelden was an excellent shot blocker, in fact the best ever at Duke, but his shot blocking (according to my addled memory) was mostly from the post and just perfect timing on other post players or drives into the lane. Shelden was not feared as a run-jump athlete, but b/c of that perceived lack of explosiveness was able to seduce a lot of players into thinking they could shoot over/around/near him.
So while it's true that we haven't had a feared shot-blocker since Shelden, Bagley (as well as Carter, Bolden and Javin) would strike fear into the hearts of smaller players on the break due to their athleticism, length and height. Shelden otoh wasn't as tall as any of our 5 bigs this year, and probably ranks closer to Vrank in terms of elevation gain than to the others. Shelden and Bolden are probably pretty similar in terms of raw athleticism, but Bolden is both taller and insanely long.

If what you are saying is that this year's crop of bouncy, more mobile bigs are more able/likely to achieve a delightful chasedown block than was Shelden, you are probably right. Shelden was made for a halfcourt game, both offensively and defensively, and excelled in both. But as exciting as chasedown blocks are, there is a reason Shelden earned the nickname the Landlord; he truly owned the paint. Big or little, post-up or on the drive, no shot was safe from him in the lane. Moreover, he usually blocked shots softly enough to keep them in play and recoverable by the defense. In my experience, most younger players enjoy blocking shots so much that they often either foul or, in their sheer exuberance, cause an inbounds or unintentional relocation pass for the offense rather than a change of possession. Yes, I am excited that opposing teams are going to be "hearing footsteps" on their fast breaks against us, but I will be more excited, and pleasantly surprised, if our interior defense presents anything like as strong a bulwark as Shelden did in his day. I imagine both of us will have to wait until the competition stiffens to determine whether we get our wishes.

English
10-31-2017, 10:44 AM
If what you are saying is that this year's crop of bouncy, more mobile bigs are more able/likely to achieve a delightful chasedown block than was Shelden, you are probably right. Shelden was made for a halfcourt game, both offensively and defensively, and excelled in both. But as exciting as chasedown blocks are, there is a reason Shelden earned the nickname the Landlord; he truly owned the paint. Big or little, post-up or on the drive, no shot was safe from him in the lane. Moreover, he usually blocked shots softly enough to keep them in play and recoverable by the defense. In my experience, most younger players enjoy blocking shots so much that they often either foul or, in their sheer exuberance, cause an inbounds or unintentional relocation pass for the offense rather than a change of possession. Yes, I am excited that opposing teams are going to be "hearing footsteps" on their fast breaks against us, but I will be more excited, and pleasantly surprised, if our interior defense presents anything like as strong a bulwark as Shelden did in his day. I imagine both of us will have to wait until the competition stiffens to determine whether we get our wishes.

Well said, and it would be a remarkably pleasant surprise if any of our talented, bouncy bigs wins NDPOY, in the footsteps of Shelden. Or are even in the conversation.

Sir Stealth
10-31-2017, 12:26 PM
Bolden still looks a year away...too cumbersome and slow down low. He brings the ball down to gather himself, etc. He can be effective when he's the biggest guy on the floor, but when we play bigger/better teams that can match his size, I think his lack of quickness will relegate him to 2nd tier mins, which most of figured he would play anyway.


I actually wouldn't be surprised if Bolden is more comfortable playing against other big players. When you have a big size advantage but are not that polished sometimes you can get caught out of your comfort zone or be bothered by the quick hands/feet of opponents. Against true post players Bolden can just play physically, use his superior length and (relative) athleticism, and not have to overthink what he should be doing out there.

I think the ideal matchup for Bolden is to play against a team with one true big surrounded by smaller players. In that scenario Bolden can match up comfortably with the big, use the hedging ability that plays to his strengths defending screens, and mostly stay home in the post to protect the rim as a help defender rather than sticking closely to his man out by the perimeter. There are a lot of college teams that play that kind of roster, and I still think that Bolden can be real asset rather than just a guy to rotate in to rest the starters.

I'd love to see Duke less prone to guards driving to the basket than in past years as our bigs rotate in to swat or bother shot after shot. Would be great for Duval and others to be able to defend aggressively on the perimeter the way Duke likes to without as much downside of giving up a million points at the rim.

Billy Dat
10-31-2017, 02:20 PM
I think the ideal matchup for Bolden is to play against a team with one true big surrounded by smaller players. In that scenario Bolden can match up comfortably with the big, use the hedging ability that plays to his strengths defending screens, and mostly stay home in the post to protect the rim as a help defender rather than sticking closely to his man out by the perimeter. There are a lot of college teams that play that kind of roster, and I still think that Bolden can be real asset rather than just a guy to rotate in to rest the starters.

I hear you, but I think the reality is that you have to beat the guy ahead of you on the depth chart. In an extremely limited sample so far, both Bagley and Carter seem to be better at doing the stuff Bolden does. I agree that he can be an asset, but I think he's an asset AS a guy to rotate in when we rest the starters because, in that scenario, he's a "5 star" guy playing against other bench units full of 4/3 and below star recruits. In terms of the overall big rotation, you can already see where Javin, as the energy, high motor guy, is easier to deploy because he doesn't need the ball and can (hopefully) guard out to the perimeter. Bolden doesn't seem as good as Bagley and Carter, and he's not as versatile as Javin. Guys in that situation aren't usually the focus of the game plan. My hope for him is that he can come in and be a real force on the second unit, build up his confidence and ability to perform in games, and be ready to be a leader next year, both on and off the court.

UrinalCake
10-31-2017, 02:56 PM
I hear you, but I think the reality is that you have to beat the guy ahead of you on the depth chart. In an extremely limited sample so far, both Bagley and Carter seem to be better at doing the stuff Bolden does.

Agree with that. Even if we're playing against a team with a single, big lumbering true post under the basket, which is the type of player Bolden would do well against, I suspect that Bagley and Carter would be able to defend such a player just as well as Bolden, and on offense would be better.

I'm trying not to be too hard on Bolden though. He still has a lot of value and a lot of room for improvement. If we think of him as a guy ranked in the 20's or 30's out of high school rather than a potential OAD lottery pick then I think our expectations would be more accurate.

DukieInBrasil
10-31-2017, 06:09 PM
Agree with that. Even if we're playing against a team with a single, big lumbering true post under the basket, which is the type of player Bolden would do well against, I suspect that Bagley and Carter would be able to defend such a player just as well as Bolden, and on offense would be better.

I'm trying not to be too hard on Bolden though. He still has a lot of value and a lot of room for improvement. If we think of him as a guy ranked in the 20's or 30's out of high school rather than a potential OAD lottery pick then I think our expectations would be more accurate.

Bolden absolutely did not perform like a OAD last year, and he got injured and/or played injured all year. So far this year, he hasn't looked like a guy who should be playing in the NBA next year, given that we've seen him in 1.5 games total. It could be that he won't really shake that image of him this year either, particularly if the other bigs all get more minutes than him. Then again, even in a reserve role he might play really well but still not crack the top 3 among bigs, and garner plenty of NBA interest. He's the biggest question mark to me this season.

flyingdutchdevil
10-31-2017, 06:40 PM
Bolden absolutely did not perform like a OAD last year, and he got injured and/or played injured all year. So far this year, he hasn't looked like a guy who should be playing in the NBA next year, given that we've seen him in 1.5 games total. It could be that he won't really shake that image of him this year either, particularly if the other bigs all get more minutes than him. Then again, even in a reserve role he might play really well but still not crack the top 3 among bigs, and garner plenty of NBA interest. He's the biggest question mark to me this season.

Ditto. Moreso than Duval. Duval may be much more important to the team's success, but Bolden is a bigger question mark in terms of performance.

ArtVandelay
10-31-2017, 08:49 PM
CONCLUSION

Of the five "easy" ways to score, this team should be really good at four of them, and maybe all five, despite the fact that we won't have a lot of three-point shooters.

Our offense is going to be fine.



Kedsy, I know this is like two weeks late, but I wanted to touch briefly on your initial Phase post. First of all, great job. Your historical comps are all very interesting.

As for the substance, I think I agree with your bottom line conclusion that our offense will be fine. I'm just not sure I know how it's going to happen. My confidence is frankly based largely on faith because of our track record of excellent offenses, the recruiting pedigree of our freshman, and Coach K. The problem, of course, is that we have virtually no track record to go on for most of the team, and I've learned my lesson enough times to know that things are almost certainly no going to turn out the way we expect for some of these players. That's why I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that our offense will excel in the five "efficient scoring" categories. To wit:

1) Offensive Rebounding - there's no real way to know whether we'll be good at this until we see guys in action against real competition, right? This seems like a skill that recruiting rankings likely can't do a good job predicting.
2) Fast Breaks - This was the part of your post I found most surprising. I think every year in the pre-season people predict that Duke will play an up-tempo, pressing style to take advantage of a putative deep bench. It never happens. At least not recently. We just aren't that kind of team anymore. Unless K changes his mind on that based on our personnel, I don't expect that to change. If anything, with a bigger team, I was speculating that we might play a slower, more grinding style this year more akin to the 2010 team. We might have good rim protectors, but it strikes me as way to soon to make any assumptions that we will become a turnover-forcing machine on D.
3) Free-throw shooting - agree with you that we just don't know on this one.
4) Post play - I think I agree that this is an area where we could/should excel, but I also want to see Bolden or Bagley show it before I fully buy in. Given that it appears we have some mobile, athletic bigs, I also think a lot of our inside scoring could come not from old-school, back-to-the-basket post play, as opposed to easy buckets off ball movement, offensive rebounds, and scoring on the move (pick and roll action, lobs, high-low, etc.).
5) Three-point shooting - I agree this could be an achilles heel for this squad. If Grayson is the only one able to consistent knock down 3s, teams will really start to pack it in and zone us. But it's definitely not a fatal flaw.

In addition to the above, I think scoring off dribble penetration will be a signficant part of the offense. I suspect we'll play less isolation one-on-one type sets like we've been running for Kennard, Ingram, Tatum, etc. just based on personnel. But I still think that drives to the hoop by Trevon and Grayson with either finishes at the rim or dump offs to big men should be a productive part of our offensive attack this year. Coach K is going to give these guys latitude to do their own thing.

All of that said, defense is the biggest question mark. Will we struggle with ball screen defense again? For some reason, we really haven't figured out how to do that in recent years, and I do think the massive year-to-year roster turnover plays a role here. Our seemingly perpetual inability to contain dribble penetration also continues to be an issue. Hopefully we will have more rim protectors this year to mitigate that, but we're relying on a lot of young guys to learn team defense quickly, and this is an area of significant concern for me. That said, Calipari manages to get freshmen-laden teams to play high-level D, so perhaps it's a personnel issue that can be corrected, and as you note some of our recruits have better defensive reputations this year.

All in all, this team has about as much upside and potential downside as any Duke team in recent memory. I guess 2014 and 2016 would be the closest comps in terms of my pre-season mindset and the wide range of potential outcomes, but it's even more extreme this year with the lack of returning talent. Could be a bumpy ride, but I too am excited by the possibilities.

Go Duke!

Kedsy
10-31-2017, 09:52 PM
1) Offensive Rebounding - there's no real way to know whether we'll be good at this until we see guys in action against real competition, right? This seems like a skill that recruiting rankings likely can't do a good job predicting.

Maybe. But I'll be shocked if we don't grab at least 38% of our offensive rebounding opportunities, and my guess is closer to (or maybe even over) 40%. In addition to being big, we'll always have two, and often three large, athletic guys hitting the offensive glass. Also, the fewer threes you take, the fewer long rebounds there are, which is an advantage for offensive rebounding, especially if you're large, long, and athletic.


2) Fast Breaks - This was the part of your post I found most surprising. I think every year in the pre-season people predict that Duke will play an up-tempo, pressing style to take advantage of a putative deep bench. It never happens. At least not recently. We just aren't that kind of team anymore. Unless K changes his mind on that based on our personnel, I don't expect that to change.

With the possible exception of Marques, all of our likely rotation players are built to run. And Trevon appears to be the kind of PG who likes to push it. From what little we've seen of him, frankly, he appears much more comfortable in the running game than he does in the halfcourt. So you may be right, but I bet we play faster than we have in any of the past nine years -- though I admit that's not saying much, since the last eight seasons were eight of Duke's nine slowest-paced teams in the past 31 seasons (the ninth slow team was 2007).


If anything, with a bigger team, I was speculating that we might play a slower, more grinding style this year more akin to the 2010 team.

We're big like 2010 (even bigger), but our speed and athletic ability is far superior. A slow, grinding style would not only not play to our strengths, but would probably be just what our opponents want from us.


4) Post play - I think I agree that this is an area where we could/should excel, but I also want to see Bolden or Bagley show it before I fully buy in. Given that it appears we have some mobile, athletic bigs, I also think a lot of our inside scoring could come not from old-school, back-to-the-basket post play, as opposed to easy buckets off ball movement, offensive rebounds, and scoring on the move (pick and roll action, lobs, high-low, etc.).

I think Wendell is the guy who will show us the most post-play scoring. A lot of Marvin's inside scoring will likely come from rebound-putbacks and alley-oops. Though he does seem to have that Chris Webber-like ability to catch the ball flat-footed near the basket and without any seeming offensive move just go up and dunk it. You don't see many guys who have that, but he does. Marques has the size, length, and footwork to score in the post, but it's unclear whether he has the will to bang enough to do it against defenders his size.



5) Three-point shooting - I agree this could be an achilles heel for this squad. If Grayson is the only one able to consistent knock down 3s, teams will really start to pack it in and zone us. But it's definitely not a fatal flaw.

I doubt too many opponents will be able to stop Grayson's shooting with a zone. Maybe a junk zone (box-and-one), but then we get back to him perpetually running off screens. He'll get his shots. The real danger from a shooting perspective is the rare game when Grayson's shot is off. If he shoots 2 for 12 from three, then what? I don't know.

As for the rest of our players, opponents will need to do more than zone us to stop us. They'll need to be able to out-size or out-athletic us, and not too many will be able to do either of those things.
Opponents will probably be able to back off of Trevon, but my biggest worry against a zone is Gary deciding those lightly guarded 19 footers are a good idea and taking eight of them. The other thing about zones is they will play into our offensive rebounding. And against a 2-3, Marvin and Gary should both be able to do good things from that open area near the free-throw line.

We'll see if UVa's packline proves too challenging, but personally I'm not worried even about Syracuse's zone, much less a less-practiced one.



In addition to the above, I think scoring off dribble penetration will be a signficant part of the offense. I suspect we'll play less isolation one-on-one type sets like we've been running for Kennard, Ingram, Tatum, etc. just based on personnel. But I still think that drives to the hoop by Trevon and Grayson with either finishes at the rim or dump offs to big men should be a productive part of our offensive attack this year. Coach K is going to give these guys latitude to do their own thing.

I agree. Gary and Marvin both should also get some good drives to the rim.



All of that said, defense is the biggest question mark. Will we struggle with ball screen defense again? For some reason, we really haven't figured out how to do that in recent years, and I do think the massive year-to-year roster turnover plays a role here.

Everyone struggles against ball screens in this day and age, and young teams generally struggle more. I think we just have to wait and see on this one.



Our seemingly perpetual inability to contain dribble penetration also continues to be an issue. Hopefully we will have more rim protectors this year to mitigate that, but we're relying on a lot of young guys to learn team defense quickly, and this is an area of significant concern for me. That said, Calipari manages to get freshmen-laden teams to play high-level D, so perhaps it's a personnel issue that can be corrected, and as you note some of our recruits have better defensive reputations this year.

I'm less worried about this. First off, I really liked the way Trevon and his long arms kept Pitts (the NW Mo State All-American PG) from getting the ball early in the possession, and then made him start the offense pretty far out in the halfcourt. I was also very impressed with the fear our big guys instilled in guards who dribble-penetrated. We saw a lot of pull ups and floaters and attempts to push the ball through a squadron of helicopters. So, do I think opposing guards will get past our perimeter on occasion? Of course. That happened a lot in the golden age, too. The difference is the guard will then have to navigate through Javin and/or Marvin, and if they get past them, have to deal with Wendell or Marques. I could be wrong, but I'm currently bullish on our defensive potential.

ArtVandelay
11-01-2017, 01:18 PM
Maybe. But I'll be shocked if we don't grab at least 38% of our offensive rebounding opportunities, and my guess is closer to (or maybe even over) 40%. In addition to being big, we'll always have two, and often three large, athletic guys hitting the offensive glass. Also, the fewer threes you take, the fewer long rebounds there are, which is an advantage for offensive rebounding, especially if you're large, long, and athletic.



With the possible exception of Marques, all of our likely rotation players are built to run. And Trevon appears to be the kind of PG who likes to push it. From what little we've seen of him, frankly, he appears much more comfortable in the running game than he does in the halfcourt. So you may be right, but I bet we play faster than we have in any of the past nine years -- though I admit that's not saying much, since the last eight seasons were eight of Duke's nine slowest-paced teams in the past 31 seasons (the ninth slow team was 2007).



We're big like 2010 (even bigger), but our speed and athletic ability is far superior. A slow, grinding style would not only not play to our strengths, but would probably be just what our opponents want from us.



I think Wendell is the guy who will show us the most post-play scoring. A lot of Marvin's inside scoring will likely come from rebound-putbacks and alley-oops. Though he does seem to have that Chris Webber-like ability to catch the ball flat-footed near the basket and without any seeming offensive move just go up and dunk it. You don't see many guys who have that, but he does. Marques has the size, length, and footwork to score in the post, but it's unclear whether he has the will to bang enough to do it against defenders his size.



I doubt too many opponents will be able to stop Grayson's shooting with a zone. Maybe a junk zone (box-and-one), but then we get back to him perpetually running off screens. He'll get his shots. The real danger from a shooting perspective is the rare game when Grayson's shot is off. If he shoots 2 for 12 from three, then what? I don't know.

As for the rest of our players, opponents will need to do more than zone us to stop us. They'll need to be able to out-size or out-athletic us, and not too many will be able to do either of those things.
Opponents will probably be able to back off of Trevon, but my biggest worry against a zone is Gary deciding those lightly guarded 19 footers are a good idea and taking eight of them. The other thing about zones is they will play into our offensive rebounding. And against a 2-3, Marvin and Gary should both be able to do good things from that open area near the free-throw line.

We'll see if UVa's packline proves too challenging, but personally I'm not worried even about Syracuse's zone, much less a less-practiced one.



I agree. Gary and Marvin both should also get some good drives to the rim.



Everyone struggles against ball screens in this day and age, and young teams generally struggle more. I think we just have to wait and see on this one.



I'm less worried about this. First off, I really liked the way Trevon and his long arms kept Pitts (the NW Mo State All-American PG) from getting the ball early in the possession, and then made him start the offense pretty far out in the halfcourt. I was also very impressed with the fear our big guys instilled in guards who dribble-penetrated. We saw a lot of pull ups and floaters and attempts to push the ball through a squadron of helicopters. So, do I think opposing guards will get past our perimeter on occasion? Of course. That happened a lot in the golden age, too. The difference is the guard will then have to navigate through Javin and/or Marvin, and if they get past them, have to deal with Wendell or Marques. I could be wrong, but I'm currently bullish on our defensive potential.

I appreciate your takes on this. I too am hopeful that things will break the way you anticipate. My over-arching concern (which is probably somewhat implicit in my prior post) is that I think our pre-season #1 ranking is based largely on substantial upside, which in turn is based largely on recruiting pedigrees, but probably doesn't bake in enough downside. Like, ranking us the preseason #1 means you think we're going to reach our ceiling based purely on talent. However, for a lot of the facets you discussed, I think the correct prediction is "We should be good at this, but we'll just have to see." That's a bit of a nerve-wracking way to go into the season.

It certainly is tempting to imagine an excellent team where at the end of the year we'll look back and say, "wow, that was a great Duke team with 5 first round picks." But I also don't think you have to squint that hard to envision a scenario where things go off the rails a bit. Certainly last season should make all us a bit humbler in our preseason expectations, anyway.

Now, I thought this was especially true prior to Bagley's committment, and I'll cop to not having seen enough of him to have a firm opinion yet. Maybe he will be a difference maker, but I am approaching this season with a higher degree of caution than perhaps others around these parts are.

I definitely am excited to see all of our shiny new toys in action.

ArtVandelay
11-01-2017, 01:23 PM
I think Wendell is the guy who will show us the most post-play scoring. A lot of Marvin's inside scoring will likely come from rebound-putbacks and alley-oops. Though he does seem to have that Chris Webber-like ability to catch the ball flat-footed near the basket and without any seeming offensive move just go up and dunk it. You don't see many guys who have that, but he does. Marques has the size, length, and footwork to score in the post, but it's unclear whether he has the will to bang enough to do it against defenders his size.

I agree Wendell should be our go-to post scorer. I didn't make that explicit in my prior post. I was more interested in whether he will be our ONLY true low-post offensive threat. I also am curious, as many are, to see if Carter and Bolden share the floor together and what that looks like.

As an aside, can we please impose a moratorium on Chris Webber comparisons for our freshmen? We've been burned on that comp in the not-so-distant past (see Giles, Harry).

Kedsy
11-01-2017, 01:59 PM
I appreciate your takes on this. I too am hopeful that things will break the way you anticipate. My over-arching concern (which is probably somewhat implicit in my prior post) is that I think our pre-season #1 ranking is based largely on substantial upside, which in turn is based largely on recruiting pedigrees, but probably doesn't bake in enough downside. Like, ranking us the preseason #1 means you think we're going to reach our ceiling based purely on talent. However, for a lot of the facets you discussed, I think the correct prediction is "We should be good at this, but we'll just have to see." That's a bit of a nerve-wracking way to go into the season.

It certainly is tempting to imagine an excellent team where at the end of the year we'll look back and say, "wow, that was a great Duke team with 5 first round picks." But I also don't think you have to squint that hard to envision a scenario where things go off the rails a bit. Certainly last season should make all us a bit humbler in our preseason expectations, anyway.

Now, I thought this was especially true prior to Bagley's committment, and I'll cop to not having seen enough of him to have a firm opinion yet. Maybe he will be a difference maker, but I am approaching this season with a higher degree of caution than perhaps others around these parts are.

I definitely am excited to see all of our shiny new toys in action.

I wasn't and am not making any commentary about our pre-season ranking, or our possible post-season success. In my mind, the former is irrelevant and the latter is not subject to accurate prediction. I'm just trying to describe how I think the pieces will mesh and what I believe the result of that meshing could be.

Regarding last season, while we clearly weren't the best team in the country, we won the ACC championship and went into the NCAA tournament with basically as good a chance as any to make the Final Four. Personally, I don't think that we ever have any right to expect more than that when a season begins. But putting that aside, injuries can derail (and have derailed) any team's season. It's implicit in any preseason expectation that the commentator is assuming no major injuries. So if major injuries do occur, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the preseason expectation. I also think last year's expectations were largely based on the assumption that the #2 recruit in the country was going to play like the #2 recruit in the country, regardless of the fact that he hadn't played at all in almost two years and was coming off surgery a month before the season started. Being wrong about that maybe should make us "humbler," but I don't think it should have much if any bearing on the predictions for our healthy (knock on some dense substance) freshmen this season.

I think "we should be good at this, but we'll just have to see" is about as good an outlook as we're going to get. But that's true in almost every season, isn't it?


As an aside, can we please impose a moratorium on Chris Webber comparisons for our freshmen? We've been burned on that comp in the not-so-distant past (see Giles, Harry).

When he was in college, the thing that impressed me most about Chris Webber was if he caught the ball near the basket, even flat-footed, even with defenders around him, he was still a threat to jump straight up and dunk it. No steps, no move, no gathering himself, just up and in. The only other college player I've ever noticed who consistently displayed that ability was Shaq, but of course Shaq was much taller so not really an apt comparison. Marvin has that. I'm not saying he's Chris Webber and I'm not basing this on his junior year of high school (a la Harry Giles). I'm just saying he can do that, and it's an amazing thing.

Personally, I think most player comparisons are silly. I also think most "moratoriums" on player comparisons are silly. But I don't have any problem with hearing or disseminating comparisons of particular moves or characteristics. In other words, if I say a guy employs a Tim Hardaway crossover or a Manu Ginobili euro-step, I'm not saying the player is as good as Hardaway or Ginobili, I'm just pointing out he uses a similar, effective move.

cato
11-01-2017, 03:12 PM
I also am curious, as many are, to see if Carter and Bolden share the floor together and what that looks like.


My WAG is “no.” Unless I’m missing part of Carter’s game, I don’t see how they can share the floor on defense or maintain spacing on offense.

kAzE
11-01-2017, 04:50 PM
I agree Wendell should be our go-to post scorer. I didn't make that explicit in my prior post. I was more interested in whether he will be our ONLY true low-post offensive threat. I also am curious, as many are, to see if Carter and Bolden share the floor together and what that looks like.

As an aside, can we please impose a moratorium on Chris Webber comparisons for our freshmen? We've been burned on that comp in the not-so-distant past (see Giles, Harry).

Marvin Bagley is also a VERY good low post scorer. He's got a very developed back to the basket game, possibly at an equal or higher level than Carter. In fact, it's probably the #1 thing he does (in addition to all of his other skills). He has the skill to attack from the perimeter, but his bread and butter is still scoring in the low post. You could also see his potential as a passer from the low post in the CTC game when he was posted up on the right block and whipped a perfect no-look pass to his blind side to Grayson for a corner 3.

Both Bagley and Carter will be very effective in the post. Theoretically, they should be able to command double teams against most opponents, which should allow the other to get in position for offensive rebounds and putbacks.

COYS
11-02-2017, 11:07 AM
Marvin Bagley is also a VERY good low post scorer. He's got a very developed back to the basket game, possibly at an equal or higher level than Carter. In fact, it's probably the #1 thing he does (in addition to all of his other skills). He has the skill to attack from the perimeter, but his bread and butter is still scoring in the low post. You could also see his potential as a passer from the low post in the CTC game when he was posted up on the right block and whipped a perfect no-look pass to his blind side to Grayson for a corner 3.

Both Bagley and Carter will be very effective in the post. Theoretically, they should be able to command double teams against most opponents, which should allow the other to get in position for offensive rebounds and putbacks.

I agree with you Kaze, about both Wendell and Marvin looking like potentially excellent passers from the post in addition to being scoring threats. The last time we had a team with a strong low post scorer was the 2015 team. The attention that Okafor commanded in the post was a big reason Quinn, Tyus, Matt, and Justise all got such great looks from outside. That team managed to be good from outside despite not having a bevy of talented three point shooters. I think the passing of Marvin and Wendell is a good omen for this year's Duke team proving to be better than expected percentage-wise from outside (knock on wood).

jv001
11-02-2017, 08:10 PM
I agree with you Kaze, about both Wendell and Marvin looking like potentially excellent passers from the post in addition to being scoring threats. The last time we had a team with a strong low post scorer was the 2015 team. The attention that Okafor commanded in the post was a big reason Quinn, Tyus, Matt, and Justise all got such great looks from outside. That team managed to be good from outside despite not having a bevy of talented three point shooters. I think the passing of Marvin and Wendell is a good omen for this year's Duke team proving to be better than expected percentage-wise from outside (knock on wood).

Very good post on getting open looks for three point shots. Playing inside to out with good passing big men and I'll add, offensive rebounds can get open looks as well. It's worked well in the past(think Zoubs) and this season we should be a very good rebounding team with the front line we have. GoDuke!

LasVegas
11-03-2017, 03:00 PM
Duval suspended for the game tomorrow. Violation of team standards.

Per Shawn Krest, he refused to wear a protective boot that is standard issue for duke freshman ;).

rsvman
11-03-2017, 03:04 PM
Duval suspended for the game tomorrow. Violation of team standards. Per Shawn Krest, he refused to wear a protective boot that is standard issue for duke freshman. Weird.

I am slightly unsettled by this post, because I'm not sure how much of it to believe. Obviously the last part is a joke. So, is it ALL a joke? Which part(s) is (are) true?

1) Duval is suspended and we don't know why

2) Duval is suspended for violation of team standards


Any help?

DavidBenAkiva
11-03-2017, 03:06 PM
Duval suspended for the game tomorrow. Violation of team standards. Per Shawn Krest, he refused to wear a protective boot that is standard issue for duke freshman. Weird.

That's not good. Hopefully it's just a one-time thing. Overslept a practice, something like that.

LasVegas
11-03-2017, 03:07 PM
I am slightly unsettled by this post, because I'm not sure how much of it to believe. Obviously the last part is a joke. So, is it ALL a joke? Which part(s) is (are) true?

1) Duval is suspended and we don't know why

2) Duval is suspended for violation of team standards


Any help?

Just the last part is a joke by Shawn Krest on Twitter.

The first park about the suspension and violation of team standards is real I would assume because it’s been tweeted by just about every COllege basketball person I trust.

rsvman
11-03-2017, 03:07 PM
On another note, will we be able to watch tomorrow's game on Watch ESPN? Anybody know?

DavidBenAkiva
11-03-2017, 03:08 PM
I am slightly unsettled by this post, because I'm not sure how much of it to believe. Obviously the last part is a joke. So, is it ALL a joke? Which part(s) is (are) true?

1) Duval is suspended and we don't know why

2) Duval is suspended for violation of team standards


Any help?

I read the second sentence as a joke about players getting injured. Last year, Tatum, Giles, Allen, and Bolden all missed exhibition games for health reasons. This does not appear to be a health issue.

LasVegas
11-03-2017, 03:11 PM
I read the second sentence as a joke about players getting injured. Last year, Tatum, Giles, Allen, and Bolden all missed exhibition games for health reasons. This does not appear to be a health issue.

I added a wink face to clarify the joke for future viewers of my post.

But regarding the suspension, it is strange and not good for anyone. PGs have to be leaders and all...

uh_no
11-03-2017, 03:14 PM
Just the last part is a joke by Shawn Krest on Twitter.

The first park about the suspension and violation of team standards is real I would assume because it’s been tweeted by just about every COllege basketball person I trust.

It's over.

better luck next year, fellas.

Seriously, though....hope it doesn't become a long term issue.

DukieInBrasil
11-03-2017, 03:34 PM
imho (where the h and o are ignored by Coach K) Goldwire would be a wise choice, if for no other reason than to get a prolonged look at how well J-Gold does. He could be a crucial piece to this team, even if he doesn't play big minutes, b/c it will have a big impact on one of our better (if not best) players, Grayson. If J-Gold can show himself to be a reasonable PG, that will allow Duke to play Grayson at SG as much as possible where he is much more effective than as a PG.
As i said before, the 1.5 games played so far have changed my view on J-Gold a lot. I went from thinking that he would be best served red-shirting to thinking that he could play a legitimate role this year. He can shoot the 3 reasonably well, and he looked fairly comfortable running the offense, all caveats apply.
We'll probably see Grayson play PG some, maybe even half of, this game, and we'll learn a bit more about how much his ballhandling and PG has advanced since last, but it seems that it would be a big waste if J-Gold wasn't given a lengthy chance to run the team as PG.

MarkD83
11-04-2017, 04:56 AM
imho (where the h and o are ignored by Coach K) Goldwire would be a wise choice, if for no other reason than to get a prolonged look at how well J-Gold does. He could be a crucial piece to this team, even if he doesn't play big minutes, b/c it will have a big impact on one of our better (if not best) players, Grayson. If J-Gold can show himself to be a reasonable PG, that will allow Duke to play Grayson at SG as much as possible where he is much more effective than as a PG.
As i said before, the 1.5 games played so far have changed my view on J-Gold a lot. I went from thinking that he would be best served red-shirting to thinking that he could play a legitimate role this year. He can shoot the 3 reasonably well, and he looked fairly comfortable running the offense, all caveats apply.
We'll probably see Grayson play PG some, maybe even half of, this game, and we'll learn a bit more about how much his ballhandling and PG has advanced since last, but it seems that it would be a big waste if J-Gold wasn't given a lengthy chance to run the team as PG.

I agree. This is perfect chance to give him a long look at PG. This would also be a way to build for the future.

Kedsy
11-04-2017, 02:59 PM
I agree. This is perfect chance to give him a long look at PG. This would also be a way to build for the future.

Alas, Jordan G was also suspended for this game. But Grayson had 11 assists and Gary actually looked decent as backup point.

jipops
11-04-2017, 03:49 PM
Seeing the kind of length in Duke's zone has to make the opposing offense feel a little uncomfortable. Bagley seemed and could continue to be very effective on the perimeter in that 3-2 zone we saw today.

Kedsy
11-04-2017, 05:11 PM
In the first exhibition, ten different players attempted threes, six different guys attempted multiple threes, but only three made at least one (only one player, Grayson, made more than one three).

Percentage of three point shots out of total shots taken: 36.4% (33.3% success rate)

Offensive rebounding percentage: 42.9%; defensive rebounding percentage: 81.3% (both outstanding, as expected)

Free throw rate: 13.6% (pretty anemic)

Points per possession: 1.27

Opponents points per possession: 0.84

In the second exhibition, eight different players attempted threes (though three of those were walk-ons in the last few minutes), but only two made any (Gary and Grayson).

Percentage of three point shots out of total shots taken: 32.1% (28.0% success rate)

Offensive rebounding percentage: 47.2%; defensive rebounding percentage: 83.7% (both monstrous)

Free throw rate: 28.2% (much better than last time but still pretty lackluster)

Assists to turnovers (without our only two true PGs): 27 to 10

Points per possession: 1.42

Opponents points per possession: 0.68

jipops
11-04-2017, 05:27 PM
Through 2 exhibition games I am pleasantly surprised at how Trent and Carter appear to be. Trent's strength is not in handling the ball but he is a natural scorer and appears to be an alert and capable perimeter defender. I really like what I've seen from Carter. Bagley gets they hype but I think this kid is the real deal.

I would like to see more perimeter shots from Bagley. He doesn't seem real confident in his shot right now. Though today he obviously didn't need it.

superdave
11-04-2017, 05:31 PM
In the second exhibition, eight different players attempted threes (though three of those were walk-ons in the last few minutes), but only two made any (Gary and Grayson).

Percentage of three point shots out of total shots taken: 32.1% (28.0% success rate)

Offensive rebounding percentage: 47.2%; defensive rebounding percentage: 83.7% (both monstrous)

Free throw rate: 28.2% (much better than last time but still pretty lackluster)

Assists to turnovers (without our only two true PGs): 27 to 10

Points per possession: 1.42

Opponents points per possession: 0.68



Trent was 5-9 from 3 and Allen was 2-6. I will be shocked if Trent shoots that many 3's with Duval around. Seems like he will be running and slashing more. But he looked good.

More importantly, if Trent is a viable 3-point shooter all season, that will do a lot to open up the middle. I like it!

Our bigs were monsters on the boards, rebounding their own misses and getting dunks. I like seeing the bigs pass to each other in high-low action. That's going to be a nightmare to guard.

BandAlum83
11-04-2017, 05:36 PM
Trent was 5-9 from 3 and Allen was 2-6. I will be shocked if Trent shoots that many 3's with Duval around. Seems like he will be running and slashing more. But he looked good.

More importantly, if Trent is a viable 3-point shooter all season, that will do a lot to open up the middle. I like it!

Our bigs were monsters on the boards, rebounding their own misses and getting dunks. I like seeing the bigs pass to each other in high-low action. That's going to be a nightmare to guard.

We have A LOT of fouls to give amongst the bigs. I like that since inexperienced players tend to foul more.

uh_no
11-04-2017, 05:55 PM
I would like to see more perimeter shots from Bagley. He doesn't seem real confident in his shot right now.

I'd prefer to NOT see more of them until we are sure he can make them. Games are not where you learn to shoot. Practice is.


It seems we're far too good offensively to be spending possessions with bagley shooting 3's at a 20% clip.

MChambers
11-04-2017, 06:57 PM
I'd prefer to NOT see more of them until we are sure he can make them. Games are not where you learn to shoot. Practice is.


It seems we're far too good offensively to be spending possessions with bagley shooting 3's at a 20% clip.
How do you know he’s not hitting them in practice?

I’ll trust our coaches to figure out if he should be shooting threes.

uh_no
11-04-2017, 07:34 PM
How do you know he’s not hitting them in practice?

I’ll trust our coaches to figure out if he should be shooting threes.

The argument was that bagley is not making threes because he's not confident in the shot...and that he should shoot more so that he can become confident, with the implication being he's not shooting them because he is not confident.

If we accept that argument as valid, we can make all sorts of assertions.

Perhaps besser is the best dunker on the team, but isn't confident in his dunks, so he doesn't do it very often, so we should want to see more of that so he can become confident. See how ridiculous it sounds? but it's the same argument!

Without seeing what goes on in practice, all we have is speculation. Maybe he is hitting them in practice...maybe he's not...but we can't just assume it is true and then use it as justification for wanting to see him shoot it more.

MChambers
11-04-2017, 08:17 PM
The argument was that bagley is not making threes because he's not confident in the shot...and that he should shoot more so that he can become confident, with the implication being he's not shooting them because he is not confident.

If we accept that argument as valid, we can make all sorts of assertions.

Perhaps besser is the best dunker on the team, but isn't confident in his dunks, so he doesn't do it very often, so we should want to see more of that so he can become confident. See how ridiculous it sounds? but it's the same argument!

Without seeing what goes on in practice, all we have is speculation. Maybe he is hitting them in practice...maybe he's not...but we can't just assume it is true and then use it as justification for wanting to see him shoot it more.
I certainly agree with that.

Coach K generally encourages his players to take shots, including good three pointers. I think it is reflected in Duke’s consistently high offensive efficiency ratings. So I don’t worry when a player takes a three, even if his timing is off or his feet aren’t set. I figure K and the other coaches know how to teach shooting. That’s all I was trying to say.

uh_no
11-04-2017, 09:01 PM
I certainly agree with that.

Coach K generally encourages his players to take shots, including good three pointers. I think it is reflected in Duke’s consistently high offensive efficiency ratings. So I don’t worry when a player takes a three, even if his timing is off or his feet aren’t set. I figure K and the other coaches know how to teach shooting. That’s all I was trying to say.

sure. I think it's just words at this point. I think ultimately my point is that we're good in so many areas offensively (knock on wood...), we can probably do fine if bagley doesn't take threes. It's certainly not something I would game plan for, at least. If he finds shots in the flow of the offense, I likely won't complain...especially if he makes some of them and, ideally, we're already up by 50 :) but I wouldn't go out of my way to create that shot for him.

Rich
11-04-2017, 09:40 PM
The argument was that bagley is not making threes because he's not confident in the shot...and that he should shoot more so that he can become confident, with the implication being he's not shooting them because he is not confident.

If we accept that argument as valid, we can make all sorts of assertions.

Perhaps besser is the best dunker on the team, but isn't confident in his dunks, so he doesn't do it very often, so we should want to see more of that so he can become confident. See how ridiculous it sounds? but it's the same argument!

Without seeing what goes on in practice, all we have is speculation. Maybe he is hitting them in practice...maybe he's not...but we can't just assume it is true and then use it as justification for wanting to see him shoot it more.

All I'm getting from this is that Besser is the best dunker on the team. Kind of surprised me, but if it's on the internet it must be true!

uh_no
11-04-2017, 09:42 PM
All I'm getting from this is that Besser is the best dunker on the team. Kind of surprised me, but if it's on the internet it must be true!

don't want to be accused of rumor mongering, now...but doug gottlieb called besser "alarmingly undunkable"....so he must be great at it.