MBB: Duke @ Pitt (Wed, 1/10, 7 pm, ESPN2) Pre-Game and In-Game Thread

[OldPhiKap]

Next play.

Another road game. I am interested to see how the team responds to a smack in the mouth. Part of the fun of watching a young team like this is seeing how they handle adversity as well as success.

Pitt is coming off drubbings by Miami, Louisville, and VTech. Will be looking to prove something.

I'm optimistic. Let's Go Duke!

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Next play.

Another road game. I am interested to see how the team responds to a smack in the mouth. Part of the fun of watching a young team like this is seeing how they handle adversity as well as success.

Pitt is coming off drubbings by Miami, Louisville, and VTech. Will be looking to prove something.

I'm optimistic. Let's Go Duke!
Given that we are still deep in the NC State post-game thread, I can see why this would be Off Topic...

[devildeac]

Given that we are still deep in the NC State post-game thread, I can see why this would be Off Topic...

Yes, we really have fallen far when Duke MBB is on the OTB :rolleyes:;).

[OldPhiKap]

Given that we are still deep in the NC State post-game thread, I can see why this would be Off Topic...

Yeah, my bad. Not awake yet. Thanks to the mods for moving eventually, or deleting and having someone start a new one over there.

LGD!

[PackMan97]

Is it fair to call this a "must win" game?

It's one thing to lose to NC State or BC....but Pitt? Pitt has a grand total of two(2) top 200 RPI wins to their name....an 8pt win over UC Santa Barbara (83) and a 4pt win over Townson (78). Yup, they are 2-7 against teams ranked in the top 200. If you extend that out to their loss to #202 Navy, they are 2-8 against the top 202 teams :)

[Matches]

Pitt is terrible but undoubtedly they will play over their heads against Duke. Hopefully by now this team takes nothing for granted, especially on the road.

[killerleft]

Defense!! Defense!!

Please bring this one home, fellas!

Go Duke!

[NYBri]

If Pitt scores over 85, we will know that there is something really amiss. :cool:

[MCFinARL]

Next play.

Another road game. I am interested to see how the team responds to a smack in the mouth. Part of the fun of watching a young team like this is seeing how they handle adversity as well as success.

Pitt is coming off drubbings by Miami, Louisville, and VTech. Will be looking to prove something.

I'm optimistic. Let's Go Duke!

Part of the fun, and also part of the terror. These kids seem hard working and determined overall, but I wouldn't have expected the NC State game after what happened at BC. Then again, it is NC State, which seems to have a magic potion thing going when it hosts Duke.


Is it fair to call this a "must win" game?

It's one thing to lose to NC State or BC...but Pitt? Pitt has a grand total of two(2) top 200 RPI wins to their name...an 8pt win over UC Santa Barbara (83) and a 4pt win over Townson (78). Yup, they are 2-7 against teams ranked in the top 200. If you extend that out to their loss to #202 Navy, they are 2-8 against the top 202 teams :)

I think it is completely fair to call this a "must win" game--if only because the team itself may start to implode if they sustain another , much worse, road loss in the ACC without any intervening successes to buoy their confidence.

[UrinalCake]

Everyone keeps bringing up the 2015 team, and after its home loss to Miami (which followed a road loss to State) the coaches reportedly stayed up all night discussing how to fix the defense. In their next game they came out against an excellent Louisville team and unveiled a zone defense which K had literally not played in years. It was a turning point in the season. I honestly feel like if we hadn't lost that Miami game in such embarrassing fashion, we wouldn't have been forced into making those adjustments and would not have won the title.

So, will we see the same thing happen on Wednesday? I'm not expecting as drastic of a change since Pitt is such a weak opponent and K probably feels like we can win without blowing up the playbook. But if nothing changes and we pull out a narrow victory based on talent without showing any improvement on defense, then I'm not sure how good I'll feel. Obviously if we lose then it's officially time to panic.

[Natty_B]

Pitt is so bad it's probably a "must-win" game for most of the ACC. It's not PNC but Duke did get beat pretty handily at Pitt two years ago so the location doesn't inspire confidence. At least it seems like Pitt is wearing black uni's: https://twitter.com/Pitt_MBB/status/950063845946548224 thus taking Duke's black road option off the table.

[OldPhiKap]

Pitt is so bad it's probably a "must-win" game for most of the ACC. It's not PNC but Duke did get beat pretty handily at Pitt two years ago so the location doesn't inspire confidence. At least it seems like Pitt is wearing black uni's: https://twitter.com/Pitt_MBB/status/950063845946548224 thus taking Duke's black road option off the table.

Things are looking up already.

[jipops]

If we can hold them to below 90 then I'd say we have a decent shot. But so far, that is a big if.

[Kedsy]

If we can hold them to below 90 then I'd say we have a decent shot. But so far, that is a big if.

Yeah, because we've held our opponent below 90 in only 13 of our 15 games.

[Natty_B]

Pitt is #180 in Kenpom putting them much more in line with Elon, St. Francis and Evansville than other ACC teams. Course after the last few ACC road games YMMV on that info.

[BigZ]

Maybe not waiting a week between games will help

[Spanarkel]

Pitt lost at home to relatively formidable WVU on 12/9 by 9 points despite the Panthers' shooting 34% overall and 24% from 3. I will be thrilled if Duke's defense can hold Pitt to 40-45% overall shooting and 30-35% from 3.

[jaywilliams22]

Bolden and Javin out for Pitt

https://twitter.com/jonmalexander/status/950423298143412224

[Matches]

Bolden and Javin out for Pitt

https://twitter.com/jonmalexander/status/950423298143412224

Hmm.. Vrank would seem the top candidate to get minutes in the frontcourt off the bench but I wonder if we might see Robinson?

Also possible K will go small for part of the game? (I'd bet on this option.)

[UrinalCake]

Bolden and Javin out for Pitt

Yikes! What happens when Bagley or Carter go out? Maybe a few minutes for Vrank, but I could also see us going small with Alex at the 4. Who would have ever though that could happen at the start of this season?

It is absolutely imperative that Carter stay out of foul trouble.

[DukieInBrasil]

Yikes! What happens when Bagley or Carter go out? Maybe a few minutes for Vrank, but I could also see us going small with Alex at the 4. Who would have ever though that could happen at the start of this season?

It is absolutely imperative that Carter stay out of foul trouble.

Alex at the 4? Crazier things have happened, but my money is on J-Rob at the 4 if need be. Of course, if we do go with a Small-ball option for extended stretches, J-Rob, J-White, Alex are all options.

[Kedsy]

Alex at the 4? Crazier things have happened, but my money is on J-Rob at the 4 if need be. Of course, if we do go with a Small-ball option for extended stretches, J-Rob, J-White, Alex are all options.

More likely, Alex or Grayson defending the opposing SF and Gary defending the opposing PF. Justin Robinson won't get off the bench until garbage time. Jack White might, but not for more than a couple non-garbage-time minutes.

Could also play zone and hope the opponents can't effectively flood the paint.

[uh_no]

Yikes! What happens when Bagley or Carter go out? Maybe a few minutes for Vrank, but I could also see us going small with Alex at the 4. Who would have ever though that could happen at the start of this season?

It is absolutely imperative that Carter stay out of foul trouble.

I have to imagine it's mostly vrank. He's put in quality minutes a couple times this year when necessary. IMO, he'd be starting on a heck of a lot of teams across the country.

no chance we go small. pitt's 4's are 6-6 230 and 6-6 220. Alex would get eaten alive. Going small works well if your defense is strong and you want mismatches on offense. offense is not our problem.

[Kedsy]

no chance we go small. pitt's 4's are 6-6 230 and 6-6 220.

Again, Gary (6'6 210) should be able to guard a PF that's 6'6 230. Alex or Grayson would have to guard Pitt's SF, which at 6'5 190 or 6'4 195 should be achievable.

[devildeac]

I have to imagine it's mostly vrank. He's put in quality minutes a couple times this year when necessary. IMO, he'd be starting on a heck of a lot of teams across the country.

no chance we go small. pitt's 4's are 6-6 230 and 6-6 220. Alex would get eaten alive. Going small works well if your defense is strong and you want mismatches on offense. offense is not our problem.


Who are they suiting up for the game, a couple DEs or TEs?

:rolleyes:

[Wander]

So, will we see the same thing happen on Wednesday? I'm not expecting as drastic of a change since Pitt is such a weak opponent and K probably feels like we can win without blowing up the playbook. But if nothing changes and we pull out a narrow victory based on talent without showing any improvement on defense, then I'm not sure how good I'll feel. Obviously if we lose then it's officially time to panic.

Pitt is bad enough such that I don't think we're going to learn anything meaningful from the next game (aside from maybe our post depth with the injuries). But it'll be nice for the team to get the monkey of their back of winning a conference road game.

[UrinalCake]

I have to imagine it's mostly vrank.... No chance we go small.

When Carter goes out then Vrank can come in for him and that would work. But when Bagley goes out, I can't imagine a front court of Carter and Vrank unless we go 3-2 zone and just let them stand there. It wouldn't surprise me to see Bagley play 40 minutes or close to it if the game stays competitive.

The four guards plus Bagley would be an interesting look. It's the type of lineups that K likes, but defensively we'd pretty much have to sell out on fronting and trying to get steals and concede a lot of dunks.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Hey Friends,

Four of the next five Duke basketball games are against mediocre teams, including two each against Pitt and Wake Forest. The schedule has been very kind to Duke in the ACC this year. Not that dealing with injuries is ever good, but the timing of the injuries to Marques Bolden and Javin DeLaurier couldn't be much better.

Among the top 7 layers for the Pitt Panthers, only 1 - Senior Ryan Luther (all of 6'9" and 215 lbs) - is taller than 6'6" in height. Of course, Luther, who was averaging a double double (12.7 pts/10.1 rebs) hasn't played since early December and does't appear to be coming back from his foot injury soon. In his absence, Pitt gave up 31 points to Virginia Tech F Kerry Blackshear last week. In Luther's absence, Pitt has gone very young in the frontcourt, featuring 6'10" freshman Terrell Brown getting the starting spot. Brown has not provided much production in this role, averaging a scant 2.9 pts and 4.0 rebs a game as a starter this season. The two other big men reserves for Pitt, 6'9" sophomore Kene Chukwuka and 6'9" of Sweden and freshman Peace Ilegomah of Nigeria have produced even less. Neither has scored or rebounded in double figures in a single game this season. So Pitt is small, young, and has limited talent in the frontcourt.

Given the height discrepancy with Duke, expect a lot of offensive rebounds and putback opportunities from Duke. I wouldn't be surprised to see Marvin Bagley III or Wendell Carter, Jr. (or both), put up some insane numbers against this Pitt frontcourt. Dump it into the post, score early, and score often. Set up the defense and play with some intensity against a lesser team.

[Neals384]

Pitt is so bad it's probably a "must-win" game for most of the ACC. It's not PNC but Duke did get beat pretty handily at Pitt two years ago so the location doesn't inspire confidence. At least it seems like Pitt is wearing black uni's: https://twitter.com/Pitt_MBB/status/950063845946548224 thus taking Duke's black road option off the table.

So Pitt is wearing glow in the dark uni's. Are we expected to play with the lights out?

[wavedukefan70s]

At this point every game is a test.i just hope we can play defense. win lose or draw .

[OldPhiKap]

So Pitt is wearing glow in the dark uni's. Are we expected to play with the lights out?

As long as we shoot lights-out, that works for me.

[uh_no]

Who are they suiting up for the game, a couple DEs or TEs?

:rolleyes:

Shamiel Stevenson
Jared Wilson-Frame <- appropriate last name.

remember, this is the same pittsburgh that had this guy:

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

they've always had a couple of line backers on their squad.

[kako]

Is it fair to call this a "must win" game?



No games are must win games until March. Don't fall into the sports yak trap.

[MrPoon]

Looking forward to dusting the NCState dust off our shoulders and move on.
I’d imagine they come out angry.
Rebounding will mater, seems to be the benchmark for our effort.

However, if I’m any opposing team, I look forward to this game. Duke is a team that if you execute on your offense, whatever offense that is, you’ll score. Pick and roll, cutting to the rim, drive and kick 3s, whatever your flavor, you will score. Fight for rebounds and try and get Carter into foul trouble. Hope for Duval to get sloppy during stretches and you will be in a position to win. That is what every coach has to be telling his team. “Yes they are a top team but they are very beatable and we are the team who can do it. We are better than BC. We can do it.”
This is different than Duke getting every team's best shot, this is a believeable narrative that will inspire confidence until Duke gets stops and dominates a few games. Hope it starts against Pitt but I worry that what little hair I have is in jeopardy. We’ll win but I think this season is going to leave me happy and tired!

[Ian]

It may not be a must win, but it is a "must not lose" game.

[kAzE]

It may not be a must win, but it is a "must not lose" game.

You know there's only 2 outcomes to a basketball game . . . right? This is a must win if we are hunting a #1 seed.

[Pghdukie]

Pitt is not very big or good in the paint. A steady dose of Bagley will cheer us all up. A small line-up is my first choice with an emphasis on pressure D.
Anyone else going to be there ?

[jipops]

Yeah, because we've held our opponent below 90 in only 13 of our 15 games.

And one of those was an ACC road game that was one of our two losses. And in the BC game we gave up 89. I think you get the gist. In 3 ACC games we've given up an average of 92.7 points. Small sample size but pretty glaring and trending up.

So yea, if we keep them below 90 we may be ok.

With such a young and depth deprived team it is reasonable to expect this one to be very close, even if Pitt isn't any good.

[Olympic Fan]

And one of those was an ACC road game that was one of our two losses. And in the BC game we gave up 89. I think you get the gist. In 3 ACC games we've given up an average of 92.7 points. Small sample size but pretty glaring and trending up.

So yea, if we keep them below 90 we may be ok.

Just a few points:

-- I heard K's teleconference today and while he said Bolden was definitely out for Pitt (and probably Wake Forest), he merely said Javin was "doubtful"

-- Pitt's Ryan Luther -- their best player and only experienced player -- is definitely out for this game. That means ...

-- Pitt is likely to start five freshman -- again (although they will play and could start juco transfer Jared Wilson-Frame).

With Duke starting four freshmen, that could mean nine freshman starters in this game. Nothing official, but I think that's an NCAA record.

[jipops]

Just a few points:

-- I heard K's teleconference today and while he said Bolden was definitely out for Pitt (and probably Wake Forest), he merely said Javin was "doubtful"

-- Pitt's Ryan Luther -- their best player and only experienced player -- is definitely out for this game. That means ...

-- Pitt is likely to start five freshman -- again (although they will play and could start juco transfer Jared Wilson-Frame).

With Duke starting four freshmen, that could mean nine freshman starters in this game. Nothing official, but I think that's an NCAA record.

Luther being out could certainly change things.

[rocketeli]

Pitt has their issues, but I'm reminded of conversations that I sometimes have with people where someone will say [so-and-so NFL starting quarterback]is terrible! They can't pass, they're slow, they're bad, and so on. And my answer is no, although there are a number of factors that induce separation among NLF players, they are not terrible. They are an NFL starting quarterback, which means they are an alpha-alpha male, an athlete that could let you start on the 50 yard line and still beat you to the end zone running from the 1, and better than 99.999999+% of all human beings who ever played the position. Similarly, it's a little misleading to think of any NCAA division I basketball program in the top half or so of the division as being "terrible" or "bad." All these programs recruit nationally, all have large, experienced coaching staffs made up of people at the top of the profession, all have workout facilities, strength training, training tables, academic supports and so on. Given luck, match-up issues, experience or a better game plan any of these teams can beat a top 10-20 team.

I think maybe that's a thought that Duke's young team needs to be having, or hopefully has learned--you can't expect to just show up and beat any of the top 150 or so teams in the NCAA.

[UrinalCake]

-- Pitt is likely to start five freshman -- again

If they beat us starting five freshmen, we really have no excuse.

[84Duke]

Just two points to make:

I (a Pittsburgh native) will be at Wednesday’s game, with my Dad and brother. The first Duke game of any sort for the two of them. First one for me since Georgetown in DC in 2004.

Ryan Luther is definitely out for Pitt. He hurt us some once before. I went to Catholic grade school with both of his parents. Played Little League with his father.

[subzero02]

If Pitt scores over 85, we will know that there is something really amiss. :cool:

Don't tempt the basketball gods...

This is a must win.

[UrinalCake]

Unfortunately it looks like Javin’s injury is more serious than I initially thought, he is definitely out against Pitt and maybe also be out against Wake this Saturday.

https://247sports.com/college/duke/Bolt/Duke-Basketball-Javin-DeLaurier-hamstring-injury-will-sideline-him-for-a-little-bit-113453954

[devildeac]

Unfortunately it looks like Javin’s injury is more serious than I initially thought, he is definitely out against Pitt and maybe also be out against Wake this Saturday.

https://247sports.com/college/duke/Bolt/Duke-Basketball-Javin-DeLaurier-hamstring-injury-will-sideline-him-for-a-little-bit-113453954

1. Vigil time?

2. "It's over" time?

3. Both?

4. Neither?

Poll?

:o:rolleyes:

[UrinalCake]

^ we play Pitt and Wake twice each over the next five games, and should be able to beat those teams without Javin and Bolden. That’s the good news. Sandwiched in those games is a tough road trip to Miami, and after this stretch we play UVA. Hope these two can get back on the court soon!

[kAzE]

Unfortunately it looks like Javin’s injury is more serious than I initially thought, he is definitely out against Pitt and maybe also be out against Wake this Saturday.

https://247sports.com/college/duke/Bolt/Duke-Basketball-Javin-DeLaurier-hamstring-injury-will-sideline-him-for-a-little-bit-113453954

I think it's more about the nature of the injury than it's actual severity . . . the fact that he played in the NC State game is a good sign. Unfortunately, hamstring injuries tend to be easily be re-aggravated and the only way to completely heal the injury is by not playing. It's also possible that he feels mostly fine at this point, but muscle pulls can feel better before they are actually 100%. With our easy schedule the next 14 days (with the exception of the road game at Miami), it's probably better to be on the safe side with both guys.

I just hope that doesn't mean 35-40 minutes in every game for the starters. That could lead to additional injuries. Hopefully we can put these games away early and allow the bench to play some minutes.

[Matches]

I just hope that doesn't mean 35-40 minutes in every game for the starters. That could lead to additional injuries. Hopefully we can put these games away early and allow the bench to play some minutes.

I'm sure K will play the starters as much as he can, but the reality of foul trouble means someone's going to have to play some minutes off the bench. AOC seems a likely candidate and we have enough positional versatility to use him as a super-sub and rotate guys around, but inevitably a seventh guy is going to have to play at least a little.

I wonder if K might be inclined to use a zone a bit more than usual to help avoid foul trouble as well.

[CDu]

The Panthers are... not good. They are, by far, the worst team in the ACC. They have been a below-average team for all of D-1 schools, not just Power-5. And they are playing without their most experienced and one of their best players. Without Ryan Luther (6'9", 225lb senior), the Panthers are starting either 4 or 5 freshmen depending on the night. They play a very slow pace (outside the top-300 in tempo), and neither score nor defend well. They are slightly less bad defensively than they are offensively. But even then, they are slightly worse defensively than NC State. Only they aren't nearly as good offensively as NC State.

Center: The injury to Luther means that Pitt starts Terrell Brown (6'10", 240lb freshman). Brown had played sparingly up until Luther went down, but he is averaging 20 mpg since. He is a solid offensive rebounder, but questionable on defensive rebounding. He is also a good shotblocker, as one would expect given his size. But he can't shoot away from the basket, and isn't much of a scorer near the basket either. Brown is backed up by Peace Ilegomah (6'9", 235lb freshman from Nigeria). Ilegomah is atrocious offensively, but he is very athletic and a very capable shotblocker. He's just REALLY raw, and fouls a LOT. He has committed 16 fouls in 59 minutes since Luther went down. No, that's not a typo. If needed, Kene Chukwuka (6'9", 215lb sophomore JuCo transfer from Sweden) will slide up to play center.

Forwards: The Panthers don't employ a typical big forward in their starting lineup. Shamiel Stevenson (6'6", 230lb freshman from Canada) is the closest to that though. As his size would suggest, he's a physical player. He's not overmatched playing PF defensively, although he should be overmatched against Bagley. The question will be how much physicality the refs allow. Stevenson has the strength to make life difficult for Bagley if the refs allow excessive contact prior to the shot. I expect that to be the strategy: foul as much as possible off-ball and prior to a shot attempt as Bagley is starting his move, and force the refs to call it. On offense, Stevenson can finish at the rim and isn't a trainwreck as a shooter, but he's not overly creative as a playmaker. He gets by on physicality and aggressiveness rather than any sort of guile/finesse. Behind these two, Kene Chukwuka is the other forward. Chukwuka fancies himself a stretch-4, with over 2/3 of his shots coming from 3pt range. To date, however, that has not been an effective strategy for him, as he's hit just 13.6% from 3. His FT shooting is also abysmal (31%). But, he has played sparingly to this point, so there is some possibility that this is a small sample size issue.

Wings: Jared Wilson-Frame (6'5", 220lb junior JuCo transfer) is their leading scorer, though he hasn't done so at all efficiently. He's a high-volume shooter, not unlike Al Freeman in that regard. And he's a capable shooter too. He's sort of a poor-man's Gary Trent Jr. Wilson-Frame is joined on the wing by Parker Stewart (6'5", 190lb freshman). Stewart is a pretty good 3pt shooter with deep range. That's pretty much the entirety of his offensive game at this point. He's not bad with the ball in his hands, but it's not a strongsuit. His best attribute is his catch-and-shoot ability. I would not leave him open. Roughly 80% of his shots are 3s, and he shoots 37% from deep. Khameron Davis (6'4", 195lb freshman) is the other key wing. Davis has shot really well to date, and has terrific athleticism. He's not a great dribbler, but on straight-line drives he's very capable. Not sure his 3pt percentage is truly reflective of his abilities (just 30 attempts so far), but I wouldn't leave him unguarded to find out either.

Guards: Again, the theme is freshman. Marcus Carr (6'1", 185lb freshman from Canada) starts and runs the offense. Carr is more of a combo guard than a point guard, and his assist/turnover ratio of 4/3.2 illustrates that. Still, he's not a bad player at PG. He is an excellent shooter (hits both his 2s and his 3s at 46% and hits 89% from the line), and not a bad passer either. Coming from high school power Montverde, he's not unaccustomed to high-level games. But he's definitely still adjusting to ACC-level competition. Behind Carr is Jonathan Milligan (6'2", 170lb senior). He's a borderline ACC player who had not previously topped 10 mpg for a season, but this year has been thrust into a 20 mpg role. Milligan is a solid though not great shooter, and is nondescript at running the offense. He's way less dynamic than his freshman counterpart.

Pitt is VERY young. They start 4-5 freshmen, bring another freshman or 2 off the bench, and they have a sophomore and junior who are in their first year of D-1 basketball. Only one of their current regulars has any D-1 experience coming into the year. It's a pretty rough place to be. There is some talent there, but it's a year or two away from maturing.

Quite simply, this is a road game we really need to win. If we can't beat a much less talented, much less experienced opponent on the road, it signals that there is a LOT of work left to do. Much moreso than a loss to State and BC would suggest.

[mgtr]

Excellent writeup, from all points of view except Pitt's. Imagine their coach reading this -- he probably wants to go hide in a pile of dirty towels! How does a school get into such an apparently desperate situation? Money? Bad hires? There must be something going on beyond the obvious.

[CDu]

Excellent writeup, from all points of view except Pitt's. Imagine their coach reading this -- he probably wants to go hide in a pile of dirty towels! How does a school get into such an apparently desperate situation? Money? Bad hires? There must be something going on beyond the obvious.

It's a combination of the coaching change on top of a coach who had struggled with recruiting the past few years. Pitt went from Jamie Dixon to Kevin Stallings last year. Stallings is not the easiest guy to get along with, and his style can rub players the wrong way. And that led to a bunch of transfers. On top of that, Pitt was a very veteran team last year, with Young, Artis, Jeter, and Jones as seniors. It was a veteran starting lineup with no bench.

Adding to that, Kithcart got dismissed for a disciplinary issue. Nix and Wilson transferred to low-tier D-1 schools as they were overmatched in the ACC. Manigault went the JuCo route to keep playing this year. And Cam Johnson decided to graduate and transfer to UNC.

Then, this year, Ryan Luther got hurt. So that left them REALLY young. Not that Luther would suddenly make them good. But he at least had SOME experience.

The Pitt freshmen do have some athleticism and potential. But it is a REALLY young squad. Stallings has essentially hit the reset button on the program, and is building from the ground up. It remains to be seen how good they will eventually be, but this is year 1 of that reset.

[thedukelamere]

It remains to be seen how good they will eventually be, but this is year 1 of that reset.

Whereas this is game 1 of our reset.

Hopefully.

[BLPOG]

Pitt has their issues, but I'm reminded of conversations that I sometimes have with people where someone will say [so-and-so NFL starting quarterback]is terrible! They can't pass, they're slow, they're bad, and so on. And my answer is no, although there are a number of factors that induce separation among NLF players, they are not terrible. They are an NFL starting quarterback, which means they are an alpha-alpha male, an athlete that could let you start on the 50 yard line and still beat you to the end zone running from the 1, and better than 99.999999+% of all human beings who ever played the position. Similarly, it's a little misleading to think of any NCAA division I basketball program in the top half or so of the division as being "terrible" or "bad." All these programs recruit nationally, all have large, experienced coaching staffs made up of people at the top of the profession, all have workout facilities, strength training, training tables, academic supports and so on. Given luck, match-up issues, experience or a better game plan any of these teams can beat a top 10-20 team.

I think maybe that's a thought that Duke's young team needs to be having, or hopefully has learned--you can't expect to just show up and beat any of the top 150 or so teams in the NCAA.


"99.999999+%" implies fewer than one starting NFL quarterback per 100,000,000 people who have played quarterback
Assume all Americans play quarterback and only Americans play
Include entire football era
History of American football ~ 150 years
2018 living Americans ~ 350,000,000 people
Lifespan ~ 75 years
Assuming replacement we have ~ 3.5 x 108 people / 75 years = 4 2/3 x 106 people/year
Absurdly high upper bound for Americans in football era ~ 150 years * 4 2/3 x 106 people/year = 7 x 108 people
Expected NFL starting quarterbacks ~ 7 x 108 people * 1 x 10-8 quarterbacks/people = 7 quarterbacks

=> Too many 9's

I actually agree with the sentiment of the post, but I think rocketeli has overstated the case and in doing so undermined his point. We're already looking a population selected for their skills. The original population doesn't matter. So now "good" and "bad" need to have new meanings than before, but the selection process has also narrowed the differences between players. There are still some true outliers - I can think of DBR posts over the years demonstrating that point effectively through a comparison of top 5 vs. top 10 vs. top 25+ recruits and their eventual draft picks - but there is enough overlap that even a mediocre team has a decent chance against a top team. That's why they play the game, after all. Pitt's chances are smaller than most, but I'm not taking anything for granted right now.

I've always had more fun with that mentality, anyway. Where's the excitement if there's no risk of failure? What is a win worth then?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

1. Vigil time?

2. "It's over" time?

3. Both?

4. Neither?

Poll?

:o:rolleyes:

Puns?

/ducks

[thedukelamere]

Puns?

/ducks

Way to go, Mtn.Devil... Now this thread is going to get hamstrung.

/also ducks

[JNort]

We need to contest shots better.... easily said and seemingly hard to accomplish.

[PackMan97]

So now "good" and "bad" need to have new meanings than before,

Good == winning
Bad == losing
Ugly == cheating your athletes out of an education in order to win

[rtnorthrup]

I think right now, with this team, we need to be in full Tom Izzo-Michigan State mode right now. I'm not writing off this season in any way, but I think we have to use the next 2-3 weeks in laboratory mode to find some things that will work for this group. W-L may not be the most important thing right now (I know we would all love a #1 seed), but I think finding a comfortable defense, and working on a rotation (hard right now with injuries) will go a long way to being the team we need to be come tournament time. We have plenty of talent to win the ACC and National title from anywhere between a #1-#4 seed.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I think right now, with this team, we need to be in full Tom Izzo-Michigan State mode right now. I'm not writing off this season in any way, but I think we have to use the next 2-3 weeks in laboratory mode to find some things that will work for this group. W-L may not be the most important thing right now (I know we would all love a #1 seed), but I think finding a comfortable defense, and working on a rotation (hard right now with injuries) will go a long way to being the team we need to be come tournament time. We have plenty of talent to win the ACC and National title from anywhere between a #1-#4 seed.

I very much agree with this, as long as that focus is on D and not O.

We are the most talented team in America. That isn't up for debate. We have one of the best - if not the best - coaching staffs in America. However, the players and coaches clearly aren't on the same page on defense. Plenty of blame to go around, and the coaching staff has already said they are clearly at fault.

My issue is that this isn't new. Coach K and OADs don't mesh well on D. And I haven't heard one good reason why. In UK, Calipari usually has competent defenses (sans that one with Nerlens Noel) and he's embraced OADs way before Coach K did.

I want to see some experimentation on D. I want to see the coaches instill a system that has the potential to be good, not great (because greatness on D isn't in our potential this season). I want to see Allen spearhead that charge. I want to see Trent and Duval pressure the ball-handlers. And I want to see communication in the front court. For the love of God, plenty of communication.

[kAzE]

It's a combination of the coaching change on top of a coach who had struggled with recruiting the past few years. Pitt went from Jamie Dixon to Kevin Stallings last year. Stallings is not the easiest guy to get along with, and his style can rub players the wrong way. And that led to a bunch of transfers. On top of that, Pitt was a very veteran team last year, with Young, Artis, Jeter, and Jones as seniors. It was a veteran starting lineup with no bench.

Adding to that, Kithcart got dismissed for a disciplinary issue. Nix and Wilson transferred to low-tier D-1 schools as they were overmatched in the ACC. Manigault went the JuCo route to keep playing this year. And Cam Johnson decided to graduate and transfer to UNC.

Then, this year, Ryan Luther got hurt. So that left them REALLY young. Not that Luther would suddenly make them good. But he at least had SOME experience.

The Pitt freshmen do have some athleticism and potential. But it is a REALLY young squad. Stallings has essentially hit the reset button on the program, and is building from the ground up. It remains to be seen how good they will eventually be, but this is year 1 of that reset.

Kevin Stallings is a capable coach. As you say, he does have a somewhat abrasive personality, which isn't for everyone. However, during his time at Vanderbilt, he was never a good or even above average recruiter, but managed to put together some very good teams on occasion with lesser known, but veteran players. Pitt has a chance to be good once these freshmen mature and become familiar with Stallings' game plan.

[CDu]

Kevin Stallings is a capable coach. As you say, he does have a somewhat abrasive personality, which isn't for everyone. However, during his time at Vanderbilt, he was never a good or even above average recruiter, but managed to put together some very good teams on occasion with lesser known, but veteran players. Pitt has a chance to be good once these freshmen mature and become familiar with Stallings' game plan.

I agree. Just pointing out why this year's team is so decimated. Combination of previous coach struggling with recruiting the last few years (meaning very few capable upperclassmen to begin with) combined with the new coach running off some of the potential returnees.

Stallings is definitely a capable basketball coach. He'll likely make Pitt competitive again in the not-too-distant future. But his arrival and Dixon's departure made for a pretty rough transition year after Dixon's last really strong group of seniors finished last year.

[BandAlum83]

We need to contest shots better... easily said and seemingly hard to accomplish.

This seems to be a meaningless stat without context. What are the numbers of uncontested layups per game during the same period?

[Kedsy]

Coach K and OADs don't mesh well on D.

Can I just (once again) point out that in all Duke history we've only had multiple OADs twice. And one of those seasons we finished #11 in KenPom defense (after a really good tournament).

The 2012 team that people try to lump into this K/OAD/No D narrative had five upperclassmen in it's 7-man rotation. The 2014 team that gets lumped in had three upperclassmen, a redshirt sophomore, and two "true" sophomores among its top seven guys. The 2016 only had one OAD, but it had three freshmen, so that one is probably fair to lump in. But overall, there aren't very many data points for this narrative, and one of those points is a supposed "outlier."

This year's team has five freshmen and a sophomore with 85 career minutes coming into the season among its top 7 guys. The only Duke team that has come close to this little experience was K's 1983 team, but even that team had two seniors in its top 7 (to go with 4 frosh and a soph with 442 career minutes coming in). And that was a looooong time ago.

So there really is no narrative here (or there shouldn't be one). We're basically in uncharted waters.

[kAzE]

Can I just (once again) point out that in all Duke history we've only had multiple OADs twice. And one of those seasons we finished #11 in KenPom defense (after a really good tournament).

The 2012 team that people try to lump into this K/OAD/No D narrative had five upperclassmen in it's 7-man rotation. The 2014 team that gets lumped in had three upperclassmen, a redshirt sophomore, and two "true" sophomores among its top seven guys. The 2016 only had one OAD, but it had three freshmen, so that one is probably fair to lump in. But overall, there aren't very many data points for this narrative, and one of those points is a supposed "outlier."

This year's team has five freshmen and a sophomore with 85 career minutes coming into the season among its top 7 guys. The only Duke team that has come close to this little experience was K's 1983 team, but even that team had two seniors in its top 7 (to go with 4 frosh and a soph with 442 career minutes coming in). And that was a looooong time ago.

So there really is no narrative here (or there shouldn't be one). We're basically in uncharted waters.

I've been driving the "youngest Coach K team ever" point for awhile (as an argument for tempered expectations, but also for optimism), but at the same time, it is plainly obvious that Duke's defense, with some exceptions, hasn't been as good in recent years as it was in past decades. Duke and Coach K once held a reputation for extremely stingy M2M defense, and that hasn't really been a staple of the program in recent years. Could youth in the OAD era have something to do with it? There definitely seems to be at least some correlation.

[Wander]

Can I just (once again) point out that in all Duke history we've only had multiple OADs twice. And one of those seasons we finished #11 in KenPom defense (after a really good tournament).

The 2012 team that people try to lump into this K/OAD/No D narrative had five upperclassmen in it's 7-man rotation. The 2014 team that gets lumped in had three upperclassmen, a redshirt sophomore, and two "true" sophomores among its top seven guys. The 2016 only had one OAD, but it had three freshmen, so that one is probably fair to lump in. But overall, there aren't very many data points for this narrative, and one of those points is a supposed "outlier."

This year's team has five freshmen and a sophomore with 85 career minutes coming into the season among its top 7 guys. The only Duke team that has come close to this little experience was K's 1983 team, but even that team had two seniors in its top 7 (to go with 4 frosh and a soph with 442 career minutes coming in). And that was a looooong time ago.

So there really is no narrative here (or there shouldn't be one). We're basically in uncharted waters.

You're semi-arbitrarily coming up with a metric ("defensive rankings of teams with multiple OADs") instead of taking the most direct approach to the OP's comment. Why not just directly look at the OAD players and their defensive capabilities?

Since we started regularly doing the OAD thing, we've had 6 OAD players who were really bad at defense (Irving, Rivers, Okafor, Jones, Parker, Giles*), 1 OAD player who was really good (Winslow), and 3 who were somewhere in between (Ingram, Jackson, Tatum). So, I think it's fair to say Coach K's OADs over the past 10 years have overall not been good at defense.

(*Remove Giles if you'd like because of injuries)

[kAzE]

You're semi-arbitrarily coming up with a metric ("defensive rankings of teams with multiple OADs") instead of taking the most direct approach to the OP's comment. Why not just directly look at the OAD players and their defensive capabilities?

Since we started regularly doing the OAD thing, we've had 6 OAD players who were really bad at defense (Irving, Rivers, Okafor, Jones, Parker, Giles*), 1 OAD player who was really good (Winslow), and 3 who were somewhere in between (Ingram, Jackson, Tatum). So, I think it's fair to say Coach K's OADs over the past 10 years have overall not been good at defense.

(*Remove Giles if you'd like because of injuries)

I actually thought Jayson Tatum was an excellent defender by the end of last season. He was arguably the best defensive player on the team, IMO even better than Matt Jones. Our defense was great in all 4 ACCT games. I thought the awful 2nd half defense against S Carolina was more attributed to their style of play compounded by our foul trouble than just plain bad D. But then again, I've not re-watched that game or really thought much about it since it happened. It was a pretty devastating loss.

[Natty_B]

Almost as many games in the next 6 days (3) as in roughly the last 30 days (4). We'll be able to increase the sample size on some of the endless arguments had here!

[Kedsy]

You're semi-arbitrarily coming up with a metric ("defensive rankings of teams with multiple OADs") instead of taking the most direct approach to the OP's comment. Why not just directly look at the OAD players and their defensive capabilities?

Since we started regularly doing the OAD thing, we've had 6 OAD players who were really bad at defense (Irving, Rivers, Okafor, Jones, Parker, Giles*), 1 OAD player who was really good (Winslow), and 3 who were somewhere in between (Ingram, Jackson, Tatum). So, I think it's fair to say Coach K's OADs over the past 10 years have overall not been good at defense.

(*Remove Giles if you'd like because of injuries)

Yeah, I don't think Giles can be used as an example of anything. His problems were likely injury-related, not OAD-related. And while Irving has been a bad NBA defender, during his brief time at Duke people seemed to think he was strong defensively. Maybe that reputation would have suffered if he'd played any ACC games, but sadly we'll never know. I say take him out too.

That leaves us with four bad OAD defenders (Rivers, Okafor, Jones, Parker) and four not-bad OAD defenders (Winslow, Ingram, Jackson, Tatum). Which wouldn't seem to support any blanket correlation between OADness and defensive ability. Arguing about where on the good-bad continuum Ingram, Jackson, and Tatum should lie seems to me to be much more arbitrary than looking at the overall composition of the rotation and comparing it to an objective defensive metric.

Also, I still don't understand why OADs should be separated from other freshmen for the purposes of this discussion. In that same time period, we've had five additional (non-OAD) freshmen who played 300+ minutes, and four of the five were pretty good defenders (T Thornton, Jefferson, Sulaimon, D Thornton) while only one was a poor defender (Kennard). So you could look at it as 5 bad frosh defenders vs. 8 not-bad frosh defenders (though to be fair I'd also note that T Thornton and Jefferson (like Irving) as freshmen were not among the team's top 7 guys, minute-wise).

I'm not sure what even that proves, though. Defense is a team game, which puts me back to looking at the overall team composition and seeing how each team objectively performed on defense.

[CDu]

You're semi-arbitrarily coming up with a metric ("defensive rankings of teams with multiple OADs") instead of taking the most direct approach to the OP's comment. Why not just directly look at the OAD players and their defensive capabilities?

Since we started regularly doing the OAD thing, we've had 6 OAD players who were really bad at defense (Irving, Rivers, Okafor, Jones, Parker, Giles*), 1 OAD player who was really good (Winslow), and 3 who were somewhere in between (Ingram, Jackson, Tatum). So, I think it's fair to say Coach K's OADs over the past 10 years have overall not been good at defense.

(*Remove Giles if you'd like because of injuries)

Furthermore, the discontinuity caused by one-and-dones is a big part of it. The turnover from 2011 to 2012 was substantial. The 2013 team had far less turnover (Plumlee and Rivers, and thus played better defense. The turnover from 2013 to 2014 was substantial, as we lost our frontcourt. As was the turnover from 2014 to 2015 (losing Hood, Thornton, Hairston, Dawkins, and Parker). Ditto 2016 (losing three freshmen plus Cook). Ditto 2017, losing Plumlee, Ingram, and Thornton. Ditto 2018, losing Jefferson, Jones, Kennard, Tatum, and Giles.

So while we didn't have multiple OADs on all of those teams, several of them had substantial turnover in key rotation players. A large part of what made our defenses good in the old days was that we usually had a lot of continuity from year to year. There were exceptions, but for the most part we were never running a team out there with the majority or plurality being new faces.


I actually thought Jayson Tatum was an excellent defender by the end of last season. He was arguably the best defensive player on the team, IMO even better than Matt Jones. Our defense was great in all 4 ACCT games. I thought the awful 2nd half defense against S Carolina was more attributed to their style of play compounded by our foul trouble than just plain bad D. But then again, I've not re-watched that game or really thought much about it since it happened. It was a pretty devastating loss.

I think Tatum eventually got quite good at defense, though he certainly didn't start out that way. He was quite frequently taking it easy coming back down court from offense early in the season. He did get better as the season progressed, and especially after he became a full-time PF.

As for the SC game, I think foul trouble mixed with them getting extra-aggressive and the officials getting caught up a bit in the hometown underdog (letting them get away with a bit more contact, us less) all played into it. I don't think our defense was good, but I think it was exacerbated by a lot of other stuff.

[CDu]

Also, I still don't understand why OADs should be separated from other freshmen for the purposes of this discussion. In that same time period, we've had five additional (non-OAD) freshmen who played 300+ minutes, and four of the five were pretty good defenders (T Thornton, Jefferson, Sulaimon, D Thornton) while only one was a poor defender (Kennard). So you could look at it as 5 bad frosh defenders vs. 8 not-bad frosh defenders (though to be fair I'd also note that T Thornton and Jefferson (like Irving) as freshmen were not among the team's top 7 guys, minute-wise).

Minor quibble, but I wouldn't say freshman Jefferson was a good defender. And while I think Derryck Thornton had good defensive potential, I'm not sure he ever rose to the level of good defender either. I wouldn't call Thornton a bad defender, just not sure he was good with us that year. And Jefferson I think took some time to get to the point of being a good defender.

[Kedsy]

Obviously something changed in 2012. Duke's D was year-in and year-out one of the top defenses in the country for 28 years and suddenly we've been bad at defense for 7 years (with the fortuitous exception of the 2015 NCAA tournament and the possible exception of 2013 while Ryan Kelly was healthy). All I'm saying is it's probably not OADs that caused the change -- or more accurately, that while our reliance on OADs did change 7 years ago (really 8 years ago), that change was probably not a significant reason why our team defense suddenly worsened.

I believe the freedom of movement rule change happened in 2015 (the exact same time that we went from one high-profile freshmen a year to three), but I'm not sure what changed in 2012. My guess is something did.

[CDu]

Obviously something changed in 2012. Duke's D was year-in and year-out one of the top defenses in the country for 28 years and suddenly we've been bad at defense for 7 years (with the fortuitous exception of the 2015 NCAA tournament and the possible exception of 2013 while Ryan Kelly was healthy). All I'm saying is it's probably not OADs that caused the change -- or more accurately, that while our reliance on OADs did change 7 years ago (really 8 years ago), that change was probably not a significant reason why our team defense suddenly worsened.

I believe the freedom of movement rule change happened in 2015 (the exact same time that we went from one high-profile freshmen a year to three), but I'm not sure what changed in 2012. My guess is something did.

Freedom of movement actually started in 2013: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2013-10-30/what-do-changes-rules-officiating-mean-basketball

In 2011-12, they introduced the restricted area. In 2012-13, they revised the rules on blocks/charges outside the restricted area as refs were being lazy and calling any contact outside the restricted area a charge.

But basically, the rules have been changing almost yearly in favor of offense since the 2011 season.

Along with that, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we've experienced more and more annual roster turnover in 2012-18. So along with rules making defense harder to play, we have guys with less experience playing defense together each year. That's a bad combination.

[Kedsy]

Minor quibble, but I wouldn't say freshman Jefferson was a good defender. And while I think Derryck Thornton had good defensive potential, I'm not sure he ever rose to the level of good defender either. I wouldn't call Thornton a bad defender, just not sure he was good with us that year. And Jefferson I think took some time to get to the point of being a good defender.

Jefferson did a great (one might say game-saving) job in 11 minutes guarding Doug McDermott in the 2013 NCAAT, after McDermott personally got Mason Plumlee, Ryan Kelly, and Josh Hairston all into major foul trouble. I thought at the time Amile was a pretty good defender with limited offensive skills. In any event, if you're sorting freshmen into "bad defenders" and "not-bad defenders," I would think both Jefferson and D Thornton would be included in the "not bad" camp.

[CDu]

Jefferson did a great (one might say game-saving) job in 11 minutes guarding Doug McDermott in the 2013 NCAAT, after McDermott personally got Mason Plumlee, Ryan Kelly, and Josh Hairston all into major foul trouble. I thought at the time Amile was a pretty good defender with limited offensive skills. In any event, if you're sorting freshmen into "bad defenders" and "not-bad defenders," I would think both Jefferson and D Thornton would be included in the "not bad" camp.

I would agree with that grouping.

[Kedsy]

Along with that, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we've experienced more and more annual roster turnover in 2012-18. So along with rules making defense harder to play, we have guys with less experience playing defense together each year. That's a bad combination.

And a much better explanation than "OAD!"

[BeachBlueDevil]

If someone asked me right this second, "Does Duke win tonight", I'd pause before I gave an answer. Why would I pause? On paper they are the far superior team but the same can be said for the two losses (outside of start 4 frosh) and like both BC and NC State they are going to come out fired up and treat this as the biggest game of their season.

But of course my answer would be "Yes". We all know this Duke team can beat anyone and they should beat Pitt tonight with no issue...... Now let's hope I didn't just put the jinx on them. Also, I'm curious to see how much Vrankovic plays tonight and if he gives meaningful minutes I was to see how good they are. Him getting some more playing time could make this team stronger toward the end of the year.

[CDu]

And a much better explanation than "OAD!"

Agreed, although the one-and-done era is a part of it. If you keep losing even one or two one-and-dones each year, it starts to compound itself in terms of team continuity year to year. It just erodes the number of potential veterans you have down the road.

That consistent turnover has led to the point that we are where we are now. Basically, since Plumlee and Kelly graduated in 2013, we've had at least 2-3 new key rotation players each year ever since. And since 2014, it's been multiple freshmen in those new key rotation roles. We're at a point now where it's 3, 4, or 5 freshmen in the rotation, and will be for the foreseeable future barring some sort of strategic reset.

It was in some ways accelerated by the 2015 title. I don't think the team was expecting Tyus Jones to go as a freshman, and were hoping Winslow would be back. That would have helped with continuity in 2016 and possibly 2017 (by virtue of keeping Thornton from reclassifying). We'd still have gotten somewhere close to here now though. But maybe the hurdles of 2016 and 2017 might not have been so bad. Of course, maybe 2016 isn't so rough if Jefferson doesn't get hurt. But then, 2017 would have been tricky with relying more on Jeter and Bolden. So, who knows?

[uh_no]

Can I just (once again) point out that in all Duke history we've only had multiple OADs twice. And one of those seasons we finished #11 in KenPom defense (after a really good tournament).

I'm not sure count of one and dones is particularly important though, since the defensive performance of a first-year-at-duke player should not be dependent on whether they ultimately go pro at the end of the year. The causal arrow doesn't go that way. It's much more valid to look at the % of minutes played by first year players, or to make it simple here, the number of first year players playing significant minutes. When viewed like that, the picture is far rosy than one might expect if they take your post out of context:

Then we end up with 4

2014: jabari, and rodney
2015: tyus/okafor/winslow
2016: derryk/ingram
2017: giles/tatum

with 3 of them not ending well on defense, and the fifth (this year) trending to match.

I find it unlikely that almost every team we've had forthe past 5 years is intrinsically and uncoachably bad at defense. I think, also, our offensive prowess is both a boon and problem.

It's great because we only need to play "good" defense to be fantastic.
It's bad because we likely won't have the beatdown miami put on us in 2015 to cause us to really go back to the drawing board.

So will K ultimately sacrifice the ability to be a great defense so that we can be good?

We shall see.

[Kedsy]

Agreed, although the one-and-done era is a part of it. If you keep losing even one or two one-and-dones each year, it starts to compound itself in terms of team continuity year to year. It just erodes the number of potential veterans you have down the road.

That consistent turnover has led to the point that we are where we are now. Basically, since Plumlee and Kelly graduated in 2013, we've had at least 2-3 new key rotation players each year ever since. And since 2014, it's been multiple freshmen in those new key rotation roles. We're at a point now where it's 3, 4, or 5 freshmen in the rotation, and will be for the foreseeable future barring some sort of strategic reset.

It was in some ways accelerated by the 2015 title. I don't think the team was expecting Tyus Jones to go as a freshman, and were hoping Winslow would be back. That would have helped with continuity in 2016 and possibly 2017 (by virtue of keeping Thornton from reclassifying). We'd still have gotten somewhere close to here now though. But maybe the hurdles of 2016 and 2017 might not have been so bad. Of course, maybe 2016 isn't so rough if Jefferson doesn't get hurt. But then, 2017 would have been tricky with relying more on Jeter and Bolden. So, who knows?

I agree with everything you say here, though from 2012 to 2017 we lost almost as many players to transfer (7) as we did to OAD (9). I suppose if we'd had fewer OADs, some of the transfers might have stayed. But it's hard for me to conclude that if we'd recruited worse players our team would have been better.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Almost as many games in the next 6 days (3) as in roughly the last 30 days (4). We'll be able to increase the sample size on some of the endless arguments had here!

Your sample sizes are artificially chosen to make your point! Faulty methodology!

(Am I doing it right?)

[Kedsy]

I'm not sure count of one and dones is particularly important though, since the defensive performance of a first-year-at-duke player should not be dependent on whether they ultimately go pro at the end of the year. The causal arrow doesn't go that way. It's much more valid to look at the % of minutes played by first year players, or to make it simple here, the number of first year players playing significant minutes. When viewed like that, the picture is far rosy than one might expect if they take your post out of context:

Then we end up with 4

2014: jabari, and rodney
2015: tyus/okafor/winslow
2016: derryk/ingram
2017: giles/tatum

with 3 of them not ending well on defense, and the fifth (this year) trending to match.

I find it unlikely that almost every team we've had forthe past 5 years is intrinsically and uncoachably bad at defense. I think, also, our offensive prowess is both a boon and problem.

It's great because we only need to play "good" defense to be fantastic.
It's bad because we likely won't have the beatdown miami put on us in 2015 to cause us to really go back to the drawing board.

So will K ultimately sacrifice the ability to be a great defense so that we can be good?

We shall see.

Add Kennard to 2016 and Jackson to 2017.

But also, I'd take away 2014. Rodney Hood practiced with the team for a full year before he played, meaning he wasn't really a "first year player" for the purposes of this discussion. So we're back to three such seasons (2015, 2016, and 2017), with one of the three ending up with good defense (thanks to the NCAAT) and the other two teams wrecked by injuries. Which was exactly my point. There isn't sufficient evidence to support the idea that our recent defensive problems are because of OADs.

[CDu]

I agree with everything you say here, though from 2012 to 2017 we lost almost as many players to transfer (7) as we did to OAD (9). I suppose if we'd had fewer OADs, some of the transfers might have stayed. But it's hard for me to conclude that if we'd recruited worse players our team would have been better.

But as you've pointed out before, the transfer rate hasn't changed dramatically at Duke. What has changed is the number of guys leaving early. We've had 10 one-and-dones (Irving, Rivers, Parker, Okafor, Winslow, Jones, Ingram, Tatum, Giles, and Jackson) and a single-year transfer (Hood), all of whom played just one year at Duke. You can argue that Hood had a year of practice. I'd argue that it is impossible to simulate in-game defense in practice. So he was, in that sense, still a first-year Duke player in his one year.

And this isn't to say that we should recruit worse players. That's an entirely separate discussion. Just that the one-and-done era at Duke seems to definitely be a factor in our defensive decline from 2012-17. Not the only factor. But a pretty darn big one.

[rtnorthrup]

Don't discount the fact that for the first time in many years, we are playing a two big man lineup, which changes how we can play man-to-man. The majority of the last 5-7 seasons we have played 4 out-1 in, where we were able to switch most screens one through five. We don't have that luxury with this team. Same goes for zone defense. With both Carter and Bagley, it's hard to play zone and get to all the 3 point shooters.

That's why I say the next 2-3 weeks need to be laboratory weeks. We have to find out what works for this team from a defensive standpoint.

[CDu]

Don't discount the fact that for the first time in many years, we are playing a two big man lineup, which changes how we can play man-to-man. The majority of the last 5-7 seasons we have played 4 out-1 in, where we were able to switch most screens one through five. We don't have that luxury with this team. Same goes for zone defense. With both Carter and Bagley, it's hard to play zone and get to all the 3 point shooters.

That's why I say the next 2-3 weeks need to be laboratory weeks. We have to find out what works for this team from a defensive standpoint.

I actually think this team is VERY well-equipped to play zone. Guys like Carter and Bolden anchoring the middle. Guys like Bagley and DeLaurier available to pair along with Trent and O'Connell as the back guys in the zone. Guys like Duval and Allen up front who are good ballhawks and athletic. I would be surprised if our 3pt defense in zone is that bad.

But having two bigs - and more importantly relying on two FRESHMAN bigs - is certainly a big part of this year's defensive struggles too. We've not had that problem in any of our past iterations from 2012-2017:
2012: juniors Plumlee and Kelly
2013: seniors Plumlee and Kelly, with Jefferson and Hairston filling in when Kelly was out
2014: senior Hairston paired with Parker, Hood, and redshirt sophomore Plumlee
2015: we predominantly played small, but when we did play big it usually involved a junior Jefferson at PF. Also had a redshirt junior Plumlee as backup
2016: redshirt senior Plumlee paired with senior Jefferson or freshman Tatum as the primary rotation. Freshman Jeter played sparingly
2017: redshirt senior Jefferson, and we largely played small with Tatum at PF.

[Natty_B]

Your sample sizes are artificially chosen to make your point! Faulty methodology!

(Am I doing it right?)

Uh ok - to me it's not really artificially chosen as I was starting with the day of the BC game which then began a month of very little bball (every year December has two long breaks but sometimes there are two games after the exam break and usually there isn't then a week break after the first post holiday break game not to mention another 4 day break after that). I went through the schedules on goduke and we're just now emerging from the most fallow basketball period of the century (tied with the 07/08 season which played the same number of games).

My point is the BC loss and State losses created pages and pages of comments some focusing on big picture issues about OAD's and defense. Since this is the most OAD team in Duke history we should finally start getting some more answers on some of those big picture issues - slowly but surely. Starting tonight with a road game against one of the worst ACC teams in years.

[elvis14]

So Pittsburgh tonight, eh?

[flyingdutchdevil]

So Pittsburgh tonight, eh?

Heard it’s a pretty cool place to visit these days. Gentrified neighborhoods, good beer, art culture...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Uh ok - to me it's not really artificially chosen as I was starting with the day of the BC game which then began a month of very little bball (every year December has two long breaks but sometimes there are two games after the exam break and usually there isn't then a week break after the first post holiday break game not to mention another 4 day break after that). I went through the schedules on goduke and we're just now emerging from the most fallow basketball period of the century (tied with the 07/08 season which played the same number of games).

My point is the BC loss and State losses created pages and pages of comments some focusing on big picture issues about OAD's and defense. Since this is the most OAD team in Duke history we should finally start getting some more answers on some of those big picture issues - slowly but surely. Starting tonight with a road game against one of the worst ACC teams in years.

I apologize. I thought it was clear that I intended my snark towards the other posters who were criticizing each other.

I am elated that we get a bunch of games in a row to clear some of this absurd bickering out of our systems.

Didn't mean to catch you in the crossfire. Poor post on my part.

Go Duke!

[uh_no]

so i plugged and chugged some data, and made some pretty graphs. I used KP data, so it goes back to 2002, but it's enough to see trends.

First, and probably least contentious, we've gotten younger over the years:

7968

Next, we obvioulsy play more freshman lately. This correlates more strongly with time than does overall experience, which indicates that the negative experience pull from playing more freshman is countered by the fact that the other players on the court must be older.

7969

Next: defense over time. It's no secret that it's getting worse. I chose KP ranking over rating to account for the fact that you can't necessarily directly compare ratings from year to year...so it is a bit of a normalization.

7970

Next up, some of the fun stuff...how does our defense correlate with the average experience of the team?

7971

One thing is clear: extremely experienced duke teams don't have bad defenses. If you look carefully, though, you notice that the graph is clearly bimodal.
7972

About half the years our team "gets" defense...and that yields a good defense, regardless of how young we are (blue). On the flip side, with extremely high correlation, if the team "doesn't get" defense, the younger the team is, the worse they are.

Lastly: the correlation between freshman minutes and defense. This correlates more strongly than does average team age.

....

[dukelifer]

At this point it is not clear that this team has players that are bad at defense or we have team that is bad at playing team defense or Duke has a system that is too hard to learn, or the coaches do not do a good job of teaching defense to Freshman. All we know is that the D is bad- making it hard to get separation in games, That leads to fewer bench minutes because the bench guys are also inexperienced. This is simply a recipe for close games that can go either way. The multiple OADs last year and seniors generated a ton of turnover. Duke is where it is. At the end of this year- there will be multiple folks leaving. It is a cycle that is hard to change until the rules change which is likely to happen soon. Duke has not changed much about their recruiting approach- but the good players are leaving early even if not "ready" to be stars at the next level right away. I think this is not a OAD issue- it is a teaching issue. As they used to say- the best thing about Freshman is that they become sophomores. Unfortunately, this is not happening enough at Duke and you get inconsistency- blended with amazing flashes of brilliance. You could have inconsistency blended with fewer flashes of brilliance but hope for the future. There are a lot of team that have been "hoping" for a long time. We Duke fans have been very spoiled. We have no idea what the future Duke program will look like post K. Right now it is his team, and he gets to figure out what he wants. I will enjoy the flashes of brilliance and hope that they can pull it together late in the season. But even when "great" players stayed for 4 year- they were not all great in their Freshman year. That is Duke right now. I am hoping they can win tonight because that is not a given with this bunch.

[devildeac]

Heard it’s a pretty cool place to visit these days. Gentrified neighborhoods, good beer, art culture...

...and

7974

Primanti Brothers!

[uh_no]

...

7973

So ultimately my conclusions are:

1) if you don't accept the bimodal explanation, then yes, playing more freshmen (and by extension one and dones) is one of the major causes of our poorer play on defense
2) I think the bimodal explanation makes a lot of sense. K's defense is complicated...and people get it or they don't. Even if they don't get it, they'll at least be better with experience
3) The issue with one and dones is not necessarily that we don't have 4 year players (amile, quinn, grayson, plumlees...etc), but perhaps the fact that we end up with less average minutes from the sophomores and juniors. I'll admit this is somewhat tenuous, but makes sense when hotshot freshmen are getting lots of minutes...it takes longer for your non-super star to be good enough to compete for minutes.

In either case, I disagree with kedsy, and the data shows that our inexperience contributes to our poor defense. If someone has another variable they think would demonstrate a higher correlation, they should name it.

Anyway...food for thought. Will these guys get it? we shall see.

[dukelifer]

so i plugged and chugged some data, and made some pretty graphs. I used KP data, so it goes back to 2002, but it's enough to see trends.

First, and probably least contentious, we've gotten younger over the years:

7968

Next, we obvioulsy play more freshman lately. This correlates more strongly with time than does overall experience, which indicates that the negative experience pull from playing more freshman is countered by the fact that the other players on the court must be older.

7969

Next: defense over time. It's no secret that it's getting worse. I chose KP ranking over rating to account for the fact that you can't necessarily directly compare ratings from year to year...so it is a bit of a normalization.

7970

Next up, some of the fun stuff...how does our defense correlate with the average experience of the team?

7971

One thing is clear: extremely experienced duke teams don't have bad defenses. If you look carefully, though, you notice that the graph is clearly bimodal.
7972

About the years our team "gets" defense...and that yields a good defense, regardless of how young we are (blue). On the flip side, with extremely high correlation, if the team "doesn't get" defense, the younger the team is, the worse they are.

Lastly: the correlation between freshman minutes and defense. This correlates more strongly than does average team age.

....

makes sense- Freshman are inconsistent at best- even those who turn out to be great players later in life. Too many Freshman on the floor at any one time- you get what you get. Every once in a while- you catch lighting in a bottle or it comes together late. If that is every 10 years- you are still doing well for National Championships. Izzo and MSU has been struggling for a long time to get that second National Championship with their model.

[flyingdutchdevil]

...and

7974

Primanti Brothers!

I respect sandwiches. I cannot respect fries in sandwiches. I’m sorry devildeac...

[OldPhiKap]

I respect sandwiches. I cannot respect fries in sandwiches. I’m sorry devildeac...

devildeac is a cardiologist. It's not so much that he respects fries in sandwiches, so much as he gets to go to road football games because of fries in sandwiches.

[flyingdutchdevil]

devildeac is a cardiologist. It's not so much that he respects fries in sandwiches, so much as he gets to go to road football games because of fries in sandwiches.

You must spread some Comments around before commenting on OldPhiKap again.

Help a brotha out please.

[AtlDuke72]

I think right now, with this team, we need to be in full Tom Izzo-Michigan State mode right now. I'm not writing off this season in any way, but I think we have to use the next 2-3 weeks in laboratory mode to find some things that will work for this group. W-L may not be the most important thing right now (I know we would all love a #1 seed), but I think finding a comfortable defense, and working on a rotation (hard right now with injuries) will go a long way to being the team we need to be come tournament time. We have plenty of talent to win the ACC and National title from anywhere between a #1-#4 seed.

Remind me - what is Izzo’s record against Coach K? Maybe we should just stay in Coach K mode.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Remind me - what is Izzo’s record against Coach K? Maybe we should just stay in Coach K mode.

So Coach K should listen to Jim Calhoun?

I get the one-sidedness of Coach K/Izzo, but Izzo has a reputation for mediocrity early in the season only to have a great post season. Sometimes, like in '15-'16, it backfires.

Not saying the OP is right, but Coach K can (and probably does) still learn from other great coaches out there.

[Devilwin]

These freshmen came to school after being the "Big Guns" on their high school teams. Just score 30 points a game and a bucket full of rebounds, and you're set. Very few of them know anything about defense. I can remember when there were jayvee and freshman teams. Get a little seasoning in before you face the big boys.
But I realize the scenario today, but I don't have to like it.
And I feel like we should win this one, but I am not putting it in the win column just yet.

[AtlDuke72]

So Coach K should listen to Jim Calhoun?

I get the one-sidedness of Coach K/Izzo, but Izzo has a reputation for mediocrity early in the season only to have a great post season. Sometimes, like in '15-'16, it backfires.

Not saying the OP is right, but Coach K can (and probably does) still learn from other great coaches out there.

I responded to “going into Tom Izzo mode” whatever that means. Nothing to do with whether Coach K learns from other coaches.

[Ian]

There is another issue with the multiple-OAD system that hasn't been discussed.

If you have players mostly staying 4 years, in the average year you only need to bring in 2-3 recruits. Let's think about how many hours of work it takes to recruit a player, you're talking all the hours watching HS game footage, traveling to see the player in action, in home visit, hosting official visit, frequent phone and email contact with him and sometimes his family, usually for a period of 2-3 years before he shows up on campus, that is conservatively (when you include travel time for in home visits and camps, etc) 100 hours of time from the staff per successful recruit.

And that's just the one that did committ, you might have to double that to account for the time spent on those that went elsewhere. So now we're at 200 hours per recruit. When it was 2-3 compared when it's 4 - 5 new recruits every year which is what we do now, it means 400 more hours from the staff spent on recruiting that they aren't spending doing all the other things that coaching entails: film review, working with the current players (individual and team wise), scouting opposition, devising stragety etc.

Now you may disagree with my assesment of 200 hours, fine, it was a rough estimate and it may be less than that. But it doesn't change the fact there is a resource allocationg issue. Out of the total available work hours from our coaching staff in any given year, Duke is currently due to this new recruiting strategy, spending quite a bit more of it in talent acquisition and consequnetly quite a bit less of it on non recruiting aspects of coaching. It's not possible that the current staff is spending as time working with the team and figuring out how to improve this current team compared to 10 years ago if they are at the same time also trying to land a 4-5 man class with mutliple top 10 players in 2018, in 2019, and beyond.

I think it's a legitimate question to ask if this shift in resource allocation is actually less optimal than before.

[kAzE]

There is another issue with the multiple-OAD system that hasn't been discussed.

Not to take away from your point, which is a good one, but once you've been here long enough, you'll realize 90% of threads on DBR eventually morph in to "OAD vs multi-year players" discussions, and absolutely EVERYTHING has already been discussed. It just might not be in this particular thread.

[Kedsy]

...

7973

So ultimately my conclusions are:

1) if you don't accept the bimodal explanation, then yes, playing more freshmen (and by extension one and dones) is one of the major causes of our poorer play on defense
2) I think the bimodal explanation makes a lot of sense. K's defense is complicated...and people get it or they don't. Even if they don't get it, they'll at least be better with experience
3) The issue with one and dones is not necessarily that we don't have 4 year players (amile, quinn, grayson, plumlees...etc), but perhaps the fact that we end up with less average minutes from the sophomores and juniors. I'll admit this is somewhat tenuous, but makes sense when hotshot freshmen are getting lots of minutes...it takes longer for your non-super star to be good enough to compete for minutes.

In either case, I disagree with kedsy, and the data shows that our inexperience contributes to our poor defense. If someone has another variable they think would demonstrate a higher correlation, they should name it.

Anyway...food for thought. Will these guys get it? we shall see.

I don't pretend to understand how strong these correlations are. Seems to me that if you take away the current (unfinished) season from the above graph there's no correlation at all.

Is that true? If not, please explain how you get the correlation. If it is true, then can one data point really change the conclusion that much?

[Ian]

I don't pretend to understand how strong these correlations are. Seems to me that if you take away the current (unfinished) season from the above graph there's no correlation at all.

Is that true? If not, please explain how you get the correlation. If it is true, then can one data point really change the conclusion that much?

Seems to me the correlation still exists, but the current year data point further strengthens it.

[Kedsy]

Seems to me the correlation still exists, but the current year data point further strengthens it.

Really? Like I said, I don't really understand it, but (not counting this season) three of our four youngest teams were top 20 defenses and two of our three worst defenses were our 7th and 8th most experienced out of 16. Plus our most experienced team is our 5th worst defense. With only 16 data points, the above facts make it hard for me to imagine any legitimate correlation.

[Ian]

Not to take away from your point, which is a good one, but once you've been here long enough, you'll realize 90% of threads on DBR eventually morph in to "OAD vs multi-year players" discussions, and absolutely EVERYTHING has already been discussed. It just might not be in this particular thread.

Ok, maybe just I haven't seen discussed.

As for 90% of threads morph into "OAD vs non-OAD", well, it seems after every loss the last few seasons, Coach K talks about how "we're young" and "we're not deep", so it seems only natural that the discussion then revolve about why we seem to be perpetually "young" and "not-deep" and how that can be changed, and of course that leads us back to.....

[Kedsy]

I think it's a legitimate question to ask if this shift in resource allocation is actually less optimal than before.

I think it's too soon to say. This "shift" only began after 2015.

For a while (1998 to 2008), we didn't recruit the way you've outlined -- instead of 2 to 3 a year, we brought in very large classes roughly alternated with very small ones. Here's the number of recruited freshmen we've had since K came back from his injured season of 1995:

96: 2
97: 3
98: 4
99: 1
00: 6
01: 2
02: 1
03: 6
04: 1
05: 2
06: 5
07: 4
08: 2
09: 3
10: 3
11: 3
12: 5
13: 2
14: 3
15: 4
16: 5
17: 6
18: 7

Again, it's really only the last three years that this has gotten out of hand. But once you're in this spiral, I'm not sure how you get out of it.

[heyman25]

...and

7974

Primanti Brothers!
Great place to eat when visiting Pittsburgh. Andy Warhol Museum and Frank Lloyd Wright Falling Waters home were my favorite tourist visits.

[kAzE]

I think it's too soon to say. This "shift" only began after 2015.

For a while (1998 to 2008), we didn't recruit the way you've outlined -- instead of 2 to 3 a year, we brought in very large classes roughly alternated with very small ones. Here's the number of recruited freshmen we've had since K came back from his injured season of 1995:

Again, it's really only the last three years that this has gotten out of hand. But once you're in this spiral, I'm not sure how you get out of it.

Simple. You have the year UK is having right now. They might only have 1 or 2 guys turn pro this year. It's a bleak outlook (relatively), but it's bound to happen to us at some point. We're not going to get 3 top 10 players every single year forever.

[CDu]

Simple. You have the year UK is having right now. They might only have 1 or 2 guys turn pro this year. It's a bleak outlook (relatively), but it's bound to happen to us at some point. We're not going to get 3 top 10 players every single year forever.

Yeah, it might take a couple of years like that to get back to a normal cycle AND be a strong program again. And you’re right: it is going to happen to us eventually. Our 3-year run of recruiting (including next year) is pretty much unprecedented. My guess is it stops roughly at the point that Coach K retires and/or Capel takes another head coaching job.

[dukelifer]

So Coach K should listen to Jim Calhoun?

I get the one-sidedness of Coach K/Izzo, but Izzo has a reputation for mediocrity early in the season only to have a great post season. Sometimes, like in '15-'16, it backfires.

Not saying the OP is right, but Coach K can (and probably does) still learn from other great coaches out there.
A great post season that does not lead to a championship. That is one way to do it.

[-jk]

DBR Chat (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/misc.php?do=cchatbox) is open!

If it gets a bit slow, refresh the page. If you're on a mobile device, you'll need to select "Blue" at the bottom.

As always - please follow the DBR Posting Guidelines.

Let's Go Duke!

-jk

[chrishoke]

d e f e n s e.

[riverside6]

Live tempo-based stats for Duke/Pitt, starters posted...
https://www.scacchoops.com/duke-at-pittsburgh-basketball-live-stats-01102018

[BigZ]

Foot on throat.

[accfanfrom1970]

Carter too?

[WHOneedsSOX]

Ugh another injury...

[BigZ]

Oh I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. no

[curtis325]

Ugh another injury...

It's over.

[House G]

Time for a vigil? :(

[BigZ]

Time for a vigil? :(

No those are bad luck

[WHOneedsSOX]

It's over.

This is just some baaaaad luck.

[pfrduke]

Who had Goldwire-O'Connell-Trent-Robinson-Bagley as a lineup getting competitive minutes in an ACC game?

[WHOneedsSOX]

Who had Goldwire-O'Connell-Trent-Robinson-Bagley as a lineup getting competitive minutes in an ACC game?

Who had Robinson shooting a 3 before Allen in any game this season? Not only shot it but made it!

[BigZ]

With this lineup Allen must look to score

[pfrduke]

We're 8 minutes into the game and every healthy non-walk-on has seen minutes. I wonder if one of the strategies for addressing defensive issues is to try to give the starters a little more rest early in the game.

[noworries]

I missed the first part of the game...any insight on what happened to Carter?

[pfrduke]

I missed the first part of the game...any insight on what happened to Carter?

Rolled his ankle playing defense - didn't land on a foot, just rolled it.

[WHOneedsSOX]

Carter moving well. Ankle should be fine today. Tomorrow though is the scary part when it swells up.

[scottdude8]

I wish we used our bench like this every game. I know today’s an aberration because of injuries and Pitt not being good at basketball, but I feel like the bench guys, all the way down to Jack White, have shown they can play in 2-3 minute spurts and not hurt us. And I think all of our starters would benefit massively from playing 5 minutes less a game, especially at the end of games (when we’ve faded in our losses). Hoping this trend continues today and in the games to come.

[WHOneedsSOX]

I wish we used our bench like this every game. I know today’s an aberration because of injuries and Pitt not being good at basketball, but I feel like the bench guys, all the way down to Jack White, have shown they can play in 2-3 minute spurts and not hurt us. And I think all of our starters would benefit massively from playing 5 minutes less a game, especially at the end of games (when we’ve faded in our losses). Hoping this trend continues today and in the games to come.

I agree. And like Steve Kerr said, you want to keep guys involved and you never know when you're going to need those guys.

[InSpades]

JRob.. aka "the missing piece".

Apparently coach lit a fire under them... or Pitt is really bad... or a little from column A and a little from column B.

Duke bench... 3 of 4 from 3. Duke's starters... 4 of 12. And that's w/ Duval hitting 2 of 3!

[BigZ]

Is Frank hurt too?

[ncexnyc]

The Commodore stroking the three ball.

[Hauerwas]

Impressed that K has gone so deep into the bench, of course it's easier to do when you are up big, but it's obvious that if he wants 100% effort on the defensive end he's just going to have to give guys the chance to rest and then go at it for 5-7 minutes at a time. Nice adjustment. Now, if he can even go 8-9 deep in meaningful games (even in the first half) that will go a long way toward creating opportunities to lock teams down.

[accfanfrom1970]

Duval knocking down 3s? That's a good sign.

[ehdg]

Hate to nit pick but come on Duval can’t miss 2 out of 3 free throws. We really need to work on free throws. Also we’re not working hard enough on defensive rebounding. Other wise we looked really good in the first half. Good shooting, passing n playing good defense. Also liked how deep K went with the bench in the first half playing Jack White, Justin Robinson, Jordon Goldwire n Alex O’Connel n way Vrank also got in for a bit.

[subzero02]

They lit us up on the offensive glass down the stretch. Not enough boxing out...

[arnie]

Impressed that K has gone so deep into the bench, of course it's easier to do when you are up big, but it's obvious that if he wants 100% effort on the defensive end he's just going to have to give guys the chance to rest and then go at it for 5-7 minutes at a time. Nice adjustment. Now, if he can even go 8-9 deep in meaningful games (even in the first half) that will go a long way toward creating opportunities to lock teams down.

Yep, he got the message from reading DBR.

[weezie]

Yep, he got the message from reading DBR.

Heck, he's in chat right now! Who do you think Invisible always is?

[rocketeli]

I'm watching the game, thinking that the Pitt uniforms don't look very comfortable...then I'm like, wait a minute, we're wearing our home whites...only took me to the second half to "notice"... anyway I'm wondering, when was the last time we wore the home unis to a true away game (not a neutral site)?

[arnie]

Heck, he's in chat right now! Who do you think Invisible always is?

K needs to leave chat and bring team back in focus.

[karmacoma]

Wow. Pitt is making this a game. Wake up, fellas.

[dukelifer]

Wow. Pitt is making this a game. Wake up, fellas.

Duke let them in and now they are playing free and easy

[dukelion]

Still unimpressed with this group.

And not sure what's up with Allen.....such a streaky player these days......disappointing.

[downeastdad]

"Overrated" cheer from Pit fans, down 20?

[DangerDevil]

I’m not sure who the Oakland Zoo was chanting overrated at, Duke in general or Bagley. In either case it was very appropriate as we were up by 21 and Bagley currently had 16 pts and 14 boards.

[downeastdad]

I’m not sure who the Oakland Zoo was chanting overrated at, Duke in general or Bagley. In either case it was very appropriate as we were up by 21 and Bagley currently had 16 pts and 14 boards.

Maybe they were talking about Bagley's FT shooting.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Still unimpressed with this group.

And not sure what's up with Allen....such a streaky player these days...disappointing.

Really?

Pray tell, what do you want from this game - ACC on the road - result that you don't see?

[DangerDevil]

Really?

Pray tell, what do you want from this game - ACC on the road - result that you don't see?

I mean we did let the lead dip under 20 momentarily. 😃

[wavedukefan70s]

I love the energy from the bench guys.

[accfanfrom1970]

And Norte Dame loses to Ga Tech

[downeastdad]

Commentators have lost interest in this one.