Phase IV: Georgia Tech through Louisville

[CDu]

So we have made it through the first three phases relatively unscathed. One of the top teams in the country already, and still with room to grow. It’s amazing where this team is given their youth, lack of depth, and some untimely injuries/illnesses. That we may be still getting better has to be terrifying for the rest of the college bball world. With that said, here’s what I’m interested in watching for in Phase IV. Keep in mind with all of these items below that the team is already performing at an elite level overall, so most of these are more “next-level” issues than concerns. This is a really, really good team. I just want to see how great they can become. Even if all of these things remain unanswered questions, we're still talking about a top 2 or 3 team in the country and likely 1 seed in the NCAA tournament. Improving on these areas just pushes us that much further ahead of the field.

Health: Damned if we can’t seem to avoid the health bugaboo. We knew the team lacked depth coming into the season, and now it is being tested. Thankfully, we think that Tre Jones will be back “soon.” How soon is “soon”? That’s a question that we hope is answered in this phase. Hopefully sooner rather than later. And it goes without saying that we can’t afford an injury to any of our other regulars at this point. And any serious injury to Williamson or Barrett would be devastating to this team’s title hopes. So, fingers crossed that Jones gets back soon, and fingers crossed that the rest of the team stays injury/illness-free. Let's see this squad get healthy again, and soon!

More Zion please! Williamson has been an absolutely stunning player for Duke this year. His combination of size, strength, athleticism, agility, and skill is off the charts. He has been, unquestionably, the most dominant player Duke has ever season. Frankly, it’s not close. He’s got Elton Brand’s strength, Corey Maggette’s leaping ability, and the ball skills of a combo guard. As it has become increasingly apparent just how good he is, Williamson’s offensive role has expanded. We’re running more and more isolation sets for him from various spots on the floor. And he has responded with 25+ points in each of the last five games he finished (was on pace for 23 or so in the FSU game as well). Will we see his role continue to expand? And how much can he handle? He is a pretty relentless competitor out there in terms of his effort and energy level. Obviously there is a ceiling at some point. But how close are we to that point? Given how efficient he is, it would benefit the team to try to get him an even bigger piece of the pie if possible. Maybe not a ton more looks, but even 2-3 more could mean the difference in our next game against UVa. He needs to be the focal point of this offense because he’s just that good. Enjoy every minute he's on the floor for Duke because he's just amazing.

Barrett’s efficiency: Barrett’s ups and downs have been well-documented on DBR. He has at times looked very inefficient and at others looked like a worldbeater (hello, second-half against UVa). But overall, his efficiency against Power-5 teams and Gonzaga has been subpar: a 49.0 TS% (for reference, 52-53% is average) and a 1.2 assist/turnover ratio. But he’s had his dominant moments, too (Kentucky and UVa). To be clear: Barrett has been a fantastic player overall for Duke this year. He rebounds very well and facilitates fairly well for a wing. His defense is generally solid as well. And in transition he’s downright predatory. He’s on the short list of top players nationally. But he’s working through some of the warts in his offensive game right now. Is the UVa game evidence that he’s starting to figure that out? I sure hope so. Because that performance was terrific. I don’t think he’s ever going to be uber-efficient against good defenses, because he’s just not a good enough perimeter shooter. But if he can avoid forcing up perimeter shots and make good decisions off the dribble like he did against UVa, that should be good enough. We unfortunately only have one game against a really good defense in this phase (two if you count Ga Tech, but I’m not sold on them). But we can at least see if he can keep the TS% in the low-to-mid-50s against the lesser ACC opponents in this phase.

The fourth freshman: It has been an odd season for Cam Reddish. Coming in, he had a reputation as being a highly-skilled player who didn’t always make the most of said skills. And, to be honest, that’s kind of what we’ve seen from him. There have been definite glimpses of his talent, and he certainly looks the part physically. But the overall impact on the offensive end has come and gone from time to time despite being one of the highest-usage players around (using nearly 1/3 of the possessions when he is in there). The team is elite as is, but the team will become a supernova if Reddish can tap into his potential more consistently. Right now, he’s really struggling off the dribble, which makes him primarily a 3pt shooter. And he isn’t good enough a shooter to be solely a 3pt threat. To find that next gear, he needs to figure out how to get it going off the dribble. If he does, that will take pressure off of Williamson and Barrett and make us that much more dynamic on the floor. That said, his defense has been terrific, which is fantastic considering that it would be easy to let his struggles on offense affect the rest of his game. Kudos to him for not letting that happen. Here’s hoping he finds his rhythm offensively in the near future.

The juniors, part A(ussie): Jack White has played the most consistently effective ball among the veterans this year, although his production has certainly ebbed and flowed as well. Ideally, he’s a spot-up shooter and rebounder/defender as a backup forward. He’s doing the rebounding and defending part pretty well, but the shooting has been the iffy part. He’s at 31.9% for the season from 3, which is below average. After a monster shooting night against Clemson, he’s now just 1-20 in the five games since. Can he get back to knocking down the threes like he was earlier in the season? Him being a 38+% 3pt threat will go a long way towards keeping teams honest defensively.
The juniors, part B(olden): The more pressing questions about our veterans relate to the two centers. Both have had moments of glory, but both have struggled to make those moments stick. I’ll start with Bolden, as he’s the current “hot hand” lately. His performances in the past two games are exactly the kind of thing I hope we can see more consistently. Heck, his game against Pitt would even qualify as exceeding expectations. I’d like to see him continue this trend of solid play of late: he’s averaging 7.8 points, 5.8 rebounds, 2.3 blocks over 26 minutes per game over his past 6 games. It’s starting to feel like he may be finding his rhythm. I’m cautiously optimistic that things are starting to click, and he’ll be a solid contributor the rest of the way. Make it happen Marques!

The juniors, part D(eLaurier): The other half of our two-headed center monster isn’t faring as well of late. Now, it is surely tough to be effective in a very limited role, but it would be really nice if we didn’t have games like DeLaurier’s UVa game (5 fouls, one rebound credited to Reddish, and nothing else in 7 minutes) popping up from time to time. He’s really struggling at the moment, averaging 1.3 points, 1 rebound, 0.8 blocks and 3.3 fouls in 11 minutes per game over his last four games. We thankfully haven’t needed much more from him in those. But it would be nice if we could trust him for a solid 15-20 minutes per game as needed, because there are likely to be games in which Bolden can’t go 30 minutes due to fouls or ineffectiveness. DeLaurier’s biggest issue is that he’s just too foul-prone. He’s still averaging over 7 fouls per 40 minutes. That inability to avoid contact is really limiting what he can do. To be clear: DeLaurier is elite at blocking shots and rebounding, and very very good at getting steals. But that does little good if he can’t stay on the floor. Here’s hoping he can cut down his foul rate a bit in this phase and provide solid backup center minutes. He was looking really promising back in December and early January, but has regressed a bit. Let's hope he can bounce back, because if he does he gives us the flexibility (with Bolden) to handle any type of center a team can throw at us.

Ohhhh-Connell: The ups and downs of Alex O’Connell have been evident as well. Kid can shoot, and is capable of highlight-reel drives to the basket as well. But his court awareness and perhaps his bball IQ leave a little to be desired. Especially on defense, but even at times on offense (see the shot clock violation against UVa). That being said, O’Connell is the one guy who I can confidently say is a shooter on this team (White is a close second there, but there are doubts). His ability to spread the floor could come in handy if he can avoid those WTF moments and not be a liability on defense. Unfortunately, that hasn’t quite happened for him yet. Will this phase be an opportunity for him to settle in and gain confidence? Or will he remain a shaky player not suited for more than a handful of minutes in close games? Now, don’t get me wrong: he’s not going to suddenly become a major part of the rotation. But if he can establish himself as a guy Coach K can trust as the 8th man for more than spot minutes (say, a more consistent 10-15 mpg role), that would give us a lot more breathing room with regards to foul trouble as the opponents get better. Here’s hoping the lightbulb goes off for him somewhat during this phase. It’s gotten to the point where Goldwire surpassed
Shooting (aka, how bad will this team ultimately be at shooting?): Right now, we are 293th in the nation in 3pt shooting percentage, and 257th in the nation in FT percentage. That is… not good. The question is, where will the shooting go from here? A few weeks ago, we were a borderline bottom-third team in 3pt shooting. But things have gotten worse. Where is the water level for this team as a group of shooters? Barrett is already shooting better on average than he did in high school from both 3pt and FT range. Williamson was not a 3pt shooter in high school. Reddish wasn’t a high-percentage guy, though he was certainly capable. Jones was a bad shooter in high school. Obviously DeLaurier and Bolden aren’t shooters. White is a bit of an unknown at this point in terms of exactly what type of shooter he is. O’Connell can shoot, but he can’t seem to do enough else to warrant consistent minutes. I don’t expect this group to be a great – or even a good - shooting team. We just don’t have the horses for that. But can we settle into being a not-abysmal shooting team? As good as we are defensively and in transition, and basically everywhere but shooting, if we’re just not atrocious shooting the ball we become nearly unbeatable.

Establishing our place in the ACC: We’re currently tied for first in the ACC right now. Can we navigate this phase and remain atop the league? If we win out during this phase (and we’ll be HEAVILY favored in all but the last two of these games) we will be in a good position to finish atop the standings for the first time in a long time. We need to avoid a WTF loss over the next 4 games, then come to UVa looking for the upset. UVa will be favored in that one. But we have the more talented team. Win that game and we maintain full control of our ACC destiny. Win that one and consolidate it with a road win against Louisville (we’re favored, but not by a ton) and we’ll be in the driver’s seat as we head down the stretch. I feel like – if healthy – the floor for this team is so high. We do so many things well, and we aren’t reliant on shooting to win games. It may sound weird, but that might actually be a plus. Shooting can come and go, while defense and effort are perhaps more reliable. Let’s hope this group avoids catering against an inferior opponent over what is the lightest part of our remaining schedule.

As always, GO DUKE!!!

[COYS]

Barrett’s efficiency: Barrett’s ups and downs have been well-documented on DBR. He has at times looked very inefficient and at others looked like a worldbeater (hello, second-half against UVa). But overall, his efficiency against Power-5 teams and Gonzaga has been subpar: a 49.0 TS% (for reference, 52-53% is average) and a 1.2 assist/turnover ratio. But he’s had his dominant moments, too (Kentucky and UVa). To be clear: Barrett has been a fantastic player overall for Duke this year. He rebounds very well and facilitates fairly well for a wing. His defense is generally solid as well. And in transition he’s downright predatory. He’s on the short list of top players nationally. But he’s working through some of the warts in his offensive game right now. Is the UVa game evidence that he’s starting to figure that out? I sure hope so. Because that performance was terrific. I don’t think he’s ever going to be uber-efficient against good defenses, because he’s just not a good enough perimeter shooter. But if he can avoid forcing up perimeter shots and make good decisions off the dribble like he did against UVa, that should be good enough. We unfortunately only have one game against a really good defense in this phase (two if you count Ga Tech, but I’m not sold on them). But we can at least see if he can keep the TS% in the low-to-mid-50s against the lesser ACC opponents in this phase.



Excellent post CDu. I have to spread comments around or I'd spork you.

I totally agree with you on RJ's efficiency. I want him to become a more efficient player. That said, RJ is so good at scoring that he's incredibly valuable just for his raw point totals. Bart Torvik has an offensive stat that he modified from other stats called PORPAGATU! (https://www.bigtengeeks.com/new-stat-porpagatu/) ("Points Over Replacement Per Adjusted Game At That Usage" or "PORP" as it is abbreviated on each team's stat page). You're a big stats guy so you probably understand it even better than I do, but basically it's a way to attempt to place value on a player's production based on usage. For example, Jack White has a higher ORating than RJ Barrett, but no one would argue that Jack is a better offensive player. According to PORP, RJ is worth 5.4 points per game more than a replacement player (this puts RJ in the 99.9th percentile). Jack is worth a strong but probably more accurate 3.4 PORP (which falls in the 94th percentile). To put this number into perspective, RJ has a higher PORP than Austin Rivers, Jabari Parker, Jayson Tatum, Brandon Ingram, and Jahlil Okafor. Even if he's a little inefficient, he still gets buckets that no other players can even attempt.

And while based on O-rating he's had some tough games, in the 8 games he's played against T-Rank's top 50, his PORP (which is adjusted based on the quality of the opponent) actually goes UP to 5.6 (just as a note, Zion's goes up from 6 to 6.8 against top 50 competition, which is just otherworldly good).

Anyway, this isn't to say that I disagree with you in any way. I think it would be fantastic if RJ figured out how to put just as many points on the board while also improving his efficiency. However, PORP helps to highlight just how valuable his raw point totals have been for the team . . . especially against teams with good defenses that might be able to completely neutralize less-talented-but-more-efficient scorers.

That said, clearly Zion needs to get the ball as much as possible because whether you go by O-Rating or PORP!, Zion is in a class of his own.

[CDu]

Excellent post CDu. I have to spread comments around or I'd spork you.

I totally agree with you on RJ's efficiency. I want him to become a more efficient player. That said, RJ is so good at scoring that he's incredibly valuable just for his raw point totals. Bart Torvik has an offensive stat that he modified from other stats called PORPAGATU! (https://www.bigtengeeks.com/new-stat-porpagatu/) ("Points Over Replacement Per Adjusted Game At That Usage" or "PORP" as it is abbreviated on each team's stat page). You're a big stats guy so you probably understand it even better than I do, but basically it's a way to attempt to place value on a player's production based on usage. For example, Jack White has a higher ORating than RJ Barrett, but no one would argue that Jack is a better offensive player. According to PORP, RJ is worth 5.4 points per game more than a replacement player (this puts RJ in the 99.9th percentile). Jack is worth a strong but probably more accurate 3.4 PORP (which falls in the 94th percentile). To put this number into perspective, RJ has a higher PORP than Austin Rivers, Jabari Parker, Jayson Tatum, Brandon Ingram, and Jahlil Okafor. Even if he's a little inefficient, he still gets buckets that no other players can even attempt.

And while based on O-rating he's had some tough games, in the 8 games he's played against T-Rank's top 50, his PORP (which is adjusted based on the quality of the opponent) actually goes UP to 5.6 (just as a note, Zion's goes up from 6 to 6.8 against top 50 competition, which is just otherworldly good).

Anyway, this isn't to say that I disagree with you in any way. I think it would be fantastic if RJ figured out how to put just as many points on the board while also improving his efficiency. However, PORP helps to highlight just how valuable his raw point totals have been for the team . . . especially against teams with good defenses that might be able to completely neutralize less-talented-but-more-efficient scorers.

That said, clearly Zion needs to get the ball as much as possible because whether you go by O-Rating or PORP!, Zion is in a class of his own.

Yep, I agree, and just want to re-emphasize my comment at the top of the phase post. These are marginal items, because the team is REALLY good as is. And Barrett is a big part of that REALLY good. It's just the one area for improvement that I see with him. And if he can get that efficiency up just a bit, it helps push this team into the stratosphere. But even "just" as is, he's a really great player and really important to the team's success.

[Jeffrey]

No surprise, this is an excellent review of our team! I strongly agree with 99% of your analysis... thanks for taking the time and energy!


That being said, O’Connell is the one guy who I can confidently say is a shooter on this team (White is a close second there, but there are doubts).

IMO, Cam Reddish is our best shooter.

[bullettoothtony]

Our unbalanced scoring is becoming a significant concern. We need Cam to step up in a major way, and we need some scoring from Jack and Tre when he comes back. We aren't winning the national championship with two scorers. That won't work against multiple good teams, especially in a game when one of them isn't shooting efficiently (likely R.J.).

[NYBri]

Shooting can come and go, while defense and effort are perhaps more reliable. Let’s hope this group avoids catering against an inferior opponent over what is the lightest part of our remaining schedule.

As always, GO DUKE!!!

^^^^This pretty much wraps up Phase IV. :cool:

[CDu]

Our unbalanced scoring is becoming a significant concern. We need Cam to step up in a major way, and we need some scoring from Jack and Tre when he comes back. We aren't winning the national championship with two scorers. That won't work against multiple good teams, especially in a game when one of them isn't shooting efficiently (likely R.J.).

I don't think I've seen anything other than Tre Jones' health that would qualify to me as a "significant concern." We just recently beat another top-3 team in the country without our PG. It's hard for me to see this team not being able to win in any game moving forward. Can we lose? Yes. But we are just so good at so many different facets of the game on both ends that the floor is just so high.

I would list shooting as a concern for sure. But I don't know that it is a significant concern, considering that we beat UVa despite no PG and despite shooting very poorly. Any improvements to this team from where we are (aside again from Tre Jones getting healthy) is icing on a pretty yummy cake, in my opinion.

[jv001]

Thanks Cdu for an excellent Phase IV post. I will just add, our defense(with Tre) can help off set some of our poor 3 point shooting. With Tre creating havoc and getting steals, our offense improves with transition baskets. I know it's not a cure all, but it sure helps. I really like the improvement in Marques' play. He's moving better, rebounding better and playing good defense. I want to see Javin pick up his play and that means quit fouling so much. His minutes will be needed sooner or later when fouls pile up. There's not much to not like about this Duke team. GoDuke!

[COYS]

I don't think I've seen anything other than Tre Jones' health that would qualify to me as a "significant concern." We just recently beat another top-3 team in the country without our PG. It's hard for me to see this team not being able to win in any game moving forward. Can we lose? Yes. But we are just so good at so many different facets of the game on both ends that the floor is just so high.

I would list shooting as a concern for sure. But I don't know that it is a significant concern, considering that we beat UVa despite no PG and despite shooting very poorly. Any improvements to this team from where we are (aside again from Tre Jones getting healthy) is icing on a pretty yummy cake, in my opinion.

I don't have a screen shot of the image, but I recall that they flashed a graphic on the screen during the broadcast last night showing how much better Duke's FG% is with Tre Jones on the court. In my opinion, the best solution to having consistent scorers outside of Zion and RJ is to get Tre back healthy and integrated with the squad. Not only is Tre capable of hitting double figures, himself, but he makes everyone a bit better by getting more open looks for his teammates. We've probably missed a significant number of opportunities for fastbreaks, open looks from the perimeter, and/or open looks at the basket with Tre on the sidelines.

[camion]

I think we will be very tough to beat if we regain/maintain our health. I would favor us against any team in the country in any single game.

That being said I would bet on the field against us or any other team in the NCAA tournament. The statistics show that winning a tourney is tough. A team with 75% odds to win each of four games from the sweet 16 on will only have about a 30% chance to win the tournament.

My fearless prediction is that if we lose, as is likely, it will be because more than one thing went wrong, not just 3 point shooting.

[bullettoothtony]

I don't think I've seen anything other than Tre Jones' health that would qualify to me as a "significant concern." We just recently beat another top-3 team in the country without our PG. It's hard for me to see this team not being able to win in any game moving forward. Can we lose? Yes. But we are just so good at so many different facets of the game on both ends that the floor is just so high.

I would list shooting as a concern for sure. But I don't know that it is a significant concern, considering that we beat UVa despite no PG and despite shooting very poorly. Any improvements to this team from where we are (aside again from Tre Jones getting healthy) is icing on a pretty yummy cake, in my opinion.


I think you're putting too much stock in the Virginia win, and that these wins are fool's gold to an extent.

Agree to disagree. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

[dukelifer]

Our unbalanced scoring is becoming a significant concern. We need Cam to step up in a major way, and we need some scoring from Jack and Tre when he comes back. We aren't winning the national championship with two scorers. That won't work against multiple good teams, especially in a game when one of them isn't shooting efficiently (likely R.J.).

Somehow you are ignoring the potential contributions of Bolden- I agree that the bulk of the scoring is from two guys- but Bolden and Reddish are giving 9-15 points a game recently- so that is not insignificant. The bench is more of a concern- but even there- AOC is a capable scorer and if Jack plays fewer minutes he may come back into form. Things will improve with Jones running the show. Right now it feels a bit unbalanced but this is not a two man team.

[CDu]

I think you're putting too much stock in the Virginia win, and that these wins are fool's gold to an extent.

Agree to disagree. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

I'm fine to agree to disagree. But I am not sure why anyone would think that beating another of the top teams in the country without one of our best players is something to not put a lot of stock in. Unless you're trying to be negative about the team, which is what I am sensing your goal is.

Because honestly, this team does virtually everything at an elite level except shoot and defensive rebound. And that has been consistently true across the entire season. Since the Army game, they have had just one game when healthy with a team game score below 94, and none below 90. That is phenomenal consistency of excellence.

[Kedsy]

Great phase post, CDu. You've hit all the high notes.


To be clear: Barrett has been a fantastic player overall for Duke this year. He rebounds very well and facilitates fairly well for a wing.

Your statement got me thinking, how many guys have we had at Duke as good as RJ at both passing and defensive rebounding. It's kind of an odd combination. So I went back ten years to find players who were over 15% in both DR% and assist%. Here's the list:

2019 RJ (16.0% DR% and 22.2% assist%)
2019 Zion (19.8% DR% and 17.5% assist%)

That's it.

If you go back another five years, we add 2009 Kyle Singler (16.7% DR% and 15.6% assist%) and 2007 Josh McRoberts (19.4% DR% and 20.6% assist%). It wasn't easy to go further back than that.

Still, it's a pretty short list.



Shooting (aka, how bad will this team ultimately be at shooting?): Right now, we are 293th in the nation in 3pt shooting percentage, and 257th in the nation in FT percentage. That is… not good. The question is, where will the shooting go from here? A few weeks ago, we were a borderline bottom-third team in 3pt shooting. But things have gotten worse. Where is the water level for this team as a group of shooters? Barrett is already shooting better on average than he did in high school from both 3pt and FT range. Williamson was not a 3pt shooter in high school. Reddish wasn’t a high-percentage guy, though he was certainly capable. Jones was a bad shooter in high school. Obviously DeLaurier and Bolden aren’t shooters. White is a bit of an unknown at this point in terms of exactly what type of shooter he is. O’Connell can shoot, but he can’t seem to do enough else to warrant consistent minutes. I don’t expect this group to be a great – or even a good - shooting team. We just don’t have the horses for that. But can we settle into being a not-abysmal shooting team? As good as we are defensively and in transition, and basically everywhere but shooting, if we’re just not atrocious shooting the ball we become nearly unbeatable.

I posted this in the Pitt post-game thread, but it might be more appropriate here, regarding the importance of shooting to our NCAAT chances:

The table below is the percentage of threes (out of total FG attempts) Duke teams have taken since 1997 (approximately the time Coach K apparently decided to go "all in" on the three-point shot). If you look at the bottom of the table, it's apparent that Duke teams that rely less on the three appear to have more tournament success than teams that are heavily reliant on the three (with one big exception on both ends). If so, it may be that we are currently taking a few too many threes right now, especially considering how less-than-good we are at shooting them.



Year %three NCAA
2001 41.78% 1
2005 39.84% 16
2016 39.84% 16
2014 39.65% 64
2008 39.16% 32
2012 38.59% 64
2017 38.34% 32
2002 37.57% 16
2019 37.00%
1997 36.84% 32
2018 36.32% 8
2011 35.27% 16
2006 35.16% 16
2009 35.04% 16
2000 34.16% 16
2003 33.92% 16
2004 33.41% 4
2015 33.41% 1
2013 33.25% 8
2010 32.93% 1
1998 32.44% 8
1999 30.51% 2
2007 29.65% 64


Regarding the necessity of shooting to winning championships, going back 25 years, there were more national champions who shot under 35% from three (2013 Louisville (33.3% from three); 2011 UConn (32.9%); 2003 Syracuse (34.4%); 1999 UConn (34.4%); and 1995 UCLA (34.1%)) than there were champions who shot over 40% from three (2018 Villanova (40.1%); 2007 Florida (40.9%); 2005 UNC (40.3%); and 2004 UConn (40.2%)).

Putting aside the fact that we only have 25 datapoints, what's the difference between 35% and the way Duke shoots? Duke currently takes an average of 24.8 three-pointers per game. At that quantity, the difference between shooting Duke's current 31.2% and 35% is just one (1) made three per game. I'm not sneering at 3 points -- in a close game against a strong opponent, three points can be a huge difference -- but to make up the difference you'd only have to make two more two-point baskets than normal (taking free throws out of the equation for the moment). This year's team is currently Duke's best two-point shooting team in history (or at least since the three-point shot began in 1987), at 58.8%. We shoot 42.2 twos per game, and at that quantity we'd make three more twos than, for example, the 2017 UNC team (that shot 35.5% from three), more than wiping out the three point advantage they had on made threes.

Also, it's worth noting that since they invented the three-point shot in 1987, six of the worst ten Duke teams in three-point shooting pct have made the Elite Eight or better.

(It may also be worth noting that none of them have been as bad as this year's team -- the worst three-point shooting team in Duke history shot 34.9% in 2009 -- but again, the difference between this year's team and, for example, the 2004 Final Four team that shot 36.4% from three is 1.2 made threes a game and this year's team's two-point percentage advantage gives them an additional 2.7 made twos per game, more than making up the difference.) <-- all these calculations are assuming Duke's current pace, so while the numbers may change slightly, the analysis should be pace-independent


Our unbalanced scoring is becoming a significant concern. We need Cam to step up in a major way, and we need some scoring from Jack and Tre when he comes back. We aren't winning the national championship with two scorers. That won't work against multiple good teams, especially in a game when one of them isn't shooting efficiently (likely R.J.).

Your comment struck me as odd, considering our #3 scorer (Cam Reddish) averages 13.1 ppg. So I went back over the past 20 champions to see how many had a third scorer who scored significantly more than Cam. The answer is only two (2) of the past 20 champions had a third scorer with more than 13.5 ppg (2010 Duke and 2009 UNC). So we may not win the championship, but it probably won't be because of this.

[MChambers]

When Tre returns, I'll be curious to see if Duke can get back to the disruptive ball hawking we saw before his injury. I assume Duke will, and that will be a big load off of the offense, because we'll have more fast breaks.

[Jeffrey]

Your comment struck me as odd, considering our #3 scorer (Cam Reddish) averages 13.1 ppg. So I went back over the past 20 champions to see how many had a third scorer who scored significantly more than Cam. The answer is only two (2) of the past 20 champions had a third scorer with more than 13.5 ppg (2010 Duke and 2009 UNC). So we may not win the championship, but it probably won't be because of this.

I'd also add, those two scorers are two of the five best players in college basketball.


We aren't winning the national championship with two scorers.

What odds do you give Duke? It sounds like you think we are a long-shot and I'd definitely wager with long-shot odds.

[kAzE]

The juniors, part B(olden): The more pressing questions about our veterans relate to the two centers. Both have had moments of glory, but both have struggled to make those moments stick. I’ll start with Bolden, as he’s the current “hot hand” lately. His performances in the past two games are exactly the kind of thing I hope we can see more consistently. Heck, his game against Pitt would even qualify as exceeding expectations. I’d like to see him continue this trend of solid play of late: he’s averaging 7.8 points, 5.8 rebounds, 2.3 blocks over 26 minutes per game over his past 6 games. It’s starting to feel like he may be finding his rhythm. I’m cautiously optimistic that things are starting to click, and he’ll be a solid contributor the rest of the way. Make it happen Marques!

The juniors, part D(eLaurier): The other half of our two-headed center monster isn’t faring as well of late. Now, it is surely tough to be effective in a very limited role, but it would be really nice if we didn’t have games like DeLaurier’s UVa game (5 fouls, one rebound credited to Reddish, and nothing else in 7 minutes) popping up from time to time. He’s really struggling at the moment, averaging 1.3 points, 1 rebound, 0.8 blocks and 3.3 fouls in 11 minutes per game over his last four games. We thankfully haven’t needed much more from him in those. But it would be nice if we could trust him for a solid 15-20 minutes per game as needed, because there are likely to be games in which Bolden can’t go 30 minutes due to fouls or ineffectiveness. DeLaurier’s biggest issue is that he’s just too foul-prone. He’s still averaging over 7 fouls per 40 minutes. That inability to avoid contact is really limiting what he can do. To be clear: DeLaurier is elite at blocking shots and rebounding, and very very good at getting steals. But that does little good if he can’t stay on the floor. Here’s hoping he can cut down his foul rate a bit in this phase and provide solid backup center minutes. He was looking really promising back in December and early January, but has regressed a bit. Let's hope he can bounce back, because if he does he gives us the flexibility (with Bolden) to handle any type of center a team can throw at us.

Bolden has definitely made some strides as a rebounder in recent games. He still picks his spots, but he has definitely shown improvement. I've seen him go hard after rebounds out of his area, which is something he hasn't shown in the past. He's been very good and has stepped up nicely during Javin's slump.

I hope I'm not being too harsh when I say this, but I really thought Javin would be better by this point in his career. He showed flashes of defensive brilliance and high end athleticism in limited minutes in his first 2 years. At the end of last season, I was almost certain that he would become a more athletic version of Amile Jefferson. But at this point, I think that was a bit too optimistic.

By his junior season, Amile had finally learned how to cut down on his fouls, and had started to develop what would eventually become a pretty serviceable post game on offense as a facilitator and scorer. Javin is certainly more athletic, but still hasn't gotten to that level in terms of his body control, and is purely a dump off/crash the glass guy on offense.

Regardless, we don't need Javin to become an offensive threat. We have plenty of those. However, we do need him to stay on the floor against teams that can spread us out and attack mismatches. This is an area of weakness for Marques, and Javin is much better suited to defend on the perimeter. Hoping the light bulb turns on for him sooner rather than later. The biggest jump any big man makes is when he learns to play without fouling.

[BandAlum83]

Your comment struck me as odd, considering our #3 scorer (Cam Reddish) averages 13.1 ppg. So I went back over the past 20 champions to see how many had a third scorer who scored significantly more than Cam. The answer is only two (2) of the past 20 champions had a third scorer with more than 13.5 ppg (2010 Duke and 2009 UNC). So we may not win the championship, but it probably won't be because of this.

How many of those champions had 2 scorers over 20 ppg? What was the range or data on the combined scoring averages of the top 3?

Our top 3 currently average a combined 58.7. Is that good? Middle of the road? Is it remarkable in any way?

My point is, I guess, a team can win with only two scorers if those 2 are REALLY good. Add in a third..great.

Duke's 1994 team had 4 players average above 10 pts per game. the averages were: 17.4, 14.4, 12.5, 10.0. How many "scorers" did that team have on the national runner up team?

[azzefkram]

However, we do need him to stay on the floor against teams that can spread us out and attack mismatches. This is an area of weakness for Marques, and Javin is much better suited to defend on the perimeter. Hoping the light bulb turns on for him sooner rather than later. The biggest jump any big man makes is when he learns to play without fouling.

I don't think this is true. I think it's one of those things that keeps being repeated so people start taking it as gospel. Neither Marques nor Javin are great on the perimeter and Javin is a significantly weaker post defender. For the teams that are going to spread us out, Jack is the call. I think a good argument could be made for Jack being the 5th starter even with his shooting slump, though that would muck up the rotation.

[kAzE]

I don't think this is true. I think it's one of those things that keeps being repeated so people start taking it as gospel. Neither Marques nor Javin are great on the perimeter and Javin is a significantly weaker post defender. For the teams that are going to spread us out, Jack is the call. I think a good argument could be made for Jack being the 5th starter even with his shooting slump, though that would muck up the rotation.

Are you just basing this on your own eye test? Obviously Javin is no Tre Jones, but he's still pretty quick for a 6'10" guy. Against Virginia, when Javin was in the game, we were able to play a switching man to man defense pretty effectively, but had to resort to zone once he fouled out. Luckily, UVA missed some open shots and we were able to get enough stops with the zone, but I personally think Javin is mobile enough to defend on the perimeter. He just needs to stop fouling.

[Kedsy]

Bolden has definitely made some strides as a rebounder in recent games.

I agree Marques has made strides as a defensive rebounder, but he still has a ways to go. His current season DR% is 12.2%, meaning he has moved from 2nd-worst defensive rebounding Duke center in history (last 33 years, anyway) to 3rd-worst. His conference DR% (meaning his last six games) is 14.3% which would still be bottom 10 in Duke center history. But I guess any progress is moving forward.

[Wander]

Regarding the necessity of shooting to winning championships, going back 25 years, there were more national champions who shot under 35% from three (2013 Louisville (33.3% from three); 2011 UConn (32.9%); 2003 Syracuse (34.4%); 1999 UConn (34.4%); and 1995 UCLA (34.1%)) than there were champions who shot over 40% from three (2018 Villanova (40.1%); 2007 Florida (40.9%); 2005 UNC (40.3%); and 2004 UConn (40.2%)).

Putting aside the fact that we only have 25 datapoints, what's the difference between 35% and the way Duke shoots? Duke currently takes an average of 24.8 three-pointers per game. At that quantity, the difference between shooting Duke's current 31.2% and 35% is just one (1) made three per game. I'm not sneering at 3 points -- in a close game against a strong opponent, three points can be a huge difference -- but to make up the difference you'd only have to make two more two-point baskets than normal (taking free throws out of the equation for the moment). This year's team is currently Duke's best two-point shooting team in history (or at least since the three-point shot began in 1987), at 58.8%. We shoot 42.2 twos per game, and at that quantity we'd make three more twos than, for example, the 2017 UNC team (that shot 35.5% from three), more than wiping out the three point advantage they had on made threes.

Also, it's worth noting that since they invented the three-point shot in 1987, six of the worst ten Duke teams in three-point shooting pct have made the Elite Eight or better.

(It may also be worth noting that none of them have been as bad as this year's team -- the worst three-point shooting team in Duke history shot 34.9% in 2009 -- but again, the difference between this year's team and, for example, the 2004 Final Four team that shot 36.4% from three is 1.2 made threes a game and this year's team's two-point percentage advantage gives them an additional 2.7 made twos per game, more than making up the difference.) <-- all these calculations are assuming Duke's current pace, so while the numbers may change slightly, the analysis should be pace-independent

You're twisting yourself into knots trying to convince yourself that our poor shooting isn't an important weakness. I agree, our offense is still excellent, and on average our two point shooting strength overcomes our three point shooting weakness. I don't think many people are trying to say that our offense is bad overall, though. The weakness is that we may have a specific match-up against a very good defensive team that is better at defending twos than threes (like Michigan State) and not be able to take full advantage of it. Or that we're in a specific game-time situation that calls for a three point shot (or good free throw shooting).

That said, I am hopeful that we will shore up this weakness as Cam gets better throughout the rest of the season. And we don't have anyone who is as much of a weak link as Duval was last year. And even without improving the weakness, I still think we are the favorite to win the title. But the shooting woes keep us from being the overwhelming favorite that we would be otherwise (first world problem, I know).

[Saratoga2]

[QUOTE=CDu;1119997]


The juniors, part D(eLaurier): The other half of our two-headed center monster isn’t faring as well of late. Now, it is surely tough to be effective in a very limited role, but it would be really nice if we didn’t have games like DeLaurier’s UVa game (5 fouls, one rebound credited to Reddish, and nothing else in 7 minutes) popping up from time to time. He’s really struggling at the moment, averaging 1.3 points, 1 rebound, 0.8 blocks and 3.3 fouls in 11 minutes per game over his last four games. We thankfully haven’t needed much more from him in those. But it would be nice if we could trust him for a solid 15-20 minutes per game as needed, because there are likely to be games in which Bolden can’t go 30 minutes due to fouls or ineffectiveness. DeLaurier’s biggest issue is that he’s just too foul-prone. He’s still averaging over 7 fouls per 40 minutes. That inability to avoid contact is really limiting what he can do. To be clear: DeLaurier is elite at blocking shots and rebounding, and very very good at getting steals. But that does little good if he can’t stay on the floor. Here’s hoping he can cut down his foul rate a bit in this phase and provide solid backup center minutes. He was looking really promising back in December and early January, but has regressed a bit. Let's hope he can bounce back, because if he does he gives us the flexibility (with Bolden) to handle any type of center a team can throw at us. I am wondering what has caused Javin to regress as I think we all have noticed. He always had foul issues but they seem more pronounced of late. Are his recent issues due to the recent games have been against solid ACC teams with larger, stronger and more athletic front courts? Alternatively, has his issues coincided more with the temporary loss of Tre Jones? I believe it is more the former and that Javin, while being quick and athletic is not that strong and has troubles against the better teams.

Ohhhh-Connell: The ups and downs of Alex O’Connell have been evident as well. Kid can shoot, and is capable of highlight-reel drives to the basket as well. But his court awareness and perhaps his bball IQ leave a little to be desired. Especially on defense, but even at times on offense (see the shot clock violation against UVa). That being said, O’Connell is the one guy who I can confidently say is a shooter on this team (White is a close second there, but there are doubts). His ability to spread the floor could come in handy if he can avoid those WTF moments and not be a liability on defense. Unfortunately, that hasn’t quite happened for him yet. Will this phase be an opportunity for him to settle in and gain confidence? Or will he remain a shaky player not suited for more than a handful of minutes in close games? Now, don’t get me wrong: he’s not going to suddenly become a major part of the rotation. But if he can establish himself as a guy Coach K can trust as the 8th man for more than spot minutes (say, a more consistent 10-15 mpg role), that would give us a lot more breathing room with regards to foul trouble as the opponents get better. Here’s hoping the lightbulb goes off for him somewhat during this phase. I have long thought that AOC has the height, athleticism and quickness to give the team more than he has over the recent past. He has nice shooting form and a good handle to get him into a position to put pressure on the opponents defense. Perhaps its lack of game awareness has limited his effectiveness or perhaps his personality is deferential and he has trouble making aggressive plays. Whatever the reasons, he certainly hasn't become a reliable player and that doesn't even speak to his defense. He may well have the most potential as a 3 point shooter, but I doubt we will see him find himself this season.

[Nugget]

[QUOTE=CDu;1119997] The fourth freshman: It has been an odd season for Cam Reddish. Coming in, he had a reputation as being a highly-skilled player who didn’t always make the most of said skills. And, to be honest, that’s kind of what we’ve seen from him. There have been definite glimpses of his talent, and he certainly looks the part physically. But the overall impact on the offensive end has come and gone from time to time despite being one of the highest-usage players around (using nearly 1/3 of the possessions when he is in there). The team is elite as is, but the team will become a supernova if Reddish can tap into his potential more consistently. Right now, he’s really struggling off the dribble, which makes him primarily a 3pt shooter. And he isn’t good enough a shooter to be solely a 3pt threat. To find that next gear, he needs to figure out how to get it going off the dribble. If he does, that will take pressure off of Williamson and Barrett and make us that much more dynamic on the floor. That said, his defense has been terrific, which is fantastic considering that it would be easy to let his struggles on offense affect the rest of his game. Kudos to him for not letting that happen. Here’s hoping he finds his rhythm offensively in the near future.

I'd be concerned that Cam may not be able to "figure out how to get it going off the dribble," as the last two games following his "breakout" at FSU have been replete with the same off-the-dribble problems he was having before -- e.g., 1 or 2 careless unforced TOs per game, regular shove-offs trying to beat smaller players off the dribble, 1 or 2 charges per game due to the kind of head-down/lack of vision drives that someone had linked to examples of earlier in the season (which I think reasonably suggested some of Cam's off-the-dribble problems are not entirely "lack of focus" or "lack of confidence" as often surmised here, but more mechanics driven -- stuff he may have been able to get away with in HS but can't now that everyone's quicker on D), inability to use a jump stop to avoid charges, and his general problems finishing due to lack of strength.

It might be better for the team going forward for RJ, Zion (and Tre, when he's back) to be the ones "getting it going off the dribble," and have Cam focus more on spot-up shooting/receiving kickouts from those other three -- if his role on this team is as a super-deluxe 3 & D guy, that would be fantastic for the team.

[CDu]

I'd be concerned that Cam may not be able to "figure out how to get it going off the dribble," as the last two games following his "breakout" at FSU have been replete with the same off-the-dribble problems he was having before -- e.g., 1 or 2 careless unforced TOs per game, regular shove-offs trying to beat smaller players off the dribble, 1 or 2 charges per game due to the kind of head-down/lack of vision drives that someone had linked to examples of earlier in the season (which I think reasonably suggested some of Cam's off-the-dribble problems are not entirely "lack of focus" or "lack of confidence" as often surmised here, but more mechanics driven -- stuff he may have been able to get away with in HS but can't now that everyone's quicker on D), inability to use a jump stop to avoid charges, and his general problems finishing due to lack of strength.

It might be better for the team going forward for RJ, Zion (and Tre, when he's back) to be the ones "getting it going off the dribble," and have Cam focus more on spot-up shooting/receiving kickouts from those other three -- if his role on this team is as a super-deluxe 3 & D guy, that would be fantastic for the team.

This is a completely reasonable concern. Reddish does seem to have a high and loose dribble. That combined with not being acclimated to the college game speed, organization, and physicality is I think the cause of what we are seeing. So, the question becomes does he figure out the speed/physicality of the game? Or, does he tighten up the dribble? If the answer to both is no, then I would agree that having him be a spot-up shooter and guy who attacks closeouts is best.

[Kedsy]

You're twisting yourself into knots trying to convince yourself that our poor shooting isn't an important weakness.

Perhaps more accurately, I've been attempting to convince others that it isn't a fatal weakness. Clearly, it's the biggest weakness we have (with defensive rebounding being our 2nd biggest weakness). The question is with everything else we do well, how much does that matter?

[CDu]

Perhaps more accurately, I've been attempting to convince others that it isn't a fatal weakness. Clearly, it's the biggest weakness we have (with defensive rebounding being our 2nd biggest weakness). The question is with everything else we do well, how much does that matter?

Right. I don’t think anyone can seriously say that shooting isn’t a concern. It is all a matter of how grave that concern is. Like you, I think it bears monitoring. But given that we are so dominantly in virtually every other facet of the game, I am not sure how nervous I should feel about the fact that we stink at shooting.

I feel like too many people are making the mistake of viewing this team through the prism of past Duke teams. Well, quite simply, this team isn’t anything like our other Duke teams this decade. Frankly, it is a better team at this point in the season than any Duke team I can remember since probably 2006, and maybe since 2002. And that is incredible given how inexperienced this group is.

But more to the point, focusing on how poor a shooting team we are is ignoring how much better this team is at other aspects of the game than we are used to: 2pt shots, shot blocking, forcing turnovers, forcing missed shots, offensive rebounding. It is just so much better an all-around team at this stage than we have had in a long time - certainly so in the one-and-done era. So to panic about 3pt shooting when we are so amazing at nearly everything else seems misplaced to me.

[azzefkram]

Are you just basing this on your own eye test? Obviously Javin is no Tre Jones, but he's still pretty quick for a 6'10" guy. Against Virginia, when Javin was in the game, we were able to play a switching man to man defense pretty effectively, but had to resort to zone once he fouled out. Luckily, UVA missed some open shots and we were able to get enough stops with the zone, but I personally think Javin is mobile enough to defend on the perimeter. He just needs to stop fouling.

Mostly eye test since solid defensive metrics aren't readily available to the general public. Against Virginia, Javin couldn't even stay on the floor. I don't think you can consider someone to be an effective defender if they foul out in 7 minutes. For what it's worth, the plus-minus thread had both Marques and Javin at +1. While Javin's per minute number was better, he also didn't have any AOC time which dinged Marques.

[MartinNessley]

I think you're putting too much stock in the Virginia win, and that these wins are fool's gold to an extent.

Agree to disagree. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

Anyone who plays the pessimist with THIS team really should just leave sports to those of us that enjoy it.

[Nugget]

Right. I donÂ’t think anyone can seriously say that shooting isnÂ’t a concern. It is all a matter of how grave that concern is. Like you, I think it bears monitoring. But given that we are so dominantly in virtually every other facet of the game, I am not sure how nervous I should feel about the fact that we stink at shooting.

I feel like too many people are making the mistake of viewing this team through the prism of past Duke teams. Well, quite simply, this team isnÂ’t anything like our other Duke teams this decade. Frankly, it is a better team at this point in the season than any Duke team I can remember since probably 2006, and maybe since 2002. And that is incredible given how inexperienced this group is.

But more to the point, focusing on how poor a shooting team we are is ignoring how much better this team is at other aspects of the game than we are used to: 2pt shots, shot blocking, forcing turnovers, forcing missed shots, offensive rebounding. It is just so much better an all-around team at this stage than we have had in a long time - certainly so in the one-and-done era. So to panic about 3pt shooting when we are so amazing at nearly everything else seems misplaced to me.

I agree completely. Personally, I think it's just that we're a bit spoiled by the memory of what happened when everything (including the 3pt shooting) came together against Kentucky. We just need to be reconciled to that kind of shooting night being the aberration and re-center on all the other things you note that make this team extraordinary in every other facet except outside shooting.

[gofurman]

I agree completely. Personally, I think it's just that we're a bit spoiled by the memory of what happened when everything (including the 3pt shooting) came together against Kentucky. We just need to be reconciled to that kind of shooting night being the aberration and re-center on all the other things you note that make this team extraordinary in every other facet except outside shooting.

No no jinx.

I don't think it is negative to point out its outside shooting and FT shooting. We are great, but those are relative weaknesses - get healthy Tre !!!

[jv001]

Mostly eye test since solid defensive metrics aren't readily available to the general public. Against Virginia, Javin couldn't even stay on the floor. I don't think you can consider someone to be an effective defender if they foul out in 7 minutes. For what it's worth, the plus-minus thread had both Marques and Javin at +1. While Javin's per minute number was better, he also didn't have any AOC time which dinged Marques.

Neals latest +/- for the Pitt game certainly proved my eye test to be correct. Marques was the leader in +/- with Javin and Alex the worst in that category. I know the +/- angle is not the say all but to me it was in this game. I have not seen anything in Javin's game over the 2+ years that say he is a better than average college player. But I do think that the light might go off in his head any game that proves me wrong. He needs to improve his strength in body and with his hands. He has too much wasted motion and it could come from over thinking instead of reacting. He's a junior for crying out loud. I hate to sound negative about any Duke player and like I said he may prove me wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it. However I will be rooting for Javin to prove me wrong. Lance Thomas sure proved me wrong. GoDuke!

[FerryFor50]

I agree Marques has made strides as a defensive rebounder, but he still has a ways to go. His current season DR% is 12.2%, meaning he has moved from 2nd-worst defensive rebounding Duke center in history (last 33 years, anyway) to 3rd-worst. His conference DR% (meaning his last six games) is 14.3% which would still be bottom 10 in Duke center history. But I guess any progress is moving forward.

I also think it's tough to put a ton of stock into Marques' rebounding against a vastly undersized Pitt team that rolls out a 4 guard starting lineup. Those are rebounds he *should* have gotten.

[kAzE]

I also think it's tough to put a ton of stock into Marques' rebounding against a vastly undersized Pitt team that rolls out a 4 guard starting lineup. Those are rebounds he *should* have gotten.

Good point, I wasn't trying to put out some sort of definitive analysis. I just wanted to call attention to how he's actually pursuing out of area rebounds lately, which hasn't been a strength of his to this point. Overall as a rebounder, he's still not where he SHOULD be as a 7 footer with the longest wingspan in Duke history. But I think he's improving.


Right. I don’t think anyone can seriously say that shooting isn’t a concern. It is all a matter of how grave that concern is. Like you, I think it bears monitoring. But given that we are so dominantly in virtually every other facet of the game, I am not sure how nervous I should feel about the fact that we stink at shooting.

I feel like too many people are making the mistake of viewing this team through the prism of past Duke teams. Well, quite simply, this team isn’t anything like our other Duke teams this decade. Frankly, it is a better team at this point in the season than any Duke team I can remember since probably 2006, and maybe since 2002. And that is incredible given how inexperienced this group is.

But more to the point, focusing on how poor a shooting team we are is ignoring how much better this team is at other aspects of the game than we are used to: 2pt shots, shot blocking, forcing turnovers, forcing missed shots, offensive rebounding. It is just so much better an all-around team at this stage than we have had in a long time - certainly so in the one-and-done era. So to panic about 3pt shooting when we are so amazing at nearly everything else seems misplaced to me.

You're right on all counts, but I'm actually not convinced this is our baseline in terms of shooting. IMO, this is about as bad as it's going to get. Jack and Cam are still both having brutal slumps. I KNOW they can shoot better than this. Especially Cam, who often decides to take off-balance shots for no reason when he's wide open. He just needs to take his time and go straight up with it. If they can both heat up at the same time, this team could be unbeatable. We just need them to get hot for 6 games in March . . .

[CDu]

You're right on all counts, but I'm actually not convinced this is our baseline in terms of shooting. IMO, this is about as bad as it's going to get. Jack and Cam are still both having brutal slumps. I KNOW they can shoot better than this. Especially Cam, who often decides to take off-balance shots for no reason when he's wide open. He just needs to take his time and go straight up with it. If they can both heat up at the same time, this team could be unbeatable. We just need them to get hot for 6 games in March . . .

It's certainly plausible that we can improve. I'm not sure what to expect from Reddish at this point. Same for White. It's not like we have any sort of track record for White as a shooter. I mean, they certainly may improve. But if they are a 35% shooter in reality? That's not really notably different than what they are currently providing. They'd need to be closer to 40% to really move the needle for the team overall in terms of our shooting quality.

But, I agree, we're probably not likely to shoot much - if at all - worse than this.

As for the need for "hot" shooting, I'd say we don't "need" anything. But if anything, I'd say we'd need them to be hot for at most the last 2-3 games in March/April. We certainly shouldn't need hot shooting to get to the Sweet-16, and I don't know that we'd need every game thereafter to have a hot shooting night for us to advance. I realize though that this is nitpicky as I suspect you were just tossing that last sentence out as a loose concept rather than a firm assessment of need. Just wanted to clarify that though: this team has a floor that should be enough to get them into the second weekend of the season if healthy. From there, it's a matter of matchups and focus and avoiding foul trouble, even without 3pt shooting. But if we have the 3pt shooting in any of those games, we border on unbeatable.

[FerryFor50]

Good point, I wasn't trying to put out some sort of definitive analysis. I just wanted to call attention to how he's actually pursuing out of area rebounds lately, which hasn't been a strength of his to this point. Overall as a rebounder, he's still not where he SHOULD be as a 7 footer with the longest wingspan in Duke history. But I think he's improving.



You're right on all counts, but I'm actually not convinced this is our baseline in terms of shooting. IMO, this is about as bad as it's going to get. Jack and Cam are still both having brutal slumps. I KNOW they can shoot better than this. Especially Cam, who often decides to take off-balance shots for no reason when he's wide open. He just needs to take his time and go straight up with it. If they can both heat up at the same time, this team could be unbeatable. We just need them to get hot for 6 games in March . . .

What's stood out to me beyond the stats is Bolden's overall energy level and effort. Earlier in the season, we'd see spurts of hustle (like the Auburn game) sprinkled in between lethargic showings. In the last two games, his activity level has been great - he's even diving after loose balls (though I'd prefer a 7 foot, 250lb big not do that).

That kind of effort usually translates into good things when you're that big. Unless you're wildly flailing like Javin does on occasion. Then it turns into fouls.

[kAzE]

It's certainly plausible that we can improve. I'm not sure what to expect from Reddish at this point. Same for White. It's not like we have any sort of track record for White as a shooter. I mean, they certainly may improve. But if they are a 35% shooter in reality? That's not really notably different than what they are currently providing. They'd need to be closer to 40% to really move the needle for the team overall in terms of our shooting quality.

But, I agree, we're probably not likely to shoot much - if at all - worse than this.

As for the need for "hot" shooting, I'd say we don't "need" anything. But if anything, I'd say we'd need them to be hot for at most the last 2-3 games in March/April. We certainly shouldn't need hot shooting to get to the Sweet-16, and I don't know that we'd need every game thereafter to have a hot shooting night for us to advance. I realize though that this is nitpicky as I suspect you were just tossing that last sentence out as a loose concept rather than a firm assessment of need. Just wanted to clarify that though: this team has a floor that should be enough to get them into the second weekend of the season if healthy. From there, it's a matter of matchups and focus and avoiding foul trouble, even without 3pt shooting. But if we have the 3pt shooting in any of those games, we border on unbeatable.

This is not true . . . I think they definitely will improve. Jack has been 1 for 18 over the last 5 games. That's 5.5%. Cam has been 16/62 over the last 9 games he's played (25.8%).

All I'm asking for is 35%. If those 2 guys average 35% or better, this is far and away the best team in the country.

[Neals384]

What's stood out to me beyond the stats is Bolden's overall energy level and effort. Earlier in the season, we'd see spurts of hustle (like the Auburn game) sprinkled in between lethargic showings. In the last two games, his activity level has been great - he's even diving after loose balls (though I'd prefer a 7 foot, 250lb big not do that).

That kind of effort usually translates into good things when you're that big. Unless you're wildly flailing like Javin does on occasion. Then it turns into fouls.

Can't spork you but agree Bolden is now showing an aggressive nose for the ball that wasn't always there before.

[BandAlum83]

This is not true . . . I think they definitely will improve. Jack has been 1 for 18 over the last 5 games. That's 5.5%. Cam has been 16/62 over the last 9 games he's played (25.8%).

All I'm asking for is 35%. If those 2 guys average 35% or better, this is far and away the best team in the country.

Cam Reddish currently stands at 34.4% on the season.

Jack White currently stands at 31.9% on the season.

So the OP is correct when stating “that’s not notably different then what they are currently providing.”

[kAzE]

Cam Reddish currently stands at 34.4% on the season.

Jack White currently stands at 31.9% on the season.

So the OP is correct when stating “that’s not notably different then what they are currently providing.”

He said currently, not 1 month ago. Not over the entire season. Maybe CDu meant "on the season", but currently (at present time), they both are struggling.

[Neals384]

This team is amazing! As CDu pointed out in the phase starter, the team is great right now (with Tre) because of its disruptive defense, and still can get better. I've tried tuning in some non-Duke games, but even the close ones seem boring by comparison (especially when the team that might upset one of Duke's challengers gets feet of clay at the last moment , see Vandy vs. TN).

The team seemed to really get the message in the VA game - more paint, fewer threes. 10 3 pt attempts in the first half; only 4 in the second.

Tre - if he could somehow play 4 years, would he be the best Duke point guard ever? He's amazing! Hurry back, Tre!

Zion, RJ, Jack - great pieces that fit together!

Bolden - showing better assertiveness, he fits with the team now!

Cam - came to Duke with a rep of not playing 100% all of the time. I haven't seen that at all. As others have pointed out, his defense doesn't waver even when his shot isn't falling. At times he does show a visible level of discouragement, for example when he gets called for charge and then a block on what (to him) seem like identical plays. But he picks it right up and keeps defending. For sure he can improve on shot selection, and add more control to his drives - how about a floater instead of driving into the teeth of the defense?

AOC - yes, there is a basketball IQ issue. Not just the shot-clock thing, but having a plan for what you're going to do when you get the ball. Where's your man - will you be open for an immediate 3 pointer? Will you try to drive? Will your aborted drive put you in position to pass to an open man? All too often, we see AOC take a few dribbles in an almost half-heart attempt to drive, and then dribble back to the 3-point line. Yikes! Sorry if I'm being too critical, but really.

Javin - reminds me a bit of Chris Gatling (Pitt, ODU, NBA 1991-2002), an energy guy with little outside game who could rebound and score inside. At least, I think that's Javin's ceiling, which is pretty far away for now.

Goldwire - he's shown the ability to play adequate D and bring the ball up in a half court offense. Maybe that's enough for now. He had a nice steal against Pitt, then missed the fast-break layup.

Baker - someone suggested in another thread that we should play Baker to add more outside shooting. It's way too late for that - expecting an untested freshman to step in and contribute during the heat of ACC play. Expecting great things from Joey - next year!

Vrank - My dream ending for the season is a 20 point win over whoever, with Vrank getting his first-ever dunk for the final bucket. You can dunk it, Vrank, I believe in you;)

[kAzE]

Tre - if he could somehow play 4 years, would he be the best Duke point guard ever? He's amazing! Hurry back, Tre!


Best defensive point guard ever, maybe. And certainly, his A/TO ratio is unheard of. But overall, I'll still take #22. That guy could carry a team by himself.

[Saratoga2]

It's certainly plausible that we can improve. I'm not sure what to expect from Reddish at this point. Same for White. It's not like we have any sort of track record for White as a shooter. I mean, they certainly may improve. But if they are a 35% shooter in reality? That's not really notably different than what they are currently providing. They'd need to be closer to 40% to really move the needle for the team overall in terms of our shooting quality.

But, I agree, we're probably not likely to shoot much - if at all - worse than this.

As for the need for "hot" shooting, I'd say we don't "need" anything. But if anything, I'd say we'd need them to be hot for at most the last 2-3 games in March/April. We certainly shouldn't need hot shooting to get to the Sweet-16, and I don't know that we'd need every game thereafter to have a hot shooting night for us to advance. I realize though that this is nitpicky as I suspect you were just tossing that last sentence out as a lhat ioose concept rather than a firm assessment of need. Just wanted to clarify that though: this team has a floor that should be enough to get them into the second weekend of the season if healthy. From there, it's a matter of matchups and focus and avoiding foul trouble, even without 3pt shooting. But if we have the 3pt shooting in any of those games, we border on unbeatable.

I went back and looked at clips of Stephen Curry shooting 3's. Of course the clips are edited to show his best, but it is an interesting exercise. He is listed at 6'3' and 190 pounds, with a very good handle and he has good quickness, not exceptional. So what makes him such a great shooter? Some of it has to be innate and of course he has worked very hard to perfect his shot. He shoots with a big arc and is unafraid to take it from well beyond the NBA three point line. What is most impressive is his ability to get the shot off and not be blocked when there is only a small potential opening for his shot. He is very quick to be able to beat the athletes he faces playing in the NBA.

I don't see a lot of innate shooting ability in any of our 3 point shooters. Maybe completely unguarded they could hit 50%, but who knows. Jack needs to be wide open to get his shot off, Cam usually has a size advantage when shooting the 3 but is not that quick to get the shot off and in my veiw shoots from the front of his body near shoulder height, an easier position to be defended. AOC is about 3 inches taller than Curry, is fairly quick and shoots with a nice arc, but he is unable to get his shot up with much larger openings than Curry typically exploits.

Neither RJ or Zion seem to have that ability and the bottom line is we just have a JJ like guy who you can feel good about taking a lot of threes. Still we need to on ocassion to keep defenses honest.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I don't see a lot of innate shooting ability in any of our 3 point shooters. Maybe completely unguarded they could hit 50%, but who knows. Jack needs to be wide open to get his shot off, Cam usually has a size advantage when shooting the 3 but is not that quick to get the shot off and in my veiw shoots from the front of his body near shoulder height, an easier position to be defended. AOC is about 3 inches taller than Curry, is fairly quick and shoots with a nice arc, but he is unable to get his shot up with much larger openings than Curry typically exploits.

Neither RJ or Zion seem to have that ability and the bottom line is we just have a JJ like guy who you can feel good about taking a lot of threes. Still we need to on ocassion to keep defenses honest.

FYI, go back and look at Dell Curry's shooting stroke...you'll see where Steph got his quick release. Dell had the quickest I've ever seen. Then again, Dell had no ability to shake a defender off with the step back....so he had to be. Steph has the genetic quick release, plus incredible developed skill.

And you made some points I had made on another thread about our 3 point shooting. And no, there's no one with a pure stroke, except maybe Alex. RJ's stroke is flawed, Zion's is only a toe raiser, Cam fades often when he shoots, and Jack's release is slow. Tre's is, well, just not sure why Tre doesn't shoot the trey better. His form looks okay to me, but ball flight seems inconsistent to my eye.

And to me the 35% range is where we need to be...going forward. We don't need to overcome the season long percentages we've bottomed out in the last three games, we just need 35 from here. I think Jack and Cam will come out of their slumps, I think Zion will get better, and I think AOC will find more playing time. At least, I hope so.

I think RJ now is the RJ we will get on the 3.

[jv001]

Best defensive point guard ever, maybe. And certainly, his A/TO ratio is unheard of. But overall, I'll still take #22. That guy could carry a team by himself.

Johnny D, #24 wasn't bad either but you're talking about point guards and JD was mostly a SG. GoDuke!

[Bob Green]

The juniors, part B(olden): The more pressing questions about our veterans relate to the two centers. Both have had moments of glory, but both have struggled to make those moments stick. I’ll start with Bolden, as he’s the current “hot hand” lately. His performances in the past two games are exactly the kind of thing I hope we can see more consistently. Heck, his game against Pitt would even qualify as exceeding expectations. I’d like to see him continue this trend of solid play of late: he’s averaging 7.8 points, 5.8 rebounds, 2.3 blocks over 26 minutes per game over his past 6 games. It’s starting to feel like he may be finding his rhythm. I’m cautiously optimistic that things are starting to click, and he’ll be a solid contributor the rest of the way. Make it happen Marques!



Bolden, a player I have liberally criticized at times, has developed into a solid inside presence. If, as CDu states, things are starting to click and he has found his rhythm, Bolden could be a difference maker in March. Consistent play is the next step. Can he string together back-to-back-to-back solid performances?

[Truth&Justise]

Just have to say, I am thrilled with how the team has performed so far. A 7-1 start in the ACC is nothing to sneeze at. Yes the schedule is unbalanced, and many of our hardest games have yet to come, but a big part of competing for an ACC regular season crown or getting a high ACC or NCAA seed is avoiding losses to bad teams. For the most part we've done that.

Quick trivia question: when is the last time Duke started 7-1 in ACC play?

So while there are things to nitpick, let's take a moment to enjoy this ride. What a fabulous team we have this year!

[Kedsy]

Quick trivia question: when is the last time Duke started 7-1 in ACC play?

They said on TV it was the 2011 team, which started 12-1 in ACC play (though that team lost to St. Johns -- look out Saturday?)

[jv001]

They said on TV it was the 2011 team, which started 12-1 in ACC play (though that team lost to St. Johns -- look out Saturday?)

Darn that Bootsie. He could have made baskets with his eyes closed that day.
How many of the 13 games played in the ACC schedule did Kyrie play? I would guess not many if any. GoDuke!

[CDu]

Darn that Bootsie. He could have made baskets with his eyes closed that day. GoDuke!

That was 10+ years post-Bootsy (not sure if your post was tongue-in-cheek). The "Bootsy" game was actually one we won back in 1999.


How many of the 13 games played in the ACC schedule did Kyrie play? I would guess not many if any. GoDuke!

Zero.

[jv001]

That was 10+ years post-Bootsy (not sure if your post was tongue-in-cheek). The "Bootsy" game was actually one we won back in 1999.



Zero.

I didn't say it well. I meant the 12-1 start in 2011. Those 13 games. GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

I didn't say it well. I meant the 12-1 start in 2011. Those 13 games. GoDuke!

Yeah, still zero.

[CDu]

I didn't say it well. I meant the 12-1 start in 2011. Those 13 games. GoDuke!

I understood you. It was zero. He played 8 games in the pre-conference schedule and 3 games in the NCAA tournament. Zero games in the ACC.

[jv001]

Yeah, still zero.

We must have regrouped quickly without Kyrie. I think Nolan stepped up and played himself onto some All-America teams that year. 2011 was a year of what could have been. GoDuke!

[CDu]

We must have regrouped quickly without Kyrie. I think Nolan stepped up and played himself onto some All-America teams that year. 2011 was a year of what could have been. GoDuke!

We did regroup, although there was about a month before ACC play that we had to prepare. And it was a fairly veteran team with seniors Smithand Singler, sophomores Plumlee and Kelly, and third-year sophomore Seth Curry stepping up as well.

Definitely a "what might have been" season though, with those two seniors and the most talented freshman in Irving had he stayed healthy.

[MChambers]

That was 10+ years post-Bootsy (not sure if your post was tongue-in-cheek). The "Bootsy" game was actually one we won back in 1999.

Was wondering. Didn't think Bootsy was in this century.

[Truth&Justise]

They said on TV it was the 2011 team, which started 12-1 in ACC play (though that team lost to St. Johns -- look out Saturday?)

Correct. The 2011 team started 12-1 and finished 13-3, which somehow wasn't enough to win the regular season but that team took care of business in the ACC tournament.

Before that, a 7-1 start was achieved most recently in 2008 (started 10-0), 2006 (started 14(!)-0) and 2004 (started 10-0).

[CDu]

We're at the halfway point of this phase, so I wanted to do a quick progress report on how things have gone.

Health: we got Tre Jones back to begin the phase. That has been glorious. So far, so good in terms of everyone else's health. As of now, we've passed this one with flying colors. Let's hope that continues.

More Zion please! This is one area that is a work in progress. In the first game (Ga Tech), Barrett led all players in usage. But he was having a very efficient game himself, so no big deal. In the next two games, Barrett wasn't terribly efficient but still took as many possessions as Williamson (when you account for both FGA and FTA). So I'd like to see Williamson getting even more involved. Now, he's already involved a LOT, but I feel like we should be going through our best player at least a bit more than our second best player.

Barrett's efficiency: It was great against Ga Tech, scoring 24 points on just 16 FGA. It was poor against Notre Dame and St John's, scoring just 1 point per FGA in each game, and needing 8 FT attempts (going 3 of 8) to get there against St. John's. And he's had 8 assists to 12 turnovers over those 3 games. Now, Barrett is still contributing to be sure. He's averaged 11.3 rebounds per game and led or tied for the team lead in rebounds each game. So he's obviously a critical component of the team's success. But I think we are nearing a "he is what he is" point in terms of his efficiency. Let's hope things perk up for him in the second half of this phase and the second half of the season.

The fourth freshman: Reddish has continued to confound. He couldn't hit shots at all against Ga Tech or Notre Dame, going a combined 4-24 from the field for just 20 total points. Then he was pretty solid against St. John's, going 4-10 (all 3s) and scoring 16 points. He has, however, shown better playmaking skills overall, with 12 assists to just 5 turnovers in this 3-game stretch. And he's been a defensive menace, picking up 8 steals. So he's starting to contribute in other ways on offense, but he's still an enigma as a scorer. Hopefully he can get things to click soon.

The juniors, part A(ussie): Well, so far it has been a rough phase for White. He is 0-4 from the field (0-3 on 3s) with 0 assists and 2 turnovers. He's still rebounding and making hustle plays (13 rebounds, 2 blocks, 2 steals in 35 total minutes), but his offensive game has cratered. This was on the heels of going 4-22 from the field (1-18 from 3) over his previous 5 games means that in his last 8 games he's 4-26 from the field (1-21 from 3). I'm not sure what is going on, but clearly he is out of sorts. And as a result, he's averaging just 11.7 mpg in this phase so far. Now, he's not a dynamic offensive player, and he's pretty much a catch-and-shoot player on wide-open 3s only. But he's fallen to 7th/8th in the rotation in this phase. Let's hope he can bounce back.

The juniors, part B(olden): Bolden suffered a toe injury fairly early in the Ga Tech game, though he was having a quiet day to that point. But he bounced back in a big way against Notre Dame and St John's, averaging 9 points, 6.5 rebounds, and 1.5 blocks per 23 mpg in those two games. He's become a very steady presence in the middle on both ends. It's a pleasure to see what appears to be the game finally slowing down for him as a junior.

The juniors, part D(eLaurier): DeLaurier barely saw the floor against Ga Tech, as he was passed over for Vrankovic in that one. In the subsequent two games, he's given 7 points, 8 rebounds and just 4 fouls over 24 total minutes. Nothing world-altering, but he's been a functional backup for Bolden these past two games. It seemed early in the season like the light was coming on. At this point, I'll be pleased if he can continue his 10-15 mpg of functional backup big performances.

Ohhhhh-Connell: He was active and looked the part against Ga Tech in 19 minutes. Then he knocked down his 2 shots from 3 against Notre Dame. Then he had a quiet game against a physical St. John's team. So, still kind of kicking the can down the curb here. But I think the Ga Tech game was a good sign from him. Even though he didn't hit 3s, he played well in the flow of the game.

Establishing our place in the ACC: We have gone 2-0 in conference with two comfortable wins over bottom-feeders. That's the goal. Hopefully we can continue that trend tomorrow. Then the fun begins: at UVa and at Louisville. Those two will be a great litmus test of the team's progress. Win those and we move into the catbird's seat for the ACC regular season title.

[roywhite]

Was wondering. Didn't think Bootsy was in this century.

Bootsy had two big games vs Duke
Scored 40 in January of 1999 in a 92-88 OT loss to Duke in Madison Square Garden
And then scored 22 points and hit the winning shot in an 83-82 win over Duke in Cameron in Feb. 2000.

[devildeac]

Bootsy had two big games vs Duke
Scored 40 in January of 1999 in a 92-88 OT loss to Duke in Madison Square Garden
And then scored 22 points and hit the winning shot in an 83-82 win over Duke in Cameron in Feb. 2000.

Wait, I thought he played at SJU for at least 8 years :rolleyes:.

[Saratoga2]

We're at the halfway point of this phase, so I wanted to do a quick progress report on how things have gone.

Health: we got Tre Jones back to begin the phase. That has been glorious. So far, so good in terms of everyone else's health. As of now, we've passed this one with flying colors. Let's hope that continues.

More Zion please! This is one area that is a work in progress. In the first game (Ga Tech), Barrett led all players in usage. But he was having a very efficient game himself, so no big deal. In the next two games, Barrett wasn't terribly efficient but still took as many possessions as Williamson (when you account for both FGA and FTA). So I'd like to see Williamson getting even more involved. Now, he's already involved a LOT, but I feel like we should be going through our best player at least a bit more than our second best player.

Barrett's efficiency: It was great against Ga Tech, scoring 24 points on just 16 FGA. It was poor against Notre Dame and St John's, scoring just 1 point per FGA in each game, and needing 8 FT attempts (going 3 of 8) to get there against St. John's. And he's had 8 assists to 12 turnovers over those 3 games. Now, Barrett is still contributing to be sure. He's averaged 11.3 rebounds per game and led or tied for the team lead in rebounds each game. So he's obviously a critical component of the team's success. But I think we are nearing a "he is what he is" point in terms of his efficiency. Let's hope things perk up for him in the second half of this phase and the second half of the season.

The fourth freshman: Reddish has continued to confound. He couldn't hit shots at all against Ga Tech or Notre Dame, going a combined 4-24 from the field for just 20 total points. Then he was pretty solid against St. John's, going 4-10 (all 3s) and scoring 16 points. He has, however, shown better playmaking skills overall, with 12 assists to just 5 turnovers in this 3-game stretch. And he's been a defensive menace, picking up 8 steals. So he's starting to contribute in other ways on offense, but he's still an enigma as a scorer. Hopefully he can get things to click soon.

The juniors, part A(ussie): Well, so far it has been a rough phase for White. He is 0-4 from the field (0-3 on 3s) with 0 assists and 2 turnovers. He's still rebounding and making hustle plays (13 rebounds, 2 blocks, 2 steals in 35 total minutes), but his offensive game has cratered. This was on the heels of going 4-22 from the field (1-18 from 3) over his previous 5 games means that in his last 8 games he's 4-26 from the field (1-21 from 3). I'm not sure what is going on, but clearly he is out of sorts. And as a result, he's averaging just 11.7 mpg in this phase so far. Now, he's not a dynamic offensive player, and he's pretty much a catch-and-shoot player on wide-open 3s only. But he's fallen to 7th/8th in the rotation in this phase. Let's hope he can bounce back.

The juniors, part B(olden): Bolden suffered a toe injury fairly early in the Ga Tech game, though he was having a quiet day to that point. But he bounced back in a big way against Notre Dame and St John's, averaging 9 points, 6.5 rebounds, and 1.5 blocks per 23 mpg in those two games. He's become a very steady presence in the middle on both ends. It's a pleasure to see what appears to be the game finally slowing down for him as a junior.

The juniors, part D(eLaurier): DeLaurier barely saw the floor against Ga Tech, as he was passed over for Vrankovic in that one. In the subsequent two games, he's given 7 points, 8 rebounds and just 4 fouls over 24 total minutes. Nothing world-altering, but he's been a functional backup for Bolden these past two games. It seemed early in the season like the light was coming on. At this point, I'll be pleased if he can continue his 10-15 mpg of functional backup big performances.

Ohhhhh-Connell: He was active and looked the part against Ga Tech in 19 minutes. Then he knocked down his 2 shots from 3 against Notre Dame. Then he had a quiet game against a physical St. John's team. So, still kind of kicking the can down the curb here. But I think the Ga Tech game was a good sign from him. Even though he didn't hit 3s, he played well in the flow of the game.

Establishing our place in the ACC: We have gone 2-0 in conference with two comfortable wins over bottom-feeders. That's the goal. Hopefully we can continue that trend tomorrow. Then the fun begins: at UVa and at Louisville. Those two will be a great litmus test of the team's progress. Win those and we move into the catbird's seat for the ACC regular season title.

With your point by point rundown of those playing, you seemed to neglect mentioning Tre's contribution. He, along with Zion and RJ have been our three most important players. Tre's defensive contributions are well knnown and have continued where he left off before the injury but I have also noticed a subtle shift where he is also contributing points with his mid range game and an occasional three. Thats a good thing for us now as AOC, Jack and Delaurier as showing little while Cam is enigmatic as a scorer. Would that our scoring would become a little more consistent and broad based.

[kAzE]

With your point by point rundown of those playing, you seemed to neglect mentioning Tre's contribution. He, along with Zion and RJ have been our three most important players. Tre's defensive contributions are well knnown and have continued where he left off before the injury but I have also noticed a subtle shift where he is also contributing points with his mid range game and an occasional three. Thats a good thing for us now as AOC, Jack and Delaurier as showing little while Cam is enigmatic as a scorer. Would that our scoring would become a little more consistent and broad based.

I believe CDu did not talk about Tre (though he was mentioned in the health section), because there's nothing wrong with the way we are using Tre. There's no way to improve upon what he's doing, because he's already doing exactly what he should be doing. I honestly don't think there's much more we can ask from the guy. (Whereas Zion could probably do even more, and RJ should probably be doing a little bit less)

Tre's met every expectation and exceeded most of them. Would be nice if he could continue to improve that 3 point percentage, and obviously stay healthy, but otherwise, he's playing his role perfectly.

I think the goal of the phase post is to track the team's progress, and Tre has been on cruise control since day 1. Nothing really to report, other than the fact that he's back from his injury.

[CDu]

With your point by point rundown of those playing, you seemed to neglect mentioning Tre's contribution. He, along with Zion and RJ have been our three most important players. Tre's defensive contributions are well knnown and have continued where he left off before the injury but I have also noticed a subtle shift where he is also contributing points with his mid range game and an occasional three. Thats a good thing for us now as AOC, Jack and Delaurier as showing little while Cam is enigmatic as a scorer. Would that our scoring would become a little more consistent and broad based.


I believe CDu did not talk about Tre (though he was mentioned in the health section), because there's nothing wrong with the way we are using Tre. There's no way to improve upon what he's doing, because he's already doing exactly what he should be doing. I honestly don't think there's much more we can ask from the guy. (Whereas Zion could probably do even more, and RJ should probably be doing a little bit less)

Tre's met every expectation and exceeded most of them. Would be nice if he could continue to improve that 3 point percentage, and obviously stay healthy, but otherwise, he's playing his role perfectly.

I think the goal of the phase post is to track the team's progress, and Tre has been on cruise control since day 1. Nothing really to report, other than the fact that he's back from his injury.

Yes, what kAzE said is a big part, along with the fact that this was a “midterm” report on the Phase post questions. The Phase post only asked “when will Jones be back?” So, all there was to report at this point was that he was back which is great.

If I had known Jones would have returned immediately in this Phase, I would have probably added questions about the development of his shooting or something like that. But when I posted originally his return was still unknown. So all of his play in this Phase is essentially gravy with respect to the Phase post.

And honestly, what he is giving is pretty close to perfection for this team. So it is not a sexy topic in a Phase post.

[-jk]

Yes, what kAzE said is a big part, along with the fact that this was a “midterm” report on the Phase post questions. The Phase post only asked “when will Jones be back?” So, all there was to report at this point was that he was back which is great.

If I had known Jones would have returned immediately in this Phase, I would have probably added questions about the development of his shooting or something like that. But when I posted originally his return was still unknown. So all of his play in this Phase is essentially gravy with respect to the Phase post.

And honestly, what he is giving is pretty close to perfection for this team. So it is not a sexy topic in a Phase post.

I consider having Tre back a yuge win this phase!

(Regardless of anything he may need to work on...)

-jk

[Tappan Zee Devil]

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

[CDu]

I consider having Tre back a yuge win this phase!

(Regardless of anything he may need to work on...)

-jk

Yessir!

[Nugget]

Forget which thread it was that had the discussion of predictions of the likelihood we come through the tough 6 game stretch after BC with multiple losses, but ESPN has a piece this morning noting that it is the toughest regular season stretch for any team this year:

"To call it tough would be underselling the six-game stretch that awaits the Blue Devils at the end of this week. Toughest is better, because that's what it literally is. The toughest scheduled six-game stretch. For any team. At any point this season. ... Duke has just a 7 percent chance of coming out of the stretch unscathed, according to BPI, and a 64 percent chance of picking up multiple losses."

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/25929578/can-duke-handle-college-basketball-toughest-6-game-stretch

[kAzE]

Forget which thread it was that had the discussion of predictions of the likelihood we come through the tough 6 game stretch after BC with multiple losses, but ESPN has a piece this morning noting that it is the toughest regular season stretch for any team this year:

"To call it tough would be underselling the six-game stretch that awaits the Blue Devils at the end of this week. Toughest is better, because that's what it literally is. The toughest scheduled six-game stretch. For any team. At any point this season. ... Duke has just a 7 percent chance of coming out of the stretch unscathed, according to BPI, and a 64 percent chance of picking up multiple losses."

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/25929578/can-duke-handle-college-basketball-toughest-6-game-stretch

9019

[BandAlum83]

Forget which thread it was that had the discussion of predictions of the likelihood we come through the tough 6 game stretch after BC with multiple losses, but ESPN has a piece this morning noting that it is the toughest regular season stretch for any team this year:

"To call it tough would be underselling the six-game stretch that awaits the Blue Devils at the end of this week. Toughest is better, because that's what it literally is. The toughest scheduled six-game stretch. For any team. At any point this season. ... Duke has just a 7 percent chance of coming out of the stretch unscathed, according to BPI, and a 64 percent chance of picking up multiple losses."

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/25929578/can-duke-handle-college-basketball-toughest-6-game-stretch

I was about to post a rant about typos and editing and proofreading of news articles, when I stopped to just verify what I thought, when lo and behold, I learned something today at age 57.


The gantlet is coming for Duke.

To call it tough would be underselling the six-game stretch that awaits the Blue Devils at the end of this week. Toughest is better, because that's what it literally is. The toughest scheduled six-game stretch. For any team. At any point this season. Past or present.

In the words of Spock:

"Fascinating!"


Gantlet, Gauntlet

These two words, despite their similarity, come from different roots. The distinction should be preserved.

The expression run the gantlet means "to undergo criticism or harassment from several sources in a concentrated period of time." It is often written run the gauntlet, which makes language nitpickers cry foul.

To throw down the gauntlet is to aggressively challenge someone. To take up the gauntlet is to accept such a challenge.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Didn't exactly know where to put this, so here goes.

Duke faces its toughest stretch of the season starting this Saturday with a trip up to Virginia for the rematch against the Cavaliers. That begins a tough slate of games that will determine the course of the regular season for this squad.

@ Virginia
@ Louisville
vs. NC State
vs. UNC
@ Syracuse
@ Virginia Tech

Gulp. I saw an interesting twitter thread from David Hess, who helps run TeamRankings.com. Based on the TR predictive model, Hess gave the odds for Duke over this stretch of games:

6-0: 13%
5-1: 35%
4-2: 34%
3-3: 15%
2-4: 4%
1-5: <1%
0-6: 0%

Hess also provided the odds based on the kenpom rankings, where Virginia is #1 and Duke #2 (Duke is #1 in the TeamRankings model):

6-0: 9%
5-1: 31%
4-2: 36%
3-3: 19%
2-4: 5%
1-5: <1%
0-6: 0%

This helps validate my expectations for this stretch of the season. I was thinking the game at Virginia and the game at VA Tech will be toughest. If Duke wins the other 4 games (no small task), that still includes some impressive wins and keeps the team in contention for a #1 Seed in the NCAA Tournament. If Duke goes 5-1 or 6-0, then we can pretty much guarantee a #1 Seed and probably the top seed in the ACC Tournament (Virginia will still have to play at UNC, after all).

[Billy Dat]

Duke faces its toughest stretch of the season starting this Saturday with a trip up to Virginia for the rematch against the Cavaliers. That begins a tough slate of games that will determine the course of the regular season for this squad.

I saw an ESPN+ piece that identified this as the toughest stretch of the season any D1 team will play this year. Bring the noise!

[DavidBenAkiva]

I saw an ESPN+ piece that identified this as the toughest stretch of the season any D1 team will play this year. Bring the noise!

I believe it! Tennessee has a tough stretch of games ahead, but hard to say it is as difficult as this one for Duke.

2/16 @ Kentucky
2/19 vs. Vanderbilt (non-tournament team)
2/23 @ LSU
2/27 @ Ole Miss
3/2 vs. Kentucky
3/5 vs. Mississippi State
3/9 @ Auburn

6 of those 7 games are Quadrant 1 games with the lone game against Vanderbilt being a "breather" before finishing the season with those 5 games. It would not surprise me if Tennessee, who hasn't played anyone in almost 2 months appears to stumble to the end of the regular season, especially if they lose both games to Kentucky. In reality, it may be that Tennessee was just not tested for a long time.

[robed deity]

I believe it! Tennessee has a tough stretch of games ahead, but hard to say it is as difficult as this one for Duke.

2/16 @ Kentucky
2/19 vs. Vanderbilt (non-tournament team)
2/23 @ LSU
2/27 @ Ole Miss
3/2 vs. Kentucky
3/5 vs. Mississippi State
3/9 @ Auburn

6 of those 7 games are Quadrant 1 games with the lone game against Vanderbilt being a "breather" before finishing the season with those 5 games. It would not surprise me if Tennessee, who hasn't played anyone in almost 2 months appears to stumble to the end of the regular season, especially if they lose both games to Kentucky. In reality, it may be that Tennessee was just not tested for a long time.

That's a rough stretch. They'll at least split with Kentucky, and then probably drop 2 more. I wouldn't be surprised to see Kentucky make a play for a number one seed, especially now that Michigan St is floundering.

[kmspeaks]

Didn't exactly know where to put this, so here goes.

Duke faces its toughest stretch of the season starting this Saturday with a trip up to Virginia for the rematch against the Cavaliers. That begins a tough slate of games that will determine the course of the regular season for this squad.

@ Virginia
@ Louisville
vs. NC State
vs. UNC
@ Syracuse
@ Virginia Tech

Gulp. I saw an interesting twitter thread from David Hess, who helps run TeamRankings.com. Based on the TR predictive model, Hess gave the odds for Duke over this stretch of games:

6-0: 13%
5-1: 35%
4-2: 34%
3-3: 15%
2-4: 4%
1-5: <1%
0-6: 0%

Hess also provided the odds based on the kenpom rankings, where Virginia is #1 and Duke #2 (Duke is #1 in the TeamRankings model):

6-0: 9%
5-1: 31%
4-2: 36%
3-3: 19%
2-4: 5%
1-5: <1%
0-6: 0%

This helps validate my expectations for this stretch of the season. I was thinking the game at Virginia and the game at VA Tech will be toughest. If Duke wins the other 4 games (no small task), that still includes some impressive wins and keeps the team in contention for a #1 Seed in the NCAA Tournament. If Duke goes 5-1 or 6-0, then we can pretty much guarantee a #1 Seed and probably the top seed in the ACC Tournament (Virginia will still have to play at UNC, after all).

I think I can live with 4-2 as long as one of those 2 doesn't come on Feb 20th.

[CDu]

Worth noting how much of the toughness of the upcoming schedule lies in the first game. If we win that one, the outlook changes dramatically. We have a 65% chance of beating Louisville, a 94% chance of beating State, an 81% chance of beating UNC, an 80% chance of beating Syracuse, and a 61% chance of beating Va Tech. We'd then have a 24% chance of getting through the 6-game stretch unscathed, and probably a 50+% chance of getting through it 5-1 or better.

Winning Saturday is a huge opportunity on many levels, including maintaining control of our own destiny in the ACC regular season race.

[BandAlum83]

UNC is starting to worry me. They seem to be putting the pieces together and are rounding into a strong team. I don't know if the Louisville embarrassment was an anomaly or a wake up call, but either way they seem to be rolling since.

UGH!

[CDu]

UNC is starting to worry me. They seem to be putting the pieces together and are rounding into a strong team. I don't know if the Louisville embarrassment was an anomaly or a wake up call, but either way they seem to be rolling since.

UGH!

I am not too worried about them beating us. I don’t think they have the athleticism or ball handling to match up with us. We exploit what they do poorly really well. Could they win? Yes, especially if they get hot from 3. But I feel like the probability is pretty low. And probably lower even than what models based on efficiency margin would suggest.

I think UNC is more of a threat to UVa than to us.

[DavidBenAkiva]

UNC is starting to worry me. They seem to be putting the pieces together and are rounding into a strong team. I don't know if the Louisville embarrassment was an anomaly or a wake up call, but either way they seem to be rolling since.

UGH!

I don't know, they got blown out by Michigan, too. But they always play Duke tough. I feel decent about Duke's chances in Cameron and less so in Chapel Hill.

They have such a cupcake schedule this year in the ACC. Only play UVA once at the Dean Dome, Virginia Tech once at home, once at home against Florida State. Just pathetically soft.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I don't know, they got blown out by Michigan, too. But they always play Duke tough. I feel decent about Duke's chances in Cameron and less so in Chapel Hill.

They have such a cupcake schedule this year in the ACC. Only play UVA once at the Dean Dome, Virginia Tech once at home, once at home against Florida State. Just pathetically soft.

THE CURSE OF THE SWOFF! Merely coincidence I know...

[bullettoothtony]

UNC is starting to worry me. They seem to be putting the pieces together and are rounding into a strong team. I don't know if the Louisville embarrassment was an anomaly or a wake up call, but either way they seem to be rolling since.

UGH!


No question about it. They're playing like a machine offensively. Defensively not so much, but that's not unusual for them.

R.J. and Zion should be matchup nightmares for them, but they are elite at scoring.

I get no joy out of saying this, but if we don't keep them off the boards, the best we'll do is split with them.

Their league road schedule is much more favorable and that's a significant advantage for them. Plus they get Virginia in Chapel Hill right after Virginia's Super Bowl--us (and I think the same thing happened in '15 and '17).

[robed deity]

Listening to David Glenn today, (don't particularly like him, but hey, sometimes I like sports radio) and he keeps basically saying Duke is an upset waiting to happen if the perimeter shooting stays as is. And if it improves, they are the team to beat. Seems overly simplistic to me, but sometimes I wonder if it really is that simple with this team.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Listening to David Glenn today, (don't particularly like him, but hey, sometimes I like sports radio) and he keeps basically saying Duke is an upset waiting to happen if the perimeter shooting stays as is. And if it improves, they are the team to beat. Seems overly simplistic to me, but sometimes I wonder if it really is that simple with this team.

That's basically true of every team, is it not? Shooting fails you, too. And there have been Final Four teams that have been bad at shooting the ball. I like that this Duke team does not have to rely on shooting to win the game. Teams have been using a zone to varying degrees of success, and yet Duke keeps winning by 20, 30 points a game.

[Kedsy]

I feel decent about Duke's chances in Cameron and less so in Chapel Hill.

It's worth noting that in the Duke/UNC rivalry, home advantage doesn't mean so much. In the last 20 years, for example, Duke is 13-7 against UNC in Cameron, and 11-9 in Chapel Hill.

In the same 20 year span, the higher ranked team has gone 15-5 at home and 14-6 on the road. Like I say, not much difference.

[Kedsy]

Listening to David Glenn today, (don't particularly like him, but hey, sometimes I like sports radio) and he keeps basically saying Duke is an upset waiting to happen if the perimeter shooting stays as is. And if it improves, they are the team to beat. Seems overly simplistic to me, but sometimes I wonder if it really is that simple with this team.

It's not.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

It's worth noting that in the Duke/UNC rivalry, home advantage doesn't mean so much. In the last 20 years, for example, Duke is 13-7 against UNC in Cameron, and 11-9 in Chapel Hill.

In the same 20 year span, the higher ranked team has gone 15-5 at home and 14-6 on the road. Like I say, not much difference.

yes, this is a rivalry where there is so much pressure to defend the home court, that the visitors do very well. I like the games in Chapel Hill more for that reason...a chance to steal one instead of feeling pressure to defend the home.....

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Listening to David Glenn today, (don't particularly like him, but hey, sometimes I like sports radio) and he keeps basically saying Duke is an upset waiting to happen if the perimeter shooting stays as is. And if it improves, they are the team to beat. Seems overly simplistic to me, but sometimes I wonder if it really is that simple with this team.

Yeah, that's a shallow "no duh" analysis......Glenn has regressed mightily from his early days, when his show was far and away the best show for all things ACC and all things Carolina Hurricanes. Now he's into this ESPN emphasis on pro sports - lotta NBA - and he fills up his three hours by having about 30 minutes worth of comments that he repeats about 6 times. He's mailing it in - and his commentary is not nearly as sharp. 10-12 years ago he would have never had such a lazy take on one of the Big Four teams.

[superdave]

Was just checking out RJ's advanced stats on Basketball Reference - https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2019.html

He has an eFG% of .501 and a usage rate of 33.1%. That seems to be abnormally low efg% and an abnormally high usage rate. Here's some past Duke guys to compare to -

Barrett .501 eFG% 33.1 USG%
Zion .704 28.1
Bagley .640 26.3
Tatum .507 26.2
Ingram .525 25.6
Grayson (soph) .554 26.8
Parker .511 32.7

Parker is the closest comp with over 30 usage. Parker played a much slower pace though, which probably makes his numbers and that team stand out as particularly stagnant.

On a podcast this week, Kevin O'Connor on the Ringer said Barrett has hurt his draft stock because he has blinders. Hard to disagree with that when RJ is dribbling into a crowd with his head down twice a game. Hopefully he can get his efficiency up or his assist rate up!

[Jeffrey]

On a podcast this week, Kevin O'Connor on the Ringer said Barrett has hurt his draft stock because he has blinders. Hard to disagree with that when RJ is dribbling into a crowd with his head down twice a game.

I'll disagree and still wager RJ is the 2nd (or 1st) pick. Interested?

[Troublemaker]

yes, this is a rivalry where there is so much pressure to defend the home court, that the visitors do very well. I like the games in Chapel Hill more for that reason...a chance to steal one instead of feeling pressure to defend the home...

A lot of it is just that the away team gets to sleep in its own bed and follow a familiar home gameday routine despite being "on the road" (a short bus ride away). With some anecdotal exceptions*, there is virtually no homecourt advantage when Duke plays UNC.

* I think maybe in '98, a shallow but great UNC team wilted in Cameron's heat at that time.

[CDu]

Was just checking out RJ's advanced stats on Basketball Reference - https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2019.html

He has an eFG% of .501 and a usage rate of 33.1%. That seems to be abnormally low efg% and an abnormally high usage rate. Here's some past Duke guys to compare to -

Barrett .501 eFG% 33.1 USG%
Zion .704 28.1
Bagley .640 26.3
Tatum .507 26.2
Ingram .525 25.6
Grayson (soph) .554 26.8
Parker .511 32.7

Parker is the closest comp with over 30 usage. Parker played a much slower pace though, which probably makes his numbers and that team stand out as particularly stagnant.

On a podcast this week, Kevin O'Connor on the Ringer said Barrett has hurt his draft stock because he has blinders. Hard to disagree with that when RJ is dribbling into a crowd with his head down twice a game. Hopefully he can get his efficiency up or his assist rate up!

I don’t think Barrett is ever going to have a high eFG%. At least not while he is at Duke. He was just too poor a shooter coming in, and is basically replicating those percentages now. Unless he just completely stops shooting perimeter shots and focuses on better shooting decisions off the dribble, his eFG% just isn’t likely to improve in the span of 1-2 months. What concerns me more is his low TS% (which takes into account FT attempts). Where Barrett lived in high school was in transition and drawing fouls/finishing off drives to the basket. But at the ACC level, defenders are bigger and faster, defenses in general are way more prepared, and officiating is way better (scary thought, but true). So he isn’t finishing in traffic as well and he isn’t drawing as many fouls.

This unfortunately isn’t unusual. Harrison Barnes went through this even worse when he went to college (Barrett is a better ballhandler and way more aggressive, which helps lessen the effect).

It is worth noting that Barrett is a terrific rebounder, a willing though not superlative yet defender, and a solid passer. So he is still a REALLY good player. But it is hard to see him becoming a superstar at the next level with a jumper that bad, as his ballhandling and passing aren’t good enough to carry him at that level. That is probably where O’Connor was going with his analysis.

Barrett is still almost certainly a top-3 pick this year, and probably top-2. And he can still be a really good NBA player even if the jumper doesn’t materialize. A guy like Jimmy Butler comes to mind, who just worked and worked and worked his way to stardom. So it isn’t like he has torpedoed his stock completely. Little and Reddish have fallen off much more so than Barrett.

[Billy Dat]

($) http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/25938707/acc-coaches-how-duke-uva-sequel-play-+-other-items
One (ACC) assistant coach said. "We played the 2015 national champion Blue Devils twice that year with three one-and-dones. That team can't hold this team's jock in terms of ability. It's not even close."

[Jeffrey]

Barrett is still almost certainly a top-3 pick this year, and probably top-2. And he can still be a really good NBA player even if the jumper doesn’t materialize. A guy like Jimmy Butler comes to mind, who just worked and worked and worked his way to stardom. So it isn’t like he has torpedoed his stock completely. Little and Reddish have fallen off much more so than Barrett.

If Barrett goes 2nd, then how has he "torpedoed his stock" any? IMO, Zion is a generational talent and almost certainly the 1st pick.


Kevin O'Connor on the Ringer said Barrett has hurt his draft stock because he has blinders. Hard to disagree with that...

IMO, it's easy to disagree with that, if Barrett is still very likely to go 2nd. IMO, he recently looked solid against UVA in a very difficult role.

[CDu]

If Barrett goes 2nd, then how has he "torpedoed his stock" any? IMO, Zion is a generational talent and almost certainly the 1st pick.

Sorry, my wording was bad. I was more or less agreeing with what you've said here.

I do think Barrett's stock has fallen some, as I think it's now possible he could fall to #3 based on the concerns about his offense as it translates to the NBA. But it has not fallen substantially more than it would have if he'd been more efficient, because Zion would have overtaken him anyway.

[Troublemaker]

($) http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/25938707/acc-coaches-how-duke-uva-sequel-play-+-other-items
One (ACC) assistant coach said. "We played the 2015 national champion Blue Devils twice that year with three one-and-dones. That team can't hold this team's jock in terms of ability. It's not even close."

Disagree with that coach. It's close. I'm not even convinced this team is better than 2015 yet, and I need that Feb / March data to know. And I don't mean that this team needs to win the national championship to be better (single-elimination tournament, afterall), but many of Duke's toughest games are still to come. I kind of want to know how this team fares vs UNC x 2, @ UVA, @ Lville, etc

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Disagree with that coach. It's close. I'm not even convinced this team is better than 2015 yet, and I need that Feb / March data to know. And I don't mean that this team needs to win the national championship to be better (single-elimination tournament, afterall), but many of Duke's toughest games are still to come. I kind of want to know how this team fares vs UNC x 2, @ UVA, @ Lville, etc

Well, the caveat was "talent." I would agree that the talent on this squad is absurd and unparalleled by any Duke team in, oh, 40 years at least.

[Ian]

Disagree with that coach. It's close. I'm not even convinced this team is better than 2015 yet, and I need that Feb / March data to know. And I don't mean that this team needs to win the national championship to be better (single-elimination tournament, afterall), but many of Duke's toughest games are still to come. I kind of want to know how this team fares vs UNC x 2, @ UVA, @ Lville, etc

It maybe true in terms of athleticism and physical ability. It's certainly isn't true in terms of skills, particularly shooting skill. That team shot 38.7% from 3 and 39.9% in ACC play. On an average of 20 3PAT per game that team will score 6 more points on 3's alone.

[Kedsy]

Well, the caveat was "talent." I would agree that the talent on this squad is absurd and unparalleled by any Duke team in, oh, 40 years at least.

No Duke team has ever had three of the top 5 recruits in the country, plus a couple others ranked in the top 15. I'm not sure any team ever has had that.

[budwom]

Sorry, my wording was bad. I was more or less agreeing with what you've said here.

I do think Barrett's stock has fallen some, as I think it's now possible he could fall to #3 based on the concerns about his offense as it translates to the NBA. But it has not fallen substantially more than it would have if he'd been more efficient, because Zion would have overtaken him anyway.

yeah, Barrett does a lot of things well, can't see him falling much at all...he's all of 18 years old and is still a compelling force on the court, even if he has a few flaws.

[COYS]

Disagree with that coach. It's close. I'm not even convinced this team is better than 2015 yet, and I need that Feb / March data to know. And I don't mean that this team needs to win the national championship to be better (single-elimination tournament, afterall), but many of Duke's toughest games are still to come. I kind of want to know how this team fares vs UNC x 2, @ UVA, @ Lville, etc

I definitely agree that the whole story needs to be told for the 2019 team before we can say whether or not it was better than the 2015 team.

That being said, I don't think it is at all a stretch to say that the 2019 team has been better and much more consistent up to this point in the season. If you compare T-Rank's game scores (a 99 game score means that the team performed like a team from the 99th percentile) between 2015 and 2019, 2015 had a few more clunkers than 2019 has had. In fact, it's hard to say that 2019 has actually had a true clunker, yet (knock on wood). The two worst game scores for the 2019 team are the 79 they had against Army (the worst performance of the season by efficiency metrics) and the 80 against Syracuse when we were without Cam for the whole game and Tre for the vast majority. That's it. Even in the loss to Gonzaga, the team still put up a 94 game score.

The 2015 team, on the other hand, had a 78 early in the season also against Army (hmmm . . .), a pedestrian 82 in a win over Elon, a 75 in the January loss @NC State, a 48(!) in the infamous home loss to Miami, and an 84 in a home win over GaTech. All of those are lower than any thing the 2019 team has done save for the 79 in the Army game if we are willing to discount the Syracuse game due to the injury to Tre and Cam's illness.

The 2015 team went on to scrape out an overtime win @VaTech despite posting a poor (for a contender) 68 game score before losing to the Irish in the ACCT while posting a 64 game score.

So, I'd say that it is reasonable to argue that the 2019 is better and more consistent than the 2015 to this point in the season. And it's definitely ok for all of us fans to be really excited about how the team has performed, so far. They haven't accomplished anything as special as the 2015 team, yet, but I love the trajectory.

[CDu]

Disagree with that coach. It's close. I'm not even convinced this team is better than 2015 yet, and I need that Feb / March data to know. And I don't mean that this team needs to win the national championship to be better (single-elimination tournament, afterall), but many of Duke's toughest games are still to come. I kind of want to know how this team fares vs UNC x 2, @ UVA, @ Lville, etc

To be fair, the coach said "ability", not "performance." Though I'd note that, in terms of performance, this year's team has substantially outplayed the 2015 team. Just looking Torvik's game score season average, this year's team has been north of 95 since about game 5 of the season, and has just three games below a 94 all season (just one below 80 and none below 75). At the same point, the 2015 squad had 6 games below 90, with 3 of them below 80 and one of them below 50, and their average was at about 91.5.

And of course one of our two sub-94 games was with us missing two starters (Syracuse). So between the fact that this year's team has outplayed (in terms of game score) the 2015 team and that it was a subjective comment about the team's ability (which I read as "talent") from someone who faced both teams, I think it's a fair argument.

[Troublemaker]

Well, the caveat was "talent." I would agree that the talent on this squad is absurd and unparalleled by any Duke team in, oh, 40 years at least.

We're interpreting that quote differently. The ACC coach didn't express a caveat and didn't use the word "talent." But that's a nitpick -- I would agree with you that this team is probably more talented.

With that said, we have to consider the biases we have and how differently we think about teams while they are in college vs looking back years later with NBA data having influenced our opinions.

In 2015, a typical DBR-er might've thought something like "Justise and Jah will be All-Stars and Tyus will be a starting PG." When in college, the sky's the limit, and maybe there's a bias towards being too optimistic on projections.

The NBA humbles most people. But probably not Zion, though.

[Kedsy]

It maybe true in terms of athleticism and physical ability. It's certainly isn't true in terms of skills, particularly shooting skill. That team shot 38.7% from 3 and 39.9% in ACC play. On an average of 20 3PAT per game that team will score 6 more points on 3's alone.

Well, not really. I mean, sure, your math works out in that 40% from three is two more made threes on 20 attempts than 30% from three. But this year's team shoots two-pointers much better than the 2015 team. Overall, going by eFG%, the 2015 team would score one (1) more point than this year's team if both teams had 60 FGA. Using adjusted points per possession, the 2015 team would score 1.7 points more than this year's team in a 70 possession game. BUT on defense, this year's team would give up 3.3 fewer points than the 2015 team in a 70 possession game, meaning that looking at both sides of the ball this year's team is 1.6 points better than that year's team over the course of 70 possessions. And that team didn't completely find itself until the NCAA tournament (especially defensively), while this year's team still has plenty of time to improve, with four freshmen in the starting lineup.

[CDu]

We're interpreting that quote differently. The ACC coach didn't express a caveat and didn't use the word "talent." But that's a nitpick -- I would agree with you that this team is probably more talented.

With that said, we have to consider the biases we have and how differently we think about teams while they are in college vs looking back years later with NBA data having influenced our opinions.

In 2015, a typical DBR-er might've thought something like "Justise and Jah will be All-Stars and Tyus will be a starting PG." When in college, the sky's the limit, and maybe there's a bias towards being too optimistic on projections.

The NBA humbles most people. But probably not Zion, though.

Well, the quote was "ability." Which sounds a lot more like "talent" than it does "performance."

Also, we have numerical data to compare the two teams to this point (game score data). And right now, this year's team is well ahead of the 2015 team. So in terms of both talent and performance, this year's team appears to be winning. Easily so in terms of talent, and comfortably so as well in terms of performance.

[COYS]

I definitely agree that the whole story needs to be told for the 2019 team before we can say whether or not it was better than the 2015 team.

That being said, I don't think it is at all a stretch to say that the 2019 team has been better and much more consistent up to this point in the season. If you compare T-Rank's game scores (a 99 game score means that the team performed like a team from the 99th percentile) between 2015 and 2019, 2015 had a few more clunkers than 2019 has had. In fact, it's hard to say that 2019 has actually had a true clunker, yet (knock on wood). The two worst game scores for the 2019 team are the 79 they had against Army (the worst performance of the season by efficiency metrics) and the 80 against Syracuse when we were without Cam for the whole game and Tre for the vast majority. That's it. Even in the loss to Gonzaga, the team still put up a 94 game score.

The 2015 team, on the other hand, had a 78 early in the season also against Army (hmmm . . .), a pedestrian 82 in a win over Elon, a 75 in the January loss @NC State, a 48(!) in the infamous home loss to Miami, and an 84 in a home win over GaTech. All of those are lower than any thing the 2019 team has done save for the 79 in the Army game if we are willing to discount the Syracuse game due to the injury to Tre and Cam's illness.

The 2015 team went on to scrape out an overtime win @VaTech despite posting a poor (for a contender) 68 game score before losing to the Irish in the ACCT while posting a 64 game score.

So, I'd say that it is reasonable to argue that the 2019 team is better and more consistent than the 2015 to this point in the season. And it's definitely ok for all of us fans to be really excited about how the team has performed, so far. They haven't accomplished anything as special as the 2015 team, yet, but I love the trajectory.


To be fair, the coach said "ability", not "performance." Though I'd note that, in terms of performance, this year's team has substantially outplayed the 2015 team. Just looking Torvik's game score season average, this year's team has been north of 95 since about game 5 of the season, and has just three games below a 94 all season (just one below 80 and none below 75). At the same point, the 2015 squad had 6 games below 90, with 3 of them below 80 and one of them below 50, and their average was at about 91.5.

And of course one of our two sub-94 games was with us missing two starters (Syracuse). So between the fact that this year's team has outplayed (in terms of game score) the 2015 team and that it was a subjective comment about the team's ability (which I read as "talent") from someone who faced both teams, I think it's a fair argument.

Jinx (but you said it more succinctly).

[CDu]

Jinx (but you said it more succinctly).

Haha, yep I obviously agree. When I started that post there were no responses. Imagine my surprise when I found mine to essentially be piling on because there were so many responses!

[COYS]

Haha, yep I obviously agree. When I started that post there were no responses. Imagine my surprise when I found mine to essentially be piling on because there were so many responses!

It's all good. I can't tell you how many times I've started a reply to a post only to realize that you, Troublemaker, uh_no, Kedsy, JasonEvans, or any of the many thoughtful and insightful posters have beaten me to the point. It's what makes DBR so fun.

Just eye-balling the game score numbers, it looks to me that 2019 has been Duke's best Nov-Jan since at least 2008 when T-Rank begins keeping game scores. The closest competition would be 2010 and 2011, but those two teams had clunkers against NC State and Georgetown (2010) and St John's (2011) to this point in the season. And that's without trying to control for Tre and Cam's absence against Syracuse.

[CDu]

It's all good. I can't tell you how many times I've started a reply to a post only to realize that you, Troublemaker, uh_no, Kedsy, JasonEvans, or any of the many thoughtful and insightful posters have beaten me to the point. It's what makes DBR so fun.

Just eye-balling the game score numbers, it looks to me that 2019 has been Duke's best Nov-Jan since at least 2008 when T-Rank begins keeping game scores. The closest competition would be 2010 and 2011, but those two teams had clunkers against NC State and Georgetown (2010) and St John's (2011) to this point in the season. And that's without trying to control for Tre and Cam's absence against Syracuse.

Yeah, the scary part with this team is that it COULD conceivably get better. Usually, the concern with young teams is that their inexperience hurts them earlier in the season. We have seen this nip us with multiple early-ACC losses in each of the previous 5 seasons. Generally, though, the teams got better as the season went on, so long as injuries didn't derail things.

This year's team has one ACC loss, but that was without 40% of our starters including our PG and best shooter among the starters. It has started better and has been better and more consistent than any Duke team in over a decade. And it's the least experienced Duke team ever coming into the season. So despite performing better than any other Duke team has in recent memory, there should be every reason to believe that this team can get even better. That is just a ridiculous thought.

[jv001]

Yeah, the scary part with this team is that it COULD conceivably get better. Usually, the concern with young teams is that their inexperience hurts them earlier in the season. We have seen this nip us with multiple early-ACC losses in each of the previous 5 seasons. Generally, though, the teams got better as the season went on, so long as injuries didn't derail things.

This year's team has one ACC loss, but that was without 40% of our starters including our PG and best shooter among the starters. It has started better and has been better and more consistent than any Duke team in over a decade. And it's the least experienced Duke team ever coming into the season. So despite performing better than any other Duke team has in recent memory, there should be every reason to believe that this team can get even better. That is just a ridiculous thought.

This team could get better and what's scary is that it's likely one or more of: Javin, Alex and Jack can pick it up a notch. Then there's Cam who has seemed to have gotten his shot back. RJ & Tre can be better shooters as well. If memory serves me right, Tyus(Stones) shot better later in the season and there's no reason Tre can't duplicate his brother. Even though Tyus had a better reputation for shooting the ball coming out of high school. However, the thing I like best about this team, is they seem to really like each other and have the team first mentality. For a superstar, Zion is so humble and you don't see that in this age of look at me. We look at Zion without being told to do so. GoDuke!

[CDu]

This team could get better and what's scary is that it's likely one or more of: Javin, Alex and Jack can pick it up a notch. Then there's Cam who has seemed to have gotten his shot back. RJ & Tre can be better shooters as well. If memory serves me right, Tyus(Stones) shot better later in the season and there's no reason Tre can't duplicate his brother. Even though Tyus had a better reputation for shooting the ball coming out of high school. However, the thing I like best about this team, is they seem to really like each other and have the team first mentality. For a superstar, Zion is so humble and you don't see that in this age of look at me. We look at Zion without being told to do so. GoDuke!

I think the most likely avenue for improvement is through Cam Reddish. He's played - offensively, at least - SOOOOO far below his talent level and recruiting pedigree would suggest. If he can become a consistent scoring threat (not even an elite scoring threat, just a consistently positive offensive presence), this team hits a next level that is scary. If he reaches his talent level, this team becomes darn near impossible to beat.

Granted, those are still big "ifs" at this point. But he is a game-changing talent that has rarely made a positive impact so far this season. And the fact that we've been this good in spite of that is just an amazing testament to this team's talent and effort so far.

[Billy Dat]

Nice little piece of Marques' improvement and solid run of recent play
https://accsports.com/acc-analytics/notes-from-the-benchwarmer-big-thoughts-starting-with-the-defense-of-marques-bolden/

[Troublemaker]

Well, the quote was "ability." Which sounds a lot more like "talent" than it does "performance."

Also, we have numerical data to compare the two teams to this point (game score data). And right now, this year's team is well ahead of the 2015 team. So in terms of both talent and performance, this year's team appears to be winning. Easily so in terms of talent, and comfortably so as well in terms of performance.

I think the dude was just saying, "Our program had experience playing them both, and this 2019 team is much better." That was my straightforward read, anyway. I don't think he intended that opinion to be sliced into component parts like "talent" vs "performance" vs what-have-you.


I definitely agree that the whole story needs to be told for the 2019 team before we can say whether or not it was better than the 2015 team.

That being said, I don't think it is at all a stretch to say that the 2019 team has been better and much more consistent up to this point in the season. If you compare T-Rank's game scores (a 99 game score means that the team performed like a team from the 99th percentile) between 2015 and 2019, 2015 had a few more clunkers than 2019 has had. In fact, it's hard to say that 2019 has actually had a true clunker, yet (knock on wood). The two worst game scores for the 2019 team are the 79 they had against Army (the worst performance of the season by efficiency metrics) and the 80 against Syracuse when we were without Cam for the whole game and Tre for the vast majority. That's it. Even in the loss to Gonzaga, the team still put up a 94 game score.

The 2015 team, on the other hand, had a 78 early in the season also against Army (hmmm . . .), a pedestrian 82 in a win over Elon, a 75 in the January loss @NC State, a 48(!) in the infamous home loss to Miami, and an 84 in a home win over GaTech. All of those are lower than any thing the 2019 team has done save for the 79 in the Army game if we are willing to discount the Syracuse game due to the injury to Tre and Cam's illness.

The 2015 team went on to scrape out an overtime win @VaTech despite posting a poor (for a contender) 68 game score before losing to the Irish in the ACCT while posting a 64 game score.

So, I'd say that it is reasonable to argue that the 2019 is better and more consistent than the 2015 to this point in the season. And it's definitely ok for all of us fans to be really excited about how the team has performed, so far. They haven't accomplished anything as special as the 2015 team, yet, but I love the trajectory.

I definitely agree with these relatively mild statements, and I thank you (and CDu) for the T-rank stats.

I suppose I wasn't really thinking about the comparison in terms of "through this point in the season," either. As mentioned, I want 2019 to play out the schedule, and once I see that data, will I think of 2015 as being "not close" to 2019? It seems unlikely, as I think 2015 was our best team since at least 2004. 2019 would really have to do some amazing things. Maybe starting with a blowout of UVA tomorrow :-) One can hope.

I do suspect I'll end up thinking 2019 is better. But I'll think it's close.

[CDu]

I think the dude was just saying, "Our program had experience playing them both, and this 2019 team is much better." That was my straightforward read, anyway. I don't think he intended that opinion to be sliced into component parts like "talent" vs "performance" vs what-have-you.

Obviously one can interpret it however they see fit. But I took it as even simpler than that. He was looking at the 2015 team vs the 2019 team and felt these guys had more talent. As in, they are able to be better than the 2015 team was. I didn't suggest he was expecting it to be sliced into component parts. Mainly because I don't think "ability" is sliced into performance at all. I think "ability" and "talent" are synonyms. Hence, when you are saying that he was saying "this 2019 team is much better," I read as "this 2019 team has much more talent." I think it was essentially saying that these guys are a different animal in terms of talent than the 2015 team was. And, frankly, I think that's pretty clearly the case.

But, again, feel free to interpret it however you like. I just tend to think the simpler interpretation is more likely what was meant. And I think "talent" is the simplest interpretation.

[Troublemaker]

Obviously one can interpret it however they see fit. But I took it as even simpler than that. He was looking at the 2015 team vs the 2019 team and felt these guys had more talent. As in, they are able to be better than the 2015 team was. I didn't suggest he was expecting it to be sliced into component parts. Mainly because I don't think "ability" is sliced into performance at all. I think "ability" and "talent" are synonyms. Hence, when you are saying that he was saying "this 2019 team is much better," I read as "this 2019 team has much more talent." I think it was essentially saying that these guys are a different animal in terms of talent than the 2015 team was. And, frankly, I think that's pretty clearly the case.

But, again, feel free to interpret it however you like. I just tend to think the simpler interpretation is more likely what was meant. And I think "talent" is the simplest interpretation.

Ha, this discussion is so DBR. "Ability" can refer to "ability as a team" instead of "individual talent."

That said, looking at the quote again, I think you're right and I am wrong. The key actually is that he referred to 2015 as the national champs. I think the quote is most meaningful if interpreted: "Even though 2015 was the national champs, 2019 is more talented. And it's not close."

Not saying I necessarily even agree with that statement, but I do agree with you that it's the best interpretation.

[CDu]

Ha, this discussion is so DBR. "Ability" can refer to "ability as a team" instead of "individual talent."

That said, looking at the quote again, I think you're right and I am wrong. The key actually is that he referred to 2015 as the national champs. I think the quote is most meaningful if interpreted: "Even though 2015 was the national champs, 2019 is more talented. And it's not close."

Not saying I necessarily even agree with that statement, but I do agree with you that it's the best interpretation.

What are we here at DBR if we aren’t endlessly debating the meaning of words? ;)

Either that or derailing threads with puns.

[Indoor66]

What are we here at DBR if we aren’t endlessly debating the meaning of words? ;)

Either that or derailing threads with puns.

There you are, having puns.👿

[yancem]

Just to see things visually, here are the likely matchups:

2015 2019
Okafor Bolden
Winslow Zion
M. Jones Reddish
Cook Barrett
T. Jones Jones

Bench:
Jefferson White
MP3 DeLaurier
Allen AOC




For 2015 Okafor has the definite edge over Bolden, but Bolden is a solid defender and with 2019's ball pressure, feeding Okafor might be difficult. I love Winslow but Zion has a definite edge there. He is a bigger, more athletic and more skilled version of Winslow. Reddish's edge on M. Jones depends on his shooting but they are both really good defenders and Reddish has a size and athletic advantage. Cook had a great senior year and is a better outside shooter than Barrett but Barrett has a huge size advantage and is a better scorer. Tyus was the better shooter and Mr. Clutch but Tre is a dominant defender so I say at this point it is a wash. I give a small advantage to the 2015 bench but if White regains his shooting touch, that could change.

As for stats, 2019 is currently +7 in ppg, +5.5 in rpg, +1.5 in assists/game, +3 in steals/game, +3.5 in blocks/game, +1 TO/game (which is negative). From a shooting point, 2015 is +1.5% from the field, +1.5 from the line and +8 from deep. Of course, those are raw numbers and don't factor in pace of play or difficulty of opponent but give some statistical clearity.

As good as 2015 was, I think that there is a fairly sizable talent advantage in 2019. As mentioned up thread, 2019 has also been much more consistent up to this point of the season but until we see how the rest of the season goes, no definite conclusions can be reasonably drawn. What if Barrett falls too in love the 3ball but can't make them or Reddish lets a poor shooting night effect his defense or Zion's acrobatic drives stop falling (he missed 2 dunks against BC)? 2019 is a very young team and I expect them to continue to improve just like 2015 but what if they don't? Can White recover from the Syracuse game? It is possible (although unlikely and I'm knocking on my desk as I type) that one or more of the freshman regress. That would change the equation quite a bit but if you are comparing 2015 early February to 2019 early February, I think 2019 has a solid advantage.[table="width: 500"]

20152019
OkaforBolden

[yancem]

Sorry for the poor visual to my visual but I couldn't get the table function to work #@$%@$@%@^&@&%@#$@!^@#&!!!!!

[Kedsy]

If memory serves me right, Tyus(Stones) shot better later in the season and there's no reason Tre can't duplicate his brother.

In Tyus's first 20 games, he shot 36.7% from three. In his final 19 games, he shot 39.1% from three.

In Tre's first 20 games (including Syracuse but not the two games he missed), he shot 28.2% from three. Even if he improves the same 2.4% that Tyus did, it won't be very good. Assuming Tre's volume is the same going forward as it has been so far, that improvement would add up to one (1) additional made three pointer over the entire rest of the season (i.e., 12 for 40 over 20 games instead of 11 for 40). Unless that extra three comes when we're two points behind, late in the championship game, I'm not sure how much it will get us.

In other words, I wouldn't count on Tre being the answer to our shooting woes, though I suppose anything could happen.

[CDu]

Well, how about THAT for an end to a Phase? With Duke's superlative-laced comeback against Louisville, that wraps up Phase IV. Let's see how things went during the Phase in this recap:

Health: We got great news in terms of health during this phase, as Tre Jones returned immediately and we suffered no injuries during the phase. More of that good fortune for the next two months please!

More Zion please! Williamson averaged 23 points, 9.3 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 steals, and 2.7 blocks during Phase IV. He shot 40% on 1.7 3s per game and 75.8% on 2s. Remarkably, I still think he was underutilized, as he averaged just 12.7 FGA per game. He is too good not to be averaging 15 FGA per game. I'd say this one is still a work in progress.

Barrett’s efficiency: Well, Barrett's performance has been a weird thing all season, and this Phase was no different. He averaged 19 points, 8.8 rebounds, 2.8 assists, and 3.8 turnovers on 42.7% FG% for the Phase. Interestingly though, he hit 41.2% of his 3s. His last 3 games have been remarkably efficient from 3 (56%!) and remarkably INefficient inside the arc (30%). Hopefully he can be a 35+% 3pt shooter the rest of the way. If so, that will help his efficiency a lot. He wound up with a 58.2% TS% for the phase, which is quite nice. Though it may be inflated by some outlier-ish 3pt shooting. Something to continue to keep an eye on. As are the turnovers. But he's still rebounding like a madman of course. And he mostly avoided having any completely abysmal games efficiency wise (Louisville and St. John's being the bad ones, but offset by terrific games against Ga Tech and UVa). Hoping that the 3pt shooting is somewhat legit, and that he can correct his recent struggles inside the arc.

I don't mean this to be negative. Barrett was still a REALLY valuable all-around player. And if his recent 3pt shooting success continues, he becomes really awesome. The hope is that the struggles inside the arc were fluky and the successes outside the arc were not. I will also add that I was pleased that he deferred more in the second half when it was clear that (a) he was not having a good night offensively and (b) both Zion and Reddish were playing well. Earlier in the season, Barrett might have tried to go one against the world to try to save the day. That he didn't do that and played within the offense during the comeback is a testament to growth for sure - recognizing when you need to not think of yourself as Plan A (or even Plan B) for the offense.

The fourth freshman: Well, the Phase started off somewhat like his season has been: struggling on offense but defending well. And then things started to click. Beginning with the St John's game, Reddish has started to become a weapon. He averaged 16.5 pts, 3.2 rebs, 3.2 asts, 2.3 stls, and just 1.3 TOs per game during the Phase on 13.2 FGA per game (35.6% from 3), but over the last 4 games his numbers have looked more star-like: 19.8 ppg on 11.3 FGA per game (39.5% from 3). The 3ball has been falling, and Reddish's confidence appears to be growing. To be clear, he's still a distant third in the pecking order of the trio of freshman lottery picks. But he's showing more confidence and his game is starting to emerge. He didn't shoot well against Louisville, but I thought he looked decisive and confident out there. All the while, his defense has been terrific, one of the best on the team in that regard. We may be seeing that "midseason lightbulb moment" happening. If so, yikes!

The juniors, part A(ussie): To put it mildly, this was not a great Phase for White. He averaged just 12.5 mpg during the Phase, shooting 14% from the field (0% from 3) and contributing just 0.3 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 0.5 spg, and 0.7 bpg. Just a brutal stretch for him. Hope he can rebound from it.

The juniors, part B(olden): This was shaping up to be the coming out party for Bolden midway through the Phase. Unfortunately, things took a step back the past two games. Overall, he averaged 5.5 pts, 4 rebs, 0.7 stls and 0.8 blks in 20.5 mpg during the Phase. And through the first 4 games he looked every bit of the 5th starter for this team. But he struggled against UVa (no shame there) and REALLY struggled against a smaller, quicker Louisville team. I suspect that we'll likely just use him when teams don't go super-small against us. If he can be effective against normal-sized and big teams, that's good enough. I wonder if this is just a case of a limited player getting overexposed, and having some recoil as a result. White is probably best served in a much smaller role than he was being thrust into earlier in the season when both Jones and (especially so when) Reddish were out. I just hope he finds his footing/confidence again soon. Now that Reddish seems to be dialing in, we really only need White for about 15 mpg or so. But we could use him being a plus on the court for those minutes.

The juniors, part D(eLaurier): DeLaurier was slightly more effective than White during this Phase, but it was close: 1.3 pts, 3.2 rebs, 1.0 stls per 10 mpg. He's clearly the backup center for now. There's still a load of potential there given his athleticism and length. But he's not been able to tap into it with any consistency yet. One small positive is that his foul rate went down some in this Phase. I would love to see that continue.

Ohhhh-Connell: Nothing noteworthy here. O'Connell seemed to have good games against Ga Tech and Notre Dame. But he got a DNP against UVa and was nonexistent against Louisville. Looks like he's just not ready for primetime yet.

Shooting (aka, how bad will this team ultimately be at shooting?): We began this Phase 293rd in the nation in 3pt shooting percentage, and 257th in the nation in FT percentage. We finished the Phase at 296th in 3pt shooting and 264th in FT shooting. So, yeah, we're a REALLY bad shooting team. Thankfully we were an AMAZING shooting team against UVa though. But, the Phase pretty much mirrored the season to this point.

Establishing our place in the ACC: This turned out to be an unequivocal positive stamp for the Phase. We went 6-0, consolidated our big road win over UVa with an amazing comeback win over Louisville. We sit alone atop the ACC standings and have a game's worth of cushion for the #1 seed in the ACC. If we win our next two games at home, we will be in a pretty commanding position to take home our first ACC Regular Season title in nearly a decade. Can't do much better than 6-0, so I'd call this Phase an unequivocal success overall. There are still things to work on. But it's nice to be working on things while winning all the time as opposed to taking our lumps through the process.

Looking forward to Phase V. Several more big tests coming up (UNC twice, @Syracuse, @Va Tech). Lots of opportunities for growth still, and in spite of that we're still able to reach gears that nobody else can reach. What an amazing season!!!

[COYS]

More Zion please! Williamson averaged 23 points, 9.3 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 steals, and 2.7 blocks during Phase IV. He shot 40% on 1.7 3s per game and 75.8% on 2s. Remarkably, I still think he was underutilized, as he averaged just 12.7 FGA per game. He is too good not to be averaging 15 FGA per game. I'd say this one is still a work in progress.

Thanks for the insightful summary of Phase IV. I thought we worked hard to get Zion more shots earlier in the Phase, but teams have started to counter our various strategies by using double-teams in the post, by packing the lane to stop his drives, and by shading to his left on his drives even when he goes right. Part of the reason Zion's FGA still haven't gotten as high as I'd like is because he has been pretty good at not forcing things. In addition, we played more slow-paced teams that limited our raw number of fast-break opportunities.

Still, he has no equal in college basketball, though, and I hope the staff has a couple tricks up their sleeve to make sure Zion can get as many looks at the basket as possible. He's just too dang good. It's truly unbelievable.

[Kedsy]

More Zion please! Williamson averaged 23 points, 9.3 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 steals, and 2.7 blocks during Phase IV. He shot 40% on 1.7 3s per game and 75.8% on 2s. Remarkably, I still think he was underutilized, as he averaged just 12.7 FGA per game. He is too good not to be averaging 15 FGA per game. I'd say this one is still a work in progress.

Thanks for the great recap.

FWIW, Zion's current usage rate would rank 6th in Duke's last 14 seasons (as far back as I can easily go):

(1) Jabari Parker ('14) 32.7%
(1) RJ Barrett ('19) 32.7%
(3) JJ Redick ('06) 31.5%
(4) Nolan Smith ('11) 30.7%
(5) Gerald Henderson ('09) 28.3%
(6) Zion Williamson ('19) 28.0%

Now, since Zion leads the nation in PER, win shares per 40, Box plus-minus, and eFG%, and is 2nd in the country in oRating (and 2nd in dRating too), I suppose you can still make the argument that he should be used more, but on the scale of humans he has a pretty high usage rate already.

[kAzE]

Thanks for the great recap.

FWIW, Zion's current usage rate would rank 6th in Duke's last 14 seasons (as far back as I can easily go):

(1) Jabari Parker ('14) 32.7%
(1) RJ Barrett ('19) 32.7%
(3) JJ Redick ('06) 31.5%
(4) Nolan Smith ('11) 30.7%
(5) Gerald Henderson ('09) 28.3%
(6) Zion Williamson ('19) 28.0%

Now, since Zion leads the nation in PER, win shares per 40, Box plus-minus, and eFG%, and is 2nd in the country in oRating (and 2nd in dRating too), I suppose you can still make the argument that he should be used more, but on the scale of humans he has a pretty high usage rate already.

I think 28% is probably good enough. None of those guys above him shared the court with anyone remotely as good as RJ or Cam, and those guys need their touches too. The way we've been playing this phase has been incredible. Zion knows when to pick his spots and when to take over. I think he will probably take a bigger slice of the pie in tournament time, but for now, it's best to let everyone get their share.

[CDu]

Thanks for the great recap.

FWIW, Zion's current usage rate would rank 6th in Duke's last 14 seasons (as far back as I can easily go):

(1) Jabari Parker ('14) 32.7%
(1) RJ Barrett ('19) 32.7%
(3) JJ Redick ('06) 31.5%
(4) Nolan Smith ('11) 30.7%
(5) Gerald Henderson ('09) 28.3%
(6) Zion Williamson ('19) 28.0%

Now, since Zion leads the nation in PER, win shares per 40, Box plus-minus, and eFG%, and is 2nd in the country in oRating (and 2nd in dRating too), I suppose you can still make the argument that he should be used more, but on the scale of humans he has a pretty high usage rate already.


I think 28% is probably good enough. None of those guys above him shared the court with anyone remotely as good as RJ or Cam, and those guys need their touches too. The way we've been playing this phase has been incredible. Zion knows when to pick his spots and when to take over. I think he will probably take a bigger slice of the pie in tournament time, but for now, it's best to let everyone get their share.

Yeah, I admit I'm probably being greedy here. But I'd still like to see Williamson be the 30+% usage guy and Barrett and Reddish being the 28% usage guys.

[COYS]

Yeah, I admit I'm probably being greedy here. But I'd still like to see Williamson be the 30+% usage guy and Barrett and Reddish being the 28% usage guys.

I might have mentioned this before, but in games against T-Rank’s too 50, Zion and RJ have almost identical usage rates. I’m with you on wanting to find one or two more shots for Zion per game, but it does seem as if they play more or less as equals against our toughest opponents.

http://barttorvik.com/team.php?filter=50&year=2019&team=Duke