PDA

View Full Version : MBB: Duke 66, Georgia Tech 53 Post-Game Thread



JBDuke
01-26-2019, 01:54 PM
Put your post-game thoughts here.

OldPhiKap
01-26-2019, 01:56 PM
Conference win, take it and move on. Lots from which the team can learn.

ChillinDuke
01-26-2019, 01:57 PM
The team, and particularly Tre himself, looked like they were struggling to reintegrate. But they fought through and won going away on the back of a big run there.

Defense looked good, especially in the 2nd half.

I'll take it, and I'm looking for more improvement and coherence against ND.

- Chillin

weezie
01-26-2019, 01:57 PM
Rowan Alexander Barrett, Jr.

Any other questions?

SCMatt33
01-26-2019, 01:59 PM
Probably one of the biggest keys to the game was despite all of the turnovers, bad shooting and lethargy in the first half, Duke attacked the basket and GT’s big guys were not giving up 2 points to save a foul. That foul trouble really cost them in the second half. Duke really put this game away when RJ and Zion we’re getting easy buckets over big guys that couldn’t contest because they had 4 fouls.

Dukehk
01-26-2019, 02:00 PM
That was ugly and mainly because GT tried to throw a junk defence at us all game long, and also played virginia pace on offence.

It frustrated us for a while. Especially considering we couldnt make a three to save our lives. If we had made 20% it would have been over in the first half. Yet we only managed 9.5%. Yup..single digit percentage.

RJ and Zion stepped it up once again and we win handily in the second half.

However, the guys like Cam, Jack, Marques and Javin really have to step it up. They were horrible today offensively. I struggle to understand how they can go from being such good shooters to what we're seeing now. Maybe an over reliance on Zion/RJ has led to this?

Nonetheless, we really need to sort it out before we come into the meat of the schedule against the tougher teams like the holes, VT and virginia away. If we can get guys hitting 30-35% of their 3's then we are blowing people out in the first half of games.

I trust that Coach K will get through to Cam & Jack eventually.

unclsam1
01-26-2019, 02:01 PM
3 point shooting - ugh!!!!

robed deity
01-26-2019, 02:02 PM
Tech is a good defensive team, and is 6th in the nation in opponent 3 pt pctg, per Torvik. Would have liked to settle for a few less 3s. And geez, the shooting is almost comical at this point.

Still, great to see the d always there, O'Connell making contributions, Tre getting going late, and the ft shooting on the upswing.

kako
01-26-2019, 02:03 PM
5 thoughts:

1. You were just waiting for the run, waiting for the run, waiting for the run. And it came. It was inevitable.

2. Great to see Jones back. It wasn't his best game, but more than adequate returning from injury. 4 assists, only 1 TO. I anticipate him continuing to return to his pre-injury form. But I wonder what happened to Bolden - hope there's nothing wrong.

3. Barrett and Zion lead the way again. Nice double-double from Barrett and the usual highlight alley-oops from Zion. Reddish had a down game, some pretty bad decisions on the drives. I liked the aggressive nature, but it needs to be channeled better. I'm guessing the staff will be showing him some film to help.

4. Once again, solid FT shooting! I wonder if Pastner will complain about the disparity between the teams.

5. Bench-wise, some nice play by AOC. I was surprised to see Vrankovic get in. I guess he must be hustling in practice, so good for him to get some first half minutes.

9F

duke4ever19
01-26-2019, 02:06 PM
I haven't laughed at a game this much in maybe a decade.

That first half was pure chaos. It's like someone one of the nutritionists accidentally mixed in massive amounts of caffeine in the Gatorade. All the energy in the world, but nowhere to focus it. I'm thinking it a lot of it had to do with Tre being back out there. I'm glad they settled down a bit to put this game away.

Troublemaker
01-26-2019, 02:07 PM
Going exclusively to Zion at the 5 unzipped the zone just enough for us to end up winning comfortably.


That was ugly and mainly because GT tried to throw a junk defence at us all game long, and also played virginia pace on offence.

FYI, that morphing 1-3-1 zone is GaTech's base defense. So if by "junk" you mean they whipped up something new for us, that's not the case.

We just struggled until Coach K went with a version of the death lineup (Alex in instead of Jack).

arnie
01-26-2019, 02:08 PM
3 point shooting - ugh!!!!

Great D overall, recovered from early funk, but outside shooting continues to be a huge wart. K is seeing this and I believe the number of 3’s attempted will diminish as season progresses. We’re powerful and quick enough to drive and attack - don’t see the 3 as an effective part of O.

Recognition that we’re a poor outside shooting team is critical.

dukelifer
01-26-2019, 02:09 PM
Tech was very active on D and I thought Duke was not patient enough attacking the zone. That said- 3 point shooting was horrid and continues to be a major concern. It is one thing to miss but another to take 21 threes when that is not reliable part of ones game, and 33% seems like a difficult target. AOC missed his 2 threes but his shot does not miss by much and leads to offensive rebounds. Cam, RJ and Jack are missing in ways that lead to run outs. Duke found themselves in the 2nd half and went to their strengths inside. AOC gave great energy and minutes. He needs to keep that up and be more focused in games like today. Duke will go as far as Cam's jumpshot. He will open up the game. Still a month or so to figure it out. Finally, Tre worked off some rust. That was nice to see.

mapei
01-26-2019, 02:09 PM
Cam didn't shoot well, but 6 boards, 6 assists, 5 steals and a block. Not shabby.

Dukehk
01-26-2019, 02:09 PM
Great D overall, recovered from early funk, but outside shooting continues to be a huge wart. K is seeing this and I believe the number of 3’s attempted will diminish as season progresses. We’re powerful and quick enough to drive and attack - don’t see the 3 as an effective part of O.

Recognition that we’re a poor outside shooting team is critical.

Crazy thing is I dont think we are that bad. It just seems like we get into slumps and can't get out of it. Guys heads just dip and they never fully recover.

Its safe to say that Jack White and Cam Reddish are better shooters than what we are seeing.

Dukehk
01-26-2019, 02:10 PM
Going exclusively to Zion at the 5 unzipped the zone just enough for us to end up winning comfortably.



FYI, that morphing 1-3-1 zone is GaTech's base defense. So if by "junk" you mean they whipped up something new for us, that's not the case.

We just struggled until Coach K went with a version of the death lineup (Alex in instead of Jack).


I stand corrected then troublemaker! I thought this was something they just threw at us. Didn't realise they played it all the time.

It was effective until we figured them out in the second half and their bigs started to foul out.

That was despite us not being able to hit open 3s.

CameronDuke
01-26-2019, 02:13 PM
17-2, 6-1.

1,044 wins at Duke for Coach K and 1,117 wins overall for Coach K.

Zion and RJ once again were virtually unstoppable on offense. 16-19 from the free throw line was awesome to see. Tough game shooting for Cam but he had several assists and rebounds and played good defense. Zion had another couple highlight reel dunks and blocks. Nice assist from Tre on the behind the back pass to RJ for the dunk.

Bolden gave Duke some good minutes early but when he got his foot stepped on it looked like it affected his lateral movement.

On to Notre Dame on a 3 game winning streak looking to make it 4.

Let's Go Duke!

Saratoga2
01-26-2019, 02:13 PM
That was ugly and mainly because GT tried to throw a junk defence at us all game long, and also played virginia pace on offence.

It frustrated us for a while. Especially considering we couldnt make a three to save our lives. If we had made 20% it would have been over in the first half. Yet we only managed 9.5%. Yup..single digit percentage.

RJ and Zion stepped it up once again and we win handily in the second half.

However, the guys like Cam, Jack, Marques and Javin really have to step it up. They were horrible today offensively. I struggle to understand how they can go from being such good shooters to what we're seeing now. Maybe an over reliance on Zion/RJ has led to this?

Nonetheless, we really need to sort it out before we come into the meat of the schedule against the tougher teams like the holes, VT and virginia away. If we can get guys hitting 30-35% of their 3's then we are blowing people out in the first half of games.

I trust that Coach K will get through to Cam & Jack eventually.

Not that he provided a lot of scoring, but I thought Alex, with his new haircut, gave us a big lift of energy in the second half. Even when he missed, Zion and RJ were there to clean up and Alex seemed to be everywhere, making plays. Nice to see him be more aggressive and play with energy and also a little confidence.


I agree that Cam showed very little on offense. The game plan may haved been to force the ball inside to Zion but that just wasn't working yet Cam, Jack and even Tre tried to do that. Too many turnovers and too much awful shooting, particularly from 3. Don't know that there is an answer as opponents are going to pack in and force us to shoot from 3, something we haven't show the ability to do.

GT also limited our transition game. Hard to tell if this was lethagy on our part or something else. We certainly forced a lot of turnovers.

Be interesting to see the stats and also hear why coach K has to say. I hope Bolden's twisted ankle or knee won't be serious. He didn't get much burn after the incident where he tweaked it.

1991 duke law
01-26-2019, 02:13 PM
3 point shooting - ugh!!!!

Agree. While anything is possible, if this team does not pick up their three point shooting they will have a tough time winning a national championship. Jack is currently a hole on offence - he is understandably moving towards the point of electing to not shoot. Cam is hot and cold - and more cold than hot. RJ is not a dependable 3 point shooter. Tre’s strength is not the three.

And to continue with some negativity, if you are not able to shoot the three and are relying on driving to the basket (which we are really good at), you have to be a high percentage free throw shooting team. Which we are not.

Obviously, these are the negatives and there are clearly huge positives to this team. But if we are discussing winning a national championship, these are real issues. Beating Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech and potentially Notre Dame are not great indicators of how good this team is or is not. It will be interesting to see the rematch in Charlottesville as well as how Duke does against Carolina.

I will continue to hope for the best but the lack of good shooting concerns me.

Fish80
01-26-2019, 02:18 PM
AOC! It’s the haircut!

Duke79UNLV77
01-26-2019, 02:21 PM
AOC! It’s the haircut!

If you don’t like AOC’s haircut, wait a week. It will change!

ncexnyc
01-26-2019, 02:22 PM
At the half I said I wasn't worried, but several minutes into the 2nd half I was definitely singing a different tune. I'm glad the team finally found the focus to play like they can.

Zion was his usual self and RJ did a very good job of tightening up his play in the 2nd half. Tre came to life as well and we had a nice game from AOC.

Not much else to say about our other kids, as they just seemed out of it.

kako
01-26-2019, 02:23 PM
And to continue with some negativity, if you are not able to shoot the three and are relying on driving to the basket (which we are really good at), you have to be a high percentage free throw shooting team. Which we are not.



FT shooting has been better the past few games, 84% today. It would be great to continue. I'm not betting the come on it just yet... still, nice to see. High percentage 2's are a good thing. I'm not defending 2-21 from 3, but I think that's an outlier even for this team. I think AOC playing decent defense can put him on the floor more, and he has to hunt his 3-pt shot. But overall, if Duke can just hit 30% from 3, game-in, game-out, that might be enough overall with their overall D, their interior game and fast break O (though the latter did not happen so much today).

9F

Billy Dat
01-26-2019, 02:25 PM
I echo the AOC enthusiasm and add that I think K trusts him more bow that he got a haircut. That flop top is too alternative for K and AOC had not earned that level of trust. Many a Duke player has learned that the way to K’s heart is via a properly tended dome...and it also helps if they make heady hustle plays, avoid turnovers, execute the defensive scheme and are in the right place at the right time on the glass.

I did not see the first half and only joined when we were down 7 so everything I saw was mostly positive. That Cam 3 and Jones lay-up where we got a bit of a lucky bounce started the comeback. Tech helped us with a ton of bad turnovers. We also muffed some easy basket opportunities. I hope people start asking K about our bad 3 point shooting in pressers to see how creatively he can rage.

Another ACC win, bank it and let’s get ready to steal that pot of gold in South Bend.

Fish80
01-26-2019, 02:29 PM
If you don’t like AOC’s haircut, wait a week. It will change!

Au contraire, I love the haircut, he plays much better with this hair!

dukelifer
01-26-2019, 02:34 PM
17-2, 6-1.

1,044 wins at Duke for Coach K and 1,117 wins overall for Coach K.

Zion and RJ once again were virtually unstoppable on offense. 16-19 from the free throw line was awesome to see. Tough game shooting for Cam but he had several assists and rebounds and played good defense. Zion had another couple highlight reel dunks and blocks. Nice assist from Tre on the behind the back pass to RJ for the dunk.

Bolden gave Duke some good minutes early but when he got his foot stepped on it looked like it affected his lateral movement.

On to Notre Dame on a 3 game winning streak looking to make it 4.

Let's Go Duke!
Notre Dame getting hammered by UVA. UVA is a machine - not really sure who is going to beat them in the league other than Duke- but that will be a huge challenge.

MrPoon
01-26-2019, 02:34 PM
Agree. While anything is possible, if this team does not pick up their three point shooting they will have a tough time winning a national championship. Jack is currently a hole on offence - he is understandably moving towards the point of electing to not shoot. Cam is hot and cold - and more cold than hot. RJ is not a dependable 3 point shooter. Tre’s strength is not the three.

And to continue with some negativity, if you are not able to shoot the three and are relying on driving to the basket (which we are really good at), you have to be a high percentage free throw shooting team. Which we are not.

Obviously, these are the negatives and there are clearly huge positives to this team. But if we are discussing winning a national championship, these are real issues. Beating Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech and potentially Notre Dame are not great indicators of how good this team is or is not. It will be interesting to see the rematch in Charlottesville as well as how Duke does against Carolina.

I will continue to hope for the best but the lack of good shooting concerns me.

Seems like the FT shooting is improving so that is the good news, 85% today, 80% @ Pitt. Maybe just two games but a step in the right direction.

The bigger concern is the 3pts shot. 19 games in and its getting worse, not better. 9% today, 30% @pitt, 14% UVa, 20% Sy. And its not just the %, its the volume. I just don’t get taking 21, 15, 14, 43 with this level of inaccuracy. These have become a kind of turnover. This team is setting a record for most threes taken by a Duke team (if I recall an earlier post) and I’m guessing the wrong record for %.

To me this team’s ceiling (or roof:rolleyes:) will revolve around Cam. He still looked rough on the offensive side today with a loose handle and one or two easy drives that missed. Cam against Kentucky, Duke is unstoppable, Cam tonight risks as bad matchup or a tight whistle costing them at the end of the year. There is time but I’m surprised that this isn’t getting better.

I’m happy for the win today, but shrug, GT isn’t a very good team and probably misses the NIT and it was in Cameron. Freshman teams will have halves like the first but I wasn’t ever concerned about the final score, GT wasn’t hitting shots like Sy.

I’d love some of the more analytical members to offer constructive thoughts on how to break this open. To me it seems like we aren’t running plays out of the set offense to free up shooters and Z and RJ drive but don’t dish so the threes are more forced and less open. But Duke is missing the open ones too and now Jack and Cam seem reluctant to take even those. But the old pin down, baseline screens the past Duke teams ran to free up a cutting Cam might open up some of the corner shots and let him know where his offense is going to come from. To me he seems to be rushing things when he does have the ball as though he’s worried he won’t see it again.

porkpa
01-26-2019, 02:36 PM
Please tell me that I am wrong, but I don't see Cam as a first round NBA draft pick.

wsb3
01-26-2019, 02:39 PM
At the half I said I wasn't worried, but several minutes into the 2nd half I was definitely singing a different tune.

I was singing these same sentiments.

knicknut
01-26-2019, 02:42 PM
I wonder how many teams that don't normally play zone (or just mix it up occasionally) will play zone against us going forward. The best chance to beat this team, for non-elite opponents, is to pack it in and hope we run cold. Lately, we seem to do that often.

All in all, good to learn how to manufacture a win when the team isn't bringing its best game. Fortunately, the opponent was weak enough to let it happen.

jv001
01-26-2019, 02:44 PM
In the first half, I told my buddy that I'm glad we're not playing a good shooting team because we would be down 20pts. Got to give GT credit for playing hard and really good defense in the first half. Gritty, ugly win but it's a conference win. GoDuke!

Saratoga2
01-26-2019, 02:47 PM
Please tell me that I am wrong, but I don't see Cam as a first round NBA draft pick.

He has the size, quickness, length and athleticism to make the NBA and he seems to have a decent handle until he gets into a crowd. That siad, his offense isn't good at this juncture and you can see others playing within the ACC and on other NCAA teams, not to mention some from overseas, who are playing materially better than Cam. I see the mock drafts have him very high, but the eye test seems to belie the mock draft.

CameronDuke
01-26-2019, 02:51 PM
Notre Dame getting hammered by UVA. UVA is a machine - not really sure who is going to beat them in the league other than Duke- but that will be a huge challenge.

Yeah seeing Pflueger go down for Notre Dame for the season was tough to see. They really miss him. They are struggling this year. I still think Mike Brey will have something for Duke Monday night in South Bend. It seems Duke has struggled against Notre Dame a bit here and there since Notre Dame joined the ACC. We will see, another road win would be HUGE. Not taking it for granted, though.

Virginia is a machine, like you said. I think they lose 2 more games at max in the ACC and finish no worse then 15-3 in the league. I think they still host Duke, go to Virginia Tech, go to NCSU, go to Louisville and go to UNC. I think they lose 1-2 of those 5 games. Something tells me they go 4-1 in those 5 and finish 16-2. They'll win the ACC outright or at least be in a tie for the ACC regular season championship again it would appear.

NashvilleDevil
01-26-2019, 02:51 PM
Please tell me that I am wrong, but I don't see Cam as a first round NBA draft pick.

You’re wrong because Cam will be drafted based on his potential. He also suffers a bit from being the 3rd guy after RJ and Zion. When he does get his chances I think he plays too fast and that’s when the mistakes happen.

kako
01-26-2019, 02:53 PM
Please tell me that I am wrong, but I don't see Cam as a first round NBA draft pick.

Too early to say. If he hits a hot streak down the stretch and hits 3's in the championship game, he's a lock. See DiVincenzo, Donte.

9F

timmy c
01-26-2019, 02:59 PM
Please tell me that I am wrong, but I don't see Cam as a first round NBA draft pick.

You're wrong. You're welcome.

jv001
01-26-2019, 02:59 PM
The biggest question for me after watching the game; was Coach K sending a message to Javin by bringing Vrank in as Marques replacement. That and Javin not getting many minutes. Or, it could be that Javin was under the weather. I guess time will tell. GoDuke!

godukegodukego
01-26-2019, 03:05 PM
I just saw on Twitter that Marques may have a toenail issue...Ahhhhh! Do we need to start a toenail vigil?

MChambers
01-26-2019, 03:09 PM
I just saw on Twitter that Marques may have a toenail issue...Ahhhhh! Do we need to start a toenail vigil?

Wouldn't that be a mini-vigil?

MChambers
01-26-2019, 03:10 PM
The biggest question for me after watching the game; was Coach K sending a message to Javin by bringing Vrank in as Marques replacement. That and Javin not getting many minutes. Or, it could be that Javin was under the weather. I guess time will tell. GoDuke!

I have to think he was sending a message, since Javin did get in later. But maybe the post game press conference will answer this.

Billy Dat
01-26-2019, 03:12 PM
I just saw on Twitter that Marques may have a toenail issue...Ahhhhh! Do we need to start a toenail vigil?

Does Marques need some lessons in foot care from Psycho T, a man who never ever missed his weekly pedicure?

I remember Shane, toward the end of this NBA career, saying that keeping his feet together was a huge part of his daily routine because trench warfare in the paint includes lots of intentional stomping on each other’s feet.

Ima Facultiwyfe
01-26-2019, 03:17 PM
Please tell me that I am wrong, but I don't see Cam as a first round NBA draft pick.

So far it looks the same to me. It's looking like it would be good for him to hang around home. It would also be good for us!
Love, Ima

richardjackson199
01-26-2019, 03:22 PM
I voted for AOC MOTM but I think we should continue to consider if Joey Baker could make this team better. Baker can shoot the 3. Teams are obviously going to pack it in to take away Zion inside and give us threes going forward.

It's not every year we'll have talents like Zion, RJ, and Tre on our team. In fact this will be the only year. It would be a shame to underachieve because of 3-point shooting when we have a highly rated eligible player on the bench who can straight fill it up from deep.

I understand the decision has been made to redshirt Baker. Obviously I'd prefer our current players just start shooting threes better. But if they don't, I hope we continue to consider keeping all available options open that could make this team better.

I'm glad Mike Eades wasn't out there today and very glad to see free throw shooting improving. Now let's find some way to improve zone-busting three point shooting. It's important in the modern game and not a glaring weakness we want to keep getting exploited.

Go Duke!

Dub
01-26-2019, 03:22 PM
I keep seeing posts where our national championship aspirations are reliant on our 3 point shooting and vehemently disagree. Sure, I would love to shoot 30-35% as a team throughout the season, but this team isn’t built that way as it stands. This teams national championship aspirations fall directly on its defense. If RJ and crew can continue defending like they’ve been all season, we will outscore most opponents in the country off of pure talent.

We’ve all seen the Duke teams that have been so reliant on 3s made that once they don’t drop come tourney time, we get upset early. I love the fact that this isn’t one of those teams. Our defense is rock solid and I look forward to seeing our continued progression (and good health).

porkpa
01-26-2019, 03:32 PM
You're wrong. You're welcome.

I could be wrong as I often am. But I find it hard to see a guy who is a questionable shooter and does not appear to be overwhelming in any other phase of the game as a first rounder.
Please understand that I didn't say, nor do I believe that he will not play in the NBA. I just don't see him as a first round draft choice.

richardjackson199
01-26-2019, 03:34 PM
I could be wrong as I often am. But I find it hard to see a guy who is a questionable shooter and does not appear to be overwhelming in any other phase of the game as a first rounder.
Please understand that I didn't say, nor do I believe that he will not play in the NBA. I just don't see him as a first round draft choice.

Would you like to wager a friendly pie that Cam Reddish is a first round draft pick? I believe he is a lock.

devildeac
01-26-2019, 03:36 PM
Notre Dame getting hammered by UVA. UVA is a machine - not really sure who is going to beat them in the league other than Duke- but that will be a huge challenge.

2/11: UVa at the dean's myth center. Mark it down.

(no pies though :p)

TeacherTom
01-26-2019, 03:37 PM
Can you imagine if “Sky King” Zion came down on someone’s toe?

devildeac
01-26-2019, 03:39 PM
I just saw on Twitter that Marques may have a toenail issue...Ahhhhh! Do we need to start a toenail vigil?


Wouldn't that be a mini-vigil?

Nah, I'm going to remain optoemistic for now.

uh_no
01-26-2019, 03:43 PM
Can you imagine if “Sky King” Zion came down on someone’s toe?

he flattened someone again today. rip

Kedsy
01-26-2019, 03:47 PM
ADVANCED STATS

Possessions: 69.4 (Just one possession more than GaT's average adjusted pace)

OFFENSE

oRtg: 0.95 (our adjusted oRtg was 1.08, pretty bad, even considering GaT's top-notch defense)
eFG%: 43.1% (really bad)
3pt%: 9.5% (pathetic; pretty much the sole reason our O was so bad today)
2pt%: 59.5% (good)
%threes: 36.2% (if you're going to shoot 9%, you kind of wish this number was lower)
FT rate: 32.8% (not bad)
OR%: 31.4% (not good, but not totally terrible)
TO%: 18.7% (a tad high, but it was Tre's first game back and GaT is the #12 defense in the country)
a/to: 1.08:1
%assisted: 58.3%
fast break pts: 7 (10.6% of our points; second straight lousy performance here)


DEFENSE

dRtg: 0.76 (adjusted that's 0.80, back to a great number with Tre back)
eFG%: 44.0% (not terrible)
3pt%: 30.0%
2pt%: 43.8% (good)
%threes: 17.2% (very good)
FT rate: 10.3% (super low, against a team that's pretty good at getting to the line)
DR%: 73.0% (very good, for us)
TO%: 27.4% (very strong; no coincidence this happened with Tre back)
a/to: 0.58:1 (13th straight game with our opponents having equal or more turnovers than assists)
%assisted: 45.8.3%
fast break pts: 8 (15.1% of their points)
block%: 12.1%; 14.6% of 2-point shots (another strong blocking game)
steal%: 18.7% (super strong; welcome back Tre)


Great D; poor O, adds up to a 13 point win over a decent team. On to South Bend.

aimo
01-26-2019, 03:51 PM
Don't know if this was discussed during the game, but how can the refs allow Pastner to run around, up and down the sideline, OVER the coaches' line, jumping and waving like a monkey on crack? It has to be distracting to his own players, not to mention the opposing team. Does he always do this, or is it just 'cause he was wearing his sneakers today?

uh_no
01-26-2019, 03:53 PM
Don't know if this was discussed during the game, but how can the refs allow Pastner to run around, up and down the sideline, OVER the coaches' line, jumping and waving like a monkey on crack? It has to be distracting to his own players, not to mention the opposing team. Does he always do this, or is it just 'cause he was wearing his sneakers today?

he's always done this.

devildeac
01-26-2019, 03:55 PM
Don't know if this was discussed during the game, but how can the refs allow Pastner to run around, up and down the sideline, OVER the coaches' line, jumping and waving like a monkey on crack? It has to be distracting to his own players, not to mention the opposing team. Does he always do this, or is it just 'cause he was wearing his sneakers today?

It's all the Buzz. :mad:

Billy Dat
01-26-2019, 04:03 PM
Watched the presser, a couple of interesting tidbits:

-Praised AOC, said he’s been struggling and too much in his own head. He had a couple of good days of practice and it carried over.

-Said that while we have to shoot better, he thinks we aren’t taking good 3s, meaning that the shooter is balanced, in-rhythm and that it is the right shot to take at that moment.

-He said teams are starting to “rat” on us in transition meaning that they double the ball, similar to the Euro move of taking an early foul to thwart a break before it can get going, but they aren’t fouling, just swarming and we kewp trying to dribble through it instead of passing ahead or just starting our halfcourt O. He said he’s seeing a pattern in teams doing this an we need to react.

-When a reporter tried to ask about “Zion at the 5”, K went into full heavy sarcasm mode to make the guy feel like an idiot, “He’s not a 5, he’s guarding a pivot player inside”. Eye roll.

-K cracked wise when trying to describe Bolden’s injured toe, “I don’t know exactly how to describe it, I am 71 and try not to look at my feet anymore.”

richardjackson199
01-26-2019, 04:14 PM
Watched the presser, a couple of interesting tidbits:

-Praised AOC, said he’s been struggling and too much in his own head. He had a couple of good days of practice and it carried over.

-Said that while we have to shoot better, he thinks we aren’t taking good 3s, meaning that the shooter is balanced, in-rhythm and that it is the right shot to take at that moment.

-He said teams are starting to “rat” on us in transition meaning that they double the ball, similar to the Euro move of taking an early foul to thwart a break before it can get going, but they aren’t fouling, just swarming and we kewp trying to dribble through it instead of passing ahead or just starting our halfcourt O. He said he’s seeing a pattern in teams doing this an we need to react.

-When a reporter tried to ask about “Zion at the 5”, K went into full heavy sarcasm mode to make the guy feel like an idiot, “He’s not a 5, he’s guarding a pivot player inside”. Eye roll.

-K cracked wise when trying to describe Bolden’s injured toe, “I don’t know exactly how to describe it, I am 71 and try not to look at my feet anymore.”

I really wish he would not do that. Reporter probably just trying to do his job and that seems like a notable adjustment we made. But then I see Roy Williams in a press conference after a loss and am thankful. Could be much worse, and wouldn't trade our head coach for anybody. GOAT

weezie
01-26-2019, 04:18 PM
If you don’t like AOC’s haircut, wait a week. It will change!


You old geezers are just jealous!

1991 duke law
01-26-2019, 04:33 PM
I keep seeing posts where our national championship aspirations are reliant on our 3 point shooting and vehemently disagree. Sure, I would love to shoot 30-35% as a team throughout the season, but this team isn’t built that way as it stands. This teams national championship aspirations fall directly on its defense. If RJ and crew can continue defending like they’ve been all season, we will outscore most opponents in the country off of pure talent.

We’ve all seen the Duke teams that have been so reliant on 3s made that once they don’t drop come tourney time, we get upset early. I love the fact that this isn’t one of those teams. Our defense is rock solid and I look forward to seeing our continued progression (and good health).

I disagree. You have to distinguish between a team that is solely reliant on the three and a team that can use the three effectively to keep the driving lanes open. A balanced offence will be far more effective.

If you hit 2-21, it means that your opponent will simply clog the lanes and make it that much more difficult to play the driving game that we are so good at. It is not impossible for Duke to succeed with no three point shooting – but it will be exceptionally harder to do so.

Perhaps the ship has sailed and it is clear that this is not a good three-point shooting team. If that is the case, they will have to ride the clank train with offensive rebounds as far as they can take it. But I am hoping that they can at least get to 35% on threes which will provide a more balanced attack - will make the rest of the offence that much more effective.

Sixthman
01-26-2019, 04:41 PM
If we stay healthy and shoot 84+% from the free throw team, not many teams are going to push us. This helps make up for the three point shooting, which, I think we can agree cannot get any worse. Imagine that everything else was equal in this game and we shot 30% from 3 -- which would still not be very good. That's another 12+ points and changes the complexion of the game.

Today, we didn't play hard in the first half. Tech had at least 8 offensive rebounds in the first half. We were not fighting for rebounds or loose balls. The second half was a different story. The effort was evident.

I think RJ took a couple of shots which he made harder than they had to be. They were giving him the 12 to 15 foot baseline jumper. He drove into that a couple of times when he just needs to square up and shoot a jump shot.

In addition to the time Josh Pastner was five feet onto the court near mid-court waving his hands while the clock was running -- there were two times when he was three feet onto the court below the baseline while we were actively shooting free throws -- one time stomping his feet and the other time shouting. Both were potentially distracting to the shooter. If Coach K did this, we would be taking about it on every sports talk show until the kick off of the Super Bowl, and would see the replay of the video every time Duke played. I don't understand why they allowed Pastner to get away with this.

jimmymax
01-26-2019, 04:45 PM
Great to see Tre back on the floor -- played lots of minutes too. Appeared to be wearing some kind of shoulder brace.
Glad to hear Marques is not seriously injured -- was fearing the dreaded Duke foot curse.
Vrank looked downright skinny to me. We could use really use AOC's shot -- I think Jack left his down under.
Didn't see Gary Trent Jr as a one-and-done and (to date) I certainly don't see Cam as a 1st rounder. (To be clear, no NBA team has offered me a job or asked my opinion.)
No way I thought RJ shot 50% today but he was 8 for 16. He sure takes a lot of (questionable) shots, especially in the first halves of games. Some bad turnovers too.
Three-point shooting would be much less of a concern if we didn't settle for (or take) so many.

uh_no
01-26-2019, 04:50 PM
reintegrating Tre will be more than a 1 game thing. The team was extremely tentative on offense for the first few minutes, and even half+. To me it looked like they were caught between making something happen as they had been forced to the past couple weeks, or enabling Tre to run the offense. I'm not sure whether that lack of conviction was solely responsible for turning the ball over, but I think it contributed.

I'd expect us to be a bit more dynamic on monday, and especially next saturday.

Tre didn't penetrate really, at all, except for once, and was not nearly as sharp with his shot as he had been (despite going 3-5 inside)...and a few of the misses were WAY off. This is to be expected coming off a break, especially when your shooting shoulder was affected. That first 25 minutes was exactly the kind of situation when tre would have known to make something happen, but is probably a bit tentative yet.

Defense was huge almost all game, and were it not for the sloppier than ought to have been offense, would have looked even better. I don't know what our half court number was on defense, but it was probably stupid. What did they have on the fast break? 8 points? That's like a 55 adjusted D.

I loved Alex's play today. Obviously I would hav eliked to see him hit a three, but he worked his butt off for three boards and was rewarded by grabbing some easy points.

Delaurier clearly having a rough time right now. Dunno if it's showing up as not practicing hard, but moving behind vrank off the bench seems a pretty big message to me.

I don't care if cam doesn't hit his shots if he has boards, assists, and steals like he did today. Great attitude to contribute on the floor even if your shot isn't falling....though needs to dribble off his foot less, preferably (though at least he's not shooting his foot, like clemson did...someone should tell them to aim for the hoop instead, especially while shooting FTs)

Ian
01-26-2019, 04:51 PM
I guess I am a little puzzled at the idea that no matter what Reddish does, he's still a top 5 pick. Really? Another 1-11 performance. He's just been dreadful lately, if playing this poorly for this long doesn't hurt one's draft status, then the whole idea that the NBA likes to use the one college season from high-schoolers to help them scout if a kid is for real or just looked good against weak competition, should just be chucked out the window, because obviously they don't care about college performance at all.

I mean think about it, Trevon Duval came into last season as a projected late lottery pick, and he played himself completely out of the draft. Yet somehow we are told that no matter how badly Reddish plays he's a guaranteed top 5 pick. That makes no sense to me.

uh_no
01-26-2019, 04:55 PM
I mean think about it, Trevon Duval came into last season as a projected late lottery pick, and he played himself completely out of the draft. Yet somehow we are told that no matter how badly Reddish plays he's a guaranteed top 5 pick. That makes no sense to me.

Cam is 5 inches taller, a bigger wingspan, plays defense, and rebounds.

MCFinARL
01-26-2019, 04:56 PM
Wouldn't that be a mini-vigil?

Or a mani-pedi vigil?

Ian
01-26-2019, 05:09 PM
Cam is 5 inches taller, a bigger wingspan, plays defense, and rebounds.

Duval also had an immense wingspan for a 6-2 guard, and far superior leaper. Besides, I am not comparing them as players, I'm just questioning the narrative that it's not possible for a project top pick like Reddish to play himself out of the lottery or the 1st round. I just have a hard time imagining a comptent NBA GM who looks at the totality of what Reddish has done so far this season and says to himself, "Yes, I will use my lottery pick on this player."

Devilwin
01-26-2019, 05:17 PM
I guess I am a little puzzled at the idea that no matter what Reddish does, he's still a top 5 pick. Really? Another 1-11 performance. He's just been dreadful lately, if playing this poorly for this long doesn't hurt one's draft status, then the whole idea that the NBA likes to use the one college season from high-schoolers to help them scout if a kid is for real or just looked good against weak competition, should just be chucked out the window, because obviously they don't care about college performance at all.

I mean think about it, Trevon Duval came into last season as a projected late lottery pick, and he played himself completely out of the draft. Yet somehow we are told that no matter how badly Reddish plays he's a guaranteed top 5 pick. That makes no sense to me.

I agree with you. While he plays good defense, and rebounds well, he is simply not a great shooter. And he has a hard time finishing at the rim. RJ is also a poor outside shooter, but he can attack the rim and finish.

richardjackson199
01-26-2019, 05:19 PM
Duval also had an immense wingspan for a 6-2 guard, and far superior leaper. Besides, I am not comparing them as players, I'm just questioning the narrative that it's not possible for a project top pick like Reddish to play himself out of the lottery or the 1st round. I just have a hard time imagining a comptent NBA GM who looks at the totality of what Reddish has done so far this season and says to himself, "Yes, I will use my lottery pick on this player."

Would you like to make a friendly pie wager that Cam Reddish is a lottery pick at the end of this season? If Cam Reddish is taken as one of the top 14 picks I win the pie. If not, you win the pie. Wanna play? :cool:

duke79
01-26-2019, 05:27 PM
Agree. While anything is possible, if this team does not pick up their three point shooting they will have a tough time winning a national championship. Jack is currently a hole on offence - he is understandably moving towards the point of electing to not shoot. Cam is hot and cold - and more cold than hot. RJ is not a dependable 3 point shooter. Tre’s strength is not the three.

And to continue with some negativity, if you are not able to shoot the three and are relying on driving to the basket (which we are really good at), you have to be a high percentage free throw shooting team. Which we are not.

Obviously, these are the negatives and there are clearly huge positives to this team. But if we are discussing winning a national championship, these are real issues. Beating Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech and potentially Notre Dame are not great indicators of how good this team is or is not. It will be interesting to see the rematch in Charlottesville as well as how Duke does against Carolina.

I will continue to hope for the best but the lack of good shooting concerns me.

I think you're exactly right with your concerns. As best as I can remember, this is the worst outside shooting Duke team in the past 30 years or so (someone please correct me if there was a worse Duke shooting team in the last 30 years?). Admittedly, we have won a lot of game with just relentless and overpowering inside play and I hope this continues but you have to wonder if some coach, down the road this season or in the tournament, figures out a way to stop Duke's inside game and then we're in trouble. And, IMHO, the free throw shooting HAS to improve (does no one practice free throws any more?). During the first half of today's game, I swear that I have seen many high school teams shoot the ball better. At one point, Jordan Goldwire threw up a shot that missed the basket by about three feet. I think I could have made a better shot and I haven't played basketball since the 8th grade over 50 years ago!

uh_no
01-26-2019, 05:27 PM
Duval also had an immense wingspan for a 6-2 guard, and far superior leaper. Besides, I am not comparing them as players, I'm just questioning the narrative that it's not possible for a project top pick like Reddish to play himself out of the lottery or the 1st round. I just have a hard time imagining a comptent NBA GM who looks at the totality of what Reddish has done so far this season and says to himself, "Yes, I will use my lottery pick on this player."

If Cam stopped contributing ANYTHING while on the floor? Sure, he could play himself down. But he's a major contributor right now in everything except scoring. While scoring is likely the most important single attribute for a player, it's also likely the most fickle. If he continues playing offense at his current level, he'll probably be a lottery pick.

5", a history of being a decent shooter, and productivity off the ball cover up for a lot of slumping offense. Duvall didn't really have any of that. That's why he's playing 30+ minutes a game in the heart of ACC season on a loaded team. A player of his size who can contribute at that level as a freshman in the ACC is always going to get a huge look based on potential. If Duvall were 6'6 and played defense, he probably would have gotten more of a look as well.

fuse
01-26-2019, 05:30 PM
Would you like to make a friendly pie wager that Cam Reddish is a lottery pick at the end of this season? If Cam Reddish is taken as one of the top 14 picks I win the pie. If not, you win the pie. Wanna play? :cool:

I find myself wishing there was a pie bet thread, or a pie bet 2019 thread so the community could enjoy the outcome on the sidelines.

Not sure if it is just me, there seems to be an exponential increase recently in the pie bet offers.

Let them eat pie 🤪

JayZee
01-26-2019, 05:30 PM
he flattened someone again today. rip

Sky-on?

Not sure if it was the same play you are talking about, but Banks took a Zion shoulder to the chin in the first half, and it sounded like a football hit. Impressed with Banks toughness on that one for sure. Ouch.

Ian
01-26-2019, 05:30 PM
Would you like to make a friendly pie wager that Cam Reddish is a lottery pick at the end of this season? If Cam Reddish is taken as one of the top 14 picks I win the pie. If not, you win the pie. Wanna play? :cool:

No because the season is not over yet and I don't want to spend the rest of the season pulling against him. I hope he can improve, but if his level of play for the rest of the season is similar to what he's shown so far. Then I will seriously consider it. And frankly, if he plays like this and still gets drafted in the lottery, either the draft is the thinnest ever, or the NBA doesn't actually care about college performance at all, in which case even more season to eliminate the 1 year college rule since they obviously don't use it to scout players.

JayZee
01-26-2019, 05:35 PM
If Cam stopped contributing ANYTHING while on the floor? Sure, he could play himself down. But he's a major contributor right now in everything except scoring. While scoring is likely the most important single attribute for a player, it's also likely the most fickle. If he continues playing offense at his current level, he'll probably be a lottery pick.

5", a history of being a decent shooter, and productivity off the ball cover up for a lot of slumping offense. Duvall didn't really have any of that. That's why he's playing 30+ minutes a game in the heart of ACC season on a loaded team. A player of his size who can contribute at that level as a freshman in the ACC is always going to get a huge look based on potential. If Duvall were 6'6 and played defense, he probably would have gotten more of a look as well.

Heck, in the second half with our run, many of the plays were initiated by passing to Cam at the elbow and letting him make a decision - drop down to RJ, lob to Zion, etc... While he clearly needs to tighten up his handle in traffic and gain consistency on his jump shot, he has such a high ceiling as a player.

richardjackson199
01-26-2019, 05:35 PM
No because the season is not over yet and I don't want to spend the rest of the season pulling against him. I hope he can improve, but if his level of play for the rest of the season is similar to what he's shown so far. Then I will seriously consider it. And frankly, if he plays like this and still gets drafted in the lottery, either the draft is the thinnest ever, or the NBA doesn't actually care about college performance at all, in which case even more season to eliminate the 1 year college rule since they obviously don't use it to scout players.

ok, fair enough. No bet. Go Cam and Go Duke!

jv001
01-26-2019, 05:39 PM
No because the season is not over yet and I don't want to spend the rest of the season pulling against him. I hope he can improve, but if his level of play for the rest of the season is similar to what he's shown so far. Then I will seriously consider it. And frankly, if he plays like this and still gets drafted in the lottery, either the draft is the thinnest ever, or the NBA doesn't actually care about college performance at all, in which case even more season to eliminate the 1 year college rule since they obviously don't use it to scout players.

Cam's handle is suspect as well and I think the pro-game requires shooting and handling the ball. I really love Cam for his intense defense even though he's not shot well. I think Coach K is dead on when he says our bad 3 ball shooting is coming from not getting balanced. This will come from rushing shots. GoDuke!

uh_no
01-26-2019, 05:41 PM
if he plays like this and still gets drafted in the lottery, either the draft is the thinnest ever, or the NBA doesn't actually care about college performance at all

that's the falsest dichotomy that ever dichoted. and begs the question.

rocketeli
01-26-2019, 06:02 PM
Sometimes I think this team is conducting an experiment to see how badly they can play and still win. It's an interesting question, but one I which I would be okay not knowing the answer to.
Tre was back but clearly not 100%. He could not really elevate his arm past his shoulder, and he wasn't using it as much to dribble, defend etc. Let's hope he continues to heal quickly.
AOC up, Jack down. Before the season started, they said this team didn't have any three point shooting, and you know what? "They" were right. It's interesting to see posters revise their expectations. Now we'd all be happy if we could just average 30% down from 35% or 33% a week or two ago. Can we do it? I think both Jack and Alex are capable of being 30% 3-point shooters, but one of the hardest things to do is come in cold and take 2 or 3 shots with no sets or plays designed for you and hit on a consistent basis. Should the coaching staff start building a role for one of them--running plays for them, keeping them in the game longer, and if so which one? RJ Barrett isn't a good outside shooter, and nobody ever pretended he was. He still needs to take 2-3 open shots a game to keep the defense honest, but that might be more optimal than taking many more. It looks to me that Cam Reddish is rushing his shot on the threes just a teeny bit, and this ruins his accuracy. You don't get much time to shoot at this level, but it still might help if they told Cam to say "one" to himself before he shoots. Perhaps if we settled Cam down, built up one of either jack or AOC and limited Barrett's 3 point attempts, our percentage would go up.

jimsumner
01-26-2019, 06:10 PM
RE: Reddish.

Throw out shooting for a second and look at the rest of his stat-line. We rightfully give Tre Jones props for playmaking and defense but Reddish had more assists and more steals than Jones today. If defense won the game, then his five steals and general disruptiveness were a big part of that.

As an aside, I really hope Josh Pastner was wearing a fitness tracker today. It would be a terrible shame for all that effort to go uncounted. I've never actually seen a coach on the baseline while the game was going on.

Coaches box? Ha!!

Steven43
01-26-2019, 06:29 PM
Crazy thing is I dont think we are that bad. It just seems like we get into slumps and can't get out of it. Guys heads just dip and they never fully recover.

Its safe to say that Jack White and Cam Reddish are better shooters than what we are seeing.

I really wish you were right, but there is mounting evidence that this Duke team is one of the worst 3-point shooting teams in the entire country. It's really quite shocking considering the super-elite level of Duke recruiting and the ever-increasing importance of 3-point shooting. It makes you wonder if the coaching staff is factoring shooting ability highly enough into the equation when evaluating which recruits to target.

MChambers
01-26-2019, 06:39 PM
I really wish you were right, but there is mounting evidence that this Duke team is one of the worst 3-point shooting teams in the entire country. It's really quite shocking considering the super-elite level of Duke recruiting and the ever-increasing importance of 3-point shooting. It makes you wonder if the coaching staff is factoring shooting ability highly enough into the equation when evaluating which recruits to target.

Given K's love of the three point shot over the years, and the players he's recruited, I don't wonder. Now, they may have thought this roster had plenty of shooting and are surprised by the lack of success.

devildeac
01-26-2019, 06:43 PM
I really wish you were right, but there is mounting evidence that this Duke team is one of the worst 3-point shooting teams in the entire country. It's really quite shocking considering the super-elite level of Duke recruiting and the ever-increasing importance of 3-point shooting. It makes you wonder if the coaching staff is factoring shooting ability highly enough into the equation when evaluating which recruits to target.

295 of 353. Tied with Clemson at 31.2% :eek:. Not sure if that is updated as of this game.

WVDUKEFAN
01-26-2019, 07:05 PM
While we’ve had strong 3-point shooting in the past, we were borderline live/die by the 3. It would be an added weapon if we were more consistent with the 3, but it’s hard to go against Zion with a “guaranteed” 20-25 a night. With Tre in the mix, RJ is going to factor in on dribble drives because Tre is going to open it up. same with Cam. Jack will get his shot back before the end of the season. Lastly, I wouldnt trade our defense and transition game for any 3 point shooter in the country. I feel good about this team.

MaxAMillion
01-26-2019, 07:13 PM
I think you're exactly right with your concerns. As best as I can remember, this is the worst outside shooting Duke team in the past 30 years or so (someone please correct me if there was a worse Duke shooting team in the last 30 years?). Admittedly, we have won a lot of game with just relentless and overpowering inside play and I hope this continues but you have to wonder if some coach, down the road this season or in the tournament, figures out a way to stop Duke's inside game and then we're in trouble. And, IMHO, the free throw shooting HAS to improve (does no one practice free throws any more?). During the first half of today's game, I swear that I have seen many high school teams shoot the ball better. At one point, Jordan Goldwire threw up a shot that missed the basket by about three feet. I think I could have made a better shot and I haven't played basketball since the 8th grade over 50 years ago!

Glad you posted this. I was going to say the same thing. This is the worst perimeter shooting Duke team I have ever seen. How can Goldwire be such a terrible shooter? There are guys in the patriot league who shoot better. He couldn’t make a layup against Pitt. Can he possibly shoot this bad in practice? Reddish is also terrible. He has had a couple of good games, but his perimeter shooting is awful most games. Then there is Jack White. His shot has completely left him. To the point where I don’t think he wants to take a shot.

This is why I get so frustrated when people criticize Barrett. He and Williamson are the entire offense. All the pressure is on those two to carry the team. There is no other consistent offensive threat on the floor besides those two. Does Barrett make poor decisions at times...sure but he has to make all the right moves on the perimeter and in the lane because he is the only one able to consistently create his own shot. It must feel like 2 on 5 sometimes. The rest of the team was 7 for 30 today.

If this team had a couple of average outside shooters, they wouldn’t lose a game. Instead I can easily see them getting knocked off in the tournament by a hot shooting 3 point team. Duke won’t be able to keep up.

Duke76
01-26-2019, 07:20 PM
really believe this team needs a while during the game for the coaches to analyze how the other team is defending them....Our guys freelancing at the start is working less and less as teams are learning how to defend us....I notice more plays in the second half where the sets were repeated....young teams need help to see the seams in more difficult zone defenses, imo

Saratoga2
01-26-2019, 08:36 PM
Given K's love of the three point shot over the years, and the players he's recruited, I don't wonder. Now, they may have thought this roster had plenty of shooting and are surprised by the lack of success.

Our guards and wings were very highly thought of high school players and participated in various high level summer teams and tournaments before arriving at Duke. Many of them had expectations of making it to the NBA and even being stars in the NBA. One would have to think that they realized being good shooters and particularly from the 3 point line would enhance their NBA chances. I would also expect they received good coaching along the way. They must have frequently practiced shooting from mid range and fom the 3 point line. With all their efforts to date and along with their Duke experience one would think they would have gained some shooting proficiency. What we are seeing though is generally poor shooting except near the basket.

This speaks to me and the message it is saying is shooting proficiency is to a large extent innate and may be further polished with practice and coaching, but it has to be there to begin with. We have had great ones along the way but they are few and far between. I don't think RJ or Zion were known for their outside shooting but they had other incredible proficiencies. Jack's history is unknown to me. Was he good growing up? Trey hasn't shown that ability. Goldwre, no. So that leaves Cam and Alex as hopes.

Cam has the advantage of height to see over a lot of defenders but to date has been inconsistent. His form doesn't appear to be classic with the high arcing shot. I hope he can do better going forward but will not be suprised to see him shoot 30% or less from 3 going foward. If Alex can play his way into more minutes by showing energy and being aggressive on offense and defense, he at least has the good form necessary to become a 40% 3 point shooter. I hope so as we need players who can keep defenses from packing in.

Bottom line to me is that the coaches need to recruit kids who seem to have the innate ability to hit from 3. Is Boogie Ellis one of those?

Skydog
01-26-2019, 08:42 PM
I agree with the comments about how good Cam’s defense is. But his OE has dropped to 92.9 while using 26% of the possessions. That OE has to get better. I’m less bothered by his misses - all players can go through rough patches. And despite his current slump he is still at 33% from 3 for the season and 75% from the line. So we know there is a talented shooter in there somewhere. My biggest concern is that Cam is turning the ball over on a full quarter of his possessions (26% in ACC, 24% overall). That’s a lot of turnovers, including 22 in his 6 ACC games. For comparison the rest of our starters not named Javin turn over the ball 12-16% of the time (yes, even RJ). And probably half of Cams turnovers are unforced. This is easier to fix than shooting slumps. It seems like right now his lack of confidence is causing him to rush things and get ahead of himself. And that of course makes things worse. He just needs to slow down a little and put more care and concentration into his passing and dribbling.

It’s interesting that in his first official game Cam played 24 minutes against Kentucky and scored 22pts on 50% from 2, 38% from 3, and 100% from the line (7 for 7). He had zero turnovers and his OE was 148(!). Unfortunately he hasn’t had a turnover free game since. But clearly the ability is there. It’s all a matter of willpower at this point. I really hope he figures it out - for the teams sake and his own.

Devilwin
01-26-2019, 08:44 PM
We have a couple of average three point shooters. White and O'Connell. One good one, but he's not likely to play, Joey Baker..

DUKIE V(A)
01-26-2019, 08:48 PM
If you don’t like AOC’s haircut, wait a week. It will change!

Yep. I think he may be part ChiaPet. 😊

As far as the game goes, I am thrilled with the win. Tre is back, we got lots of players involved, and we played high quality defense throughout. GA Tech’s style made it an ugly, low scoring game, and it is important to figure out ways to win in different ways. Along with their tough zone and holding the ball deep into shot clock, it seemed that part of the Tech defensive game plan was to kick the ball whenever possible. This broke up the game flow and gave them a bit of a breather. Ultimately, our coaching, teamwork, and talent was too much for them.

I never take the Irish for granted. Hoping we kick them while they are down. Sorry Coach Brey.

UrinalCake
01-26-2019, 08:48 PM
Sometimes I think this team is conducting an experiment to see how badly they can play and still win.

I'm just glad we saved up all those threes for the FSU game. The fact that we went 11-24 in that game, with Cam going 5-8 including the game winner, feels like a pipe dream right now.

Duke teams have established a pretty reliable pattern over the years. We start out the season on fire, continue to roll through a bunch of easy wins in the non-conference, and then once January hits we hit a wall and take a bunch of losses. I saw a stat that we have lost AT LEAST twice in January every season for something like the past 15 years, which makes me scared as hell for this upcoming ND game. There are a bunch of reasons for this - more consistent high level of competition (though I don't think that's true for this season, our November was a tougher schedule than January), players hitting a mental and physical wall, and opponents having enough tape on us to be able to game play around our strengths and weaknesses. This last point is the most significant in my opinion, and now we have to respond and adjust. So I guess in that sense I'm not too worried about a lackluster game against a mediocre opponent that we likely overlooked. Opponents know our strengths, so we have to find ways to win when those strengths are taken away. Unfortunately the miserable three point shooting is becoming commonplace but I really don't think there's an easy fix.

UrinalCake
01-26-2019, 08:59 PM
We have a couple of average three point shooters. White and O'Connell. One good one, but he's not likely to play, Joey Baker..

I'm not trying to single you out because I know several other fans have expressed a similar opinion. But I really don't agree with this notion that Baker is some lights out shooter who would solve all of our three point shooting issues, if only K would stop stubbornly hoarding his redshirt for his own selfish purposes. What evidence do we have that Baker could provide reliable three point shooting against high-level competition? He was 5-11 in Canada over three games. That's great, but ultimately not all that meaningful. We have zero basis to believe that against ACC opponents Baker would be capable of getting open looks, making those shots, or (most importantly) playing passable defense on the other end. And he would have to do all of those things better than either Alex or Jack in order to justify putting him on the floor. If he were ripping the nets in practice and outplaying those two, I have no doubt that K would play him. I just don't see that happening.

Any time there's an issue or weakness, the natural inclination is to want to fix it by making a change. In basketball terms, that means playing someone different, usually the guy on the bench who has therefore never missed a shot. I think the likely outcome if we were to play Baker is that he would simply fail to perform as well as the guys we've got.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-26-2019, 09:16 PM
I'm not trying to single you out because I know several other fans have expressed a similar opinion. But I really don't agree with this notion that Baker is some lights out shooter who would solve all of our three point shooting issues, if only K would stop stubbornly hoarding his redshirt for his own selfish purposes. .

Seriously, has anyone accused K of that??????

gofurman
01-26-2019, 09:27 PM
Never underestimate an opponent. People here saying 20-30 point fav sounds right - that will induce the jinx if ever I saw it. I was thinking of that w Duke down 7 or so in second half

GT beat Syracuse. Every ACC opponent is worthy. Every one.

Acymetric
01-26-2019, 09:44 PM
I just want to echo something said earlier...I think this was my first time seeing Pastner coach in person, and gosh that sure was the most obnoxious display of coaching I have ever seen. I don't understand how anyone would want to play for that, and at some point it seems like he would earn a T for some of his antics (I have certainly seen coaches T'd up or given a coaches box warning for less).

As far as the game, I still love the way this team plays defense. I hope Cam finds his offense, but he is still doing the other things really well which is fairly mature for a freshman (you hear all the time that guys let their struggles on offense impact their defense). The small lineup we ran in the second half looked stellar, I suspect we'll see a lot more of that this season, although Bolden will continue being a key part of the rotation. AOC could probably be swapped out with Jack depending on the situation.

Oh, and K's response to the question about Zion playing the 5? I love the guy, but he can be a little stupid about questions from the media sometimes and this was definitely one of them. Biggest guy on the floor, guarding the other team's biggest guy...doesn't mean he's playing the role of a traditional post-up center but neither are a lot of "5"s in college or the NBA. Sheesh.

ChillinDuke
01-26-2019, 10:19 PM
I voted for AOC MOTM but I think we should continue to consider if Joey Baker could make this team better. Baker can shoot the 3. Teams are obviously going to pack it in to take away Zion inside and give us threes going forward.

It's not every year we'll have talents like Zion, RJ, and Tre on our team. In fact this will be the only year. It would be a shame to underachieve because of 3-point shooting when we have a highly rated eligible player on the bench who can straight fill it up from deep.

I understand the decision has been made to redshirt Baker. Obviously I'd prefer our current players just start shooting threes better. But if they don't, I hope we continue to consider keeping all available options open that could make this team better.

I'm glad Mike Eades wasn't out there today and very glad to see free throw shooting improving. Now let's find some way to improve zone-busting three point shooting. It's important in the modern game and not a glaring weakness we want to keep getting exploited.

Go Duke!

How exactly do we know Baker can shoot the 3? I mean by all accounts Cam can shoot the 3, but it's not exactly going swimmingly. Is this real inside knowledge about Baker or just more "new shiny recruit" syndrome?

- Chillin

uh_no
01-26-2019, 10:28 PM
Is this real inside knowledge about Baker or just more "new shiny recruit" syndrome?


I'm sorry, I thought this was DBR!

:D :D

jipops
01-26-2019, 11:09 PM
This was a bad high school game.

Steven43
01-26-2019, 11:16 PM
How exactly do we know Baker can shoot the 3? I mean by all accounts Cam can shoot the 3, but it's not exactly going swimmingly. Is this real inside knowledge about Baker or just more "new shiny recruit" syndrome?

- Chillin

I think the idea that Cam was and is a good three-point shooter is a bit unfounded. I do not see evidence of such in either his high school or college stats nor in his shooting form. He’s a pretty good overall player who seems to be far more advanced at defense than at offense. And there’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

If Cam were to develop better handles, cut down on turnovers, improve his outside shot, learn how to finish better around the rim and learn to make better decisions with the ball I would consider it a huge bonus. In fact, I would be happy with ANY of those improvements. He’s still just a kid, a work in progress. I think before the year is out he will make advancements in at least one or two of those areas. If he does it’s going to be hard to stop this team.

Furniture
01-26-2019, 11:18 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/Skeelow22/status/1089264573562187776

CajunDevil
01-26-2019, 11:31 PM
Burn Joey Baker’s redshirt! Shiny new toy syndrome here... or just anyone else who can possibly hit a 3. There is no way Joey will be a fifth year senior (too good to not be in the league by then) so why not have him available? For. Days. Like. Today.

Furniture
01-26-2019, 11:54 PM
Burn Joey Baker’s redshirt! Shiny new toy syndrome here... or just anyone else who can possibly hit a 3. There is no way Joey will be a fifth year senior (too good to not be in the league by then) so why not have him available? For. Days. Like. Today.

i actually don’t understand Bakers red shirt. Wasn’t he highly ranked recruit? Do they really think he will stay 5 years?

bluesin
01-27-2019, 12:25 AM
Any time there's an issue or weakness, the natural inclination is to want to fix it by making a change.

The change needs to be getting out of their own heads when shooting while also taking good shots where they're not rushed or off balance in the flow of the offense.

Many of Cam's good opportunities to shoot have been made bad by him rushing or fading or shooting not squared up. Alex seemed to be rushing his shots or decisions to shoot until, maybe, this game (he still didn't make one but I don't remember being disappointed with his shots). Jack is probably just trying to get it up and over with so one will go in. RJ can't possibly be getting 7-10 good looks at 3 a game, not against the 3 point defenses we've faced in the last 4 games. And we have faced some legit elite 3 point defensive teams this season - especially lately. VA(1), Texas Tech(3) GT(4) Pitt(17) with Syracuse being 41 but making teams take 49% of their shots from 3 (ranked 351, only 2 teams in all of college basketball let you shoot more 3's per FGA).

We've shown we can hit those shots when they're in the flow of good offense, I just don't think they've had a lot of that in the last 4 games. I'm seeing less inside-out 3's for spot up shooters ready to take the shot in rhythm than I'd like for the offense personally. We're taking bailout 3's is how I'd frame it, they're shots we can get anytime in the shot clock a lot of the time, and they're what the defensive pressure is giving us. It's a fixable problem I think. I doubt we're going to be elite going forward, but I'd take average with all the other gifts this team seems to have.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-27-2019, 07:48 AM
How exactly do we know Baker can shoot the 3? I mean by all accounts Cam can shoot the 3, but it's not exactly going swimmingly. Is this real inside knowledge about Baker or just more "new shiny recruit" syndrome?

- Chillin

That was his main weapon in high school, the 3. Shot 40% as a soph, not sure yet about the other two years. But the 3 has always been main reason he was top recruit. This from Chronicle late fall:
"But the Trinity Christian School product also brings a key attribute that some of his classmates lack: a sweet shooting touch from beyond the arc. Baker was the first player to hit a three in Friday’s Countdown to Craziness scrimmage, and his ability to hit from downtown will be essential in keeping defenses honest and opening up the paint for his slashing teammates. "

That same article said that Baker was originally projected to redshirt, but that it seemed now he would be a valuable sub that K would use to help "win his sixth national title."

Devilwin
01-27-2019, 08:16 AM
If one reads Baker's bio, you will see that everyone that comments on him talks about his touch from the arc. He is a good shooter, and could help us I think. That being said, I don't claim to know more than K, I certainly don't, I just think teams are going to pack it in tight in the paint and dare us to shoot the three.
No offense taken, Urinalcake.
And, I didn't get to watch the game til last night, but did listen on the radio, and in his comments after K said Bolden's injury was like an ingrown toenail type thing.

Troublemaker
01-27-2019, 08:18 AM
Agree. While anything is possible, if this team does not pick up their three point shooting they will have a tough time winning a national championship. Jack is currently a hole on offence - he is understandably moving towards the point of electing to not shoot. Cam is hot and cold - and more cold than hot. RJ is not a dependable 3 point shooter. Tre’s strength is not the three.

And to continue with some negativity, if you are not able to shoot the three and are relying on driving to the basket (which we are really good at), you have to be a high percentage free throw shooting team. Which we are not.

Every team will have a tough time winning 6 games in a row, as the odds are heavily stacked against any one team winning it all in a single-elimination tournament.

That said, I have a different viewpoint on Duke's shooting from most people on here. I figure any time Duke shoots well from outside, Duke has an excellent chance of winning (90+ %), even against good teams. And any time Duke shoots poorly, that's just normal for us, and we're still one of the 5 best teams in the country with all our other strengths.

Anyway, a bit too much negativity in this thread for what ended up being a very comfortable win by Duke.



Obviously, these are the negatives and there are clearly huge positives to this team. But if we are discussing winning a national championship, these are real issues. Beating Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech and potentially Notre Dame are not great indicators of how good this team is or is not. It will be interesting to see the rematch in Charlottesville as well as how Duke does against Carolina.

Huh? What about the bevy of good wins we've had (with the cherry being the win over UVA) that has Duke as the overall #1 seed (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/)if Selection Sunday were today. I'm not worried about Duke not being tested.


At the half I said I wasn't worried, but several minutes into the 2nd half I was definitely singing a different tune. I'm glad the team finally found the focus to play like they can.

It wasn't finding focus. It was a lineup change that sparked Duke. (Although I suppose it's possible a lineup change led to better focus).

According to Neals' plus-minus post (https://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?42567-2018-2019-Plus-Minus-Report&p=1121274#post1121274), the two death lineups (Zion at the 5) we played were a combined +22. This was in a 13-pt win, obviously.

If Coach K hadn't gone to the death lineup, Duke might've lost.



The bigger concern is the 3pts shot. 19 games in and its getting worse, not better. 9% today, 30% @pitt, 14% UVa, 20% Sy. And its not just the %, its the volume. I just don’t get taking 21, 15, 14, 43 with this level of inaccuracy. These have become a kind of turnover. This team is setting a record for most threes taken by a Duke team (if I recall an earlier post) and I’m guessing the wrong record for %.

Hmmm, Duke ranks 219th in the country in how often we shoot threes as a percentage of total shots. Since 2002 (the kenpom era), that is the second-lowest national rank for Duke in that stat.

I like that we're an inside first team.



I’d love some of the more analytical members to offer constructive thoughts on how to break this open. To me it seems like we aren’t running plays out of the set offense to free up shooters and Z and RJ drive but don’t dish so the threes are more forced and less open. But Duke is missing the open ones too and now Jack and Cam seem reluctant to take even those. But the old pin down, baseline screens the past Duke teams ran to free up a cutting Cam might open up some of the corner shots and let him know where his offense is going to come from. To me he seems to be rushing things when he does have the ball as though he’s worried he won’t see it again.

I don't think Cam would be good running off of screens for a shot, unfortunately. That's a skill that takes time to build, especially since he's never done it.

I think what Coach K said in the postgame presser is right. Some of our guys have to be more ready to shoot and get squared quicker when they catch the ball.


I wonder how many teams that don't normally play zone (or just mix it up occasionally) will play zone against us going forward. The best chance to beat this team, for non-elite opponents, is to pack it in and hope we run cold. Lately, we seem to do that often.

All in all, good to learn how to manufacture a win when the team isn't bringing its best game. Fortunately, the opponent was weak enough to let it happen.

I wonder how effective they would be if they don't practice and play zone the entire season like Syracuse and GaTech did.

Plus, teams can pack it in in m2m. It's not like we didn't struggle terribly on offense against Texas Tech, for example, who played m2m.


Yeah seeing Pflueger go down for Notre Dame for the season was tough to see. They really miss him. They are struggling this year. I still think Mike Brey will have something for Duke Monday night in South Bend. It seems Duke has struggled against Notre Dame a bit here and there since Notre Dame joined the ACC. We will see, another road win would be HUGE. Not taking it for granted, though.

We have won 4 in a row against Notre Dame, but unfortunately, we started off 1-5 against them after they joined the ACC.

devildeac
01-27-2019, 08:36 AM
I really wish you were right, but there is mounting evidence that this Duke team is one of the worst 3-point shooting teams in the entire country. It's really quite shocking considering the super-elite level of Duke recruiting and the ever-increasing importance of 3-point shooting. It makes you wonder if the coaching staff is factoring shooting ability highly enough into the equation when evaluating which recruits to target.


295 of 353. Tied with Clemson at 31.2% :eek:. Not sure if that is updated as of this game.

Updated now, not when I posted yesterday. 322 of 353. Tied with Alcorn State at 30.2%:eek:.

weezie
01-27-2019, 08:43 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/Skeelow22/status/1089264573562187776

These young men are under so much stress and scrutiny. They work so hard! Z looks like he could have gone to sleep right there in the locker room.

I love this team.

Saratoga2
01-27-2019, 08:43 AM
The change needs to be getting out of their own heads when shooting while also taking good shots where they're not rushed or off balance in the flow of the offense.

Many of Cam's good opportunities to shoot have been made bad by him rushing or fading or shooting not squared up. Alex seemed to be rushing his shots or decisions to shoot until, maybe, this game (he still didn't make one but I don't remember being disappointed with his shots). Jack is probably just trying to get it up and over with so one will go in. RJ can't possibly be getting 7-10 good looks at 3 a game, not against the 3 point defenses we've faced in the last 4 games. And we have faced some legit elite 3 point defensive teams this season - especially lately. VA(1), Texas Tech(3) GT(4) Pitt(17) with Syracuse being 41 but making teams take 49% of their shots from 3 (ranked 351, only 2 teams in all of college basketball let you shoot more 3's per FGA).

We've shown we can hit those shots when they're in the flow of good offense, I just don't think they've had a lot of that in the last 4 games. I'm seeing less inside-out 3's for spot up shooters ready to take the shot in rhythm than I'd like for the offense personally. We're taking bailout 3's is how I'd frame it, they're shots we can get anytime in the shot clock a lot of the time, and they're what the defensive pressure is giving us. It's a fixable problem I think. I doubt we're going to be elite going forward, but I'd take average with all the other gifts this team seems to have.

I think much of what you are saying just makes excuses for guys that are not good at making shots, especially from the 3 point line. Jack has been wide open with lots of time to get his shot up but has shot bricks. Cam has also had a lot of chances to get his shot off. He has been slightly better but not good. It probably is in some of their heads that they aren't going to make thes shots when they throw them up. If they rush shots, don't square up or don't have a nice smooth release with an arc, those are flaws with their shooting. I don't see these as fixable problems in the short term of the season. Both Cam and Jack bring a lot to the table defensively, but 3 point shooting is not one of their strengths and should be minimized.

Troublemaker
01-27-2019, 08:49 AM
I guess I am a little puzzled at the idea that no matter what Reddish does, he's still a top 5 pick. Really? Another 1-11 performance. He's just been dreadful lately, if playing this poorly for this long doesn't hurt one's draft status, then the whole idea that the NBA likes to use the one college season from high-schoolers to help them scout if a kid is for real or just looked good against weak competition, should just be chucked out the window, because obviously they don't care about college performance at all.

I mean think about it, Trevon Duval came into last season as a projected late lottery pick, and he played himself completely out of the draft. Yet somehow we are told that no matter how badly Reddish plays he's a guaranteed top 5 pick. That makes no sense to me.


Duval also had an immense wingspan for a 6-2 guard, and far superior leaper. Besides, I am not comparing them as players, I'm just questioning the narrative that it's not possible for a project top pick like Reddish to play himself out of the lottery or the 1st round. I just have a hard time imagining a comptent NBA GM who looks at the totality of what Reddish has done so far this season and says to himself, "Yes, I will use my lottery pick on this player."

Yikes. Out of top 5, out of lottery, and out of first-round are 3 very, very different things and should not be grouped together.

Out of top-5 is virtually a strawman. OF COURSE Cam could fall out of the top 5.

Out of the first-round still seems really unlikely even if he continues to play the same way (including the positives).

Out of the lottery is where I think there would be a true debate.


No because the season is not over yet and I don't want to spend the rest of the season pulling against him. I hope he can improve, but if his level of play for the rest of the season is similar to what he's shown so far. Then I will seriously consider it. And frankly, if he plays like this and still gets drafted in the lottery, either the draft is the thinnest ever, or the NBA doesn't actually care about college performance at all, in which case even more season to eliminate the 1 year college rule since they obviously don't use it to scout players.

Why? Without the OAD rule, some GM might've drafted Cam top 3. If Cam instead goes late lottery, for example, it sounds like the OAD rule was helpful to a bunch of GMs.


i actually don’t understand Bakers red shirt. Wasn’t he highly ranked recruit? Do they really think he will stay 5 years?

Remember that Joey also reclassified. The idea was that spending a redshirt year at Duke would be more useful to him than playing his senior year in high school.

MChambers
01-27-2019, 08:58 AM
I'm not trying to single you out because I know several other fans have expressed a similar opinion. But I really don't agree with this notion that Baker is some lights out shooter who would solve all of our three point shooting issues, if only K would stop stubbornly hoarding his redshirt for his own selfish purposes. What evidence do we have that Baker could provide reliable three point shooting against high-level competition? He was 5-11 in Canada over three games. That's great, but ultimately not all that meaningful. We have zero basis to believe that against ACC opponents Baker would be capable of getting open looks, making those shots, or (most importantly) playing passable defense on the other end. And he would have to do all of those things better than either Alex or Jack in order to justify putting him on the floor. If he were ripping the nets in practice and outplaying those two, I have no doubt that K would play him. I just don't see that happening.

Any time there's an issue or weakness, the natural inclination is to want to fix it by making a change. In basketball terms, that means playing someone different, usually the guy on the bench who has therefore never missed a shot. I think the likely outcome if we were to play Baker is that he would simply fail to perform as well as the guys we've got.

Exactly. It's a bit like saying the coach needs to play the backup quarterback.

If Baker was able to help this team, I'm sure K would play him.

azzefkram
01-27-2019, 09:22 AM
I thought masonry was a dying profession. Good to see it's alive and well in CIS.:p

I get the concerns about Duke's shooting. It's not something we as Duke fans have had to worry about very often, but I would gladly live with some spotty shooting if Duke can play defense like they have been. Cam is the poster child for this. As tough as his offense has been at times, he has been great on D.

The game was not pretty but a win is a win. I thought AOC looked good on D which is a great development since he has been borderline unplayable on D for much of the season. Definitely a hmmm moment with Javin and, to a lesser extent, Jack minutes. I am not the biggest Javin fan but 2 minutes. Zion was Zion. RJ was overall good but way too sloppy with his passes. I thought Marques played ok. Tre seemed understandably rusty and a tad tentative. Jordan, Jordan, Jordan, please, for all of our sakes, make a 3. I am fairly confident that I could make some of the shots he's taken and I am soooo good at basketball that my coach told me to play lacrosse.

moonpie23
01-27-2019, 09:37 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/Skeelow22/status/1089264573562187776

i wonder who that was in the background saying, "they don't want to talk to me"...???

I didn't get to watch the game live (thank goodness) but i thought it was just a lack of focus in the first half, coupled with a very gritty Tech team.

they will find the 3 stroke.

dyedwab
01-27-2019, 10:12 AM
they will find the 3 stroke.


Without getting into the larger debate about 3-point shooting the thing that puzzle me most is that RJ Barrett is only shooting 31% from 3. I realize that I'm not even close to an expert on shot mechanics, but his stroke LOOKS like it should be pretty good, and his shots from 3, for the most part, don't look like OBVIOUSLY bad shots....

...anyway, I'm thrilled that we are winning, I'm thrilled the we are playing such stifling defense, and I look forward to watching them improve...

...I just wish I knew why RJ doesn't make more 3's :-)

UrinalCake
01-27-2019, 10:40 AM
Seriously, has anyone accused K of that??????

I was exaggerating, but I have definitely heard the notion that Baker is being held out for some nefarious reason that is not in the best interests of the team.

This reminds me of the 2014 season when our glaring weakness was the need of a big wing defender. We started three small guards who were poor defenders (Rivers, Thornton, Curry) and just kept getting destroyed by dribble penetration. Meanwhile we had freshman Mike Gbinije on the bench not being used, who had a reputation as being a great defender in high school and physically possessed more size and athleticism. Nobody could understand why K wouldn’t let him off the bench.

I can only give the standard answer which is that we don’t get to see what happens in practice, and also that high school performance does not equal college performance. K has proven plenty of times that he will play the best players who give the team the best opportunity to win, regardless of age or class or experience. I would also point out that our team is currently operating at an elite level defensively; how many seasons have we had lately where we put up points but our defense was just terrible? So let’s not take that for granted.

Wander
01-27-2019, 11:04 AM
Every team will have a tough time winning 6 games in a row, as the odds are heavily stacked against any one team winning it all in a single-elimination tournament.

Nah. This has become a common refrain around here, but there are occasionally years where this isn't true. Kentucky in 2015 was basically a 50/50 shot against the field. If we were a good shooting team, we would end up in a similar situation.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
01-27-2019, 11:09 AM
Nah. This has become a common refrain around here, but there are occasionally years where this isn't true. Kentucky in 2015 was basically a 50/50 shot against the field. If we were a good shooting team, we would end up in a similar situation.

I assume I am missing the joke here, but I am pretty sure someone else won in 2015. Doesn't that kind of make the point about how difficult 6 in a row is?

Sorry if I am missing the snark.

Dukehky
01-27-2019, 11:21 AM
Without getting into the larger debate about 3-point shooting the thing that puzzle me most is that RJ Barrett is only shooting 31% from 3. I realize that I'm not even close to an expert on shot mechanics, but his stroke LOOKS like it should be pretty good, and his shots from 3, for the most part, don't look like OBVIOUSLY bad shots...

...anyway, I'm thrilled that we are winning, I'm thrilled the we are playing such stifling defense, and I look forward to watching them improve...

...I just wish I knew why RJ doesn't make more 3's :-)

He had 3/4 go in and out against Syracuse and 2 rim out against GT. That's not bad shooting form or bad shot selection, just a little unlucky on those few shots. Not saying they'll go in the future, but regression to the mean is possible.

1991 duke law
01-27-2019, 12:25 PM
Without quoting individual posters, some responses:

1. Yes, it is undoubtedly difficult to win six straight in the tournament. But some teams are far better adept to do so. This goes a long way back, but I had a reasonable expectation that the 1991/1992 team would get to the final four and likely win a second championship. They almost failed, but ultimately they did do it. When we lost to UConn in the finals, I was not surprised that that Duke team progressed so far in the tournament. I was not surprised when Shane Battier won us a national championship. The point being - a great team can always slip and not win it all but a great team can reasonably be expected to make it to the final four. This team has the makings of a great team if they can shoot consistently from three. Meaning, if they could actually shoot at a decent clip one can reasonably conclude that they will make it to the final four.

In my view, if they continue to shoot so poorly from three while they still can make it to the final four they can just as easily slip and not make it. In other words, shooting the way they have been, they are not a great team. I am well aware that they have beaten Virginia and other good teams. But I am not willing to annoint them as a great team if they continue to shoot terribly from three.

2. I have been reading these boards for years and there are always some posters who experience great angst when any negative or critical comments are made. I love Duke basketball as much as anybody and I appreciate that all of these kids are representing our school – without identifiable compensation. As long as they try their hardest, I applaud them and appreciate them - irrespective as to success or failure. That being said, I can appreciate, respect and root for them but still identify their flaws in a post. Which is very different then being mean spirited or personally attacking student athletes. So no one should be offended or troubled when people post issues and concerns about the team or a player.

I very much doubt that RJ is reading this board and if he is – I would tell him that he is a phenomenal player and if he can get his three point shooting to 40%, he will be that much more effective. Hopefully he would not be offended by my remarking that he is not shooting as well as is necessary for him to become an unstoppable player.

Every year I wish for a national championship. And my expectations are measured by how good is the team and its players. When I watched the games in Toronto, I told everyone that would listen that the fatal flaw for this team was three point shooting - in that we had three phenomenal wings who would find a crowded middle if no one could create better spacing by hitting the three. As the season initially progressed, I thought that I would be proven wrong. And to some degree I have – this team has enough talent to win a lot of games notwithstanding terrible shooting. But I continue to believe that consistent poor three point shooting will be a barrier to winning a national championship. And of course nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong.

JohnJ
01-27-2019, 01:39 PM
I took a look back at the 2015 championship team and against MSU and Wisconsin we shot a combined 6/21 from 3 for 28.6%. That team did not win a NC due to 3pt. shooting - it won because by the end of the year we were playing great defense.

This year we have a team that is already playing great defense. Even without improving the 3pt shooting, I still expect this team to make a run at a national championship.

richardjackson199
01-27-2019, 01:49 PM
I took a look back at the 2015 championship team and against MSU and Wisconsin we shot a combined 6/21 from 3 for 28.6%. That team did not win a NC due to 3pt. shooting - it won because by the end of the year we were playing great defense.

This year we have a team that is already playing great defense. Even without improving the 3pt shooting, I still expect this team to make a run at a national championship.

2 games is a small sample size. The 2015 team had great 3 point shooters who hit big ones when we most needed them like Quinn Cook and Tyus Stones. Grayson and Winslow could also hit timely 3's when we needed them. Remember the barrage of big 3's the 2015 team hit at the end of the game in Charlottesville to beat UVA. Games like that helped us earn a #1 seed which greatly helped us reach the Final 4. That seeding for example was favorable in that we would not have had to face the behemoth Kentucky team until the championship game. And fortunately they were eliminated 1 game prior to that by Wisconsin. Sure maybe Duke beats Kentucky. But never playing them increased our probability of winning it all. And all the timely 3's that 2015 team made over the course of the season to earn a #1 seed also increased our probability of winning it all.

And I agree, the great defense that 2015 team played in the NCAA Tourney was paramount. But they had not always been a great defensive team up until the Big Dance, so it's good they were doing some other things well.

Acymetric
01-27-2019, 02:01 PM
2 games is a small sample size. The 2015 team had great 3 point shooters who hit big ones when we most needed them like Quinn Cook and Tyus Stones. Grayson and Winslow could also hit timely 3's when we needed them. Remember the barrage of big 3's the 2015 team hit at the end of the game in Charlottesville to beat UVA. Games like that helped us earn a #1 seed which greatly helped us reach the Final 4. That seeding for example was favorable in that we would not have had to face the behemoth Kentucky team until the championship game. And fortunately they were eliminated 1 game prior to that by Wisconsin. Sure maybe Duke beats Kentucky. But never playing them increased our probability of winning it all. And all the timely 3's that 2015 team made over the course of the season to earn a #1 seed also increased our probability of winning it all.

And I agree, the great defense that 2015 team played in the NCAA Tourney was paramount. But they had not always been a great defensive team up until the Big Dance, so it's good they were doing some other things well.

This is quibbling, but this is DBR so what the heck, right?

Cook was our only prolific three point shooter that year, he should be in the top category on his own. Winslow, Tyus and Matt Jones were all capable of hitting timely threes but didn't shoot a ton of them (less than 3 per game for each). Winslow was actually the best shooter of the group for the season, with the third most 3s on the team (46, one behind Tyus' 47) but by far the best percentage (over 40%). If you wanted to have two people in the top group, it would probably need to be Quinn and Justice. Grayson was capable of knocking them down but shot a pretty average percentage and of course didn't shoot a ton because he didn't play much.

And of course, don't forget dead-eye Marshall Plumlee, shooting 100% from 3 on the season.

Wander
01-27-2019, 04:15 PM
I assume I am missing the joke here, but I am pretty sure someone else won in 2015. Doesn't that kind of make the point about how difficult 6 in a row is?

Sorry if I am missing the snark.

No snark. My only point is to push back against the idea that no matter how good a team is, the odds are always "heavily stacked" against them winning the tournament. In fact, it is possible for a team to be good enough such that they have a 50% chance or even slightly greater to win the tournament. It is very rare, but it does happen. And the reason that it's a relevant point is that if we could somehow become a good shooting team, I think we would qualify as one of those rare exceptions.

Without improving our shooting, we are good enough elsewhere to still win it. But we'd have the probability of a "normal" title contender. A good problem to have, I know.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
01-27-2019, 04:24 PM
No snark. My only point is to push back against the idea that no matter how good a team is, the odds are always "heavily stacked" against them winning the tournament. In fact, it is possible for a team to be good enough such that they have a 50% chance or even slightly greater to win the tournament. It is very rare, but it does happen. And the reason that it's a relevant point is that if we could somehow become a good shooting team, I think we would qualify as one of those rare exceptions.

Without improving our shooting, we are good enough elsewhere to still win it. But we'd have the probability of a "normal" title contender. A good problem to have, I know.

But... In your example, the "prohibitive favorite" did not win. So... Fairly strong counterpoint?

Who was the last big favorite to win?

Wander
01-27-2019, 04:40 PM
But... In your example, the "prohibitive favorite" did not win. So... Fairly strong counterpoint?


Why is that a counterpoint at all? Saying a team is an even pick against the field or even a slight favorite against the field isn't inconsistent with that team not winning the title.

Skydog
01-27-2019, 04:51 PM
I think the idea that Cam was and is a good three-point shooter is a bit unfounded. I do not see evidence of such in either his high school or college stats nor in his shooting form. He’s a pretty good overall player who seems to be far more advanced at defense than at offense. And there’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

If Cam were to develop better handles, cut down on turnovers, improve his outside shot, learn how to finish better around the rim and learn to make better decisions with the ball I would consider it a huge bonus. In fact, I would be happy with ANY of those improvements. He’s still just a kid, a work in progress. I think before the year is out he will make advancements in at least one or two of those areas. If he does it’s going to be hard to stop this team.
I think there is evidence that Cam has talent to be a pretty good 3pt shooter. Despite his confidence issues and recent rough shooting nights he still is shooting 33.1% from behind the line. That's not great, but not horrible either. And this season only AOC has a higher average, on far fewer shots. Cam also has shot better from long range against in tougher competition. For the seven games that Kenpom rates as "Tier A" games he is 37% from 3. Also Cam's ft shooting provides more evidence that he has potential to be a very good shooter. He's had many perfect or near perfect nights from the FT line (7-7, 6-6, 5-6, 4-4, 4-4, 3-3) and only three games where he missed more than once from the ft line.

Actually it's not Cam's 3 point shooting that is hurting his offense the most. Much bigger problems are turnovers and 2-pt shooting. As I pointed out earlier so far he's turned the ball over on 25% of his possessions. He's too talented to be doing that over an 18 game stretch. The other big issue is his 38% 2pt%. These two problems are hurting his OE a lot more than his 3 pt shooting. And I think both of these problems have to do with him rushing his game, like he wants to get it over with.

Cam is already a good defensive player and I would argue that he has shown he has to talent to be a good shooter as well. If he can play with a little more composure and let the game come to him he will cut down on his turnovers and will be taking better shots. When he does that he will be one of the top two way players in the country.

dukelifer
01-27-2019, 06:05 PM
I think there is evidence that Cam has talent to be a pretty good 3pt shooter. Despite his confidence issues and recent rough shooting nights he still is shooting 33.1% from behind the line. That's not great, but not horrible either. And this season only AOC has a higher average, on far fewer shots. Cam also has shot better from long range against in tougher competition. For the seven games that Kenpom rates as "Tier A" games he is 37% from 3. Also Cam's ft shooting provides more evidence that he has potential to be a very good shooter. He's had many perfect or near perfect nights from the FT line (7-7, 6-6, 5-6, 4-4, 4-4, 3-3) and only three games where he missed more than once from the ft line.

Actually it's not Cam's 3 point shooting that is hurting his offense the most. Much bigger problems are turnovers and 2-pt shooting. As I pointed out earlier so far he's turned the ball over on 25% of his possessions. He's too talented to be doing that over an 18 game stretch. The other big issue is his 38% 2pt%. These two problems are hurting his OE a lot more than his 3 pt shooting. And I think both of these problems have to do with him rushing his game, like he wants to get it over with.

Cam is already a good defensive player and I would argue that he has shown he has to talent to be a good shooter as well. If he can play with a little more composure and let the game come to him he will cut down on his turnovers and will be taking better shots. When he does that he will be one of the top two way players in the country.

Cam will get better but b-ball is about confidence. He could struggle to build that confidence at the next level. RJ and Zion play with unbounded confidence in college and that will carry over. Cam reminds a bit of Grant Hill. He took a while to grow into the player he became as a senior. The world does not allow that time any more and some players are not ready.

Kedsy
01-27-2019, 06:08 PM
Wow, a great deal of complaining after a double-digit win over the #76 team in the country.


While anything is possible, if this team does not pick up their three point shooting they will have a tough time winning a national championship.

On what do you base this conclusion? As we've been discussing for some time now, poor three-point shooting teams have won the title in the recent past.


This team is setting a record for most threes taken by a Duke team (if I recall an earlier post) and I’m guessing the wrong record for %.

This is not true. Duke's current % of threes taken (out of total shots) is 37.0%, which is the 9th highest for a Duke team. Probably a bit higher than ideal, but nowhere near the most.


I’m happy for the win today, but shrug, GT isn’t a very good team and probably misses the NIT and it was in Cameron.

Pomeroy ranks Georgia Tech the #76 team in the country. Not great, but not that bad, either.


As best as I can remember, this is the worst outside shooting Duke team in the past 30 years or so (someone please correct me if there was a worse Duke shooting team in the last 30 years?).

Yes, this year's team is currently Duke's worst three-point shooting team ever. It's also Duke's best two-point shooting team ever. Overall, Duke's eFG% ranks 15th out of the last 33 seasons, so a bit better than median for Duke.


It makes you wonder if the coaching staff is factoring shooting ability highly enough into the equation when evaluating which recruits to target.


Bottom line to me is that the coaches need to recruit kids who seem to have the innate ability to hit from 3.

Are you guys seriously questioning Coach K's recruiting strategy?


In other words, shooting the way they have been, they are not a great team.

According to Pomeroy, Duke is the 2nd-best team in the country. Torvik also ranks us 2nd. Sagarin ranks us 1st. We're also 2nd in RPI and 4th in NET. So I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but even "shooting the way they have been," Duke seems like a pretty great team to me.

Troublemaker
01-27-2019, 06:30 PM
Nah. This has become a common refrain around here, but there are occasionally years where this isn't true. Kentucky in 2015 was basically a 50/50 shot against the field. If we were a good shooting team, we would end up in a similar situation.

No they weren't, haha. (Hopefully you don't cite Vegas unless you want the explanation that everyone should know by now.) For example, kenpom gave UK about a 1 in 3 chance (https://kenpom.com/blog/ncaa-tournament-log5/), and I have good reason to believe he overestimated them. Where's your source (even if it's your own math)? Cite me something.

I don't believe there's been ANY team that deserved to be a favorite against the field since the 64+ team era started. (It's possible some of Wooden's UCLA teams deserved to be favorites against the field back when the tournament was smaller and more regionalized).

MChambers
01-27-2019, 06:31 PM
Nah. This has become a common refrain around here, but there are occasionally years where this isn't true. Kentucky in 2015 was basically a 50/50 shot against the field. If we were a good shooting team, we would end up in a similar situation.

What do you have to show that Kentucky was a 50/50 shot against the field? Did Pomeroy think so? Or Vegas?

EDIT: Troublemaker beat me to it and actually did the homework.

Troublemaker
01-27-2019, 06:38 PM
Without quoting individual posters, some responses:

1. Yes, it is undoubtedly difficult to win six straight in the tournament. But some teams are far better adept to do so. This goes a long way back, but I had a reasonable expectation that the 1991/1992 team would get to the final four and likely win a second championship. They almost failed, but ultimately they did do it. When we lost to UConn in the finals, I was not surprised that that Duke team progressed so far in the tournament. I was not surprised when Shane Battier won us a national championship. The point being - a great team can always slip and not win it all but a great team can reasonably be expected to make it to the final four. This team has the makings of a great team if they can shoot consistently from three. Meaning, if they could actually shoot at a decent clip one can reasonably conclude that they will make it to the final four.

In my view, if they continue to shoot so poorly from three while they still can make it to the final four they can just as easily slip and not make it. In other words, shooting the way they have been, they are not a great team. I am well aware that they have beaten Virginia and other good teams. But I am not willing to annoint them as a great team if they continue to shoot terribly from three.

Here's a challenge then. If Duke's shooting is such a major flaw, I want you to pick two non-UVA teams (presumably good shooting teams) that you think will perform better than Duke in the NCAA tournament. The reason I make UVA an exception is because they were my preseason #1 team and an against-the-grain pick to win it all (since they lost to a 16 seed).

Surely with two shots at it, you'll end up picking a team that performs better than Duke in the tourney. Right?

HereBeforeCoachK
01-27-2019, 07:06 PM
Here's a challenge then. If Duke's shooting is such a major flaw, I want you to pick two non-UVA teams (presumably good shooting teams) that you think will perform better than Duke in the NCAA tournament. The reason I make UVA an exception is because they were my preseason #1 team and an against-the-grain pick to win it all (since they lost to a 16 seed).

Surely with two shots at it, you'll end up picking a team that performs better than Duke in the tourney. Right?

Why don't we wait and see if this is the 31% shooting team or the 12% shooting team at tournament time? If they can shoot 31%, they may win it all. If they become a 35% team, still not great, they WILL win it all. If they keep going like the last four games.....well.....not happenin'

Troublemaker
01-27-2019, 07:12 PM
Why don't we wait and see if this is the 31% shooting team or the 12% shooting team at tournament time? If they can shoot 31%, they may win it all. If they become a 35% team, still not great, they WILL win it all. If they keep going like the last four games...well...not happenin'

There's no fun in that. Why don't we just wait until the tournament is over, too? Predictions are more fun made way ahead of time.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-27-2019, 07:20 PM
There's no fun in that. Why don't we just wait until the tournament is over, too? Predictions are more fun made way ahead of time.

I'll slow it down and make my point more directly instead of trying to be interesting. People saying Duke's shooting is a major flaw are talking about the past few games primarily. When you come back with the overall season average, you are having a different conversation, yet insist on being snarky. If you think they can win the NCAA shooting 12%, I promise you I'll make that a lot more interesting to you than the phony degenerates contest...

robed deity
01-27-2019, 07:25 PM
I'll slow it down and make my point more directly instead of trying to be interesting. People saying Duke's shooting is a major flaw are talking about the past few games primarily. When you come back with the overall season average, you are having a different conversation, yet insist on being snarky. If you think they can win the NCAA shooting 12%, I promise you I'll make that a lot more interesting to you than the phony degenerates contest...

I'm almost willing to bet that Duke won't have a single game the rest of the season where they shoot as low as 12%.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-27-2019, 07:27 PM
I'm almost willing to bet that Duke won't have a single game the rest of the season where they shoot as low as 12%.

So would I...4 games ago...3 games ago....2 games ago....before last game... I just threw out 12...not sure what the cum is for the last four...but I think it's close to that.

Troublemaker
01-27-2019, 07:29 PM
I'll slow it down and make my point more directly instead of trying to be interesting. People saying Duke's shooting is a major flaw are talking about the past few games primarily. When you come back with the overall season average, you are having a different conversation, yet insist on being snarky. If you think they can win the NCAA shooting 12%, I promise you I'll make that a lot more interesting to you than the phony degenerates contest...

I honestly don't know what we're arguing about, so I'll stop. But I think I know why you're not a fan of the degenerates contest :-)

Kedsy
01-27-2019, 07:30 PM
I'll slow it down and make my point more directly instead of trying to be interesting. People saying Duke's shooting is a major flaw are talking about the past few games primarily. When you come back with the overall season average, you are having a different conversation, yet insist on being snarky. If you think they can win the NCAA shooting 12%, I promise you I'll make that a lot more interesting to you than the phony degenerates contest...

This is one of the biggest problems with discussion on this board. All that people appear to remember is the last game or so. Does anyone, anywhere honestly think Duke is a 12% three-point shooting team? If so, there's no point in talking about basketball to that person. If not, why bring it up?

Pghdukie
01-27-2019, 07:37 PM
Cam can't make a 3 ? He surely made 1 when it counted didn't he ! Gee, how soon we forget !

freshmanjs
01-27-2019, 07:55 PM
Why don't we wait and see if this is the 31% shooting team or the 12% shooting team at tournament time? If they can shoot 31%, they may win it all. If they become a 35% team, still not great, they WILL win it all. If they keep going like the last four games....well....not happenin'

So, a difference of 5 made 3s or so across the entire tournament (less than 1 per game) is the difference between maybe and definitely winning it all? Seems very thin, no?

richardjackson199
01-27-2019, 08:21 PM
Here's a challenge then. If Duke's shooting is such a major flaw, I want you to pick two non-UVA teams (presumably good shooting teams) that you think will perform better than Duke in the NCAA tournament. The reason I make UVA an exception is because they were my preseason #1 team and an against-the-grain pick to win it all (since they lost to a 16 seed).

Surely with two shots at it, you'll end up picking a team that performs better than Duke in the tourney. Right?

This sounds too tasty to pass up. I agree with Trouble, predictions are more fun ahead of time. But you may have trouble getting many takers because DBR folks don't like to bet against Duke. I understand that, but I don't mind doing it because it's a win-win hedge. If Duke wins it all for #6, I'd be ecstatic and gladly ship you a pie to help celebrate. And there is zero temptation for me to root against Duke even in the slightest, even if I have a pie riding on it.

I agree with you - I think Duke's shooting will be fine. We seemed to really improve our FT shooting the last couple games. I have no doubt K will focus on 3 point shooting and that will improve as well. Some of our players have been slumping against some of the best zone defenses in the country. But they will work on taking and making better shots. And they will. They're too good not to and K will figure something out.

But I love the idea of picking 2 teams to go far in the NCAA Tourney. Like we said, it's pretty tough to pick just 1 team to win it all against the field. But if I take 2 teams and you take 2 teams, there is a better than decent chance that one of us will pick the winner. So it's like a horse race - we each get 2 horses, but your horse has to win the whole race to win the pie.

And it's a purely friendly pie wager for fun. No snark intended and no I-told-you-so intent.

So I'll give you Duke as one of your 2 teams. I'm confident in assuming you'd take Duke. Duke is currently Vegas favorite on Futures to win it all at 2-1, signficantly higher than any other team.
So if you get Duke, I get UVA and the next choice. So I'll take UVA and Gonzaga. I went to UVA for fellowship and love what Tony Bennett has done with this program and team. I wouldn't mind seeing them or Mark Few win it all IF Duke doesn't win. So those would be fun teams for me to root for against the non-Duke field.

And then you get to pick one more team along with Duke. You can take Duke and Michigan, Duke and Tenn, or whoever you want.

So if UVA OR Gonzaga win the national title, I win the pie.
If Duke OR your other team win the title, you win the pie.
If a different team wins the title, it's a push and nobody wins the pie.
If UK or the Cheats win the title it's like the roulette wheel coming up Green Zero and everybody loses. We all burn a pie in effigy.

And I realize this isn't the brightest bet using Vegas future odds as it puts me as an underdog to give you Duke + another team like Michigan or Tenn or whoever you want. But I don't care because I have 3 ways to win - if Duke wins, you get a pie and trust me I win too. I just think it will make the tourney more fun.

Wanna play? :cool: (No worries if not - you already said you don't wanna bet against UVA. I'm sure I can find a taker with the odds I'm giving, but you get first dibs).

Wander
01-28-2019, 01:42 AM
No they weren't, haha. (Hopefully you don't cite Vegas unless you want the explanation that everyone should know by now.) For example, kenpom gave UK about a 1 in 3 chance (https://kenpom.com/blog/ncaa-tournament-log5/), and I have good reason to believe he overestimated them. Where's your source (even if it's your own math)? Cite me something.


Yes, the source is Vegas odds, which had Kentucky at 50/50. The whole thing about "Vegas doesn't give accurate probabilities/lines, they only set those in a way to try and maximize money" is among the most overplayed tropes on this board. It's a technically true but completely useless statement.

To see how Vegas can work better than kenpom, look no further than Duke in that link you sent. It had Duke as having a 7% chance to lose to a 16 seed and a lower probability to win the national title in 2015 than Gonzaga, Arizona, Villanova, and Virginia (Vegas correctly had Wisconsin and Duke as tied for the 2nd highest chance to win, after Kentucky).

LasVegas
01-28-2019, 01:57 AM
Wow, a great deal of complaining after a double-digit win over the #76 team in the country.

On what do you base this conclusion? As we've been discussing for some time now, poor three-point shooting teams have won the title in the recent past.

This is not true. Duke's current % of threes taken (out of total shots) is 37.0%, which is the 9th highest for a Duke team. Probably a bit higher than ideal, but nowhere near the most.

Pomeroy ranks Georgia Tech the #76 team in the country. Not great, but not that bad, either.

Yes, this year's team is currently Duke's worst three-point shooting team ever. It's also Duke's best two-point shooting team ever. Overall, Duke's eFG% ranks 15th out of the last 33 seasons, so a bit better than median for Duke.

Are you guys seriously questioning Coach K's recruiting strategy?

According to Pomeroy, Duke is the 2nd-best team in the country. Torvik also ranks us 2nd. Sagarin ranks us 1st. We're also 2nd in RPI and 4th in NET. So I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but even "shooting the way they have been," Duke seems like a pretty great team to me.

Yes, I do love me some Kedsy soul snatching posts. I anxiously wait for your response after I read some of these comments. You
never disappoint me.

The only thing I am worrried about is the volume of threes some players tend to take in some games but I’m guessing K is already all over that.

szstark
01-28-2019, 07:16 AM
After reading this entire thread, I wasn’t fully convinced we had actually won the game. I had to go back and watch again. I think people are watching too much Grey’s Anatomy, Law & Order, and America’s Got Talent instead of enjoying the ride this season. We won ugly, but we won. We have flaws, but what team doesn’t? I understand DBR people love to analyze every piece of minutia, but this thread was after a win. If you can’t enjoy watching this team, you shouldn’t be watching.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
01-28-2019, 07:48 AM
After reading this entire thread, I wasn’t fully convinced we had actually won the game. I had to go back and watch again. I think people are watching too much Grey’s Anatomy, Law & Order, and America’s Got Talent instead of enjoying the ride this season. We won ugly, but we won. We have flaws, but what team doesn’t? I understand DBR people love to analyze every piece of minutia, but this thread was after a win. If you can’t enjoy watching this team, you shouldn’t be watching.

Welcome to the Era of Hot Takes! For references see: Stephen A. Smith, Colin Cowherd, Skip Bayless, Stugotz, your phone alerts, 24 hours news and sports stations. We live in a time where your value is limited to what you think about what happened in the last 24 hours, and if you can decide that it is predictive of what will happen next - you get your own show.

It's exhausting.

Indoor66
01-28-2019, 08:09 AM
Welcome to the Era of Hot Takes! For references see: Stephen A. Smith, Colin Cowherd, Skip Bayless, Stugotz, your phone alerts, 24 hours news and sports stations. We live in a time where your value is limited to what you think about what happened in the last 24 hours, and if you can decide that it is predictive of what will happen next - you get your own show.

It's exhausting.

No, it is self-induced idiocy.

Rich
01-28-2019, 09:22 AM
After reading this entire thread, I wasn’t fully convinced we had actually won the game. I had to go back and watch again. I think people are watching too much Grey’s Anatomy, Law & Order, and America’s Got Talent instead of enjoying the ride this season. We won ugly, but we won. We have flaws, but what team doesn’t? I understand DBR people love to analyze every piece of minutia, but this thread was after a win. If you can’t enjoy watching this team, you shouldn’t be watching.

Are you saying that the perfect team is too much to ask for? :rolleyes: It's our (the DBR community's) pursuit of perfection that keeps this Board alive!

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 09:24 AM
Are you saying that the perfect team is too much to ask for? :rolleyes: It's our (the DBR community's) pursuit of perfection that keeps this Board alive!

You're right, DBR should calibrate the collective expectations to track with Wake Forest or Clemson basketball. :rolleyes:

uh_no
01-28-2019, 09:28 AM
Yes, the source is Vegas odds, which had Kentucky at 50/50. The whole thing about "Vegas doesn't give accurate probabilities/lines, they only set those in a way to try and maximize money" is among the most overplayed tropes on this board. It's a technically true but completely useless statement.

To see how Vegas can work better than kenpom, look no further than Duke in that link you sent. It had Duke as having a 7% chance to lose to a 16 seed and a lower probability to win the national title in 2015 than Gonzaga, Arizona, Villanova, and Virginia (Vegas correctly had Wisconsin and Duke as tied for the 2nd highest chance to win, after Kentucky).

and what did vegas have duke's odds at in 2010? I seem to recall a lot of talk about "weakest 1" and "first 1 seed to lose..."

Individual anecdotes are an awful, terrible way to evaluate the two schemes against each other.

Wander
01-28-2019, 11:00 AM
and what did vegas have duke's odds at in 2010? I seem to recall a lot of talk about "weakest 1" and "first 1 seed to lose..."

Individual anecdotes are an awful, terrible way to evaluate the two schemes against each other.

There's a difference between an "anecdote" and an "example". Do you really, genuinely think that my claim is "The Vegas favorite always wins every game/tournament"?

The only point is that Vegas odds provide a somewhat reasonable sense of the probability of game outcomes, and they show that the idea that "any one team has very little chance of winning the tournament" isn't ALWAYS true. IMO Duke is good enough this year such that we could be one of those teams if we somehow improved our shooting. And even if we don't, we still have a good chance, just not a dominant "even bet against the field" chance. That's all.

Troublemaker
01-28-2019, 11:48 AM
Yes, the source is Vegas odds, which had Kentucky at 50/50. The whole thing about "Vegas doesn't give accurate probabilities/lines, they only set those in a way to try and maximize money" is among the most overplayed tropes on this board. It's a technically true but completely useless statement.

Well, then you'll be happy to know that Vegas has Duke as far and away the biggest favorite to win the national championship: http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/

Yep, those odds for Duke (2 to 1) just seem completely on the up and up to me. It has nothing to do with Vegas trying to make money at all. No sirree, Vegas will surely not inflate a team's odds if they know that team has received inordinate amounts of attention that attracts gamblers. :-)



To see how Vegas can work better than kenpom, look no further than Duke in that link you sent. It had Duke as having a 7% chance to lose to a 16 seed and a lower probability to win the national title in 2015 than Gonzaga, Arizona, Villanova, and Virginia (Vegas correctly had Wisconsin and Duke as tied for the 2nd highest chance to win, after Kentucky).

I actually agree with you that sometimes the Vegas futures odds have the relative ranking of the teams more correct than computer models.

BUT, that doesn't mean the actual odds Vegas assigns to the teams are accurate. They just want to make money. And the way to make money in futures markets is to inflate every team's odds but in particular teams like Duke this season or Kentucky 2015 that receive a lot of attention and hype.

uh_no
01-28-2019, 12:05 PM
The only point is that Vegas odds provide a somewhat reasonable sense of the probability of game outcomes, sometimes. sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Vegas is susceptible to a myriad of bias that dork polls aren't. Sometimes this pulls the line to ridiculous places (in early dork-poll days I used to see absurd vegas over-under relative to teams actual expected adjusted tempi...was easy money if I wasn't too lazy to bet). Sometimes it allows the predictions to adjust in ways the dork polls can't. Duke had seen major improvement in defense near the end of the year, and dork polls would have still been adjusting to that.


any one team has very little chance of winning the tournament" isn't ALWAYS true I'm just not sure how cherry picking an 'example' where vegas put huge odds on someone against the field and was right proves anything.

You can't prove a die is fair with just one roll. That's like me saying a-priori "this die is rigged...it only rolls 1's" Then rolling it, happening to get a 1 and saying "see?" If vegas overestmates odds, it's still going to be right in the result sometimes, even if it was wrong in the probability. It takes an awful lot of data to determine if odds were correct with any confidence....and we only get 1.

Indoor66
01-28-2019, 12:12 PM
sometimes. sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Vegas is susceptible to a myriad of bias that dork polls aren't. Sometimes this pulls the line to ridiculous places (in early dork-poll days I used to see absurd vegas over-under relative to teams actual expected adjusted tempi...was easy money if I wasn't too lazy to bet). Sometimes it allows the predictions to adjust in ways the dork polls can't. Duke had seen major improvement in defense near the end of the year, and dork polls would have still been adjusting to that.

I'm just not sure how cherry picking an 'example' where vegas put huge odds on someone against the field and was right proves anything.

You can't prove a die is fair with just one roll. That's like me saying a-priori "this die is rigged...it only rolls 1's" Then rolling it, happening to get a 1 and saying "see?" If vegas overestmates odds, it's still going to be right in the result sometimes, even if it was wrong in the probability. It takes an awful lot of data to determine if odds were correct with any confidence...and we only get 1.

Vegas lives on the Law of Large Numbers.

Wander
01-28-2019, 12:52 PM
Well, then you'll be happy to know that Vegas has Duke as far and away the biggest favorite to win the national championship: http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/

Yep, those odds for Duke (2 to 1) just seem completely on the up and up to me. It has nothing to do with Vegas trying to make money at all. No sirree, Vegas will surely not inflate a team's odds if they know that team has received inordinate amounts of attention that attracts gamblers. :-)

I guess we'll agree to disagree – Duke having a 1 in 3 chance to win the national championship seems exactly right to me.

Skydog
01-28-2019, 02:18 PM
sometimes. sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Vegas is susceptible to a myriad of bias that dork polls aren't. Sometimes this pulls the line to ridiculous places (in early dork-poll days I used to see absurd vegas over-under relative to teams actual expected adjusted tempi...was easy money if I wasn't too lazy to bet). ..

If you are remembering truly ridiculous Vegas college b-ball lines it must have been from 20 or more years ago. I know that since at least the early 2000's sophisticated sports betting syndicates have gotten rich by closely monitoring Vegas every posted college b-ball line and jumping on any lines that are out of whack. When Vegas makes a mistake with a line these guys send their runners in betting 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars across all the books in Vegas and Costa Rica. Vegas adjusts their lines pretty quickly if they see a lot of early 'sharp' money going down on one side of their lines. One of these largest syndicates was run by a guy from NC and one of his runners who happened to be a sports writer wrote a great book about it. Can't remember the name of the book right now.

camion
01-28-2019, 02:34 PM
If you are remembering truly ridiculous Vegas college b-ball lines it must have been from 20 or more years ago. I know that since at least the early 2000's sophisticated sports betting syndicates have gotten rich by closely monitoring Vegas every posted college b-ball line and jumping on any lines that are out of whack. When Vegas makes a mistake with a line these guys send their runners in betting 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars across all the books in Vegas and Costa Rica. Vegas adjusts their lines pretty quickly if they see a lot of early 'sharp' money going down on one side of their lines. One of these largest syndicates was run by a guy from NC and one of his runners who happened to be a sports writer wrote a great book about it. Can't remember the name of the book right now.

Makes sense and to be expected.

One must keep in mind that predicting the most likely winner is NOT the primary purpose of the Las Vegas line, RPI or the NET.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 02:47 PM
Makes sense and to be expected.

One must keep in mind that predicting the most likely winner is NOT the primary purpose of the Las Vegas line, RPI or the NET.

Especially the Vegas line, which has only one function....get the same amount of money on both sides of the bet....

Jeffrey
01-28-2019, 03:19 PM
I really wish you were right, but there is mounting evidence that this Duke team is one of the worst 3-point shooting teams in the entire country. It's really quite shocking considering the super-elite level of Duke recruiting and the ever-increasing importance of 3-point shooting. It makes you wonder if the coaching staff is factoring shooting ability highly enough into the equation when evaluating which recruits to target.

I'm certainly not wondering. Within the last 6 weeks, I've heard K say Cam is our best shooter.

Right now, I'd take Duke over any other team in the country. Have money, will wager.

Jeffrey
01-28-2019, 03:25 PM
So if UVA OR Gonzaga win the national title, I win the pie.
If Duke OR your other team win the title, you win the pie.


Pick your choice of UVA or Gonzaga and I'll take Duke. Wager?

uh_no
01-28-2019, 03:33 PM
If you are remembering truly ridiculous Vegas college b-ball lines it must have been from 20 or more years ago. I know that since at least the early 2000's sophisticated sports betting syndicates have gotten rich by closely monitoring Vegas every posted college b-ball line and jumping on any lines that are out of whack. When Vegas makes a mistake with a line these guys send their runners in betting 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars across all the books in Vegas and Costa Rica. Vegas adjusts their lines pretty quickly if they see a lot of early 'sharp' money going down on one side of their lines. One of these largest syndicates was run by a guy from NC and one of his runners who happened to be a sports writer wrote a great book about it. Can't remember the name of the book right now.

The game that sticks out most was 1/16/16 duke/ND. Two top offenses that couldn't play a lick of defense. the KP o/u was like 20 higher than the vegas o/u. As I said earlier, there are some cases where vegas will have an advantage...but there are sometimes when it is wayyyy out of whack, and that was one of them.

https://www.oddsportal.com/basketball/usa/ncaa-2015-2016/duke-blue-devils-notre-dame-Uw5Gqc7h/#over-under;1

average ~150. final:186.

I don't have the KP data from that date, but if I recall, duke's defense spiked even worse around that time than the end of the season number, and the end of season numbers put the KP ou at like 170 or something.

It should be noted that they combined for 140 points in regulation in their second game....but also not really surprised that two good coaches were able to come up with somewhat better schemes the second game around.

But maybe I'm just applying a pattern to randomness.


Either way, I still contend that there aaaareeee times when vegas is way out of whack with the quants, and keeping an eye out on those instances is an opportunity for value.....not always, just sometimes.

Steven43
01-28-2019, 04:22 PM
I'm certainly not wondering. Within the last 6 weeks, I've heard K say Cam is our best shooter.

Right now, I'd take Duke over any other team in the country. Have money, will wager.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. The quote of mine you referenced didn’t say anything about Cam. But beyond that, Coach K saying Cam “is our best shooter” does not address the question I had about whether or not Duke recruiting should perhaps focus a bit more on trying to recruit at least some players who have outside shooting as a principal strength. It’s a question to ponder, not necessarily an indictment.

Phredd3
01-28-2019, 04:24 PM
I'm just not sure how cherry picking an 'example' where vegas put huge odds on someone against the field and was right proves anything.

He didn't do that. The huge odds team in his example lost in the semi-final. That's what's been especially entertaining about this part of the thread. It wasn't even good cherry-picking. :)

Acymetric
01-28-2019, 04:26 PM
He didn't do that. The huge odds team in his example lost in the semi-final. That's what's been especially entertaining about this part of the thread. It wasn't even good cherry-picking. :)

That doesn't change that they had better odds. The 50% favorite still has a 50% chance of not winning it all, which is...kind of a lot.

Phredd3
01-28-2019, 04:34 PM
That doesn't change that they had better odds. The 50% favorite still has a 50% chance of not winning it all, which is...kind of a lot.
This die is weighted to roll ones. See, a six! It's priceless.

Acymetric
01-28-2019, 04:35 PM
This die is weighted to roll ones. See, a six! It's priceless.

But rolling a 6 doesn't mean the die wasn't weighted to roll ones.

Phredd3
01-28-2019, 04:42 PM
But rolling a 6 doesn't mean the die wasn't weighted to roll ones.

This die is weighted to roll ones. See, it's nighttime! Priceless.

uh_no
01-28-2019, 04:54 PM
But rolling a 6 doesn't mean the die wasn't weighted to roll ones.


This is DBR, so the die is clearly weighted to roll whatever the last outcome was.

Acymetric
01-28-2019, 04:56 PM
This is DBR, so the die is clearly weighted to roll whatever the last outcome was.

What if Ted Valentine is the roller?

uh_no
01-28-2019, 04:57 PM
What if Ted Valentine is the roller?

Then the roll always comes up "call foul on duke" of course.

Acymetric
01-28-2019, 05:01 PM
Then the roll always comes up "call foul on duke" of course.

We're going to have to go to the judges...they rule that this is correct! The full answer is: "A technical on Daniel Ewing"

richardjackson199
01-28-2019, 05:27 PM
Then the roll always comes up "call foul on duke" of course.

I'm sorry but I have to defend Teddy V here. Ted Valentine and his crew officiated the Duke-Ga Tech game where Ga Tech's 2 best big men both fouled out and spent the majority of the second half before that each with 4 fouls. Duke's run through the majority of the second half was not hurt by the fact that Tech's bigs had to try to defend without fouling (and getting their fifth) which makes it easier for us to get less contested shots around the basket. Free throws kept Duke close in the first half. There was a significant free throw discrepancy and that favored Duke. And it's not like Georgia Tech wasn't driving and attacking the rim. Both teams were except when we were bricking threes. That is just what I saw.

Was Teddy V favoring Duke here? Not at all and I'm not saying that or meaning to imply that. I'm not meaning to suggest that any of the fouls called on Ga Tech were bad calls. But it's hard to say that Teddy V. was calling bogus calls against Duke. It was a little scary there early second half, so if Teddy V had wanted to help send us to a devastating loss, he would have had ample opportunity. I've watched Teddy V officiate plenty of Duke games, including Final 4 / national championship games we have won. And I've never gotten the impression that he was trying to screw Duke. Has he made bad or awful calls? Sure. What ref hasn't? Ted V. gets a ton of criticism and deservedly so for showboating too much in the past. If you can't stand him, I can understand why and that is warranted. But I'd take Ted Valentine over Mike Eades officiating a Duke game any day.

I realize these comments were made in jest, but just stating my opinion. I'm sure it won't be popular.

ps - I also like Dick Vitale and Colin Cowherd. :p

HereBeforeCoachK
01-28-2019, 05:29 PM
Anyone but Bruce Benedict....

jimsumner
01-28-2019, 05:41 PM
ps - I also like Dick Vitale and Colin Cowherd. :p

How do you feel about Stephen A. Smith? Bill Walton? The Kardashians?

devildeac
01-28-2019, 05:44 PM
I'm sorry but I have to defend Teddy V here. Ted Valentine and his crew officiated the Duke-Ga Tech game where Ga Tech's 2 best big men both fouled out and spent the majority of the second half before that each with 4 fouls. Duke's run through the majority of the second half was not hurt by the fact that Tech's bigs had to try to defend without fouling (and getting their fifth) which makes it easier for us to get less contested shots around the basket. Free throws kept Duke close in the first half. There was a significant free throw discrepancy and that favored Duke. And it's not like Georgia Tech wasn't driving and attacking the rim. Both teams were except when we were bricking threes. That is just what I saw.

Was Teddy V favoring Duke here? Not at all and I'm not saying that or meaning to imply that. I'm not meaning to suggest that any of the fouls called on Ga Tech were bad calls. But it's hard to say that Teddy V. was calling bogus calls against Duke. It was a little scary there early second half, so if Teddy V had wanted to help send us to a devastating loss, he would have had ample opportunity. I've watched Teddy V officiate plenty of Duke games, including Final 4 / national championship games we have won. And I've never gotten the impression that he was trying to screw Duke. Has he made bad or awful calls? Sure. What ref hasn't? Ted V. gets a ton of criticism and deservedly so for showboating too much in the past. If you can't stand him, I can understand why and that is warranted. But I'd take Ted Valentine over Mike Eades officiating a Duke game any day.

I realize these comments were made in jest, but just stating my opinion. I'm sure it won't be popular.

ps - I also like Dick Vitale and Colin Cowherd. :p

8990

;)

richardjackson199
01-28-2019, 05:57 PM
Pick your choice of UVA or Gonzaga and I'll take Duke. Wager?

This is tempting and I appreciate the offer. I was trying to give my friend Troublemaker some action because it looked like he wasn't getting any. Can't speak for him, but I don't think he wants to bet against UVA since he picked them early on as a dark horse to win it all with extra motivation from getting bounced last year by a 16. Either that or he's a nice guy who sees me losing some pies and doesn't like taking candy from a baby. :cool:

I want to wager a pie, but
I like the idea of each of us having 2 teams. That way if one team gets knocked off early (and one probably will), we still have a shot to win the pie and a good team to root for in the Tourney. (I'll be rooting for Duke no matter what as stated.)

I'll give you Duke and one more team of your choice (Michigan, Tenn, or whoever you want).
I get both UVA and Gonzaga.

To win the pie wager one of our 2 teams has to win the national championship. If a different team wins it all, nobody owes a pie. Wanna play?

If not no worries, I'm going to try to see if I can get somebody to take me up on it because it seems fun and I think I can get some action on that bet.

richardjackson199
01-28-2019, 06:06 PM
How do you feel about Stephen A. Smith? Bill Walton? The Kardashians?

Haha I can't stand Stephen A. I refuse to ever watch First Take and change it over to Undisputed (which is kind of annoying and not very good) if I happen to be home on a weekday. Stephen A. lost my attention forever when he trashed Coach K during the last Olympics. Or when he whines about K's unfair recruiting advantage because he was the Olympic coach. K earned that and succeeded with the Olympic men's team.

I can't stand Bill Walton. He makes me want to cringe.

I barely even know who the Kardashians are, and I like it that way.

I understand why Vitale makes many cringe. His passion for the game and iconic voice just get me in the mood for college basketball. I watched Vitale as a kid. Over the top? Of course, by a mile. Poor personal space boundaries? Of course. But I respect his deep passion for helping kids with Cancer, what he has done for the V foundation, and thus I don't mind one bit him selling autographed copies of his book since every penny goes to support the V foundation and pediatric cancer research. I believe him and think he is a good person who loves college basketball. He has been important for the growth of the game in total and has earned his spot in the hall of fame IMO.

Cowherd has some ridiculous hot-takes. He is arrogant, sure. But I think his show is quite interesting and captivating sometimes. Sometimes I think he says quite insightful truths about life and ties them into sports in clever ways. I don't always agree with him or his hot takes. But I almost always enjoy listening to his show. Plus his show caters to degenerate gamblers which I appreciate. And I think he likes Duke and K which doesn't hurt.

YMMV. :)

Jeffrey
01-28-2019, 06:41 PM
This is tempting and I appreciate the offer.

I think you're prudent not taking the wager. Right now, I'd take Duke over any team in the country. I do agree you're probably wanting both the 2nd and 3rd best tournament teams.

richardjackson199
01-28-2019, 07:01 PM
I think you're prudent not taking the wager. Right now, I'd take Duke over any team in the country. I do agree you're probably wanting both the 2nd and 3rd best tournament teams.

Yeah I would just feel like an idiot picking only one team against Duke when Vegas futures has Duke 2:1 to win it all. The next closest team is 6:1 Gonzaga. I understand the whole debate about lines being set to encourage action and make money for the house. But when betting a friendly wager, factoring in lines set by Vegas seems fair and prudent to me. So if I'm giving away the 2:1 favorite and each bettor gets 2 teams, it seems reasonable to me that I get 2nd and 3rd pick out of 4.

I know just enough to know that I'm not a sharp.

You strike me as a man who makes very prudent investments. So I'm glad you like Duke's chances. I do too, but we need to get better. I think we will.

richardjackson199
01-28-2019, 07:42 PM
I'm sorry but I have to defend Teddy V here. Ted Valentine and his crew officiated the Duke-Ga Tech game where Ga Tech's 2 best big men both fouled out and spent the majority of the second half before that each with 4 fouls. Duke's run through the majority of the second half was not hurt by the fact that Tech's bigs had to try to defend without fouling (and getting their fifth) which makes it easier for us to get less contested shots around the basket. Free throws kept Duke close in the first half. There was a significant free throw discrepancy and that favored Duke. And it's not like Georgia Tech wasn't driving and attacking the rim. Both teams were except when we were bricking threes. That is just what I saw.

Was Teddy V favoring Duke here? Not at all and I'm not saying that or meaning to imply that. I'm not meaning to suggest that any of the fouls called on Ga Tech were bad calls. But it's hard to say that Teddy V. was calling bogus calls against Duke. It was a little scary there early second half, so if Teddy V had wanted to help send us to a devastating loss, he would have had ample opportunity. I've watched Teddy V officiate plenty of Duke games, including Final 4 / national championship games we have won. And I've never gotten the impression that he was trying to screw Duke. Has he made bad or awful calls? Sure. What ref hasn't? Ted V. gets a ton of criticism and deservedly so for showboating too much in the past. If you can't stand him, I can understand why and that is warranted. But I'd take Ted Valentine over Mike Eades officiating a Duke game any day.

I realize these comments were made in jest, but just stating my opinion. I'm sure it won't be popular.

ps - I also like Dick Vitale and Colin Cowherd. :p

I would also like to add that Ted Valentine once turned his back and folded his arms when Joel Berry argued a call. And I respect that. ;)

Kidding. Sort of. But it was funny.

House P
01-28-2019, 08:41 PM
Well, then you'll be happy to know that Vegas has Duke as far and away the biggest favorite to win the national championship: http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/

Yep, those odds for Duke (2 to 1) just seem completely on the up and up to me. It has nothing to do with Vegas trying to make money at all. No sirree, Vegas will surely not inflate a team's odds if they know that team has received inordinate amounts of attention that attracts gamblers. :-)

I actually agree with you that sometimes the Vegas futures odds have the relative ranking of the teams more correct than computer models.

BUT, that doesn't mean the actual odds Vegas assigns to the teams are accurate. They just want to make money.

I am not much of a gambler, but I end up in Vegas for work about once a year. When I’m there, I occasionally place “futures bets” to give to family members as gifts. While this can make for a fun gift ($2000 if the Pirates win the World Series! $5000 if Ollie Schniederjans wins the Masters!), I feel like the actual odds I get are terrible.

I know that the odds are always in favor of the house, but the house advantage seems particularly pronounced when it comes to futures bets. For example, if I plug all the odds from Troublemaker’s link in this calculator (https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/futures-calculator/), I get a “house edge” of ~35%. That seems pretty extreme to me, even for Vegas.

So, do “real gamblers” ever place futures bets? Or are these types of bets just for suckers like me who are willing to waste a couple bucks on their favorite teams as a novelty?

TruBlu
01-28-2019, 09:01 PM
I am not much of a gambler, but I end up in Vegas for work about once a year. When I’m there, I occasionally place “futures bets” to give to family members as gifts. While this can make for a fun gift ($2000 if the Pirates win the World Series! $5000 if Ollie Schniederjans wins the Masters!)...

We are ALL family here on DBR. Just saying.

devildeac
01-28-2019, 10:32 PM
I would also like to add that Ted Valentine once turned his back and folded his arms when Joel Berry argued a call. And I respect that. ;)

Kidding. Sort of. But it was funny.

IIRC, the acc didn't like that too much as it "insulted" one of their chosen ones. :mad:

Troublemaker
01-29-2019, 11:55 AM
I am not much of a gambler, but I end up in Vegas for work about once a year. When I’m there, I occasionally place “futures bets” to give to family members as gifts. While this can make for a fun gift ($2000 if the Pirates win the World Series! $5000 if Ollie Schniederjans wins the Masters!), I feel like the actual odds I get are terrible.

I know that the odds are always in favor of the house, but the house advantage seems particularly pronounced when it comes to futures bets. For example, if I plug all the odds from Troublemaker’s link in this calculator (https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/futures-calculator/), I get a “house edge” of ~35%. That seems pretty extreme to me, even for Vegas.

So, do “real gamblers” ever place futures bets? Or are these types of bets just for suckers like me who are willing to waste a couple bucks on their favorite teams as a novelty?

That's textbook. I've commonly heard that the house edge on futures is typically 30-40%, so it's much worse than a bet on the point spread, for example. I don't think anyone would look down at you for making futures bets for fun, though. Do pros ever bet futures? Sure, but it's rare, especially near the end of the season. Let's say the playoffs are near and you want to bet New England future to win the Super Bowl. It almost always makes more sense to, for example, take New England to win its first playoff game, then roll over the winnings to the next playoff game, then roll over the winnings to the Super Bowl. Individual bets like that will pay off way more than the futures bet on New England.

Skydog
01-29-2019, 08:32 PM
... the KP o/u was like 20 higher than the vegas o/u. ...
Wow. I check occasionally and Vegas and KP are usually within a couple points of each other. Wonder if either team had recent injuries to their higher scoring players? KP wouldn't be factoring those in while Vegas would. As far as finding the occasional clear +EV college bball bet... maybe. I do know that betting syndicates are finding it harder to find such edges in recent years. Sports books out of necessity have gotten more sophisticated at their own handicapping and at detecting "sharp" money bets and either blocking them or using them to adjust their own lines quickly.