J Gold

[clinresga]

BlueDevil005 already made this comment on the main site, but I also found the post today about j Gold's poor 3-point shooting to be mean-spirited and unneeded. To spend an entire article trying to prove to us how lousy a shooter he is contributes nothing to Duke fandom, or the universe in general. He works hard, defends well, and, I'm sure, works his tail off in practice. He's part of the team. Duke fans have always valued the bench warmers and walk-ons. J gold deserves better.

[dukelifer]

BlueDevil005 already made this comment on the main site, but I also found the post today about j Gold's poor 3-point shooting to be mean-spirited and unneeded. To spend an entire article trying to prove to us how lousy a shooter he is contributes nothing to Duke fandom, or the universe in general. He works hard, defends well, and, I'm sure, works his tail off in practice. He's part of the team. Duke fans have always valued the bench warmers and walk-ons. J gold deserves better.

I suppose the only thing notable here is that he is approaching a record which is only possible from a bench guy because he has been used a lot this season- example, 13 minutes against Pitt and he is shooting more. JGold provides a spark on D and can bring the ball up. His shooting is an issue and has taken a step back but he can easily change that. Jack White has made some significant improvement (the last few games notwithstanding) from last year. JGold wants to be a better basketball player and shooting is his weakness. It is a fixable issue with time and if it improves- he could contribute much more. As for being mean spirited- no so sure. Basketball at this level comes with being critiqued. I had no idea he was approaching a record and no idea that Nick Horvath (the best summer practice player in Duke history) who once hit a critical 3 as a Freshman to win a game bringing Duke back from a 12 point deficit at home- was on top.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Good thing that you aren't (hopefully aren't) an artist. Constructive criticism is a constant in my field, just as it is in most careers. Pointing out one's flaws is only "mean spirited" if it is written in such a tone. (Like "that art show was great, and would have been better if they had put CB&B's gawd awful paintings in the janitor closet.")
I don't get that tone at all in Barry Jacob's writing, he's merely pointing out a deficiency in JW's game. Hell, look at the list at the end of it, he's got some great company. And, being he's on the list twice, Jacobs is pointing out that his production is worse this year than last. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure the coaches have pointed it out as well, and are seeking reasons why. Sean Dockery is third worst on that list, but I'm betting nobody here is complaining that he never quit trying. :D:cool:

My only fault with the article is that it is titled "Barry".
My next non self portrait painting, I'm gonna title "Chris".

[Indoor66]

Good thing that you aren't (hopefully aren't) an artist. Constructive criticism is a constant in my field, just as it is in most careers. Pointing out one's flaws is only "mean spirited" if it is written in such a tone. (Like "that art show was great, and would have been better if they had put CB&B's gawd awful paintings in the janitor closet.")
I don't get that tone at all in Barry Jacob's writing, he's merely pointing out a deficiency in JW's game. Hell, look at the list at the end of it, he's got some great company. And, being he's on the list twice, Jacobs is pointing out that his production is worse this year than last. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure the coaches have pointed it out as well, and are seeking reasons why. Sean Dockery is third worst on that list, but I'm betting nobody here is complaining that he never quit trying. :D:cool:

Constructive criticism is done in private, one on one sessions, not in an article on the subject put into the public realm. This article is destructive and mean, IMO.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

BlueDevil005 already made this comment on the main site, but I also found the post today about j Gold's poor 3-point shooting to be mean-spirited and unneeded. To spend an entire article trying to prove to us how lousy a shooter he is contributes nothing to Duke fandom, or the universe in general. He works hard, defends well, and, I'm sure, works his tail off in practice. He's part of the team. Duke fans have always valued the bench warmers and walk-ons. J gold deserves better.

Agreed in principle, but over half the individuals on that list played in the NBA. It is a strange distinction I suppose, but the company on that list isn't bad at all.

[AtlDuke72]

Constructive criticism is done in private, one on one sessions, not in an article on the subject put into the public realm. This article is destructive and mean, IMO.

I agree. This was uncalled for.

[Acymetric]

Good thing that you aren't (hopefully aren't) an artist. Constructive criticism is a constant in my field, just as it is in most careers. Pointing out one's flaws is only "mean spirited" if it is written in such a tone. (Like "that art show was great, and would have been better if they had put CB&B's gawd awful paintings in the janitor closet.")
I don't get that tone at all in Barry Jacob's writing, he's merely pointing out a deficiency in JW's game. Hell, look at the list at the end of it, he's got some great company. And, being he's on the list twice, Jacobs is pointing out that his production is worse this year than last. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure the coaches have pointed it out as well, and are seeking reasons why. Sean Dockery is third worst on that list, but I'm betting nobody here is complaining that he never quit trying. :D:cool:

My only fault with the article is that it is titled "Barry".
My next non self portrait painting, I'm gonna title "Chris".

I think the point is to ask whether it is really necessary to write a front page article about the shooting woes of a lightly used reserve player. I'm not super bothered by the article, but I don't think it was necessary or a particularly interesting read.

[clinresga]

Good thing that you aren't (hopefully aren't) an artist. Constructive criticism is a constant in my field, just as it is in most careers. Pointing out one's flaws is only "mean spirited" if it is written in such a tone. (Like "that art show was great, and would have been better if they had put CB&B's gawd awful paintings in the janitor closet.")
I don't get that tone at all in Barry Jacob's writing, he's merely pointing out a deficiency in JW's game. Hell, look at the list at the end of it, he's got some great company. And, being he's on the list twice, Jacobs is pointing out that his production is worse this year than last. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure the coaches have pointed it out as well, and are seeking reasons why. Sean Dockery is third worst on that list, but I'm betting nobody here is complaining that he never quit trying. :D:cool:

My only fault with the article is that it is titled "Barry".
My next non self portrait painting, I'm gonna title "Chris".

I'm probably overly in the "sunshine and light" category--I've really had to learn at work how to be the "bad cop" when it's appropriate. Still, I'm not convinced that this article counts as "constructive criticism." In artistic terms, this is the equivalent of "You're a really terrible composer. One of the worst. Period." Not much construction going on there. And unlikely that J Gold was unaware of his shooting issues before this article. But yeah, I suspect he's not overly bothered by opinions over here!

[kako]

I'm a big fan of Goldwire. I really root for him to keep stepping up. I think having a senior PG that's a part of the rotation could be incredibly valuable, especially in this age of 1AD. That being said, he has a ways to go. But I didn't find the article mean-spirited, it's simply just fact to me. And interesting. I would have never guess GHill would be on this list. What the hell was Parks doing out at the 3-point line? And Battier, 3-pt hero of Game 7 in the 2013 NBA Finals, went 4-24 in '98? Anyway, Barry Jacobs has always written articles showing all kinds of interesting stats (miss his Fan's Guides!). This post was just another of them. I like objectivity/criticism mixed in, as opposed to just rah rah circle jerk articles. We all should keep rooting for Goldwire. Just think how Battier improved to his senior year...

9F

[BeachBlueDevil]

I have to ask.... What was the point of the article? Site filler is my only guess.

Busting Goldwire's chops like that is a bit harsh. Goldwire wasn't one of these blue chips prospects we're all used to the program landing. He came in as a 3 star prospect who was about to sign with Eastern Kentucky. I think it's pretty obvious that K and staff looked at Goldwire as a project and would probably give more meaningful minutes in years 3 & 4 (recent example: Jack White).

Burying the kid in his sophomore season when he's the 8th man in Duke's rotation is a little harsh. Goldwire's time Duke is a marathon and not a sprint.

[Channing]

To be honest, I did not read the article as busting JG's chops. It made an observation as to bad shooting and then put it into a broader context. It wasn't an editorial calling for him to stop shooting or otherwise calling his contributions to the team into question. Personally, I really enjoy the statistical reviews that are posted to DBR - regardless of whether they address steals, free throw shooting (good or bad), or even bad three point shooting.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'm a big fan of Goldwire. I really root for him to keep stepping up. I think having a senior PG that's a part of the rotation could be incredibly valuable, especially in this age of 1AD. That being said, he has a ways to go. But I didn't find the article mean-spirited, it's simply just fact to me. And interesting. I would have never guess GHill would be on this list. What the hell was Parks doing out at the 3-point line? And Battier, 3-pt hero of Game 7 in the 2013 NBA Finals, went 4-24 in '98? Anyway, Barry Jacobs has always written articles showing all kinds of interesting status (miss his Fan's Guides!). This post was just another of them. I like objectivity/criticism mixed in, as opposed to just rah rah circle jerk articles. We all should keep rooting for Goldwire. Just think how Battier improved to his senior year...

9F

I agree with this. The article wasn't mean-spirited but factual. He is a terrible 3pt shooter. There isn't a way to sugarcoat that (okay, he has "more 3pt room for improvement than any other player". How about that?).

[Acymetric]

I'm a big fan of Goldwire. I really root for him to keep stepping up. I think having a senior PG that's a part of the rotation could be incredibly valuable, especially in this age of 1AD. That being said, he has a ways to go. But I didn't find the article mean-spirited, it's simply just fact to me. And interesting. I would have never guess GHill would be on this list. What the hell was Parks doing out at the 3-point line? And Battier, 3-pt hero of Game 7 in the 2013 NBA Finals, went 4-24 in '98? Anyway, Barry Jacobs has always written articles showing all kinds of interesting status (miss his Fan's Guides!). This post was just another of them. I like objectivity/criticism mixed in, as opposed to just rah rah circle jerk articles. We all should keep rooting for Goldwire. Just think how Battier improved to his senior year...

9F


I agree with this. The article wasn't mean-spirited but factual. He is a terrible 3pt shooter. There isn't a way to sugarcoat that (okay, he has "more 3pt room for improvement than any other player". How about that?).

I can't speak for the OP or anyone else who has registered an objection, but I don't find the article mean-spirited at all, just unnecessary.

[DukeTrinity11]

I agree with this. The article wasn't mean-spirited but factual. He is a terrible 3pt shooter. There isn't a way to sugarcoat that (okay, he has "more 3pt room for improvement than any other player". How about that?).

Ok, but he's a 3 star recruit who shouldn't even be expected to contribute as much as he is at this point in this Duke career so what's the point in bringing up this particular flaw and writing a whole article about it?

[clinresga]

I can't speak for the OP or anyone else who has registered an objection, but I don't find the article mean-spirited at all, just unnecessary.

Well, as the OP, I don't think it was intentionally mean spirited, but it just felt a little like picking on the smallest kid in class. If we want to discuss negative stats, wouldn't Tre's 62% free throw percentage, or Cam's adjusted 4.3 TO per 40 minutes, or Javin's 7.1 fouls/40 minutes be more relevant to Duke's success?

And anyway, I'd rather focus on the positives. Like JRob's 44% 3 pt shooting :)

[Kfanarmy]

Ok, but he's a 3 star recruit who shouldn't even be expected to contribute as much as he is at this point in this Duke career so what's the point in bringing up this particular flaw and writing a whole article about it?

Of the top 20 three-point shooters this year by percentage, only 5 are from Big 5 teams. I suspect not too many would be four or five star recruits...though most are upperclassmen. So he may get there.


I'm a big fan of Goldwire. I really root for him to keep stepping up. I think having a senior PG that's a part of the rotation could be incredibly valuable, especially in this age of 1AD. That being said, he has a ways to go. But I didn't find the article mean-spirited, it's simply just fact to me. And interesting. I would have never guess GHill would be on this list. What the hell was Parks doing out at the 3-point line? And Battier, 3-pt hero of Game 7 in the 2013 NBA Finals, went 4-24 in '98? Anyway, Barry Jacobs has always written articles showing all kinds of interesting status (miss his Fan's Guides!). This post was just another of them. I like objectivity/criticism mixed in, as opposed to just rah rah circle jerk articles. We all should keep rooting for Goldwire. Just think how Battier improved to his senior year...9F

That’s good because you are unlikely to find too much of that genre here.

[SupaDave]

Not even worried about Goldwire's shooting. He was recruited b/c of his defense mostly. He has been mostly serviceable. He's overthinking his shot. This can be seen when he hesitates b/c he so damn wide open.

But he could be the key to other things - like this:

Duke coaches will be in attendance when Brandon Boston Jr. tries to lead his Norcross High School squad to another win in its 7A region tournament (tomorrow night).

Guess who else has a little clout at Norcross High School...

[brevity]

Negative sporks are warranted for the previous 17 posts in this thread for failing to provide a link. Here you go:

Barry on Bad Duke Three Point Shooting: Jordan Goldwire Is Near the Top of the List, by Barry Jacobs
https://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2019/2/5/18211530/barry-on-bad-duke-three-point-shooting-jordan-goldwire


BlueDevil005 already made this comment on the main site, but I also found the post today about j Gold's poor 3-point shooting to be mean-spirited and unneeded. To spend an entire article trying to prove to us how lousy a shooter he is contributes nothing to Duke fandom, or the universe in general. He works hard, defends well, and, I'm sure, works his tail off in practice. He's part of the team. Duke fans have always valued the bench warmers and walk-ons. J gold deserves better.

Who is BlueDevil005? There is no comment on the main site. Maybe it got deleted later. Next time give your thread a title that refers to the front page article in some meaningful way, something more revealing than "J Gold". (Presumably, you started the thread because you had strong feelings replying to something. Don't make us hunt for it.) And include the link -- even seemingly short-lived DBR threads have a habit of lingering, long after the article leaves the DBR main page. In a few days no one visiting the thread will have any idea what anyone here is talking about.

The article itself is meh. A journalist searches for a unique angle on the three-point shooting story, finds it, and writes an article that follows through on that angle, dives deep into stats, and conveys a complete thought. Unfortunately, that complete thought was probably not worth pursuing. Why would anyone think Jordan Goldwire's three-point performance was indicative of the team at large?


When it comes to missing threes Goldwire has been leading the way for Duke. Prior to making the first of two last-minute attempts against St. John’s, the Georgian (U.S. version) had missed every 3-pointer he’s taken, 15 in the first 20 games, and made but two of five free throws.

Woof. Setting aside the tacky "Georgian" thing, Goldwire is leading the way with those 0.75 three pointers he attempts every game.

The stat table, while pretty, is similarly useless. What are we supposed to learn about some of the most infrequent 3-point shooters in recent Duke history? These are reserves who did not play many minutes, or regular rotation players who were not in the habit of taking outside shots. Had he expanded the parameters to the lowest percentages rather than fewest makes, he might have stumbled across a high-volume shooter that (numerically) had no business being a high-volume shooter. But this table shows me nothing.

Part of bad journalism is lacking a second person -- copy editor, publisher, even a friend -- who is willing to tell the writer to try again.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Negative sporks are warranted for the previous 17 posts in this thread for failing to provide a link. Here you go:

Barry on Bad Duke Three Point Shooting: Jordan Goldwire Is Near the Top of the List, by Barry Jacobs
https://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2019/2/5/18211530/barry-on-bad-duke-three-point-shooting-jordan-goldwire



Who is BlueDevil005? There is no comment on the main site. Maybe it got deleted later. Next time give your thread a title that refers to the front page article in some meaningful way, something more revealing than "J Gold". (Presumably, you started the thread because you had strong feelings replying to something. Don't make us hunt for it.) And include the link -- even seemingly short-lived DBR threads have a habit of lingering, long after the article leaves the DBR main page. In a few days no one visiting the thread will have any idea what anyone here is talking about.

The article itself is meh. A journalist searches for a unique angle on the three-point shooting story, finds it, and writes an article that follows through on that angle, dives deep into stats, and conveys a complete thought. Unfortunately, that complete thought was probably not worth pursuing. Why would anyone think Jordan Goldwire's three-point performance was indicative of the team at large?



Woof. Setting aside the tacky "Georgian" thing, Goldwire is leading the way with those 0.75 three pointers he attempts every game.

The stat table, while pretty, is similarly useless. What are we supposed to learn about some of the most infrequent 3-point shooters in recent Duke history? These are reserves who did not play many minutes, or regular rotation players who were not in the habit of taking outside shots. Had he expanded the parameters to the lowest percentages rather than fewest makes, he might have stumbled across a high-volume shooter that (numerically) had no business being a high-volume shooter. But this table shows me nothing.

Part of bad journalism is lacking a second person -- copy editor, publisher, even a friend -- who is willing to tell the writer to try again.

Posting against you username again?

Excellent post. Easy to forget the general disconnect between the "main page" and here on the forum. Two very different worlds.

[AZLA]

That guy had Goldwire listed twice, and for combined 2018-2019 he’s shooting 25% — that’s good enough for how this team is shooting — plus he made a sweet three prior game and he’s a solid on ball defender and passer to spell Tre. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a hit piece as much as it’s Anderson Consulting.

[Wander]

What's next? An analysis of Mike Buckmire's dunking ability?

[Acymetric]

What's next? An analysis of Mike Buckmire's dunking ability?

I need to spread my sporks around apparently so I can't perform the positive or negative sporkings I would like to in this thread. That said, consider this an honorary sporking from yours truly. It could be a series of articles that includes an ESPN "Sports Science" style look at Zoubek's vertical, a deep dive on how Lance Thomas developed his shooting mechanics, and a final installment called "The Graceful Art of Friendly Chest Stomps" by Christian Laettner.

[Acymetric]

Negative sporks are warranted for the previous 17 posts in this thread for failing to provide a link. Here you go:

Barry on Bad Duke Three Point Shooting: Jordan Goldwire Is Near the Top of the List, by Barry Jacobs
https://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2019/2/5/18211530/barry-on-bad-duke-three-point-shooting-jordan-goldwire



Who is BlueDevil005? There is no comment on the main site. Maybe it got deleted later. Next time give your thread a title that refers to the front page article in some meaningful way, something more revealing than "J Gold". (Presumably, you started the thread because you had strong feelings replying to something. Don't make us hunt for it.) And include the link -- even seemingly short-lived DBR threads have a habit of lingering, long after the article leaves the DBR main page. In a few days no one visiting the thread will have any idea what anyone here is talking about.

The article itself is meh. A journalist searches for a unique angle on the three-point shooting story, finds it, and writes an article that follows through on that angle, dives deep into stats, and conveys a complete thought. Unfortunately, that complete thought was probably not worth pursuing. Why would anyone think Jordan Goldwire's three-point performance was indicative of the team at large?



Woof. Setting aside the tacky "Georgian" thing, Goldwire is leading the way with those 0.75 three pointers he attempts every game.

The stat table, while pretty, is similarly useless. What are we supposed to learn about some of the most infrequent 3-point shooters in recent Duke history? These are reserves who did not play many minutes, or regular rotation players who were not in the habit of taking outside shots. Had he expanded the parameters to the lowest percentages rather than fewest makes, he might have stumbled across a high-volume shooter that (numerically) had no business being a high-volume shooter. But this table shows me nothing.

Part of bad journalism is lacking a second person -- copy editor, publisher, even a friend -- who is willing to tell the writer to try again.

Negative sporks are warranted for this post for the opening statement alone, but I need to spread my spork progeny around before I can re-spork/un-spork you.

Emphasis on:

Negative sporks are warranted for the previous 17 posts in this thread for failing to provide a link.

I never go to the front page. It has been a really long time since I went to the front page or read a front page article, even when one is referenced on the forumns. It was pretty obvious from reading the OP that this was in reference to a front page article. I went to the front page and read the article in order to form an opinion. Would have been easy enough for anyone else (including you, apparently, who managed to find the article* just fine). I'm sure everyone else is capeable of doing the same. This is a pretty weak complaint. Nice petty condescension though.

*I've written the word article enough now that it has lost all meaning to me. Article Article Article. Is that even a real word?

That said, we're in total agreement as far as the rest of your post goes. I think that's what most people making negative comments about the article are trying to get at.

[porkpa]

There is a huge difference between constructive criticism and piling on. This was piling on.

[johnb]

Before the forum was named after Elizabeth King, before there was a forum or a DBR, before anyone on the team was born, before there was an internet or ESPN, there was Barry Jacobs writing a fan’s guide that marked for me not just the beginning of the basketball season but an annual window into a world of facts and perspectives that simply didn’t exist until Barry put pencil to paper and then went out of his way to publish. Sure, there were other preseason guides, but nothing remotely as good, deep, and math-y as Barry’s stuff. And stuff it was, the kind of stuff that a presumably obsessed Duke fan would create if he had a head for stats, a lively personality, and relentless gumption.

The internet allows for some of the above. It certainly allows for endless details and opinions. And quick cuts and pastes. And free publishing and distribution.

The internet does not, however, encourage the use of pencils. It doesn’t encourage slowness and digestion and opinions that develop over time. While I have never met the man, Barry’s basketball work—and his esteemed work as Orange County Commisioner—has always been marked by dispassionate observations about topics about which he is passionate.

It seems impossible that Barry has a vendetta against Mr. Goldwire or that he has concluded that Jordan will never improve as a shooter. Barry’s just pointing out facts, including “facts” that wouldn’t exist as thoughts unless he’d created and developed them with a pencil and paper. And for that—and for all of those pencils over the decades—I come not to bury but to praise.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

There is a huge difference between constructive criticism and piling on. This was piling on.

Perhaps, but there is also a huge difference between a veteran writer who has been respected for multiple decades - and your average 20 something hipster columnist at, say, Grantland. I don't claim to know what motivated Jacobs to write this piece in this manner - perhaps he is frustrated with Duke's shooting and blew a little gasket. What I do know is that he has a long career that is worthy of the benefit of the doubt.

[clinresga]

Negative sporks are warranted for the previous 17 posts in this thread for failing to provide a link. Here you go:

Barry on Bad Duke Three Point Shooting: Jordan Goldwire Is Near the Top of the List, by Barry Jacobs
https://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2019/2/5/18211530/barry-on-bad-duke-three-point-shooting-jordan-goldwire



Who is BlueDevil005? There is no comment on the main site. Maybe it got deleted later. Next time give your thread a title that refers to the front page article in some meaningful way, something more revealing than "J Gold". (Presumably, you started the thread because you had strong feelings replying to something. Don't make us hunt for it.) And include the link -- even seemingly short-lived DBR threads have a habit of lingering, long after the article leaves the DBR main page. In a few days no one visiting the thread will have any idea what anyone here is talking about.


Yikes...

Mea culpa for neglecting to link. I forget that some folks don't read the daily DBR posts before anything else every morning--I guess they just skip right to the boards? And I wasn't posting for posterity--I assume that this thread will disappear into obscurity in a few days, which is fine. Citation of missing BlueDevil005 comment was just to give credit to another poster for having the same reaction before me. Credit where credit is due, yada yada.

But I will say I'm surprised by the vehemence bordering on venom. I am, as they say, "long time reader, very infrequent poster." Mostly because the smart folks here know this stuff better than I even will. But I do think that there is sometimes a bit of the "old boys/girls club" mentality here, such that conversations are dominated by the select few of many sporks. Those of us with few sporks (or now, no sporks after Brevity's negative sporking), are, I suspect, in some cases, wary of treading on the feet of the gods. Maybe that's bad? Would more opinions be better than less?

But it's all good. I love this site and these boards, will keep reading, avoid posting, and enjoy being a Duke fan since 1977 with all of you :o

[jv001]

Yikes...

Mea culpa for neglecting to link. I forget that some folks don't read the daily DBR posts before anything else every morning--I guess they just skip right to the boards? And I wasn't posting for posterity--I assume that this thread will disappear into obscurity in a few days, which is fine. Citation of missing BlueDevil005 comment was just to give credit to another poster for having the same reaction before me. Credit where credit is due, yada yada.

But I will say I'm surprised by the vehemence bordering on venom. I am, as they say, "long time reader, very infrequent poster." Mostly because the smart folks here know this stuff better than I even will. But I do think that there is sometimes a bit of the "old boys/girls club" mentality here, such that conversations are dominated by the select few of many sporks. Those of us with few sporks (or now, no sporks after Brevity's negative sporking), are, I suspect, in some cases, wary of treading on the feet of the gods. Maybe that's bad? Would more opinions be better than less?

But it's all good. I love this site and these boards, will keep reading, avoid posting, and enjoy being a Duke fan since 1977 with all of you :o

I'm in the camp that loves Barry's articles. I didn't take it as bashing Jordan, but just pointing out the stats. Matter of fact, some of our own posters are way harder on Duke players than Barry was. GoDuke!

[dukelifer]

Constructive criticism is done in private, one on one sessions, not in an article on the subject put into the public realm. This article is destructive and mean, IMO.

Well this raises the question if it is mean spirited to critique any college player. Clearly Zion will be a multimillionaire in a few months- so the hurt is not that bad- but plenty of folks have taken shots at his weaknesses as a player. JGold is a scholarship player on one of the best programs in the nation. It does come with the territory- as hard as it is to hear. I am not sure it was really needed- except that there is a record here.

[CDu]

Neither here nor there, but didn't somebody on DBR suggest that Goldwire would hit more threes and get more assists than Tyler Thornton? Yeah, that prediction hasn't aged well.

That being said, Goldwire is essentially a practice player. He should not be expected to be a regular in-game contributor. He's not going to shoot much. If he attempts more than 25 3s on the season, that'll be a surprise. And a good chunk of the ones he has taken have been in garbage time. It seems much ado about nothing.

[jv001]

Neither here nor there, but didn't somebody on DBR suggest that Goldwire would hit more threes and get more assists than Tyler Thornton? Yeah, that prediction hasn't aged well.

That being said, Goldwire is essentially a practice player. He should not be expected to be a regular in-game contributor. He's not going to shoot much. If he attempts more than 25 3s on the season, that'll be a surprise. And a good chunk of the ones he has taken have been in garbage time. It seems much ado about nothing.

Good point CDu. I'm too lazy to see what the team's 3 point percentage is without Goldwire's 3 point attempts and his 1 make. I don't think it would get the team up to the 35% mark. Like you mentioned Jordan is basically a practice player and maybe he shouldn't be shooting the 3 ball. You didn't say that I did. GoDuke!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yikes...

Mea culpa for neglecting to link. I forget that some folks don't read the daily DBR posts before anything else every morning--I guess they just skip right to the boards? And I wasn't posting for posterity--I assume that this thread will disappear into obscurity in a few days, which is fine. Citation of missing BlueDevil005 comment was just to give credit to another poster for having the same reaction before me. Credit where credit is due, yada yada.

But I will say I'm surprised by the vehemence bordering on venom. I am, as they say, "long time reader, very infrequent poster." Mostly because the smart folks here know this stuff better than I even will. But I do think that there is sometimes a bit of the "old boys/girls club" mentality here, such that conversations are dominated by the select few of many sporks. Those of us with few sporks (or now, no sporks after Brevity's negative sporking), are, I suspect, in some cases, wary of treading on the feet of the gods. Maybe that's bad? Would more opinions be better than less?

But it's all good. I love this site and these boards, will keep reading, avoid posting, and enjoy being a Duke fan since 1977 with all of you :o

If anyone really shared negative sporks with you for that, I'm disappointed. Flames are reserved for trolls and people flagrantly not obeying forum decorum (great rhyme!).

On the off chance someone did toss you a down vote, I recompensed you with a positive huzzah. Stay around!

[jv001]

If anyone really shared negative sporks with you for that, I'm disappointed. Flames are reserved for trolls and people flagrantly not obeying forum decorum (great rhyme!).

On the off chance someone did toss you a down vote, I recompensed you with a positive huzzah. Stay around!

So did I. :cool:GoDuke!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So did I. :cool:GoDuke!

The system works!

[Neals384]

Yikes...

Mea culpa for neglecting to link. I forget that some folks don't read the daily DBR posts before anything else every morning--I guess they just skip right to the boards?


No problem, as others have stated, it wasn't that hard to find on the home page. I'm in the camp that skips the home page articles, because they are "old school" journalism - the journalist writes, you read. If there are errors of fact (yes even on DBR) or opinions that don't sit well with the reader, there's little recourse. I'd rather be here on the forum where mistakes get corrected and opinions debated.

[Neals384]

I think the author might have provided some context and better analysis to get to the heart of Duke's 3 point shooting woes. Of Goldwire's 17 3 pt attempts, 6 have come in garbage time, and an additional 6 have come in games won by 20 or more. In closer games, he had one 3 pt miss against GA Tech (plus one in garbage time), one against Pitt, one against Auburn. In Duke's closest games, he played only 1 minute combined vs. Gonxaga, VA and Fla St, with no 3 pt attempts. That leaves Syracuse, when he missed his 2 attempts (he did have a steal and an assist) in 8 minutes. If anyone wants to blame Goldwire's 3 point shooting for the Syracuse loss, go ahead, but the starters were 5 for 33.

When Goldwire is on the court, he's bringing the ball up and providing adequate defense. He's not launching ill-advised, closely guarded 3's with plenty of time on the shot clock and the game outcome still in doubt. The article might well have asked why Duke took 15 first half 3's v. BC, none by Goldwire.

[clinresga]

If anyone really shared negative sporks with you for that, I'm disappointed. Flames are reserved for trolls and people flagrantly not obeying forum decorum (great rhyme!).

On the off chance someone did toss you a down vote, I recompensed you with a positive huzzah. Stay around!


So did I. :cool:GoDuke!

Wow, warm and fuzzy moment! Thanks, Mtn and jv--y'all made my day.

[NSDukeFan]

Wow, warm and fuzzy moment! Thanks, Mtn and jv--y'all made my day.

I hope you stick around and agree that it is nice to have a variety of posters. I do agree with jv001 and johnb that Jacobs deserves the benefit of the doubt for years and years of facts about Duke and ACC basketball and the article seemed factual to me. I also think brevity deserves some benefit of the doubt as he doesn’t tend to attack posters, from what I have seen, but likes to have a reference for what is being discussed, to make the board better. As a long time reader, I would assume you have seen many of his great posts.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Flames are reserved for trolls and people flagrantly not obeying forum decorum (great rhyme!).
!

You would think....but I've gotten two flames over mild disagreements...FROM A MOD...in the past month. I won't mention names.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You would think....but I've gotten two flames over mild disagreements...FROM A MOD...in the past month. I won't mention names.

One person's "mild disagreement" may be someone else's "lack of decorum?"

[HereBeforeCoachK]

One person's "mild disagreement" may be someone else's "lack of decorum?"

No, that's not what these were. These were weird...one was just that I made an offhand comment about Zion's blocks and steals, and I was flamed for not including how many blocks and steals he had to that point. I was just buttressing another poster's point.....

I've pushed the decorum borderline before - but these were not those. Like I say, odd.

[unclsam1]

Since the article had the premier spot on the first page when I saw it, it seemed like it should be something of greater significance than the other articles available. I was disappointed with the article, not that it didn't report stats accurately, but it was unnecessary criticism of a back-up player with a limited role and minutes. What was the outcome that the author of the article hoped for? Certainly not to motivate a player who has such a small role in being able to shoot 3 pointers to make the team successful. Would much rather see more 3 pointers from players who play significant minutes.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Since the article had the premier spot on the first page when I saw it, it seemed like it should be something of greater significance than the other articles available. I was disappointed with the article, not that it didn't report stats accurately, but it was unnecessary criticism of a back-up player with a limited role and minutes. What was the outcome that the author of the article hoped for? Certainly not to motivate a player who has such a small role in being able to shoot 3 pointers to make the team successful. Would much rather see more 3 pointers from players who play significant minutes.

I would assume the purpose of the article was for the author to do what is expected of him, which is to offer his observations and opinions. The writer is not responsible for some kind of outcome vis a vis his subject matter. I'm not defending the article per se, just pointing out that this was written by a long time writer, not a coach.

[unclsam1]

I would assume the purpose of the article was for the author to do what is expected of him, which is to offer his observations and opinions. The writer is not responsible for some kind of outcome vis a vis his subject matter. I'm not defending the article per se, just pointing out that this was written by a long time writer, not a coach.


OK but shouldn't a lead article having observations and opinions carry more significance or importance than this one did?

[devilsadvocate85]

I would assume the purpose of the article was for the author to do what is expected of him, which is to offer his observations and opinions. The writer is not responsible for some kind of outcome vis a vis his subject matter. I'm not defending the article per se, just pointing out that this was written by a long time writer, not a coach.

In my opinion, Barry has gotten lazy. In the last couple years the vast majority of his articles are a listing facts, statistics or oddities that he uncovers and I presume finds interesting. There is little if any attempt made to explore possible causes, mitigating factors, etc. Jordan Goldwire rarely takes a 3 point shot at any point in the game that matters. His role is to spell Tre Jones, handle the ball, defend hard and get back to the bench safely. If the opposing team gives him a 3 to take it. The facts are the facts, but I don't see the "theory" behind his article (frankly most of his articles on DBR). Jordan isn't a volume 3 point shooter, playing a key role on his team with a horrible success rate. He's a low volume shooter (can anyone say small sample size), most of which come at the end of already decided games. Don't we all think that if he was expected to be a 3 point threat that he might get more touches and more looks when games matter? Stats matter, but without context are just numbers.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

OK but shouldn't a lead article having observations and opinions carry more significance or importance than this one did?

Probably so, whether it's a lead or not.


In my opinion, Barry has gotten lazy. In the last couple years the vast majority of his articles are a listing facts, statistics or oddities that he uncovers and I presume finds interesting. .

I'll take your word for that, and it's the way it is for a lot of people who've been in the same job for a long time. I was just having a chat on another thread about how lazy David Glenn has gotten on 99.9 The Fan (and other stations). He's been in it 30 years - about 5 too many.