Is there a "Blueprint" to defeat this Duke team?

[kAzE]

There have been a few articles and talking heads already since the UCF game saying that UCF has given the rest of the field a blueprint to defend Zion and this Duke team as a whole.

UCF played a zone most of the first half, but in large portions of the second half, when Tacko Fall was in the game, they had Fall matched up with either Javin, Marques, or Tre, none of whom are able to space the floor. Fall never left the front of the rim, leaving those players to do as they pleased on the perimeter. Instead, he focused solely on playing help defense on Duke's players when they got the ball in to the paint. Obviously, this worked pretty well. A 50% shooting night for Zion is well below his usual standards.

The question is: is this really a blueprint to defend Duke, something actually replicable by most of the other teams left in the field? Or did UCF have the right personnel and a perfect set of circumstances to create this?

Personally, I think it's more the latter.

1. First of all, nobody else has a guy even close to the size of Tacko. I've never seen Zion have so much trouble at the rim.
2. In addition, Zion drew two obvious fouls (where the refs swallowed their whistles) that would have disqualified Fall BEFORE the actual foul that sent him to the bench for good.
3. Lastly, UCF hit an incredible number of shots, many of which were pretty well defended.

Now, #2 and #3 are much easier to reproduce in a tournament game. In fact, they might almost be expected. #1 is not.

If this "strategy" happens again, I would also expect guys to hit more of those wide open looks. Even by his season average, Tre should have hit at least 1 more three. There was literally no one within 10 feet of him on any of those shots.

Call me a skeptic or an optimist, but I don't believe other teams can truly use this game as a blueprint.

[scottdude8]

There have been a few articles and talking heads already since the UCF game saying that UCF has given the rest of the field a blueprint to defend Zion and this Duke team as a whole.

UCF played a zone most of the first half, but in large portions of the second half, when Tacko Fall was in the game, they had Fall matched up with either Javin, Marques, or Tre, none of whom are able to space the floor. Fall never left the front of the rim, leaving those to do as they pleased on the perimeter. Instead, he focused solely on playing help defense on Duke's players when they got the ball in to the paint. Obviously, this worked pretty well. A 50% shooting night for Zion is well below his usual standards.

The question is: is this really a blueprint to defend Duke, something actually replicable by most of the other teams left in the field? Or did UCF have the right personnel and a perfect set of circumstances to create this?

Personally, I think it's more the latter.

1. First of all, nobody else has a guy even close to the size of Tacko. I've never seen Zion have so much trouble at the rim.
2. In addition, Zion drew two obvious fouls (where the refs swallowed their whistles) that would have disqualified Fall BEFORE the actual foul that sent him to the bench for good.
3. Lastly, UCF hit an incredible number of shots, many of which were pretty well defended.

Now, #2 and #3 are much easier to reproduce in a tournament game. In fact, they might almost be expected. #1 is not.

If this "strategy" happens again, I would also expect guys to hit more of those wide open looks. Even by his season average, Tre should have hit at least 1 more three. There was literally no one within 10 feet of him on any of those shots.

Call me a skeptic or an optimist, but I don't believe other teams can truly use this game as a blueprint.

I was actually planning on writing something about this exact question! I'm definitely in the "latter" category as well. You can't duplicate a 7-foot-6 giant. One of the things that I think went under the radar was that the amount of attention being paid to Tacko led to a lot of the outside shots as well. I'm with you that UCF was just a perfect confluence of weirdness/chance/kids playing out of their minds to potentially upset us.

[robed deity]

There have been a few articles and talking heads already since the UCF game saying that UCF has given the rest of the field a blueprint to defend Zion and this Duke team as a whole.

UCF played a zone most of the first half, but in large portions of the second half, when Tacko Fall was in the game, they had Fall matched up with either Javin, Marques, or Tre, none of whom are able to space the floor. Fall never left the front of the rim, leaving those to do as they pleased on the perimeter. Instead, he focused solely on playing help defense on Duke's players when they got the ball in to the paint. Obviously, this worked pretty well. A 50% shooting night for Zion is well below his usual standards.

The question is: is this really a blueprint to defend Duke, something actually replicable by most of the other teams left in the field? Or did UCF have the right personnel and a perfect set of circumstances to create this?

Personally, I think it's more the latter.

1. First of all, nobody else has a guy even close to the size of Tacko. I've never seen Zion have so much trouble at the rim.
2. In addition, Zion drew two obvious fouls (where the refs swallowed their whistles) that would have disqualified Fall BEFORE the actual foul that sent him to the bench for good.
3. Lastly, UCF hit an incredible number of shots, many of which were pretty well defended.

Now, #2 and #3 are much easier to reproduce in a tournament game. In fact, they might almost be expected. #1 is not.

If this "strategy" happens again, I would also expect guys to hit more of those wide open looks. Even by his season average, Tre should have hit at least 1 more three. There was literally no one within 10 feet of him on any of those shots.

Call me a skeptic or an optimist, but I don't believe other teams can truly use this game as a blueprint.


I heard an interesting interview with Mike Decourcy before the tournament started. He said UCF COULD be a tough out for Duke because they are one of the only teams that don't have to change who they are to deal with Zion.

[BD80]

Is there a "Blueprint" to defeat this Duke team?

Kryptonite

[uh_no]

Call me a skeptic or an optimist, but I don't believe other teams can truly use this game as a blueprint.

this comes up after every close game and loss we've had, and yet the fact stands, we have exactly 1 loss with our full complement of players to an early season gonzaga team. Note that being a good team doesn't mean you don't have close games, or even games where you might should have lost....but it does mean more often than not, you clean up....and we do.

We played poorly last night. I bet if we played them again, it wouldn't be such a thing....but such is the curse of an elimination tournament. Teams ought to gameplan around what they do best....and JD did that to perfection last night.

[kAzE]

this comes up after every close game and loss we've had, and yet the fact stands, we have exactly 1 loss with our full complement of players to an early season gonzaga team. Note that being a good team doesn't mean you don't have close games, or even games where you might should have lost...but it does mean more often than not, you clean up...and we do.

We played poorly last night. I bet if we played them again, it wouldn't be such a thing...but such is the curse of an elimination tournament. Teams ought to gameplan around what they do best...and JD did that to perfection last night.

Did we really play poorly? I thought we played pretty well. We missed a lot of shots, but they were mostly good shots. We only turned it over 8 times, and we played pretty solid defense for the most part. I didn't think we played that poorly at all. They hit a ton of shots, and we missed a ton of shots. I think UCF just played incredibly well, with some help from the officials.

[flyingdutchdevil]

There have been a few articles and talking heads already since the UCF game saying that UCF has given the rest of the field a blueprint to defend Zion and this Duke team as a whole.

UCF played a zone most of the first half, but in large portions of the second half, when Tacko Fall was in the game, they had Fall matched up with either Javin, Marques, or Tre, none of whom are able to space the floor. Fall never left the front of the rim, leaving those to do as they pleased on the perimeter. Instead, he focused solely on playing help defense on Duke's players when they got the ball in to the paint. Obviously, this worked pretty well. A 50% shooting night for Zion is well below his usual standards.

The question is: is this really a blueprint to defend Duke, something actually replicable by most of the other teams left in the field? Or did UCF have the right personnel and a perfect set of circumstances to create this?

Personally, I think it's more the latter.

1. First of all, nobody else has a guy even close to the size of Tacko. I've never seen Zion have so much trouble at the rim.
2. In addition, Zion drew two obvious fouls (where the refs swallowed their whistles) that would have disqualified Fall BEFORE the actual foul that sent him to the bench for good.
3. Lastly, UCF hit an incredible number of shots, many of which were pretty well defended.

Now, #2 and #3 are much easier to reproduce in a tournament game. In fact, they might almost be expected. #1 is not.

If this "strategy" happens again, I would also expect guys to hit more of those wide open looks. Even by his season average, Tre should have hit at least 1 more three. There was literally no one within 10 feet of him on any of those shots.

Call me a skeptic or an optimist, but I don't believe other teams can truly use this game as a blueprint.

To me, the blueprint is as follows:

1) Do not guard Tre/Goldwire on the perimeter and bait them into 3pt shots (ANY team can accomplish this)
2) Hit a high percentage of 3pt shots (few teams can accomplish this)
3) Play "soft" in the paint to get Cam/RJ/Zion in foul trouble (ANY team can accomplish this and works like a charm with Cam and not so much with Zion/RJ)
4) Rebound as a "team" to prevent Zion/DeLaurier from 2nd chance points (Strong rebounding teams can accomplish this. It works, but you sacrifice fast break opportunities)

Even if you do this, Duke still has Zion/RJ and a really good chance to win. And, in my opinion, Duke has the tools to mitigate 1), 2), and 3).

[CDu]

this comes up after every close game and loss we've had, and yet the fact stands, we have exactly 1 loss with our full complement of players to an early season gonzaga team. Note that being a good team doesn't mean you don't have close games, or even games where you might should have lost...but it does mean more often than not, you clean up...and we do.

We played poorly last night. I bet if we played them again, it wouldn't be such a thing...but such is the curse of an elimination tournament. Teams ought to gameplan around what they do best...and JD did that to perfection last night.

Yep. This team, when our top 5-6 are healthy, is just really hard to for ANYONE to beat. We have just one loss, and that was to a veteran #1 seed in November, in a game that went down to the wire. And that was before this team figured out that the offense should run through Zion first and foremost.

I also think that playing against better opponents will help. We're nearing the point where the pressure to reach expectations wanes. It's still there, but now we're facing all top-10-ish teams the rest of the way. That should help this team dial it in.

I don't think there are any other teams that can do what UCF could do defensively. Maybe Michigan, but even then I don't think they can handle Zion as well as UCF did. And it is worth noting that we still scored pretty efficiently against UCF, even with their freakish center (granted, that was because we happened to hit 3s, but still).

[WHOneedsSOX]

There have been a few articles and talking heads already since the UCF game saying that UCF has given the rest of the field a blueprint to defend Zion and this Duke team as a whole.

UCF played a zone most of the first half, but in large portions of the second half, when Tacko Fall was in the game, they had Fall matched up with either Javin, Marques, or Tre, none of whom are able to space the floor. Fall never left the front of the rim, leaving those players to do as they pleased on the perimeter. Instead, he focused solely on playing help defense on Duke's players when they got the ball in to the paint. Obviously, this worked pretty well. A 50% shooting night for Zion is well below his usual standards.

The question is: is this really a blueprint to defend Duke, something actually replicable by most of the other teams left in the field? Or did UCF have the right personnel and a perfect set of circumstances to create this?

Personally, I think it's more the latter.

1. First of all, nobody else has a guy even close to the size of Tacko. I've never seen Zion have so much trouble at the rim.
2. In addition, Zion drew two obvious fouls (where the refs swallowed their whistles) that would have disqualified Fall BEFORE the actual foul that sent him to the bench for good.
3. Lastly, UCF hit an incredible number of shots, many of which were pretty well defended.

Now, #2 and #3 are much easier to reproduce in a tournament game. In fact, they might almost be expected. #1 is not.

If this "strategy" happens again, I would also expect guys to hit more of those wide open looks. Even by his season average, Tre should have hit at least 1 more three. There was literally no one within 10 feet of him on any of those shots.

Call me a skeptic or an optimist, but I don't believe other teams can truly use this game as a blueprint.

I think it's a little of both. I think other teams may try the same by having their center defend Tre and sit in the middle of the key but it won't be as effective if Tre either takes a dribble in for a free throw line pull up or drives a little further for a floater. He tried the one dribble pull up yesterday and Tacko was still able to affect it which is insane. He's much better shooting those pull ups than the 3. I would like to think Coach K or one of the other coaches are going to go over with Tre what to do next time. I hope the game plan isn't just "keep shooting it."

And a lot of teams have done this already anyways. Only difference was a center was guarding Tre last night instead of a guard. North Carolina had 5 guys with their foot inside the key at all times too. Didn't bother Zion that much when a non 7'6 guy wasn't under the basket getting away with fouls left and right.

[UrinalCake]

I feel like the blueprint for how to beat Duke has been known for six months now. Pack the paint and let us fire away from three. On offense, use easy ball screens to force switches and then clear out and attack mismatches. Penetrate with no intention of shooting, just wait for the overhelp and kick to an open shooter. Make the extra pass to offset our agressive trapping, and crash the offensive boards to make us pay for trying to leak out in transition.

[uh_no]

Did we really play poorly? I thought we played pretty well. We missed a lot of shots, but they were mostly good shots. We only turned it over 8 times, and we played pretty solid defense for the most part. I didn't think we played that poorly at all. They hit a ton of shots, and we missed a ton of shots. I think UCF just played incredibly well, with some help from the officials.

a poorly-shooting-point guard taking 8 threes, mostly early in the clock, is not really what you want. That said, we played very poorly on defense. adjusted it was like 106 or something, and that's what nearly lost us the tournament.

[kAzE]

a poorly-shooting-point guard taking 8 threes, mostly early in the clock, is not really what you want. That said, we played very poorly on defense. adjusted it was like 106 or something, and that's what nearly lost us the tournament.

I agree, Tre should try to work the ball around a bit more most of the time if the shot isn't falling, but I didn't have a problem with him shooting that wide open shot the first few times. If even one of them goes in, that could have changed the game significantly. It's easy to say they were bad shots after the fact. I would have liked to see us make an adjustment to where he's spotting up more from the corner than the top of the key. He seems to have a better touch from the corner.

As for the defense, obviously the bottom line looks bad, but just go back and look at those shots that Aubrey Dawkins hit. Some of them were insanely difficult shots. I think our defense was pretty good, he was just on fire.

[Matches]

I feel like the blueprint for how to beat Duke has been known for six months now. Pack the paint and let us fire away from three. On offense, use easy ball screens to force switches and then clear out and attack mismatches. Penetrate with no intention of shooting, just wait for the overhelp and kick to an open shooter. Make the extra pass to offset our agressive trapping, and crash the offensive boards to make us pay for trying to leak out in transition.

Yea, UCF having an unusual player made them more effective at packing the paint, but the strategy has been clear for awhile. UCF was a little more blatant about not even pretending to guard Tre or Goldwire on the perimeter. Having Javin, Tre and Goldwire all in the game at the same time is tough spacing-wise, but we didn't have much choice last night.

[proelitedota]

To me, the blueprint is as follows:

1) Do not guard Tre/Goldwire on the perimeter and bait them into 3pt shots (ANY team can accomplish this)
2) Hit a high percentage of 3pt shots (few teams can accomplish this)
3) Play "soft" in the paint to get Cam/RJ/Zion in foul trouble (ANY team can accomplish this and works like a charm with Cam and not so much with Zion/RJ)
4) Rebound as a "team" to prevent Zion/DeLaurier from 2nd chance points (Strong rebounding teams can accomplish this. It works, but you sacrifice fast break opportunities)

Even if you do this, Duke still has Zion/RJ and a really good chance to win. And, in my opinion, Duke has the tools to mitigate 1), 2), and 3).

You also forgot to shoot 20 times from the stripe. Yesterday was the most lopsided in terms of free throws that I remember being in. UCF is #2 in the nation at drawing fouls.

If they got to the line at the same rate as us, we would have had a comfortable win in the end instead of up 6 points, would have been up 13 points with 5 min remaining.

[COYS]

If you look at the per-possession stats, UCF kept the game close because of their offense, not their defense. Duke had an Adj O Rating of 126.0 according to T-Rank. That's really dang good. And that's with Zion actually having a demi-god-like game instead of a god-like game. That's also with UCF having a guy like Tacko Fall who was perfectly suited to allow defenders to sag off of everyone besides Cam on the perimeter. If other teams sag as much as UCF did, it will just give Zion and RJ heads of steam on their way to the hoop. Other than maybe a few too-early-in-the-shot-clock threes from Jordan, Tre and Zion, we handled UCF really well. Cam, especially, had a solid night. He had his obligatory drive for a charge, but that was his only turnover of the evening. Otherwise, he was the low/medium-usage, high efficiency player that we need him to be. Quite honestly, if Duke is able to replicate the offensive performance against UCF for the rest of the tournament, it bodes well for us winning the whole thing.

I think the more interesting question is whether or not anything UCF did on offense could be used as a blue-print. Tacko Fall was effective when he was on the court, but we won't face anyone like him again. Aubrey Dawkins, however, showed hot a guard playing downhill and hitting outside shots can put serious pressure on our defense. VaTech will be a big test to see if Dawkins was a one-off or if there's something else going on.

[hallcity]

I heard an interesting interview with Mike Decourcy before the tournament started. He said UCF COULD be a tough out for Duke because they are one of the only teams that don't have to change who they are to deal with Zion.

Which raises an interesting question. Will Duke do better against teams we haven't faced before especially if they don't have much time to prepare for Duke? If we can get past Va. Tech, will Michigan State or LSU face a difficult time preparing to play Duke? Of course, if we get to the Final Four, we may only be facing teams we've played before.

[Channing]

To an earlier point, I was wondering if Duke has been "solved." Just put your center at the front of the rim and dare Tre to shoot. I have to believe that Tre's bball IQ + a week of coaching and he is going to fill space and dish or shoot from the FT line. To put Tacko Fall into perspective, if Kerry Blackshear is playing the role of TF, the difference between TF and KB closing out from front of the rim to the FT line is the same difference as KB and Jordan Goldwire. Nobody would presume that Goldwire could close out on a pull-up jumper and affect the outcome even remotely similar to KB. So to, KB's ability to close-out on a pull-out jumper is nowhere in the vicinity of TF.

Now, if Tre settles for a bunch of threes and continues to shoot in the 10%-15% range, then "solving Duke" is more a Duke issue than an opponents brilliance.

[Dukehk]

All these talking heads haven’t really been paying much attention to regular season games. We have had plenty of teams play similar zone/junk defences against us. Syracuse, gtech, louisville, fsu (at times), virginia etc.

Only thing is that when we hit our 3’s we are near unstoppable. Yesterday was the only time we shot decent from three but still had a close game and that was because of that one guy called Aubrey Dawkins. Single most impressive performance against our prized defence all year.

I don’t think anybody will have as much motivation or as hot of a hand. Coach K will ensure we make the necessary adjustments on defence to prevent that. Not to mention I’m sure we will be better prepared for vtech and lsu/msu by virtue of not having to gameplan against a 7’6 tower.

The great thing about this team is that it doesn’t have to shoot well to win. We get a lot of rebounds and put backs/second chances off our misses. We also can play some lock down defence which wears down on teams.

I trust coach to make some adjustments to counter any future junk defences and I’m hoping that with jack white back we might have an additional shooter from 3 who can keep defences honest.

[elvis14]

To an earlier point, I was wondering if Duke has been "solved." Just put your center at the front of the rim and dare Tre to shoot. I have to believe that Tre's bball IQ + a week of coaching and he is going to fill space and dish or shoot from the FT line. To put Tacko Fall into perspective, if Kerry Blackshear is playing the role of TF, the difference between TF and KB closing out from front of the rim to the FT line is the same difference as KB and Jordan Goldwire. Nobody would presume that Goldwire could close out on a pull-up jumper and affect the outcome even remotely similar to KB. So to, KB's ability to close-out on a pull-out jumper is nowhere in the vicinity of TF.

Now, if Tre settles for a bunch of threes and continues to shoot in the 10%-15% range, then "solving Duke" is more a Duke issue than an opponents brilliance.

The wrinkle that Johhny threw at us was to have his center 'guard' Tre. We have had teams sag off Tre and clog the lane some with their guards but this might be the first team to just park a center in the lane and let Tre shoot. The center is question is special, no doubt, but if you're getting ready to play us, I'd say that working on a similar strategy for at least part of the game would be a given.

I took a look at the 2 tournament games this weekend and the 10 games prior to that. In those games, Tre is shooting 37% overall (46/124), 49% on 2 point shots (36/74) and 20% from 3 (20/50). For 3 point shots, that includes 1/10 in the 2 NCAA games and 3/15 for the ACC tournament. That's 16% for the tournaments.

I'd really like to see Tre take no more than 2 3's a game going forward and frankly I think 0 would be a good number. If a team sags off of him, he should take some of the space and pull up for a midrange jumper. Normally longer 2's are the worst shot one can take but with Tre.....he has to stop chucking up 3's even if they are wide open.

[ElliottHoo]

Yeah, having a 7’6” center and being hot from 3 isn’t an easily replicable strategy.

Sabotaging Zion’s shoes is the only thing that comes to mind. When Duke’s top ~6 players are healthy, they’re at least a 3-4 pt favorite against *anyone* in the field.

[fan345678]

In addition to Fall being 7'6"/310, UCF's starting PF, Smith, is 6'11"/235. Their F off the bench, Brown, is 6'9"/245.
Looking at their roster before the game, the size of those other two guys worried me as much as Fall. Even if we got Fall out of position, another tall and/or hefty guy was going to be on the floor to help alter shots and get rebounds (Smith had 8 boards and a block, Brown 1 of each).
FSU gets close with Koumadje/Kabengele/Cofer, but nobody else has that height/weight combination in their regular rotation.
Combine that with 9/18 three point shooting from a team averaging 35.5% on the season, and sure, you've got a blueprint for losing by 1*.

*Granted, Duke made 40% of its threes, but part of the game plan was to let Duke have open looks from three. If you do that, then you should expect Duke to shoot higher than its season average.

[CDu]

To an earlier point, I was wondering if Duke has been "solved." Just put your center at the front of the rim and dare Tre to shoot. I have to believe that Tre's bball IQ + a week of coaching and he is going to fill space and dish or shoot from the FT line. To put Tacko Fall into perspective, if Kerry Blackshear is playing the role of TF, the difference between TF and KB closing out from front of the rim to the FT line is the same difference as KB and Jordan Goldwire. Nobody would presume that Goldwire could close out on a pull-up jumper and affect the outcome even remotely similar to KB. So to, KB's ability to close-out on a pull-out jumper is nowhere in the vicinity of TF.

Now, if Tre settles for a bunch of threes and continues to shoot in the 10%-15% range, then "solving Duke" is more a Duke issue than an opponents brilliance.

Just as relevantly, it is the difference between Blackshear and Goldwire in terms of contesting lobs into the paint. We have made a living playing over the top of sagging defenses all season. Yesterday, that was a tougher task because of Fall.

That said, our defense was the main concern, less so the offense.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Just as relevantly, it is the difference between Blackshear and Goldwire in terms of contesting lobs into the paint. We have made a living playing over the top of sagging defenses all season. Yesterday, that was a tougher task because of Fall.

That said, our defense was the main concern, less so the offense.

The guys at 99.9 The Fan swerved into this truth today in fact...saying that UCF's "blueprint" (simply not to guard Tre, leave Tacko at the rim) only works that well when your center is 7-6.

And yeah, I'd say the main problem was the D yesterday, especially on Dawkins of course. The Fall effect did kind of keep Zion from getting those underneath jams that tend to excite the entire team on both ends.

[Bob Green]

Note that being a good team doesn't mean you don't have close games, or even games where you might should have lost...but it does mean more often than not, you clean up...and we do.

This is an excellent point. I'm sure there are lots of examples of great teams winning multiple close games in their National Championship season. The team I'll point out is the last team to go undefeated the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers (32-0).

1. They won two games in Overtime (by 9 and 5 points).
2. They won one game by two points.
3. They won two games by three points.
4. They won one game by four points.

There are six close games they won during their undefeated season.

[JetpackJesus]

The guys at 99.9 The Fan swerved into this truth today in fact...saying that UCF's "blueprint" (simply not to guard Tre, leave Tacko at the rim) only works that well when your center is 7-6.

And yeah, I'd say the main problem was the D yesterday, especially on Dawkins of course. The Fall effect did kind of keep Zion from getting those underneath jams that tend to excite the entire team on both ends.

A big part of the bold was Fall slaughtering Zion anytime he tried to go up near the rim. This seldom bothered the refs, though.

Aside from that, the 7'6" center is definitely key to UCF's blueprint because, as others have pointed out already, he can stay at the basket while still being able to get out to challenge a 15-footer. Tre isn't a good 3-point shooter, but he looks like he has a very good pull-up game. Any normal-sized center would have to move away from the basket, creating much more space for Zion to work underneath, or allow Tre to exploit them with floaters and mid-range jumpers.

[rolm]

RJ missed or hesitated on a lot of drive to the hoop shots where he tried to go over/around Tacko. He was more bothered by the length compared to Zion. Other teams won't have that luxury. I'm not sure teams will be too effective double teaming both these players at the same time. They (especially Zion) pass well. UCF was a unique matchup problem and I was extremely worried when the brackets came out. I really wanted to face VCU instead. My fears came true.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If the blueprint to beat Duke involves having a 7'6" player to rattle all your standard plays, I feel pretty safe.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

If the blueprint to beat Duke involves having a 7'6" player to rattle all your standard plays, I feel pretty safe.

Right: the blue print:
A: have 7-6 center
B: be coached by one of K's proteges - one of the "family"
C: Have coaches son go off on fantasy island game of all time.

[proelitedota]

Right: the blue print:
A: have 7-6 center
B: be coached by one of K's proteges - one of the "family"
C: Have coaches son go off on fantasy island game of all time.

People are forgetting, have refs swallow their whistles on Duke while sending the other team 20 times to the stripe.

[Troublemaker]

There's no blueprint other than what's been known since November -- pack it in on defense, and don't turn it over on offense. There's never been much mystery here. Also, Duke isn't some sort of juggernaut if a special blueprint implies that we are. Maybe UCF can take the Cleveland Cavs to 7 games while Duke can beat the Cavs :-)

Duke's in the top tier of the country, nothing more. Our Vegas odds to win the title -- which have been around 2 to 1 for months now -- have been and continue to be ridiculous.

[MarkD83]

Keep in mind there are blueprints to beat every team. The issue is can you execute the game plan and when things go wrong can the team adjust. To this second point here are the key plays at the end of the UCF game

Reddish 3
Delauier rebound
Zion drive and layup while drawing a foul
RJ rebound and put back of missed free throw

Four players making plays when things looked bad. So even with the perfect blue print duke found a way to win.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

People are forgetting, have refs swallow their whistles on Duke while sending the other team 20 times to the stripe.

yeah well, that DOES enhance the "blueprint."

[SoCalDukeFan]

I don't think there is a blueprint to beat Duke, but there are things I would try if coaching against Duke.

1. Pack it underneath and force Duke to shoot from the outside.

or

2. Put a man on Zion and a man on RJ and have the other 3 play a zone. I don't think Jones or the centers can carry Duke offensively and I would take the chance that Reddish is not up to it either.


Of course Zion and RJ are still going to get their points but these strategies might neutralize them somewhat.

The other key would be to play almost a perfect offensive game.

I would guess that every opponent we face from here on has a better chance of beating us than Villanova did against Georgetown in 1985.

SoCal

[bluebeagle]

The blueprint to beat Duke with Zion and RJ is to play Duke without RJ or Zion. All you have to do is let RJ and Zion drive to the basket and just try and run in front of them to draw a charge. It will work at least half the time and by half time they'll have several fouls each and be taken out of a lot of their game. I wish they would only call a charge if the guy is standing still with his hands down and the guy just runs over him. This business of trying to constantly draw a charge and the defensive players "selling" the call and flopping in my mind isn't a basketball play. That's something Dean Smith started back when he knew Hank Nichols wasn't going to let UNC loose and would call them flops like clockwork if UNC was behind. How about this for a rules change. Let's do away with the and 1. If the players makes the shot then no foul is to be called. I mean, how much advantage did the defensive player gain if the guy still made the shot. It he misses, then maybe give him 3 shots to make two. These people flip flopping all over the floor and touch fouls every time someone breaths on someone the wrong way and then the constant parade to the foul line just makes the game very tedious to watch.

[MrPoon]

I think the more interesting question is whether or not anything UCF did on offense could be used as a blue-print. Tacko Fall was effective when he was on the court, but we won't face anyone like him again. Aubrey Dawkins, however, showed hot a guard playing downhill and hitting outside shots can put serious pressure on our defense. VaTech will be a big test to see if Dawkins was a one-off or if there's something else going on.

This comment is spot on! Fall on D isn’t the only part of this game. Duke gave up 40 in the second half and UCF shot 48.1% for the game to go with 20 FTs. That is why this game was close.
Another way of looking at this question is; when Duke’s staff hits the tape, what do they first look at? To me, I check the D on Dawkins. I’d want to make sure there was nothing scheme-wise that set up those shots. As a staff don’t settle for the “hot hand” theory, even if its true. He scored 32 pts on 18 shots. Should the D have been different because it clearly wasn’t good enough? Because every competing team is also looking closely at this tape. And this felt different than the pick and roll, and attack Javin/Bolden in space that most teams seem content to do.

The second thing to look at is on the offense end what Duke did in the half court. How did they move the D around with ball and off ball movement (I thought this was inconsistent and didn’t make Fall move enough). Tre isn’t the penetrate off the dribble type of PG but he had chances to attack Fall off the dribble and didn’t. Why did we take the threes we took (a missed shot isn’t necessarily a bad shot, but where those actually good/ the best shots)? What was the rest of the offense doing? Was our offense too predictable in the half court (for stretches, yes)? That’s the tape I’d be looking for.

[JetpackJesus]

This comment is spot on! Fall on D isn’t the only part of this game. Duke gave up 40 in the second half and UCF shot 48.1% for the game to go with 20 FTs. That is why this game was close.
Another way of looking at this question is; when Duke’s staff hits the tape, what do they first look at? To me, I check the D on Dawkins. I’d want to make sure there was nothing scheme-wise that set up those shots. As a staff don’t settle for the “hot hand” theory, even if its true. He scored 32 pts on 18 shots. Should the D have been different because it clearly wasn’t good enough? Because every competing team is also looking closely at this tape. And this felt different than the pick and roll, and attack Javin/Bolden in space that most teams seem content to do.

The second thing to look at is on the offense end what Duke did in the half court. How did they move the D around with ball and off ball movement (I thought this was inconsistent and didn’t make Fall move enough). Tre isn’t the penetrate off the dribble type of PG but he had chances to attack Fall off the dribble and didn’t. Why did we take the threes we took (a missed shot isn’t necessarily a bad shot, but where those actually good/ the best shots)? What was the rest of the offense doing? Was our offense too predictable in the half court (for stretches, yes)? That’s the tape I’d be looking for.

I don't know that there's anything Duke could've done to move Fall around. Fall's only role on defense was to stand inside the paint until UCF had the ball again, so I don't think any amount of ball or off ball movement would have caused Fall to move. I think the only thing that would've taken UCF out of that scheme would have been Duke guards making the open threes when they weren't being guarded by anyone.

[dukelifer]

There's no blueprint other than what's been known since November -- pack it in on defense, and don't turn it over on offense. There's never been much mystery here. Also, Duke isn't some sort of juggernaut if a special blueprint implies that we are. Maybe UCF can take the Cleveland Cavs to 7 games while Duke can beat the Cavs :-)

Duke's in the top tier of the country, nothing more. Our Vegas odds to win the title -- which have been around 2 to 1 for months now -- have been and continue to be ridiculous.

I agree. Duke makes for a good story and show. They attract the eyeballs and clearly the most interesting team left in the tourney. They are a young team but with RJ and Zion- they seem to find a way to be in every game. We will see if it continues.

[TruBlu]

The other blueprint is for the opposing team to get back on defense to prevent our fast break. Several teams only have their bigs try for offensive rebounds, while their guards immediately drop back when their team attempts a shot. At least a couple of teams have even gone so far as not putting anyone on the lane to attempt an offensive rebound when they attempt free throws. Duke is scariest when running, and teams have recognized that we are not as good in our half-court offensive team. It seems that our fast break points have declined as the season has progressed. (Eye test only;))

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The other blueprint is for the opposing team to get back on defense to prevent our fast break. Several teams only have their bigs try for offensive rebounds, while their guards immediately drop back when their team attempts a shot. At least a couple of teams have even gone so far as not putting anyone on the lane to attempt an offensive rebound when they attempt free throws. Duke is scariest when running, and teams have recognized that we are not as good in our half-court offensive team. It seems that our fast break points have declined as the season has progressed. (Eye test only;))

...and apropos of your point, teams also do the intentional reach in foul early in our break sequence, to prevent the momentum changing dunk, etc.

[Steven43]

INorth Carolina had 5 guys with their foot inside the key at all times too. Didn't bother Zion that much when a non 7'6 guy wasn't under the basket getting away with fouls left and right.
Which begs the question, that I kept coming back to again and again during the UCF game, of why was this guy (Fall) allowed to get away with obvious fouls that almost assuredly would have been called against anyone else? The unfairness of the situation was infuriating. Were the refs thinking something along the lines of “Oh, wow, what a novelty it is to have a 7’6”’giant on our basketball court. We’d better allow him to do whatever he wants because he’s such a unique specimen. We can’t officiate him the same way we would your average 6’10” center.”

I mean, seriously, what the HELL? This guy was getting away with bloody murder and it completely altered the game as a result. Does anyone have any thoughts on this because I’m at a complete loss.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Which begs the question, that I kept coming back to again and again during the UCF game, of why was this guy (Fall) allowed to get away with obvious fouls that almost assuredly would have been called against anyone else? The unfairness of the situation was infuriating. Were the refs thinking something along the lines of “Oh, wow, what a novelty it is to have a 7’6”’giant on our basketball court. We’d better allow him to do whatever he wants because he’s such a unique specimen. We can’t officiate him the same way we would yiour average 6’10” center.”

I mean, seriously, what the HELL? This guy was getting away with bloody murder and it completely altered the game as a result. Does anyone have any thoughts on this because I’m at a complete loss.

Great question, and I'll take a swing at it: a couple swings actually:

Officiating involves a number of skills, one being weighing what your eyes tell you versus your sub conscious tells you. One thing that I am convinced hurts Duke every game is that these referees know that 90% of fans and 90% of ESPN personalities think "Duke gets all the calls." Just as Bilas swings too far the non Duke way as an announcer, officials swing too far the other way in their calls. An official will never get criticized nationally on ESPN or Social Media for making a bad call that hurts Duke....and they know they'll catch hell for making a correct but tough call that is in Duke's favor. No one likes criticism. It's human nature. It's why home teams often get the close calls...somewhere inside the ref brain is the understanding that "if I call this a charge, I'll get a huge roar of approval..." which is why charges called on the visitors are always more emphatically signaled. Almost always.

No one can convince me these are not factors. Human nature is simply more powerful than the self discipline to over come it. These were factors versus UCF.

Another factor in the UCF game is that officials have simply never seen anyone like Zion or Tacko. They simply do not know how to officiate these physical giants. I think they get caught watching, and the call doesn't happen. Again, human nature.

And finally, there's the fact that the game is ahead of these officials. The overall core competency of college officiating is making the games almost unwatchable. I'll be watching a game I don't care about - and have to turn it off because of absurd calls (and absurd announcing that ignores what replay shows us). They are really clueless on the block charge.

[TruBlu]

...and apropos of your point, teams also do the intentional reach in foul early in our break sequence, to prevent the momentum changing dunk, etc.

Yes. And why are they not called intentional or flagrant fouls, since they usually are not making a legitimate play on the ball.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Yes. And why are they not called intentional or flagrant fouls, since they usually are not making a legitimate play on the ball.

Well it's kind of understood in these situations that if you don't grab a jersey or pull a guy down or hack too hard, they'll just call it normal foul. Are they legit plays on the ball? Not very often, no....but you can't get refs involved too much in trying to figure out intent......even as the intent here is obvious.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Which begs the question, that I kept coming back to again and again during the UCF game, of why was this guy (Fall) allowed to get away with obvious fouls that almost assuredly would have been called against anyone else? The unfairness of the situation was infuriating. Were the refs thinking something along the lines of “Oh, wow, what a novelty it is to have a 7’6”’giant on our basketball court. We’d better allow him to do whatever he wants because he’s such a unique specimen. We can’t officiate him the same way we would your average 6’10” center.”

I mean, seriously, what the HELL? This guy was getting away with bloody murder and it completely altered the game as a result. Does anyone have any thoughts on this because I’m at a complete loss.

I'm sure there are refs who get carried away in the moment with crowd pressure or what have you. That's wildly unprofessional and should never happen, but is almost impossible to prove or litigate.

I think what happens with a player like Tacko (not that there many "like" him) is more akin to umpires calling a strike zone with Mugsy Bogues. The entirety of what you are looking for is completely unfamiliar. If a player's wingspan is over 8 feet, that player simply doesn't move in a way you are used to. Frankly, the laws of physics are different.

I think it is very unusual for a game to be called consistently one sided. I do think I have seen lots of bad refs in the last few weeks, and some have made game changing calls, but to me that's part of sports. I don't see tin foil conspiracies out there, and I very rarely will point to a ref as "costing the game."

Blocks and charges on the other hand seem to be a coin flip these days. And again, I think Zion's physical nature predisposes refs to call fouls on him even if he doesn't initiate the contact.

[COYS]

Well it's kind of understood in these situations that if you don't grab a jersey or pull a guy down or hack too hard, they'll just call it normal foul. Are they legit plays on the ball? Not very often, no...but you can't get refs involved too much in trying to figure out intent...even as the intent here is obvious.

Yeah, the NCAA just needs to adopt an NBA-style clear-path technical foul rule change. My other preference would be for allowing a soccer-style “advantage” to be played to see if the team in transition can still get an easy deuce. If not, stop play for the foul. If they get an easy bucket, stop play after the bucket and assess the personal foul.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yeah, the NCAA just needs to adopt an NBA-style clear-path technical foul rule change. My other preference would be for allowing a soccer-style “advantage” to be played to see if the team in transition can still get an easy deuce. If not, stop play for the foul. If they get an easy bucket, stop play after the bucket and assess the personal foul.

That sounds like putting more judgment on the plates of the refs. I prefer things clear cut and objective.

[Indoor66]

That sounds like putting more judgment on the plates of the refs. I prefer things clear cut and objective.

We all prefer clear cut and objective but the speed of the action rarely permits that standard.

[CDu]

A timely article on this very topic by John Gassaway at ESPN:

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/26359837/duke-bad-3-point-shooting-matters-less-think

Note: it's Insider only for those who don't have access.

His takeaway: yeah, good luck with that. Duke is still really good. Our 2pt FG% is SO good that the 3pt shooting is only a concern, not a fatal flaw. And he agrees that the scare against UCF had more to do with our defensive struggles (mainly against Dawkins and Fall) than our offensive struggles.

[COYS]

That sounds like putting more judgment on the plates of the refs. I prefer things clear cut and objective.

The refs already have to judge the intent of a foul on a break-away. I’d rather them make a judgement that favors the offense no matter what (either the offense gets advantage and scores an easy bucket or they don’t and play is called back to assess the foul) than allow the defense to gain advantage by committing a foul.

But I might be alone on that.

[Phredd3]

This guy was getting away with bloody murder and it completely altered the game as a result. Does anyone have any thoughts on this because I’m at a complete loss.

I don't know if it has to do with his shear size or what, but I watched the game on replay just last night, and Fall brings his arms down into the shooter's vertical space virtually every time he attempts to contest a shot. Yet at least once during that game on a no-call play, one of the refs held his arms straight in the air, as if to say that Fall was completely vertical. Slowing the play down on my DVR very clearly showed he was very much NOT vertical and his arms were contacting the arms of the shooter inside the shooter's vertical space. It was just a clear, clear explicit miss on the part of the official, and there were at least three such no-calls in the game, including very early in the game on the first occasion Zion challenged Fall one-on-one.

It's not really fair to count non-calls on a single player, since there can be a lot of misses both ways in any given game. But of course I did it anyway, and in my not-so-humble opinion, even generously, Fall should have fouled out with just over 12 min. left to play in the game.

[elvis14]

Great question, and I'll take a swing at it: a couple swings actually:

Officiating involves a number of skills, one being weighing what your eyes tell you versus your sub conscious tells you. One thing that I am convinced hurts Duke every game is that these referees know that 90% of fans and 90% of ESPN personalities think "Duke gets all the calls." Just as Bilas swings too far the non Duke way as an announcer, officials swing too far the other way in their calls. An official will never get criticized nationally on ESPN or Social Media for making a bad call that hurts Duke...and they know they'll catch hell for making a correct but tough call that is in Duke's favor. No one likes criticism. It's human nature. It's why home teams often get the close calls...somewhere inside the ref brain is the understanding that "if I call this a charge, I'll get a huge roar of approval..." which is why charges called on the visitors are always more emphatically signaled. Almost always.

No one can convince me these are not factors. Human nature is simply more powerful than the self discipline to over come it. These were factors versus UCF.

Another factor in the UCF game is that officials have simply never seen anyone like Zion or Tacko. They simply do not know how to officiate these physical giants. I think they get caught watching, and the call doesn't happen. Again, human nature.

And finally, there's the fact that the game is ahead of these officials. The overall core competency of college officiating is making the games almost unwatchable. I'll be watching a game I don't care about - and have to turn it off because of absurd calls (and absurd announcing that ignores what replay shows us). They are really clueless on the block charge.

For years there was the "Duke gets all the calls" myth. Forget the fact that better teams generally get more calls and that some styles of play lend themselves to getting to the line. This myth cumulated with a game against FSU about 10 years ago where there really was a bad call against FSU, their center fouled out and we won the game. I've thought that since then officials have stopped giving us the benefit of the doubt because they don't want to part of the "Duke gets all the calls" myth. This also leads to an inherent bias in the way commentators call games. When you watch Duke games, commentators will call out officials for making bad calls in our favor all day long. Rarely will they mention a bad call in our opponents favor unless it's just so blatantly obvious (like when Fall mugged Zion). Commentators love this sentence on one of the floor: Player X drives into the late, contact there but no call. Player X will NOT be wearing a Duke jersey. They say it all game long....on one end of the floor. The effect creates a bias by end of a game and people don't even realize they being played.

Tin foil hat rant over. Yes, I recognize my own bias. @#%$ it

[Acymetric]

Yeah, the NCAA just needs to adopt an NBA-style clear-path technical foul rule change. My other preference would be for allowing a soccer-style “advantage” to be played to see if the team in transition can still get an easy deuce. If not, stop play for the foul. If they get an easy bucket, stop play after the bucket and assess the personal foul.

I would love for both of these to be implemented (advantage would be great in basketball). It would essentially be an expanded version of continuation. The player would still be charged with a foul when "advantage" allows a play to continue.

Something else I've always thought would be a good idea in response to fouling at the end of games or intentionally fouling bad FT shooters...give a team the option to just take the ball out of bounds instead of shoot the free throws.

[fan345678]

While we're on the topic of officiating, I want to give credit to the refs for swallowing their whistles on Zion's drive before his shot over Fall.
Yes, we know that Taylor's Dick Fosbury impersonation was pretty dramatic, but the flop is not the only reason it wasn't a charge. Watching the play again, Zion drove to the free throw line, nearly parallel with the baseline. Taylor was guarding him for a sharper drive into the lane. Thus, Taylor was never actually in position in Zion's path of movement. Additionally, when Zion did use his arm, he did not use it clear out his path, but rather to the side of his path.
Kudos to the refs for realizing this, and especially to Zion for the (nearly) right angle strategy that effectively got rid of one defender and left a clear path toward a guy who was standing in the arc. I'm sure Zion knew that Taylor would flop, so to avoid the charge, he just went in a different direction than Taylor anticipated. Brilliant.

Edit: Also, because nobody (or technically, Tacko) was guarding Tre, there was nobody left to help on that side. I bet that's one of the reasons that he told Zion to drive.

[devildeac]

For years there was the "Duke gets all the calls" myth. Forget the fact that better teams generally get more calls and that some styles of play lend themselves to getting to the line. This myth cumulated with a game against FSU about 10 years ago where there really was a bad call against FSU, their center fouled out and we won the game. I've thought that since then officials have stopped giving us the benefit of the doubt because they don't want to part of the "Duke gets all the calls" myth. This also leads to an inherent bias in the way commentators call games. When you watch Duke games, commentators will call out officials for making bad calls in our favor all day long. Rarely will they mention a bad call in our opponents favor unless it's just so blatantly obvious (like when Fall mugged Zion). Commentators love this sentence on one of the floor: Player X drives into the late, contact there but no call. Player X will NOT be wearing a Duke jersey. They say it all game long...on one end of the floor. The effect creates a bias by end of a game and people don't even realize they being played.

Tin foil hat rant over. Yes, I recognize my own bias. @#%$ it

WRT the f$u game you're referencing, if we're thinking about the same game (great minds and all that stuff), you might want to look up the re-match at f$u a few weeks later and look at the huuuuge PF and FT disparity in that one (warning: it will NOT help your pulse/BP/overall cardiac health:mad:). This is where godukestatsgeek used to help me a lot with data like this.

[devildeac]

While we're on the topic of officiating, I want to give credit to the refs for swallowing their whistles on Zion's drive before his shot over Fall.
Yes, we know that Taylor's Dick Fosbury impersonation was pretty dramatic, but the flop is not the only reason it wasn't a charge. Watching the play again, Zion drove to the free throw line, nearly parallel with the baseline. Taylor was guarding him for a sharper drive into the lane. Thus, Taylor was never actually in position in Zion's path of movement. Additionally, when Zion did use his arm, he did not use it clear out his path, but rather to the side of his path.
Kudos to the refs for realizing this, and especially to Zion for the (nearly) right angle strategy that effectively got rid of one defender and left a clear path toward a guy who was standing in the arc. I'm sure Zion knew that Taylor would flop, so to avoid the charge, he just went in a different direction than Taylor anticipated. Brilliant.

Edit: Also, because nobody (or technically, Tacko) was guarding Tre, there was nobody left to help on that side. I bet that's one of the reasons that he told Zion to drive.

I'm with you on this one but I think (the idiots in) the media are using this to support their agenda of "Duke gets all the call" claiming it was a charge on Zion yet will ignore the awful call on Cam when he didn't foul on Dawkins' (?) 3-ball and also ignored the mugging Zion took from Fall in the photo that's been posted here and on twitter.

[fan345678]

I'm with you on this one but I think (the idiots in) the media are using this to support their agenda of "Duke gets all the call" claiming it was a charge on Zion yet will ignore the awful call on Cam when he didn't foul on Dawkins' (?) 3-ball and also ignored the mugging Zion took from Fall in the photo that's been posted here and on twitter.

Yeah, that awful call against Cam literally gave UCF three points and was a major source of Cam's foul trouble, which greatly aided UCF's defensive strategy and took away a quick 6'9" defender when one of UCF's wings was having a career night. It also limited our ability to go small.

The announcers did at least point out that it was a terrible call.

[TruBlu]

Just in case Buzz is checking DBR for formulating his game plan:

1) The coaching staff has discovered a glitch in Tre’s shooting form, and it has been corrected. In practice, he is now hitting 79% of his 3’s from mid court, heavily guarded by 2 tall defenders.

2) Zion has decided to “shut it down”, and will only jog while on the court. And no jumping. So there’s no need in guarding him.

3) Since we have a habit of starting slow anyway, our normal starters will not take the court until the third tv timeout. Team managers (who are really fast) will start the game. They beat the Boston Celtics in an unofficial scrimmage.

4) Coach K has decided to let random DBR posters make all in game strategery decisions. You’re in trouble.

[tecumseh]

I'd really like to see Tre take no more than 2 3's a game going forward and frankly I think 0 would be a good number. If a team sags off of him, he should take some of the space and pull up for a midrange jumper. Normally longer 2's are the worst shot one can take but with Tre....he has to stop chucking up 3's even if they are wide open.

What if he hits his first one?

[elvis14]

What if he hits his first one?

Then he's likely to miss the next 4 so how about he just not take them? :D

Teams are employing that strategy for a reason, unless he shoots better we are basically falling into their trap if he keeps shooting 3's.

Note, I know this isn't 'nice'. I really like Tre and I think Tre is a great player with strengths and weaknesses. I just don't like teams pushing him to the weaknesses and letting them get away with it. Hitting wide open 3's even when left unguarded just isn't a strength for Tre. Mid range jumpers and attacking the hoop....go for it!

[WHOneedsSOX]

A timely article on this very topic by John Gassaway at ESPN:

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/26359837/duke-bad-3-point-shooting-matters-less-think

Note: it's Insider only for those who don't have access.

His takeaway: yeah, good luck with that. Duke is still really good. Our 2pt FG% is SO good that the 3pt shooting is only a concern, not a fatal flaw. And he agrees that the scare against UCF had more to do with our defensive struggles (mainly against Dawkins and Fall) than our offensive struggles.

Which is why March Madness is in fact "madness." Yes, Duke played some poor defense on Dawkins at times but he made a lot of really good, tough shots. And yes, he still had to make the wide open ones. Any given day someone can get red hot or ice cold. Look at that guy on Wofford, the one who set the all-time NCAA 3 point record. He's a career 40% from 3-point like and he went 0-12 (!!!) against Kentucky. Yes, some were challenged and very difficult but still, you'd think he still make at least a couple. And Kentucky would've been going home if he did.

[Steven43]

Something else I've always thought would be a good idea in response to fouling at the end of games or intentionally fouling bad FT shooters...give a team the option to just take the ball out of bounds instead of shoot the free throws.
Oh my god, YES!! I have been saying this to various people around me while watching games for at least 25 years. People usually seem to agree, but no one seems as worked up about it as I do, and for the life of me I cannot understand why not. It seems almost too obvious of the right thing to do. Why should a defender gain any sort of advantage by committing a foul? If it weren’t potentially advantageous for the team playing defense to commit an intentional foul, they wouldn’t do it. It’s an absolute no-brainer. Why won’t they change this rule? Why???

[robed deity]

Which is why March Madness is in fact "madness." Yes, Duke played some poor defense on Dawkins at times but he made a lot of really good, tough shots. And yes, he still had to make the wide open ones. Any given day someone can get red hot or ice cold. Look at that guy on Wofford, the one who set the all-time NCAA 3 point record. He's a career 40% from 3-point like and he went 0-12 (!!!) against Kentucky. Yes, some were challenged and very difficult but still, you'd think he still make at least a couple. And Kentucky would've been going home if he did.

After studying all of Dawkins' shots, I thought as the game wore on, the d on him was actually decent (except maybe the one he got in the middle of the zone). I think the lesson is- you can't let a guy get going. The first few were not particularly well contested and you could tell he was on a mission. After he gained confidence, it was all he needed. That might have been Duke's youth and inexperience showing.

[-jk]

I would love for both of these to be implemented (advantage would be great in basketball). It would essentially be an expanded version of continuation. The player would still be charged with a foul when "advantage" allows a play to continue.

Something else I've always thought would be a good idea in response to fouling at the end of games or intentionally fouling bad FT shooters...give a team the option to just take the ball out of bounds instead of shoot the free throws.

I like this, too. My kid also wants 5 seconds to be run off the clock on any foul under 1 minute.

-jk

[HereBeforeCoachK]

After studying all of Dawkins' shots, I thought as the game wore on, the d on him was actually decent (except maybe the one he got in the middle of the zone). I think the lesson is- you can't let a guy get going. The first few were not particularly well contested and you could tell he was on a mission. After he gained confidence, it was all he needed. That might have been Duke's youth and inexperience showing.

I think this kind of thing has been a bit of a blind spot for a while. You're right, shooting a contested 3 is much easier after you've banged down a couple wide open. And a player with confidence is often easy to spot. It is far better to "nip it in the bud."

[-jk]

I think this kind of thing has been a bit of a blind spot for a while. You're right, shooting a contested 3 is much easier after you've banged down a couple wide open. And a player with confidence is often easy to spot. It is far better to "nip it in the bud."

You mean the "hot hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand)"?

(Ducks, covers...)

-jk

[Dukehky]

Blueprint:

Make 50% of your threes and pray.

OR have a Duke starter or two be injured.

[devildeac]

http://www.brueprint.com/home

Never mind. I thought the thread title said Brüeprint.

:o

[HereBeforeCoachK]

You mean the "hot hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand)"?

(Ducks, covers...)

-jk

hah....that study was a fallacy. It defined hot hand as having made one in a row, then measuring the next result. That's not how you measure hot hand.

A hot hand is like 3 in a row, or 6 out of 8, from three. Observing the hot hand involves both looking backwards and forwards, and involves objective and subjective dynamics. After Dawkins made his first couple of 3's, I think we all thought he had the hot hand. Not only did the shots go in, but they were cleanly in, and they were shot with form and energy and obvious confidence. He proved us right.

Meanwhile, when Jack went 2-2 a few games back to start the game, but one was an unintentional bank shot......I don't think we thought him having the hot hand. Two different situations, both with 2-2 starts....but totally different results.

[fan345678]

Something else I've always thought would be a good idea in response to fouling at the end of games or intentionally fouling bad FT shooters...give a team the option to just take the ball out of bounds instead of shoot the free throws.

This has been an experimental rule in the past-- seems like it was in the '99-'00 preseason NIT when we lost to Stanford and UConn. We kept fouling and they kept taking the ball out. I think the option might have only been available after the double bonus, or maybe only available after fouls 7, 8, and 9 instead of a 1-and-1.

[Devil2]

This has been an experimental rule in the past-- seems like it was in the '99-'00 preseason NIT when we lost to Stanford and UConn. We kept fouling and they kept taking the ball out. I think the option might have only been available after the double bonus, or maybe only available after fouls 7, 8, and 9 instead of a 1-and-1.

I have seen this rule used at some level (I think FIBA) a number of years ago. It worked too well. It was almost impossible to close leads in close games. I think it was finally ditched for that reason

[WillJ]

You mean the "hot hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand)"?

(Ducks, covers...)

-jk

There is a hot hand....it's just not as hot as people think. The Tversky et al. paper arguing that there was no hot hand had a math error.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

There is a hot hand...it's just not as hot as people think. The Tversky et al. paper arguing that there was no hot hand had a math error.

From what I could tell about the Tversky study - is that they used a purely objective starting point...a single made shot...and then tracked the shot afterwards for data. That's hardly what anybody means who uses the phrase "hot hand." That phrase, btw, is very subjective, and to measure with purely objective figures is to miss the point.

If you wanted to use pure numbers, a better format would be to take anyone who's hit 2 of their last 3, and then track the next 5 shots. But even that misses the point. We didn't think Dawkins had the hot hand Sunday merely because he hit his first couple threes...we also saw how his stroke looked, his body language looked, how clean the shots were. All of that goes into what most fans mean when they say "hot hand" - and not merely a single make.

Dawkins finished 5-7, which is indeed a hot hand in 3 point shooting. UCF was 9-18, also a general "hot hand." Anyone who posited that Dawkins/UCF had a hot hand early in the game was proven correct by the end result numbers.

[WillJ]

From what I could tell about the Tversky study - is that they used a purely objective starting point...a single made shot...and then tracked the shot afterwards for data. That's hardly what anybody means who uses the phrase "hot hand." That phrase, btw, is very subjective, and to measure with purely objective figures is to miss the point.

If you wanted to use pure numbers, a better format would be to take anyone who's hit 2 of their last 3, and then track the next 5 shots. But even that misses the point. We didn't think Dawkins had the hot hand Sunday merely because he hit his first couple threes...we also saw how his stroke looked, his body language looked, how clean the shots were. All of that goes into what most fans mean when they say "hot hand" - and not merely a single make.

Totally spot-on. The original claim that there was no hot hand was patently absurd. Sometimes our fingers hurt, sometimes we have a bad knee, sometimes we're just tired, and all of those things are serially correlated, affect shooting, and yet are unobservable to the statistician. It would be absolutely shocking if there were really no serial correlation without controlling for those things....which you can't.

[DevilYouKnow]

I think what stymied Tre so much is that Tacko prevented him from driving in a dribble or two to shoot from his comfortable range.

If he's left open to shoot, with enough room, he can dribble in a bit, where he'll have more options.

[cspan37421]

If you wanted to use pure numbers, a better format would be to take anyone who's hit 2 of their last 3, and then track the next 5 shots. But even that misses the point. We didn't think Dawkins had the hot hand Sunday merely because he hit his first couple threes...we also saw how his stroke looked, his body language looked, how clean the shots were. All of that goes into what most fans mean when they say "hot hand" - and not merely a single make.


If you torture the data enough, they'll confess to anything. (paraphrasing Coase)

We have an amazing forum here, with so many people who are more clever than Amos Tversky. ;)

Back on topic, I agree with earlier posters (UrinalCake, e.g.) that defenses will pack the paint and dare us to shoot from outside. Some of our guys should, at that point, step up and take a 15 footer (or better). If they're closed out well, pump fake and draw contact, or dish. I just sure hope we don't bite on unguarded threes for guys who have been unable to hit a good % in a long time. At some point you have to go by the numbers (e.g., season averages). Sure, someone who has been shooting terribly might have a great shooting night from outside, but how do you know in advance IF it will happen, and WHO it will happen for? How many 1-point games will you leave to chance waiting for that to happen? It's all about alternatives, and unfortunately for some of our guys even an open 3-pointer has not proven to be a high expected points per shot attempt.

I'm not too worried about our guys on defense. The success of our occasional ball pressure has been fun to watch. With such a chalky sweet 16, though, I'm not sure there's much low-hanging fruit out there for getting steals.

[AZLA]

Yes. It was generally started by Syracuse when they came to Cameron and it has iterated in varying degrees depending on the team and matchup — and continues to evolve. I liken it to political party talking points that get shared via the grapevine and supported by data trends. In this case the propensity for Duke to struggle with outside shooting. The M.O. is to play off of offensive players to bait them into shooting from 3 and collapse into the middle to help with Zion and RJs tendency to drive all the way to the hoop. Also, to play extremely physical against Zion as he is so strong and imposing, refs are challenged to make calls or swallow the whistle. Defenders are coached to fall on contact especially against Cam and Zion who are good for a couple of offensive charges especially when the outside shot is passed up and they drive from the elbow or baseline. Cam has to especially know that he is a prime candidate for the insta charge. Also, Duke has a tendency to give up the long ball three — so a hot outside shooting team can gain an edge. Also Coach K’s bench has been shortening especially in the tourney, so isolating players like Cam for contact is a bonus. Teams try and foul early if Duke gets out on transition due to their dominance to convert on rebounds and turnovers. Duke needs to get the mid range shot to counter; especially Tre who I actually think is still sore and his shot has been affected by his shoulder injury. Ultimately Zion dominating the paint in rebounds on both ends is crucial.