MBB: Duke 75, Notre Dame 65 Post-Game Thread

[-jk]

That's more like it! Happy to see better passing.

-jk

[CameronDuke]

Duke can’t win true road games.

[sagegrouse]

Well, if Jaemyn Brakefield is #6 or #7 on the Duke roster, we have a pretty darned good team. When I see Jaemyn get active on either end of the court, I believe something good is about to happen.

[TywinBlue]

Good win on the road to start ACC play.
Great to see the rotation go 9 deep.

[DukieInBrasil]

Super stoked about Brakefield so far, but our starting guards were a revelation tonight with 39 pts.
Goodwin went off, and Hubb got a few, but otherwise the D shut everybody else down.

[CameronDuke]

In all seriousness, that is a solid all around win. The team shot the basketball beautifully. 31-60 from the floor, 8-15 from deep, 5-5 from the line. That will be good enough to beat most teams. Out rebounded ND 33-23 and committed just 8 turnovers. That’s a recipe for success. Hurt, Brakefield, Roach, Steward, and Goldwire had great games offensively. Moore and Baker continue to be mired in a slump. Williams had a few impressive rebounds and baskets. No Coleman tonight.

Coming off getting dismantled at home vs Illinois, this win will hopefully do wonders for this young team’s confidence. Another long layoff until Coach Capel and Pitt come to Cameron 12/29 (hopefully).

With this young team, 3-2, 1-0 isn’t the end of the world. I still like this team. They’ll lose some games this year along the way but the talent is there to have a lot of wins this year. It will be fun watching this unproven team develop and hopefully continue to get better under Coach K and the staff.

[uh_no]

great offense. eh defense. offense was much simplified, for better or wrose, not having jalen helped there, as we ran a more standard front court. brakefield really showing his stuff on offense. needs to make similar improvement on D...as IMO that's what's kept him off the floor for major minutes so far. Inability to get to the line is still a major issue. IMO 8 assists is a deceptive number, since the movement on offense was really good.

[KandG]

Thought the key moment was when Notre Dame got the lead down to 5 after our 7th team foul of the second half with a good 11:47 left. I was concerned that ND’s experience and being in the bonus early — along with our offense bogging down — was going to result in a comeback.

From that point on, we outscored ND 21-9 in the next eight minutes and didn’t commit another foul until 3:41 left. Brakefield 3 pointer, Goldwire runner, Brakefield drive from the top of the key pretty much gave us the working margin we needed. Nice team win, Roach is looking better every game and the freshmen as a whole look more comfortable.

[Saratoga2]

With Johnson injured, it still looks like we can field a solid all around team with Hurt, Goldwire, Roach, Stewart and Brakefield. Williams also had good moments although his comfort level needs to improve , especially defensively. Now we need to get Baker and Moore going. Of the two, Moore seemed to at least contribute defensively. Both aren't getting it on offense.

Generally, I like the growth shown in both Roach and Stewart's games. Good omen going forward.

[Mak P]

I'm patiently waiting in hopes of Roach and Steward announcing coming back for their 2nd year

[dukelifer]

Nice game. Notre Dame is not a great defensive team and that helped- but the guys player well together. Brakefield is playing well. He knows what he can and cannot do. He shoots and rebounds well and is competitive. Roach had another good game. He is getting comfortable and not pressing. Steward is fun to watch - just needs to be consistent. Hurt continues to be a rock. Moore did a few good things on D and did not force his shot, but he and Baker need to be better. A lot to build on from this one.

[uh_no]

With Johnson injured, it still looks like we can field a solid all around team with Hurt, Goldwire, Roach, Stewart and Brakefield. Williams also had good moments although his comfort level needs to improve , especially defensively. Now we need to get Baker and Moore going. Of the two, Moore seemed to at least contribute defensively. Both aren't getting it on offense.

Generally, I like the growth shown in both Roach and Stewart's games. Good omen going forward.

I liked the depth that tape' brought us. I was surprised he didn't get some more time later...as I thought he was doing what he was supposed to. must have been something he still wasn't doing.

[mkirsh]

Pretty solid offensive performance - much better spacing, ball movement, player movement and execution, plus a few guys (Hurt, Steward, Roach) able to get shots for themselves late in the clock.

Defense was ok - effort was there, but rotations were a bit slow and ND can really shoot.

But overall positive improvement as individual players and as a collective team.

I’m also glad I got to hear about the Clemson-ND football game for 30 minutes. I thought I was going to have to listen to announcers actually call the game I tuned into watch so I’m very appreciative of Vitale constantly pulling the helpless play by play guy back to football.

[rsvman]

I liked the depth that Tapé brought us. I was surprised he didn't get some more time later...as I thought he was doing what he was supposed to. must have been something he still wasn't doing.
To me he looked a step slow on defense and very tentative on offense.

[Billy Dat]

Thought the key moment was when Notre Dame got the lead down to 5 after our 7th team foul of the second half with a good 11:47 left. I was concerned that ND’s experience and being in the bonus early — along with our offense bogging down — was going to result in a comeback.

From that point on, we outscored ND 21-9 in the next eight minutes and didn’t commit another foul until 3:41 left. Brakefield 3 pointer, Goldwire runner, Brakefield drive from the top of the key pretty much gave us the working margin we needed. Nice team win, Roach is looking better every game and the freshmen as a whole look more comfortable.

I agree with all of this.

Hurt is really confident in what he can do on the offensive end, setting himself up for that little impossible to block fadeaway. Once defenses start anticipating it, I hope he follows in the footwork of fellow Minnesotan, Kevin McHale, with some lethal counters. The dude has come a long way.

At times our defense was really good. Letting Goodwin go off was no bueno, but we bothered Hubb. Let’s face it, though, ND is pretty bad. That’s what we needed.

Stuff I liked:
-Mark Williams Sky Hooks
-DJ off ball cuts for lay-ups
-Goldwire’s pesky hands
-Roach’s confident stroke
-Baker making defensive plays
-Brakefield shooting 3s with no hesitation
-The refs letting them play

Good win, now we wait. Happy Holidays Blue Devils.

[mkirsh]

To me he looked a step slow on defense and very tentative on offense.

Agree with this. In limited minutes he was tentative on a layup that got blocked and was out of position on a drive or two. But the fact that he started I’m going to take as a good sign - that the coaches have seen something in practice and have confidence in him.

[CoachJ10]

Was a great matchup for us right now...they are probably one of the least quick teams in college basketball. It allowed us to run sets on offense...which we really need practice at doing. Great effort on defense...but ball awareness is still a weakness. Seems to be most freshman’s Achilles heel.

JJ will be missed...especially on defense against stronger more athletic teams. But if we can work on our offense and get other players to play smart and with confidence in the meantime...that would be a win considering the circumstances.

[simplyluvin]

Really efficient game on both fronts. I'll be interested to see the eff. ratings. Good team to play if you want to break an offensive funk, as, true to the scouting reports, they are not good on D. They are, however, a savvy team who can shoot, and we held our own on the defensive end. I really liked our rebounding, and we kept up intensity on both end for both halves.

Two nit-picks:

Why does Wendell keep forcing bad passes towards the basket. I counted three TOs on forced passes by him. He also needs to finish better, play stronger with the ball. His head is still not right.
Joey is who he is. A spot-up shooter, but not much else. The game still seems too fast for him, and it should not be in his junior year.

[Oriole Way]

I think by the end of the season, our best lineup will be Roach, Steward, Brakefield, Johnson, Hurt. Provided Johnson gets healthy.

That lineup spreads the floor the best, and opens up driving lanes for Roach, Steward, and Johnson the best. Use a 2-3 Zone on defense with Brakefield, Johnson, and Hurt along the baseline, and Hurt in the middle.

[jacone21]

Pretty solid offensive performance - much better spacing, ball movement, player movement and execution, plus a few guys (Hurt, Steward, Roach) able to get shots for themselves late in the clock.

Defense was ok - effort was there, but rotations were a bit slow and ND can really shoot.

But overall positive improvement as individual players and as a collective team.

I’m also glad I got to hear about the Clemson-ND football game for 30 minutes. I thought I was going to have to listen to announcers actually call the game I tuned into watch so I’m very appreciative of Vitale constantly pulling the helpless play by play guy back to football.

At least you can mute that. But what can I do about this live action commercial BS? Just pure greed. Every day... I'm one step closer to cutting the cord.

12047

[dukelifer]

Really efficient game on both fronts. I'll be interested to see the eff. ratings. Good team to play if you want to break an offensive funk, as, true to the scouting reports, they are not good on D. They are, however, a savvy team who can shoot, and we held our own on the defensive end. I really liked our rebounding, and we kept up intensity on both end for both halves.

Two nit-picks:

Why does Wendell keep forcing bad passes towards the basket. I counted three TOs on forced passes by him. He also needs to finish better, play stronger with the ball. His head is still not right.
Joey is who he is. A spot-up shooter, but not much else. The game still seems too fast for him, and it should not be in his junior year.


Well he did not play very much in real games as a Freshman and right now he is not showing much of a spot up shooting stroke. Needs to get better.

[mkirsh]

I think by the end of the season, our best lineup will be Roach, Steward, Brakefield, Johnson, Hurt. Provided Johnson gets healthy.

That lineup spreads the floor the best, and opens up driving lanes for Roach, Steward, and Johnson the best. Use a 2-3 Zone on defense with Brakefield, Johnson, and Hurt along the baseline, and Hurt in the middle.

I was going to say I don’t think Johnson, Hurt, or Brakefield could guard the 3, but then you threw in the zone wrinkle. Very interesting. I think K views zone in a “break glass in case of emergency only” way, but that is actually an evolution from his “over my dead body” prior stance, so I guess it’s possible.

[mkirsh]

At least you can mute that. But what can I do about this live action commercial BS? Just pure greed. Every day... I'm one step closer to cutting the cord.

12047

At least it was for something amazing like Taco Bell delivery

[gofurman]

Very happy w a win. Whew. 1-0 in ACC

good - guard play. Like has been said this team will go as Roach n Steward go
- impressed w development of Goldwire. He will never be nba but he is so much better than he was 3 yrs ago
- Hurt is so consistent
- Brakefield is a great find, shooting threes etc
- actually ran plays!!! Cuts without the ball and they work. Sometimes it’s a simple game
- defense on Hubb who is very good - mostly by Goldwire but some by Moore

Bad
- Moore and his handle. Two consecutive turnovers against a team that doesn’t push for turnovers. I am scared whenever he has the ball. Someone PLEASE explain why he was bringing the ball up court early in game?? . He literally just throws it away

- Baker tries on D now. Too slow but he has improved there. However nothing offensively from him or Moore really. It’s hard to play 4 on 5 when we have the ball. Kinda sad our least confident O players are sophomore / junior in Moore and Baker
- do keep in mind ND is the worst D in the whole ACC. You can see why. UK was down 25 and missed a last shot to come back all the way.
- good grief don’t lose sight of that 3 point shooter / Goodwin, after he has hit three or four. Cmon


That was a good team for our struggling Ô to play. Now keep practicing have a good Holiday and beat Pitt !

[kako]

5 thoughts...

1. Contrary to popular belief, Duke is not dead. ND isn't a top team, but a convincing road win in conference is nothing to sneer about. Duke was in control from the start and never let up.
2. Loved the ball distribution and balanced scoring. Getting everyone a touch and points keeps players' heads in the game. In the end, the guards won this one for us.
3. Interesting idea to let ND football players in to watch the game. They are quarantined and tested, just like the hoops players. Duke should do the same. Can't let the entire team in, but small groups might be good. Or switch between the ongoing team sports.
4. Man, it's painful to watch Moore. I just feel for the guy, I so want him to have a positive stretch of play.
5. Let's not see any "we are better off without Johnson" takes. Duke needs him back, needs him to get into rhythm. Duke needs him playing well to advance in the tourney (whenever the tourney happens).

9F

[Kedsy]

Really good offense; decent but not so great defense. Kind of the opposite to what we've been for most of this season.

OFFENSE

Possessions: 62.3 (slooooooow, even when taking into account the fact that Notre Dame is one of the slowest teams around (#302 in Pomeroy's adjusted tempo))
oRtg: 1.20 (1.22 adjusted (if we're ready for adjusted numbers, which I'm not sure we are); by far our best offensive rating of the season)
eFG%: 58.3% (strong)
3pt%: 53.3% (super-strong)
2pt%: 51.1% (adequate)
%threes: 25.0% (our lowest of the year, by a lot, but if that means we're taking better shots, it's hard to argue with our 3pt success rate tonight)
FT rate: 8.3% (anemic; by far our worst FT rate of the season, and that's saying something since it's been a notable weakness before this)
OR%: 31.0% (not great but better than against both Mich St and Illinois)
TO%: 12.8% (best of the season; it would be nice to stay near this level moving forward)
a/to: 1:1 (meh)
%assisted: 25.8% (by far our lowest in this stat for the season, but our offense was so good I don't think it mattered)
fast break pts: 7 (9.3% of points; 2nd straight game with hardly any fast break points)

DEFENSE

dRtg: 1.04 (0.95 adjusted (same caveat regarding adjusted numbers) a bad raw number, but Notre Dame is a pretty good offensive team, so an adequate adjusted number)
eFG%: 56.1% (bad)
3pt%: 42.9% (also bad)
2pt%: 50.0% (not good)
%threes: 42.9% (this is much too high, after three straight games of successfully running our opponents off the line)
FT rate: 22.4% (our lowest defensive FTR of the season, but still not great)
DR%: 88.9% (fabulous! best DR% of the season; this really appears to be a team strength, we've been above 70% in all five games and above 75% in four of five)
TO%: 19.3% (this is almost good, but not quite)
a/to: 1:1 (every opponent we've faced has been at or below 1:1, which must say something, though I'm not sure what)
%assisted: 52.2%
stl%: 12.8% (pretty good)
blk%: 4.1% (7.1% of 2pt shots) (weak)
fast break pts: 0 (0% of points; can't get better than this, after four straight matador-like performances)


By far our slowest tempo with by far our best offensive efficiency. And our second-best offensive performance of the season (Bellarmine) was in the game with our second-slowest tempo. So I know we all (including the players and coaches) expected a super-fast run-and-gun team this season, but maybe this team's offense is better when we play it slow (though we probably don't have enough data points yet to form a conclusion). Our defense, on the other hand, was pretty blah. But without Jalen and with Wendell playing only a minor role, a blah defense is probably what we should expect.

[heyman25]

Well, if Jaemyn Brakefield is #6 or #7 on the Duke roster, we have a pretty darned good team. When I see Jaemyn get active on either end of the court, I believe something good is about to happen.

Brakefield is most consistent freshman on the team. He shoots well
Makes good decisions and unlike Jalen , he is not careless with the ball.

[heyman25]

Very happy w a win. Whew. 1-0 in ACC

good - guard play. Like has been said this team will go as Roach n Steward go
- impressed w development of Goldwire. He will never be nba but he is so much better than he was 3 yrs ago
- Hurt is so consistent
- Brakefield is a great find, shooting threes etc
- actually ran plays!!! Cuts without the ball and they work. Sometimes it’s a simple game
- defense on Hubb who is very good - mostly by Goldwire but some by Moore

Bad
- Moore and his handle. Two consecutive turnovers against a team that doesn’t push for turnovers. I am scared whenever he has the ball. Someone PLEASE explain why he was bringing the ball up court early in game?? . He literally just throws it away

- Baker tries on D now. Too slow but he has improved there. However nothing offensively from him or Moore really. It’s hard to play 4 on 5 when we have the ball. Kinda sad our least confident O players are sophomore / junior in Moore and Baker
- do keep in mind ND is the worst D in the whole ACC. You can see why. UK was down 25 and missed a last shot to come back all the way.
- good grief don’t lose sight of that 3 point shooter / Goodwin, after he has hit three or four. Cmon


That was a good team for our struggling Ô to play. Now keep practicing have a good Holiday and beat Pitt !

Moore does not impress me at all. Baker is never ready to shoot. Shaky defensive player. Notre Dame’s Goodwin was usually open when Baker was guarding him. Baker better start making shots or he will
lose minutes. Moore is a liability to my eyes. No offense and a horrible passer and ball handler. Develop Tape Williams Coleman. Roach and Steward are improving. Brakefield is solid and more consistent than almost anyone on Duke. Johnson may learn from watching. Game 2 to 4 he was not very good.

[Kedsy]

Happy to see better passing.

It's interesting to me that most people here seem to have this take.

2020-21 game-by-game percent of baskets assisted
----------------------------------------------------------
Coppin: 58.8%
Mich St: 45.0%
Bellarmine: 62.1%
Illinois: 51.9%
Notre Dame: 25.8%

I realize there's more to passing than assists, but we only had 8 assists tonight.


Well, if Jaemyn Brakefield is #6 or #7 on the Duke roster, we have a pretty darned good team. When I see Jaemyn get active on either end of the court, I believe something good is about to happen.

Jaemyn has been a revelation on offense. To my eye, his defense needs a lot of work.


Moore and Baker continue to be mired in a slump.

Is it a "slump" if you just don't take many shots? Joey Baker hit 50% of his shots tonight (1 for 2, with no three attempts), he just didn't shoot much.


Steward is fun to watch - just needs to be consistent.

DJ had two fabulous backdoor cuts tonight. And both times the player with the ball saw him, the pass got there, and DJ converted it. IMO, the two most fun plays of the game.


Hurt is really confident in what he can do on the offensive end, setting himself up for that little impossible to block fadeaway.

He really had his way inside. It was great to see him dominate without the three-point shot. On the other hand, in the last two games, Matthew is 0 for 8 on three-pointers.


I think by the end of the season, our best lineup will be Roach, Steward, Brakefield, Johnson, Hurt.

None of Brakefield, Johnson, or Hurt can guard on the perimeter. Maybe a zone would work, but you still have to guard out there, so until we see it I'm not convinced.

I was thinking about this the other day. The general consensus is Wendell Moore's best position is a small-ball 4, and my guess is that may be true for Joey Baker as well. If so, we have a very oddly constructed roster, with 3 smallish combo guards, 6 guys whose best position is PF, and 2 centers. Seeing it in that light, I don't think this team reaches its potential unless a couple of guys become able to play against quick small forwards.

[JetpackJesus]

At least you can mute that. But what can I do about this live action commercial BS? Just pure greed. Every day... I'm one step closer to cutting the cord.

12047

That's not as bad as when they put up a full-screen graphic of a Duke player's (I forget who it was) season stats coming out of the break while ND was running it's offensive set. They graphic came off the screen as a ND player missed what I think was maybe a layup.

So good result for Duke but bad result for viewers.

[uh_no]

OFFENSE


fast break pts: 7 (9.3% of points; 2nd straight game with hardly any fast break points)

DEFENSE


DR%: 88.9% (fabulous! best DR% of the season; this really appears to be a team strength, we've been above 70% in all five games and above 75% in four of five)


These were very clearly related IMO. ND, either by design or ability, made almost no effort on the offensive glass at times, leaving what looked like sometimes the entire duke team "fighting" over who would get the board. This also, of course, helped drive the tempo through the floor.

IMO they watched film and game planned around forcing us to play half court offense...something that we'd been atrocious at before tonight. I hope they ate crow on that call, but in any case, it inflated the DR and deflated the fast break.

[UrinalCake]

Really fantastic team win that we needed to have coming into the long break. The team has a lot working against them - first road game (actually the first non-home game), lack of tune-up games due to cancellations, Johnson out, lots of media pressure after two losses, with some K controversy mixed in. They handled it all and looked like a totally different team. We really got contributions from everyone. Tape gave us what we expected from him when he committed. Williams gave good minutes. Hurt has somehow managed to add strength and bulk without losing his agility or shooting stroke and has improved so much. His fadeaway jumper in the lane is virtually unguardable; the analytics may say that it’s a bad shot but it looked pretty good to me! Steward’s step-back three after dropping his defender was just filthy. He and Roach looked like a backcourt that can anchor the team. Defensively guys were staying in front of their man pretty well and the effort was there.

On the negative side, Wendell obviously hasn’t snapped out of his funk but he did make some excellent defensive plays. Joey needs to figure out how to contribute on offense. And I am worried about Johnson. But overall I am really pleased with the win and with how the win happened.

[lotusland]

Fun game and Duke’s best of the year by far. I thought Duke would need Moore to step up with JJ out but he didn’t and Duke was fine. I don’t watch HS hoops so the Freshmen are always a surprise to me for better or worse. This year Brakefield’s instincts and natural ability to score have been a revelation. The game really slows down for him on the offense. Goldwire’s progress and really his whole Duke career has been a joy to watch. DJ’s production didn’t really surprise me even after a couple of bad games because he seems to have a knack for making plays. But I really thought Roach was probably still recovering from his HS injury ala Quinn Cook so I’m surprised to see him playing with confidence all of the sudden and contributing. I’ll probably rewatch this game during the break which I haven’t really considered after the 4 previous games.

[weezie]

MOTM, Brakefield for showing his ability?

[arnie]

At least you can mute that. But what can I do about this live action commercial BS? Just pure greed. Every day... I'm one step closer to cutting the cord.

12047

And showing K half screen during action isn’t needed either, we all know what he looks like.

Agree with posters above, the 3-guard offense is looking optimum, particularly with Roach’s improvement. When I first watched Roach, thought he was a year away, but he’s improved/gained confidence quickly.

Watched Moore closely on D, and he excelled last night inside against bigger players with great foot movement. He has a role, but remains an offensive liability.

[moonpie23]

i thought it was a positive step for the team....on the road, minus one of the stars.....no crowd......

i thought they were having some fun and beginning to gel ....


next play...

[ClemmonsDevil]

I was going to say I don’t think Johnson, Hurt, or Brakefield could guard the 3, but then you threw in the zone wrinkle. Very interesting. I think K views zone in a “break glass in case of emergency only” way, but that is actually an evolution from his “over my dead body” prior stance, so I guess it’s possible.

I think it still burns a deep hole in Coach K's psyche to contemplate playing a Zone. Before his teams became an offensive juggernaut, they were absolute hell to score against because of the Duke man to man defense. It was fearsome to behold in the 80s and 90s. I am fighting the urge to turn this into a Unabomber style screed against the zone and how it is passive and promotes a defeatist attitude. But I do think that is how K feels about it. And I do too, but that has no bearing on how the team thinks or operates. When my daughter brought her first boyfriend home the very first question I asked him was his family's thoughts on Zone vs man to man. Solid man-to-man defensive principles are the Bedrock Foundation of our family.

[-jk]

I think it still burns a deep hole in Coach K's psyche to contemplate playing a Zone. Before his teams became an offensive juggernaut, they were absolute hell to score against because of the Duke man to man defense. It was fearsome to behold in the 80s and 90s. I am fighting the urge to turn this into a Unabomber style screed against the zone and how it is passive and promotes a defeatist attitude. But I do think that is how K feels about it. And I do too, but that has no bearing on how the team thinks or operates. When my daughter brought her first boyfriend home the very first question I asked him was his family's thoughts on Zone vs man to man. Solid man-to-man defensive principles are the Bedrock Foundation of our family.

Learning the constant decision-making needed to effectively play man-to-man is tough in the one-and-done era.

-jk

[MChambers]

I think it still burns a deep hole in Coach K's psyche to contemplate playing a Zone. Before his teams became an offensive juggernaut, they were absolute hell to score against because of the Duke man to man defense. It was fearsome to behold in the 80s and 90s. I am fighting the urge to turn this into a Unabomber style screed against the zone and how it is passive and promotes a defeatist attitude. But I do think that is how K feels about it. And I do too, but that has no bearing on how the team thinks or operates. When my daughter brought her first boyfriend home the very first question I asked him was his family's thoughts on Zone vs man to man. Solid man-to-man defensive principles are the Bedrock Foundation of our family.

I must spread some comments, apparently, but yeah. I really miss that dominating man-to-man. But when players don't stay three or four years, it seems to be a lot harder to implement.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Learning the constant decision-making needed to effectively play man-to-man is tough in the one-and-done era.

-jk

Correct. In the 80s and 90s everything was funneled baseline and stopping ball reversal was the key to Duke's D. The evolution of ball screen offenses initiated at the top of the key and the ascendancy of ball handling wizardry has effectively neutralized some of the ball hawking man to man Duke used to play. An effective counter has been the pack line defense (which Duke hinted at in 2010 actually). But zone is every bit as hard to teach. And much more passive. K hates passivity. His errors of omission vs errors of commission stuff is something I hit on in medicine all the time.

[BlueDevilStop]

Good win on the road to start ACC play.
Great to see the rotation go 9 deep.

It was encouraging to see Duke's depth play a key factor in this game, especially considering they were down a starter in Johnson.

[rocketeli]

It was a nice win, and Duke showed some develop progress--but we can't count on Brakefield, Steward and Roach going 7-9 from the three every game (unless they play teams like ND every night--ND, was, to coin a phrase "alarmingly unathletic")
The key to a success season will though be the development of the new guys--at the risk of triggering those posters who have appointed themselves guardians of the player's feelings, our returnees, with the exception of Hurt, are career back-up level players at best, and Hurt, in a vintage year, would be a solid 6 or 7th man.

[jv001]

Some stats:,
Hurt: 38 minutes, 18 points, 8-17, 5 rebs, 3 assist, 1 TO, 2 blks, 1 steal

Steward: 29 minutes, 16 points, 6-11, 7 rebs, 1 assist, 1 TO, 2 steals

Roach: 35 minutes, 14 points, 5-6, 1 reb, 0 assists, 2 TO, 1 steal

Goldwire: 33 minutes, 9 points, 4-8, 3 rebs, 2 assists, 1 TO, 1 steal

Brakefield: 24 minutes, 10 points, 4-8, 5 rebs, 1 assist, 0 TO, 1 steal

Moore: 9 minutes, 0 Points, 0-2, 4 rebounds, 0 assists, 2 TO

Tapé: 9 minutes, 2 points, 1-4, 3 rebounds, 1 assist, 0 TO, 1 steal

Williams: 8 minutes, 4 points, 2-2, 2 rebounds,

THREE POINT SHOOTING: DJ= 3-4, Roach= 2-3, Brakefield= 2-2...Team= 8-15


OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS: DJ= 2, Brakefield=2

At 4:38 the score was Duke 73...ND 56, from there we score only 2 points and they score 9 points. It looks like we slowed the game down and used up 20+ seconds of the shot clock on all possessions. That had to affect our offensive efficiency.

Eye test: Our offense looked better with much improved ball movement which made the offense run smoother. Our guards get most of the credit for that but Hurt shared the ball out of the post too. Wendell seemed to be in a better frame of mind even though he missed some shots. He played very good defense and rebounded the ball. He was up on the sidelines having some fun.

GoDuke and Merry Christmas!

[BlueDevilStop]

Impressive performance from the Blue Devils.

-Full game recap
-Things I liked and didn't like
-Player of the game

https://bluedevilstop.com/team-effort-lifts-duke-over-notre-dame/

[Indoor66]

Correct. In the 80s and 90s everything was funneled baseline and stopping ball reversal was the key to Duke's D. The evolution of ball screen offenses initiated at the top of the key and the ascendancy of ball handling wizardry has effectively neutralized some of the ball hawking man to man Duke used to play. An effective counter has been the pack line defense (which Duke hinted at in 2010 actually). But zone is every bit as hard to teach. And much more passive. K hates passivity. His errors of omission vs errors of commission stuff is something I hit on in medicine all the time.

A lot of ball handling wizardry was called a carry back then.

[jv001]

Impressive performance from the Blue Devils.

-Full game recap
-Things I liked and didn't like
-Player of the game

https://bluedevilstop.com/team-effort-lifts-duke-over-notre-dame/

I enjoyed your write up. I think our defense played well against a good offensive team. It seemed some of the open 3s came from Baker losing his man. One one occasion Coach K was talking to him during one of the timeouts and I think it was because he left his man open from the corner for a made three. As for Roach, he looks like he's getting better at running the team and he plays good defense. I love the 3 guard lineup. We didn't get many assists but we did have much better ball movement
and it looked like the players moved with out the ball better. As for Wendell, he did play pretty good defense and rebounded well, but I guess we're going to have to live with his poor shooting. He may have been a good shooter in high but he's not shown it against college defenders. Player of the game is hard to pick. I guess I'll go with DJ. I love how he goes after rebounds. He seems to think he's 6'10". We look to have 2 very good three point shooters in DJ and Brakefield and Roach looked good shooting the 3 last night. This game should be a confidence builder for the team heading into the Holiday season.

GoDuke!

[DukieInBrasil]

Really efficient game on both fronts. I'll be interested to see the eff. ratings. Good team to play if you want to break an offensive funk, as, true to the scouting reports, they are not good on D. They are, however, a savvy team who can shoot, and we held our own on the defensive end. I really liked our rebounding, and we kept up intensity on both end for both halves.

Two nit-picks:

Why does Wendell keep forcing bad passes towards the basket. I counted three TOs on forced passes by him. He also needs to finish better, play stronger with the ball. His head is still not right.
Joey is who he is. A spot-up shooter, but not much else. The game still seems too fast for him, and it should not be in his junior year.

Joey may get blown by on defense pretty regularly but he has a knack for coming up with steals, which led to a very nifty left-handed layup last night. He's shooting 11% from 3 so far, so if he lacks the confidence to shoot it right now, that's fine. Sure Joey could be doing more, but he's playing in every game and generally does at least a couple of positive things each time out, despite his defensive lapses/limitations.




Bad
- Moore and his handle. Two consecutive turnovers against a team that doesn’t push for turnovers. I am scared whenever he has the ball. Someone PLEASE explain why he was bringing the ball up court early in game?? . He literally just throws it away
I just don't understand why K continues to insist on using Wendell this way. Wendell has no future in the NBA as a 4, so maybe they're trying to play him as a 3, which is the biggest he could play in the NBA. From what he's shown this year + his Fr. year, i just don't see an NBA future for him; he can't shoot, his handle is horrible, he's a very weak passer, and his defense, while good, is not elite. He's likely a 4-year player, which is good for Duke if he can simply stop making so many horrible, terrible, unforced errors. I'm pulling for Wendell to shake off whatever is hobbling him right now, because even if he only plays up to the level he played at last year it would really help solidify this team. Right now, Wendell makes the team worse.

[Saratoga2]

With JJ out the team is forced to rely on Stewart, Roach, Goldwire, Hurt, and Brakefield. Williams can give some decent minutes. That means we need to avoid pressing, have to stay out of foul trouble and cannot deal with another injury. Unless and until our upperclassmen get their act together or JJ gets back we will have to be careful.

[mkirsh]

Correct. In the 80s and 90s everything was funneled baseline and stopping ball reversal was the key to Duke's D. The evolution of ball screen offenses initiated at the top of the key and the ascendancy of ball handling wizardry has effectively neutralized some of the ball hawking man to man Duke used to play. An effective counter has been the pack line defense (which Duke hinted at in 2010 actually). But zone is every bit as hard to teach. And much more passive. K hates passivity. His errors of omission vs errors of commission stuff is something I hit on in medicine all the time.

This is a great post. I’ll also add freedom of movement rules. In the “old days” most offenses were initiated by the point guard passing to a wing player, so if you could a) deny the passing lanes and b) keep the point guard in front of you (here is where hand checking helped) you could totally stifle an offense. Now with ball screen continuity, freedom of movement benefitting the offense, and the ease at which at least 4 players on the floor can hit an open 3, there are many more ways to hurt overplaying defenses.

However I’m going to stand up for zone defense a little bit. The best m2m defenses have zone principles (especially teams that switch a lot) as each player has their man but when weak side has a part of the floor to help and protect. Similarly the best zones tend to look more like match up zones, where the defense locks into players in their area. When played optimally, the difference between man and zone gets pretty small. When played poorly, sure zones are passive, just like poor m2m has no connection so if you beat one player you beat the entire D.

[mkirsh]

I enjoyed your write up. I think our defense played well against a good offensive team. It seemed some of the open 3s came from Baker losing his man. One one occasion Coach K was talking to him during one of the timeouts and I think it was because he left his man open from the corner for a made three. As for Roach, he looks like he's getting better at running the team and he plays good defense. I love the 3 guard lineup. We didn't get many assists but we did have much better ball movement
and it looked like the players moved with out the ball better. As for Wendell, he did play pretty good defense and rebounded well, but I guess we're going to have to live with his poor shooting. He may have been a good shooter in high but he's not shown it against college defenders. Player of the game is hard to pick. I guess I'll go with DJ. I love how he goes after rebounds. He seems to think he's 6'10". We look to have 2 very good three point shooters in DJ and Brakefield and Roach looked good shooting the 3 last night. This game should be a confidence builder for the team heading into the Holiday season.

GoDuke!

Don’t forget Hurt! If we are down 3 he’s probably the one I want shooting. (Baker could be added here too but he’s been too erratic so far this year).

[CDu]

A nice bounceback when for this young team. Notre Dame is far from great, but it was nice to win our first game away from home, and to get our first top-100 win of the season. Notre Dame isn't great, but they did beat UK last week and lost to MSU by a similar margin as we did. So this gives us a bit of a barometer to work with. For us to control the game as we did was nice to see.

My biggest takeaways were the continued success of Hurt on offense and the repetition of good performances from Roach, Steward, and Brakefield. Those 3 freshmen, and especially the guards, are now showing good development, which is critical for the team.

Hurt has really stepped up his game offensively. His post game was really effective, both against the less defensively gifted Laszewski and against smalls but also against a very good post defender in Durham. And that's without the 3 ball falling for him. When his 3 starts falling, he'll be that much more dynamic on offense. He's feeling like a really reliable source of offense.

Steward was terrific as a scorer, and I was pleased with his rebounding as well. He's got moxy and talent, and it's nice to see it coming together. Roach followed up a really good game against Illinois with a solid showing here as well. Yes, his assist total was nonexistent, but I don't think it was from a lack of distribution. He had 3 or 4 passes that led to layup attempts or wide open 3s that simply didn't fall. So I think he was a bit unlucky not to have 2 or 3 assists. If anything, I felt he was a bit too unselfish out there in the second half, as he was REALLY effective attacking in the first half. But still, I was really pleased with the performance of these two guards against a pretty talented and experienced ND backcourt.

Brakefield continues to impress in a more limited role. I suspect that maybe he starts next game at PF if Johnson is still out. He's clearly not afraid of the moment, and there is talent there. His shooting touch adds a nice option to spread the floor, and he showed a little more off the dribble in this one as well, along with some nice passing decisions. I wasn't bullish on him in the preseason, but he's really showing out well so far. That's a very positive development.

Goldwire was his usual pesky self out there. He forced one unexpected turnover, and generally played his tough defense. The 3 wasn't quite falling for him otherwise it would have been an even better performance. I'm very pleased with his development.

Relatedly, I kind of like the 3 guard lineup at all, as it seems like our guards don't mind playing up a few inches. The only challenge is that we can't play those guys for 40 minutes each, so we can only really play the 3-guard lineup somewhat sparingly. As it relates to Kedsy's comment upthread, I agree that we're unfortunately just a little weirdly constructed as a roster. Moore and Baker are really best suited to play smallball PF, so we don't really have a true SF on the roster. If we had just one more ACC-level guard (to allow for a permanent 3-guard rotatioN) or one true SF, I think we'd be in great shape. Unfortunately, we have about 5.5 PFs, 2.5 Cs, and 3 guards, with nobody in between. So hopefully one of Moore or Baker (Moore feels the more likely of the two) gets things figured out so that we have that SF to fill the gap. Otherwise, I think we'll see more of what we saw today, where our 3 guards play about 100-105 minutes and Moore and Baker fill in the remaining 20-25.

As for the rest of the team, it was a mixed bag. Williams showed a couple of nice baby hooks, but the defense didn't look great with him on the floor. Tape looked really hesitant on offense inside. Moore had a few nice moments defending Laszewski and Hubb and rebounded solidly, but continued to look lost on offense. And Baker struggled on offense as well, passing up open shots and failing to punish closeouts when he passed those shots up. Now that our guards are seemingly settling in and Hurt and Brakefield are showing some interior mettle, we really could use one or both of these guys stepping up to solidify the perimeter rotation.

That said, a very solid and much needed win. The team can go into Christmas break with a positive feeling, and hopefully can build upon that with a strong ACC season.

[azzefkram]

I was very happy with the performance last night. I thought the offense moved the ball much better than it did in the previous 4 games. Duke didn't seem to force shots or plays. Matt has been great even though his outside shot isn't falling. I'm seeing improvement from our freshman guards. If they continue improving I'm not sure Duke will have much to worry about on the offensive end. Roach may not have had any assists but he had at least 2 passes that should have been assists if the other player converted. I was really impressed with JGold. I thought he did a great job picking his spots and not forcing the issue. I doubt he will ever be an offensive dynamo but if he can take advantage of what the defense is giving him and not force the issue I don't think he can be viewed as a negative on the offensive end. Jaemyn has been significantly better on the offensive end than I expected though his game seems a bit below the rim which, again, is unexpected. Joey seems very hesitant to shoot the ball. Mark was nice around the basket. Patrick seems solid fundamentally but sooooo slooooow. Wendell's box score looked bad offensively but I thought only 1 of his TOs was egregiously bad (the TO to Mark was a good idea with poor execution). His shots were mostly reasonable attempts that just didn't go in.

I thought the defense was respectable, not good but certainly not bad. ND is an experienced and patient team. If Durham is sitting, pretty much everyone on the court can shoot the ball. That's a lot of pressure for a young and inexperienced team. For the most part Duke seemed to handle it well. Were there breakdowns? Sure but not as many as I expected. K did a bunch of mixing and matching with players. Once he gets a rotation he's comfortable with I think the breakdowns will lessen.

One things that is concerning is Duke's lack of a 3. Joey gets an A for effort but a much lower grade for implementation. Wendell looks like a great choice on paper but has looked dreadful in games. I thought Wendell's D in the paint was great last night but subpar on the perimeter. I am not sure this is something that is going to work itself out this season. Seems like a fairly big gap in Duke's roster.

On a side note, I think an investigation needs to be launched with respect to the minutes contest. Coleman with another DNP. I'm calling shenanigans.

[ClemmonsDevil]

However I’m going to stand up for zone defense a little bit. The best m2m defenses have zone principles (especially teams that switch a lot) as each player has their man but when weak side has a part of the floor to help and protect. Similarly the best zones tend to look more like match up zones, where the defense locks into players in their area. When played optimally, the difference between man and zone gets pretty small. When played poorly, sure zones are passive, just like poor m2m has no connection so if you beat one player you beat the entire D.

Perhaps I failed to mention that I am biased as hell. Great reply and I agree with your comments about the universality of defensive principles. I hate zones. It's ok to think I'm a whack job. I think I am.

[FerryFor50]

I was very happy with the performance last night. I thought the offense moved the ball much better than it did in the previous 4 games. Duke didn't seem to force shots or plays. Matt has been great even though his outside shot isn't falling. I'm seeing improvement from our freshman guards. If they continue improving I'm not sure Duke will have much to worry about on the offensive end. Roach may not have had any assists but he had at least 2 passes that should have been assists if the other player converted. I was really impressed with JGold. I thought he did a great job picking his spots and not forcing the issue. I doubt he will ever be an offensive dynamo but if he can take advantage of what the defense is giving him and not force the issue I don't think he can be viewed as a negative on the offensive end. Jaemyn has been significantly better on the offensive end than I expected though his game seems a bit below the rim which, again, is unexpected. Joey seems very hesitant to shoot the ball. Mark was nice around the basket. Patrick seems solid fundamentally but sooooo slooooow. Wendell's box score looked bad offensively but I thought only 1 of his TOs was egregiously bad (the TO to Mark was a good idea with poor execution). His shots were mostly reasonable attempts that just didn't go in.

I thought the defense was respectable, not good but certainly not bad. ND is an experienced and patient team. If Durham is sitting, pretty much everyone on the court can shoot the ball. That's a lot of pressure for a young and inexperienced team. For the most part Duke seemed to handle it well. Were there breakdowns? Sure but not as many as I expected. K did a bunch of mixing and matching with players. Once he gets a rotation he's comfortable with I think the breakdowns will lessen.

One things that is concerning is Duke's lack of a 3. Joey gets an A for effort but a much lower grade for implementation. Wendell looks like a great choice on paper but has looked dreadful in games. I thought Wendell's D in the paint was great last night but subpar on the perimeter. I am not sure this is something that is going to work itself out this season. Seems like a fairly big gap in Duke's roster.

On a side note, I think an investigation needs to be launched with respect to the minutes contest. Coleman with another DNP. I'm calling shenanigans.

Yea, I'm not sure why Coleman didn't get at least a look last night in a pretty comfortable win.

I thought Moore looked good on D; having someone who can conceivably defend the 1-5 spots in a man to man defense that's constantly switching is invaluable. But he definitely still has some kinks to work out on offense. Had a couple bad luck misses and didn't turn it over a lot overall, but 2 turnovers in 9 minutes is not great.

The pass example you mentioned was a good idea/bad execution, but that's been the story with a lot of his turnovers. Errant passes off the mark. Dribbling himself into trouble trying to be more aggressive. He just needs to be patient and pick his spots better. I imagine that will come in time, but it might not happen until his junior season.

Everyone else had good moments and it was a nice step forward.

While I don't think this team is *better* without Jalen Johnson (he adds so much), I do think they look more organized. They don't have two primary scorers anymore; the first few games, they didn't really get Hurt involved as much at times and while JJ is a good passer, he tended to force things at times. I think him sitting and watching and the team playing an inside out game with Hurt is going to help down the road.

[rsvman]

Some stats:,
Hurt: 38 minutes, 18 points, 8-17, 5 rebs, 3 assist, 1 TO, 2 blks, 1 steal

Steward: 29 minutes, 16 points, 6-11, 7 rebs, 1 assist, 1 TO, 2 steals

Roach: 35 minutes, 14 points, 5-6, 1 reb, 0 assists, 2 TO, 1 steal

Goldwire: 33 minutes, 9 points, 4-8, 3 rebs, 2 assists, 1 TO, 1 steal

Brakefield: 24 minutes, 10 points, 4-8, 5 rebs, 1 assist, 0 TO, 1 steal

Moore: 9 minutes, 0 Points, 0-2, 4 rebounds, 0 assists, 2 TO

Tapé: 9 minutes, 2 points, 1-4, 3 rebounds, 1 assist, 0 TO, 1 steal

Williams: 8 minutes, 4 points, 2-2, 2 rebounds,

THREE POINT SHOOTING: DJ= 3-4, Roach= 2-3, Brakefield= 2-2...Team= 8-15


OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS: DJ= 2, Brakefield=2

At 4:38 the score was Duke 73...ND 56, from there we score only 2 points and they score 9 points. It looks like we slowed the game down and used up 20+ seconds of the shot clock on all possessions. That had to affect our offensive efficiency.

Eye test: Our offense looked better with much improved ball movement which made the offense run smoother. Our guards get most of the credit for that but Hurt shared the ball out of the post too. Wendell seemed to be in a better frame of mind even though he missed some shots. He played very good defense and rebounded the ball. He was up on the sidelines having some fun.

GoDuke and Merry Christmas!

We went to stall ball, the purpose of which is to secure a win, not to pad the stats. By the only measure that really matters, it worked yet again.
If anything, I think Coach K was unhappy with Brakefield for trying to score after an offensive rebound when the goal should have been to burn more clock. We had run the clock down to about four seconds and Brakefield rebounded the miss under the basket. The play was to get the ball back out and burn 30 more seconds, rather than to flail up a highly contested prayer shot.

For the life of me I don't get why so many people on this forum hate stall ball. I get that it is not exciting and not as much fun, and that over the years it has cost us a few games, but overall it works very well. I used to coach kids in rec league ball, and getting them to understand that the clock can be your friend is one of the most difficult tasks. When the score is 24-14 and there is only two minutes left in the game, it is not necessary to shoot within five seconds of crossing halfcourt! That used to drive me crazy. Freshmen players seem, also, to not quite understand the idea, as demonstrated by Brakefield's ill-advised shot last night after his timely offensive rebound.

FWIW, one season a few years back I kept a notebook on hand for every game. I wrote down what the score was and how much time remained when we went to stall ball, and then the final score. What happened that year was that we won every single one of those games. The final margin of victory was often, but not always, smaller than the point separation at the time we went into stallball. If I remember correctly, the margin was smaller in about 2/3rds of the games. But again, winning is the point, and at least in that season, we won all those games.

After that I chilled about stall ball. I think of it as a positive: if we are going into stall ball it means that we have played well enough to have a decent lead with not much time left on the clock. This means that we have a good chance of emerging victorious, even if we squander some of the point margin in the process. Pretty sure winning is more important than scoring margins, anyway. Last night I heard many times about Coach's total number of wins... somehow they omitted mention of his average margin of victory....

[uh_no]

For the life of me I don't get why so many people on this forum hate stall ball. I get that it is not exciting and not as much fun, and that over the years it has cost us a few games, but overall it works very well.

I think that's a bit of a generalization. It works well so long as your offensive efficiency doesn't fall through the floor....and many times, teams are significantly inferior at actually scoring out of a slow down than when running their regular offense. So yes, the idea is sound, if even with a mild loss of efficiency....but often times it's not just mild.

[Kedsy]

I really miss that dominating man-to-man. But when players don't stay three or four years, it seems to be a lot harder to implement.

It was all the way back in 2020, and before that you have to go further back to 2019, when Duke had fairly dominating man-to-man defense. Both with rosters filled with freshmen.

Obviously there have been changes to the game so all defenses have had to change, but this idea that being a freshmen at Duke means you can't grasp or implement defensive principles is so 2017.


But zone is every bit as hard to teach. And much more passive.

Good zones are active, not passive. I do agree that good zone is also difficult to teach, and difficult to implement as well.

Also, I don't believe our defense in 2010 resembled the pack line in any meaningful way.

[FerryFor50]

It was all the way back in 2020, and before that you have to go further back to 2019, when Duke had fairly dominating man-to-man defense. Both with rosters filled with freshmen.

Obviously there have been changes to the game so all defenses have had to change, but this idea that being a freshmen at Duke means you can't grasp or implement defensive principles is so 2017.



Yea I think the rule changes affected the man to man more than the idea of freshmen being freshmen.

[Music man55]

This was a well played game all around for the blue devils. Hurt looked good, made smart plays and the freshmen trio of Roach, Steward, and Brakefield set the tone, especially on offense. JGold did JGold things. I thought the ball movement looked really nice and coach K even said the coaches didn’t call a single play for the guys, they just made the plays. Now, if the team continues to jell and Wendell finds his mojo, we should improve a lot as the season goes on. Heal up Jalen! Let’s go Duke!

[ClemmonsDevil]

Also, I don't believe our defense in 2010 resembled the pack line in any meaningful way.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is."

[Troublemaker]

oRtg: 1.20 (1.22 adjusted (if we're ready for adjusted numbers, which I'm not sure we are); by far our best offensive rating of the season)
dRtg: 1.04 (0.95 adjusted (same caveat regarding adjusted numbers) a bad raw number, but Notre Dame is a pretty good offensive team, so an adequate adjusted number)


I'm going to maybe start doing a feature in the post-game thread called "Who did we play like in this game?" (statistically, at a high level) that will rely on these stats in order to complement your very good post-game stats posts. Lemme see if I can do these adjustments correctly. you, uh_no, CDu, etc can correct me where I'm wrong. Showing my math:

Per kenpom, ND has an adjusted O of 1.086 and an adjusted D of 0.986. And the Division I average (for both, obviously) is 0.998. (In other words, the average Div-1 team both scores and allows 1 point per possession, essentially). Duke, as you mentioned, in this game scored 1.204 ppp and allowed 1.043 ppp

Let:
adj_ND_off = 1.086
adj_ND_def = 0.986
raw_Duke_off = 1.204
raw_Duke_def = 1.043
div_1_avg = 0.998

Duke's adjusted O against ND = (raw_Duke_off - adj_ND_def) + div_1_avg = 1.216
Duke's adjusted D against ND = (raw_Duke_def - adj_ND_off) + div_1_avg = 0.955
Duke's adjusted efficiency margin in this game therefore was 1.216 - 0.955 = 0.261

So, in this game, we played like the #1 offense in the country (Iowa's #1 offense is at 1.19) and like the 88th best defense in the country (#88 UNCG is at 0.956).

Overall, via efficiency margin, we played like the third-best team in the country (#3 Villanova is at 0.2587) in this game.

If picking a single team that we played like, it would probably be #4 Iowa who has the #1 offense and the #75 defense.

So, yeah, we played like a top-5 team against ND. Very nice change from the first four games.

[Kedsy]

"It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is."

It really doesn't. The pack line applies specific principles. Our defense in 2010 did not apply those principles.

[flyingdutchdevil]

The Good
-Hurt is the real deal. His ability to play outside and inside is critical. He clearly made the sophomore jump and he is so difficult to guard. His defense isn't great and he got burned a few times, but he at least tries and is pretty solid at guarding big men. Furthermore, his rebounding has really improved to the extent that it's a solid asset for Hurt rather than a liability.
-Our three-headed monster in the starting backcourt is coming together nicely. Goldwire is as disruptive as always and has made drastic improvements in driving. Steward has calmed down and plays a lot smarter. And Roach has shown, in the last 2 games, that he's a speedy PG who can score when he wants to. Love it.
-Brakefield isn't the most athletic frosh. He's not the most talented frosh. Hell, he's the one who got the least chatter during the offseason (Colemen:Brakefield chatter was at, what, 4:1 in the offseason?). But he is our most consistent frosh and the one who doesn't play outside of what he's capable of. He had that beautiful pass to Steward. He drove by his man. Yes, ND isn't athletic. But Brakefield has shown a lot.
-We somehow shot 5-5 from the line (Duke was ranked #218 in FT shooting prior to this game) and 53.3% from 3pt land. Color me very surprised and I hope this continues.
-Wendell's post D is really, really good.

The Bad
-Hurt's 3pt shooting is off (0-8 in the last two games) but is anyone really concerned? We know he's a good (not great) 3pt shooter. It'll come back. Furthermore, with the way he's playing in the post on both post-ups and fadeaways, 3pt shooting isn't his only weapon
-Tape/Williams is an interesting experiment and I get it (especially for matchups), but they got burned a few times. I like Williams's layups, but that kid is really, really raw.
-Baker didn't hunt for his shot, which I guess is okay, but I'm surprised he didn't take one of the team's 15 3pt shots. He's really trying on D which is great, and hope he continues that path.

The Ugly
-It's gotten to the point where I am actually feeling really bad for Wendell. You can see he's thinking about now screwing up or taking a bad shot, but I don't think he can help himself. Sadly, 0-2 from the floor and 2 turnovers in 9 minutes continues the trend that Wendell has been on for the last 4 games. Wendell is shooting 21% from the floor, including 11% from the 3pt line. I don't think I've ever felt this badly for a player since...I can't even remember (I was going to say Hairston but Hairston never showed 10% of the potential Wendell did)

[ClemmonsDevil]

I always regret posting here. Please ban me JK!

[Kedsy]

If picking a single team that we played like, it would probably be #4 Iowa who has the #1 offense and the #75 defense.

So, yeah, we played like a top-5 team against ND. Very nice change from the first four games.

I agree it's a nice change. Though I'd also point out that the only Duke teams in the KenPom era that had a similar profile were the 2012 (#8 offense; #79 defense), the 2014 (#1 offense; #86 defense), and the 2016 (#4 offense; #86 defense) teams.

[MChambers]

It was all the way back in 2020, and before that you have to go further back to 2019, when Duke had fairly dominating man-to-man defense. Both with rosters filled with freshmen.

Obviously there have been changes to the game so all defenses have had to change, but this idea that being a freshmen at Duke means you can't grasp or implement defensive principles is so 2017.

I simply said it was harder, not impossible. Obviously, Grant Hill and Shane Battier were both pretty good at man to man as freshmen. I'm sure you're right about 2019 and 2020, but I believe that Duke's defense, on average, hasn't been as good in the one and done era. That may be due in part to rule changes and changes in offensive strategies, but I think having players with experience also has contributed.

[DukieTiger]

Really enjoyed watching this game, a more vintage Duke look was like a balm to the soul in 2020.

Thought the freshmen looked awesome, you can tell they are learning a lot.

Steward leading the team in rebounding from the third guard spot against a high major team with decent size... not bad for a guy who weighs as much as Zion’s left bicep.

Hope this extended break is good for Moore. He’s second on the team in usage rate with the worst ORtg on the team, at a truly abysmal 58. I’ve been quick to point out how poorly he’s played, but the main point here is that something’s gotta give. Duke is a lot better if he settles into a productive role (hello, captain obvious).

Brakefield with an ORtg over 140 is bonkers. Thought he showed some flashes of ability to defend in space, and also plenty of room for growth there. His ability to defend on the perimeter might be one of the key swing skills for the team this year. He brings so much to the table offensively, will be good to find ways to keep him on the floor.

Would love to see Henry Coleman get some opportunities if Jalen is out any more, and if Moore continues to struggle. Would need to surround him with offensive talent but I think he could raise the defensive ceiling of this team.

[DukieInBrasil]

Would love to see Henry Coleman get some opportunities if Jalen is out any more, and if Moore continues to struggle. Would need to surround him with offensive talent but I think he could raise the defensive ceiling of this team.

I wonder how much longer the Wendell Moore at the 3 experiment will continue. His post defense is better than good, yet his perimeter defense is not quite as good. However, his offense is much much worse than all the other options we have at the 4, and Wendell just doesn't have the skillset to play the 3. We've heard K say that Brakefield has (or had) a no-dribble rule, and that needs to be applied to Wendell. The worst offensive play Duke has is to let Wendell dribble the ball.
The very limited looks we've had of HC3 indicate that he has good defensive instincts, good mobility for such a big guy, and plays with lots of energy. It's impossible for him to shoot the 3 worse than Wendell and his power ought to allow him to score around the rim better too. Which is a long winded way of saying the that i too would like to see HC3 get a chance to play more in place of Wendell.

[Troublemaker]

I agree it's a nice change. Though I'd also point out that the only Duke teams in the KenPom era that had a similar profile were the 2012 (#8 offense; #79 defense), the 2014 (#1 offense; #86 defense), and the 2016 (#4 offense; #86 defense) teams.

Cool, thanks. Just wanted confirmation that I was doing it right.

I'll probably create a table to track this stuff going forward.

So, the first entry in the table, just to re-emphasize for those folks that saw numbers and scrolled past my post above:

Duke, in this game, played like the 3rd-best team in the country, played like the #1 offense and #88 defense, and if picking a single team to compare to for comparison's sake, we played like Iowa in this game. (From a statistical, helicopter-view of the numbers perspective).

[CDu]

I agree it's a nice change. Though I'd also point out that the only Duke teams in the KenPom era that had a similar profile were the 2012 (#8 offense; #79 defense), the 2014 (#1 offense; #86 defense), and the 2016 (#4 offense; #86 defense) teams.

And if we are still at that level in March it might be a problem. But this was our third major opponent ever and the first without Johnson, and unlike 2012 and 2014 this is a really young team. So I would expect the team to get better with more time together.

I will absolutely take a top-5 performance on the road in December from a young team that has lacked the typical preseason. The big thing was that the halfcourt offense worked. I suspect the defense will get better with time as the freshmen learn. I doubt we will be elite defensively, but I suspect we will play better. It was just nice to see the offense clicking.

[Kedsy]

I simply said it was harder, not impossible. Obviously, Grant Hill and Shane Battier were both pretty good at man to man as freshmen. I'm sure you're right about 2019 and 2020, but I believe that Duke's defense, on average, hasn't been as good in the one and done era. That may be due in part to rule changes and changes in offensive strategies, but I think having players with experience also has contributed.

I 100% agree that experience helps defense, and certainly in the era when literally nobody left early (the 80's and 90's) it was easier for K to teach a complicated, effective defense.

That said (and I don't mean to single you out for this, this has been a constant DBR theme since 2012), whether a team has a lot of freshmen doesn't appear to equate with having poor defense. Here are Duke's 12 youngest teams under Coach K, in terms of % of minutes played by freshmen:



Year %frosh PomDRank
2018 67.5% 9
1983 61.7%
2019 61.0% 6
2015 50.0% 11
2016 46.8% 86
2000 45.9%
2020 44.5% 12
2003 37.3% 15
2007 36.5% 6
1998 35.2%
2017 33.5% 47
2006 32.5% 16


KenPom didn't publish defensive ratings in 2000 and 1998, but we know those defenses were strong. And I would suggest ignoring 1983 because K had just started (and we don't have data, anyway). If you accept all that, it means that 9 out of the 11 youngest Coach K Duke teams had top 16 defenses. More veteran teams like 2009 (10.5% frosh mins; #28 dRtg), 2012 (23.8% frosh; #79 dRtg), 2013 (23.6% frosh; #26 dRtg), and 2014 (19.8% frosh; #86 dRtg) weren't as strong defensively, suggesting that while experience matters, personnel matters more.

[MChambers]

I 100% agree that experience helps defense, and certainly in the era when literally nobody left early (the 80's and 90's) it was easier for K to teach a complicated, effective defense.

That said (and I don't mean to single you out for this, this has been a constant DBR theme since 2012), whether a team has a lot of freshmen doesn't appear to equate with having poor defense. Here are Duke's 12 youngest teams under Coach K, in terms of % of minutes played by freshmen:



Year %frosh PomDRank
2018 67.5% 9
1983 61.7%
2019 61.0% 6
2015 50.0% 11
2016 46.8% 86
2000 45.9%
2020 44.5% 12
2003 37.3% 15
2007 36.5% 6
1998 35.2%
2017 33.5% 47
2006 32.5% 16


KenPom didn't publish defensive ratings in 2000 and 1998, but we know those defenses were strong. And I would suggest ignoring 1983 because K had just started (and we don't have data, anyway). If you accept all that, it means that 9 out of the 11 youngest Coach K Duke teams had top 16 defenses. More veteran teams like 2009 (10.5% frosh mins; #28 dRtg), 2012 (23.8% frosh; #79 dRtg), 2013 (23.6% frosh; #26 dRtg), and 2014 (19.8% frosh; #86 dRtg) weren't as strong defensively, suggesting that while experience matters, personnel matters more.

Thanks for this. Doesn't this data also suggest that relatively recent rule changes and strategy changes are not a big problem? Duke's had some pretty good defensive seasons recently.

[Kedsy]

Thanks for this. Doesn't this data also suggest that relatively recent rule changes and strategy changes are not a big problem? Duke's had some pretty good defensive seasons recently.

Maybe. Since the numbers are all relative rankings compared to the rest of college basketball, it could mean that you're right and recent Duke defenses are worse than our golden era defenses, but so are every other teams' defenses so it all evens out.

[Steven43]

At least you can mute that. But what can I do about this live action commercial BS? Just pure greed. Every day... I'm one step closer to cutting the cord.

12047

Agree with you in regard to disliking advertising while the game action is live. But if you cut the cord what is the alternative?

[BlueDevilStop]

The Good
-Hurt is the real deal. His ability to play outside and inside is critical. He clearly made the sophomore jump and he is so difficult to guard. His defense isn't great and he got burned a few times, but he at least tries and is pretty solid at guarding big men. Furthermore, his rebounding has really improved to the extent that it's a solid asset for Hurt rather than a liability.
-Our three-headed monster in the starting backcourt is coming together nicely. Goldwire is as disruptive as always and has made drastic improvements in driving. Steward has calmed down and plays a lot smarter. And Roach has shown, in the last 2 games, that he's a speedy PG who can score when he wants to. Love it.
-Brakefield isn't the most athletic frosh. He's not the most talented frosh. Hell, he's the one who got the least chatter during the offseason (Colemen:Brakefield chatter was at, what, 4:1 in the offseason?). But he is our most consistent frosh and the one who doesn't play outside of what he's capable of. He had that beautiful pass to Steward. He drove by his man. Yes, ND isn't athletic. But Brakefield has shown a lot.
-We somehow shot 5-5 from the line (Duke was ranked #218 in FT shooting prior to this game) and 53.3% from 3pt land. Color me very surprised and I hope this continues.
-Wendell's post D is really, really good.

The Bad
-Hurt's 3pt shooting is off (0-8 in the last two games) but is anyone really concerned? We know he's a good (not great) 3pt shooter. It'll come back. Furthermore, with the way he's playing in the post on both post-ups and fadeaways, 3pt shooting isn't his only weapon
-Tape/Williams is an interesting experiment and I get it (especially for matchups), but they got burned a few times. I like Williams's layups, but that kid is really, really raw.
-Baker didn't hunt for his shot, which I guess is okay, but I'm surprised he didn't take one of the team's 15 3pt shots. He's really trying on D which is great, and hope he continues that path.

The Ugly
-It's gotten to the point where I am actually feeling really bad for Wendell. You can see he's thinking about now screwing up or taking a bad shot, but I don't think he can help himself. Sadly, 0-2 from the floor and 2 turnovers in 9 minutes continues the trend that Wendell has been on for the last 4 games. Wendell is shooting 21% from the floor, including 11% from the 3pt line. I don't think I've ever felt this badly for a player since...I can't even remember (I was going to say Hairston but Hairston never showed 10% of the potential Wendell did)

Wendell Moore made some nice plays on the defensive end which was nice to see. He desperately needs to see a couple shots drop just to get some confidence back.

[rsvman]

Agree with you in regard to disliking advertising while the game action is live. But if you cut the cord what is the alternative?

Agreed. I streamed the game, and I had the same ads running side-by-side that the cable users saw.

[FerryFor50]

Agreed. I streamed the game, and I had the same ads running side-by-side that the cable users saw.

I particularly enjoyed the Jalen Johnson injury infographic pasted over the game and staying over the game as it resumed after a timeout. This isn't "cord cutting" issues; this is bad presentation and milking ad revenue. In fact, these ad styles are likely here to stay *because* so many people have cut the cord.

[jacone21]

Agree with you in regard to disliking advertising while the game action is live. But if you cut the cord what is the alternative?

I don't know. Go for a walk? Read a book? Take a nap? :D

You know, there are ways to watch these games without paying for cable or streaming subscriptions. You try to do the right thing and keep paying consistently increasing prices for legitimate access. You get rewarded with even more encroaching scrolls, promos, split screens and ads. Sometimes there's a tipping point and it's just not worth it any more. Taco Bell delivery commercials while the ball is in play is my tipping point. I think it's too late to close the barn door though. In time, the game will be in perpetual split screen.

I'm probably just venting (old man yells at cloud). I'll most likely keep tuning in, just like the ad market researchers predict I will.

[jv001]

We went to stall ball, the purpose of which is to secure a win, not to pad the stats. By the only measure that really matters, it worked yet again.
If anything, I think Coach K was unhappy with Brakefield for trying to score after an offensive rebound when the goal should have been to burn more clock. We had run the clock down to about four seconds and Brakefield rebounded the miss under the basket. The play was to get the ball back out and burn 30 more seconds, rather than to flail up a highly contested prayer shot.

For the life of me I don't get why so many people on this forum hate stall ball. I get that it is not exciting and not as much fun, and that over the years it has cost us a few games, but overall it works very well. I used to coach kids in rec league ball, and getting them to understand that the clock can be your friend is one of the most difficult tasks. When the score is 24-14 and there is only two minutes left in the game, it is not necessary to shoot within five seconds of crossing halfcourt! That used to drive me crazy. Freshmen players seem, also, to not quite understand the idea, as demonstrated by Brakefield's ill-advised shot last night after his timely offensive rebound.

FWIW, one season a few years back I kept a notebook on hand for every game. I wrote down what the score was and how much time remained when we went to stall ball, and then the final score. What happened that year was that we won every single one of those games. The final margin of victory was often, but not always, smaller than the point separation at the time we went into stallball. If I remember correctly, the margin was smaller in about 2/3rds of the games. But again, winning is the point, and at least in that season, we won all those games.

After that I chilled about stall ball. I think of it as a positive: if we are going into stall ball it means that we have played well enough to have a decent lead with not much time left on the clock. This means that we have a good chance of emerging victorious, even if we squander some of the point margin in the process. Pretty sure winning is more important than scoring margins, anyway. Last night I heard many times about Coach's total number of wins... somehow they omitted mention of his average margin of victory...

Good points regarding stall ball. My point was that when we slowed down the game that affected our offensive efficiency, which I don't care about as long as we win. When we went to using the shot clock to our advantage, I thought to myself, Coach K is not only trying to win this game but also he's working on this tactic for future games. Just win baby!

GoDuke!

[CDu]

So, yeah, we played like a top-5 team against ND. Very nice change from the first four games.

Just to follow up on this, Bart Torvik (aka, the free alternative to KenPom) suggests this was by far our best performance of the season. It got a game score of 98 for us with an adjusted offensive efficiency of 126.3 and an adjusted defensive efficiency of 90.9. Previously, our best game score was 88 against Bellarmine. None of the other games (including the win over Coppin State) reached a game score of 75. So, yeah, I'd 100% concur with your statement here.

For whatever it is worth, Torvik has us as a top-30 team in both offense and defense right now, #26 overall. That feels about right for where we are. overall, but hopefully the ND game is a sign of things to come. Pomeroy is a little more bullish on us (#12 overall, #12 offense, #18 defense), but that's probably due to historical weighting which will go away as the season progresses.

[DukieTiger]

I wonder how much longer the Wendell Moore at the 3 experiment will continue. His post defense is better than good, yet his perimeter defense is not quite as good. However, his offense is much much worse than all the other options we have at the 4, and Wendell just doesn't have the skillset to play the 3. We've heard K say that Brakefield has (or had) a no-dribble rule, and that needs to be applied to Wendell. The worst offensive play Duke has is to let Wendell dribble the ball.
The very limited looks we've had of HC3 indicate that he has good defensive instincts, good mobility for such a big guy, and plays with lots of energy. It's impossible for him to shoot the 3 worse than Wendell and his power ought to allow him to score around the rim better too. Which is a long winded way of saying the that i too would like to see HC3 get a chance to play more in place of Wendell.

Honestly the no-dribble rule should just get passed from Brakefield to Moore completely.

I know it’s by virtue of JB being able to play the 4 and exploit mismatches, but he’s actually shown an ability to attack close outs off the bounce and get to the rim. I suppose it helps when you are the kind of shooter that demands a close out, where as WM doesn’t have that luxury right now - nor does he play at a position where he can exploit mismatches. All the same, it feels that one of these guys is actually a respectable attacker off the dribble and it ain’t the guy who is leading the current active roster in usage rate.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Just to follow up on this, Bart Torvik (aka, the free alternative to KenPom) suggests this was by far our best performance of the season. It got a game score of 98 for us with an adjusted offensive efficiency of 126.3 and an adjusted defensive efficiency of 90.9. Previously, our best game score was 88 against Bellarmine. None of the other games (including the win over Coppin State) reached a game score of 75. So, yeah, I'd 100% concur with your statement here.

For whatever it is worth, Torvik has us as a top-30 team in both offense and defense right now, #26 overall. That feels about right for where we are. overall, but hopefully the ND game is a sign of things to come. Pomeroy is a little more bullish on us (#12 overall, #12 offense, #18 defense), but that's probably due to historical weighting which will go away as the season progresses.

What's the scale for game score? Can it go over 100? I have no idea how to interpret that metric.

[Troublemaker]

Honestly the no-dribble rule should just get passed from Brakefield to Moore completely.

I know it’s by virtue of JB being able to play the 4 and exploit mismatches, but he’s actually shown an ability to attack close outs off the bounce and get to the rim. I suppose it helps when you are the kind of shooter that demands a close out, where as WM doesn’t have that luxury right now - nor does he play at a position where he can exploit mismatches. All the same, it feels that one of these guys is actually a respectable attacker off the dribble and it ain’t the guy who is leading the current active roster in usage rate.

Yeah, I think it's overdue to convert Wendell into a 3-and-D wing that rarely creates. I know that doesn't sound all that enticing either as of right now since he hasn't had success with the 3 yet but
(1) the odds of him becoming a good long-range shooter is much better than the odds of him becoming an efficient creator, imo. His FT shooting remains very promising.
(2) it will be good for his future both as a pro and at Duke.

Expanding on (2), even if you disagree that he can't become an efficient creator at the college level, we hopefully can all agree that he can't do it at the NBA level. He's just not a good enough athlete or dribbler to create separation and not turn the ball over. If Wendell has a future in the NBA, it'll be as a 3-and-D wing.

Expanding even more on (2), Duke has enough creators next year already in lottery talent Griffin, Banchero, and (knock on wood) Baldwin. What we really need is a good role player to complement them as a 3-and-D wing. If he continues working on that shot and takes it as confidently as he takes free throws, I could see a starting lineup next year of Roach-Moore-Griffin-(Baldwin-knock-on-wood)-Banchero.

I know it's weird to see Moore as a starting 2 since we've now discussed almost ad nauseam how Wendell should be playing the 4. But the reason to play him at the 4 is *because* he does so much creating right now, i.e. he turns the ball over less and can get better separation creating as a 4 than as a 3. If we convert Wendell into a 3-and-D wing, he can play the 2 next season.

[UrinalCake]

I'm surprised to read that our defensive efficiency rating was so low. My eye test (which is highly unreliable) saw us doing a really good job of individually staying in front of our man, fighting over screens, pressuring the ball, rebounding, and preventing live ball runouts. Yes we made mistakes, but for a young team in this environment I was pleased. After our first three games it looked like our defense was ahead of our offense - maybe that's just a diplomatic way of saying our offense was terrible, but overall I'm not "worried" about our defense.

[jimsumner]

I'm surprised to read that our defensive efficiency rating was so low. My eye test (which is highly unreliable) saw us doing a really good job of individually staying in front of our man, fighting over screens, pressuring the ball, rebounding, and preventing live ball runouts. Yes we made mistakes, but for a young team in this environment I was pleased. After our first three games it looked like our defense was ahead of our offense - maybe that's just a diplomatic way of saying our offense was terrible, but overall I'm not "worried" about our defense.

Perhaps Dane scoring 25 points the other night whilst missing all of two shots somewhat skewed Duke's defensive-efficiency-metrics.

Seriously, I kept watching Goodwin and thinking that's what I want Joey Baker to be when he grows up. Except that they're the same age.

[House P]

What's the scale for game score? Can it go over 100? I have no idea how to interpret that metric.

Torvik's "game score" represents what the team's overall rating would be based on that specific game alone (times 100 for some reason). Torvik's overall ratings range from 0.000 to 1.000, reflecting how often a team would be expected to beat an average D1 team on a neutral court. A rating of 0.98 (or a game score of 98) suggests that a team would beat an average D1 opponent 98% of the time.

For context, Baylor, Torvik's current #1 team, has an overall rating of 0.955. So Duke's performance vs Notre Dame game score = 98) was better than the average performance for the #1 team in the country this year.

On the other hand, Duke's other "game scores" are not so great.

- Game score of 88 vs Bellarmine (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 30)
- Game score of 73 vs Michigan St (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 88)
- Game score of 49 vs Coppin St (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 160)
- Game score of 42 vs Illinois (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 185)

Unfortunately, the ND game is the only time Torvik's system thinks Duke played like a top 25 team.

For context, last year's Duke team had 16 games with a game score of 94 or higher. Duke's 2019 team had 27 games with game scores of 94 or higher and Duke's 2010 team had 31 games with a game score of 94 or higher.

It may be worth pointing out that, while we can all point out lousy games that excellent Duke teams have played, this is only the second season for which Torvik has ratings available (2007-2021) where Duke has played multiple games with a game score below 50.

In Summary, hopefully the ND game represents a trend and not an outlier.

[dukelifer]

Torvik's "game score" represents what the team's overall rating would be based on that specific game alone (times 100 for some reason). Torvik's overall ratings range from 0.000 to 1.000, reflecting how often a team would be expected to beat an average D1 team on a neutral court. A rating of 0.98 (or a game score of 98) suggests that a team would beat an average D1 opponent 98% of the time.

For context, Baylor, Torvik's current #1 team, has an overall rating of 0.955. So Duke's performance vs Notre Dame game score = 98) was better than the average performance for the #1 team in the country this year.

On the other hand, Duke's other "game scores" are not so great.

- Game score of 88 vs Bellarmine (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 30)
- Game score of 73 vs Michigan St (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 88)
- Game score of 49 vs Coppin St (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 160)
- Game score of 42 vs Illinois (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 185)

Unfortunately, the ND game is the only time Torvik's system thinks Duke played like a top 25 team.

For context, last year's Duke team had 16 games with a game score of 94 or higher. Duke's 2019 team had 27 games with game scores of 94 or higher and Duke's 2010 team had 31 games with a game score of 94 or higher.

It may be worth pointing out that, while we can all point out lousy games that excellent Duke teams have played, this is only the second season for which Torvik has ratings available (2007-2021) where Duke has played multiple games with a game score below 50.

In Summary, hopefully the ND game represents a trend and not an outlier.

I saw a few more guys getting comfortable with their roles. Roach is growing on me- and his confidence will only increase. He is the key to having an above average season. If Moore can find his offense and Baker starts to hit jumpers- this team has potential. Right now- it is still a major work in progress.

[CDu]

I saw a few more guys getting comfortable with their roles. Roach is growing on me- and his confidence will only increase. He is the key to having an above average season. If Moore can find his offense and Baker starts to hit jumpers- this team has potential. Right now- it is still a major work in progress.

I don't have high expectations for Moore finding his offensive game this year, nor do I have high hopes for a major shooting role for Baker. What I'd like to see is Roach and Steward continue their ascent (they make for a really dynamic backcourt combination, with skills that complement each other), Hurt's 3pt shot to start falling again, Johnson to get healthy and find the right role on offense, and Moore to focus on defense and rebounding and minimize his offense altogether. That team would be a top-5 or top-10 caliber team, in my opinion.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I don't have high expectations for Moore finding his offensive game this year, nor do I have high hopes for a major shooting role for Baker. What I'd like to see is Roach and Steward continue their ascent (they make for a really dynamic backcourt combination, with skills that complement each other), Hurt's 3pt shot to start falling again, Johnson to get healthy and find the right role on offense, and Moore to focus on defense and rebounding and minimize his offense altogether. That team would be a top-5 or top-10 caliber team, in my opinion.

Agree with most, not all.

Definitely agree that Moore won't find his offensive game, or at least one that includes driving and 3pt shooting. Honestly, I just hope he is opportunistic at best (scores in the paint through targeted passes, offensive rebounds and put backs, maybe an alley-oop...)

Also agree that Roach and Steward need to continue their rise, especially with regards to both their 3pt shooting, Roach's drives, and Steward's craftiness.

And lastly agree on Johnson getting healthy (obviously) and trying to find a role. And that role may not be second or even third offensive banana if Roach and Steward can make the offensive jump. But Johnson is the most athletic player on the team with the most unique skillset; can he leverage that to be an advantage for the team?

I disagree on Baker; I think there are still high hopes for him becoming a legitimate and mid-volume shooter. But in order for this to happen, I think two things need to happen. Firstly, the team needs to continue moving the ball around (ND was a start). And secondly, Baker needs to get open. Move around, buddy! I'm not taking JJ moving around, but more like Kennard who was really crafty off the ball.

And I disagree on Hurt; I don't think his 3pt shooting is an issue despite going 0-8 in the last two games. We have a lot of data on Hurt from his frosh season and the first 3 games of the year; he's a good, but not great, 3pt shooter. Ideally, he shoots 39-40% this year. But the 3pt shots he's taking aren't forced and he's taking good shots; they're just not going in.

With a "better than advertised" Hurt, Roach, and Brakefield, an "as advertised" Steward, Baker, and Goldwire, and a "not as advertised" Moore and Johnson, I too believe this is a top 5 team. Side note: Johnson as "not as advertised" doesn't mean he isn't a key player; I think a "not as advertised" Johnson is still second or third banana on the team.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Torvik's "game score" represents what the team's overall rating would be based on that specific game alone (times 100 for some reason). Torvik's overall ratings range from 0.000 to 1.000, reflecting how often a team would be expected to beat an average D1 team on a neutral court. A rating of 0.98 (or a game score of 98) suggests that a team would beat an average D1 opponent 98% of the time.

For context, Baylor, Torvik's current #1 team, has an overall rating of 0.955. So Duke's performance vs Notre Dame game score = 98) was better than the average performance for the #1 team in the country this year.

On the other hand, Duke's other "game scores" are not so great.

- Game score of 88 vs Bellarmine (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 30)
- Game score of 73 vs Michigan St (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 88)
- Game score of 49 vs Coppin St (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 160)
- Game score of 42 vs Illinois (approximately what would be expected of a team ranked 185)

Unfortunately, the ND game is the only time Torvik's system thinks Duke played like a top 25 team.

For context, last year's Duke team had 16 games with a game score of 94 or higher. Duke's 2019 team had 27 games with game scores of 94 or higher and Duke's 2010 team had 31 games with a game score of 94 or higher.

It may be worth pointing out that, while we can all point out lousy games that excellent Duke teams have played, this is only the second season for which Torvik has ratings available (2007-2021) where Duke has played multiple games with a game score below 50.

In Summary, hopefully the ND game represents a trend and not an outlier.

Wow. This is clear. Thank you!

[Saratoga2]

With a "better than advertised" Hurt, Roach, and Brakefield, an "as advertised" Steward, Baker, and Goldwire, and a "not as advertised" Moore and Johnson, I too believe this is a top 5 team. Side note: Johnson as "not as advertised" doesn't mean he isn't a key player; I think a "not as advertised" Johnson is still second or third banana on the team.

Without JJ, I believe this team will succeed with Roach, Stewart, Goldwire, Hurt and Brakefield on the floor with some of Williams, especially against tall teams like UNC and FS. I haven't seen how Moore or Baker can help this team be top five. The problem is whether through injury, sickness or foul trouble we lose one of our starting 5 we are susceptible to being far less competitive. Come back soon JJ.

[House P]

I'm going to maybe start doing a feature in the post-game thread called "Who did we play like in this game?" (statistically, at a high level) that will rely on these stats in order to complement your very good post-game stats posts. Lemme see if I can do these adjustments correctly. you, uh_no, CDu, etc can correct me where I'm wrong. Showing my math:

Per kenpom, ND has an adjusted O of 1.086 and an adjusted D of 0.986. And the Division I average (for both, obviously) is 0.998. (In other words, the average Div-1 team both scores and allows 1 point per possession, essentially). Duke, as you mentioned, in this game scored 1.204 ppp and allowed 1.043 ppp

Let:
adj_ND_off = 1.086
adj_ND_def = 0.986
raw_Duke_off = 1.204
raw_Duke_def = 1.043
div_1_avg = 0.998

Duke's adjusted O against ND = (raw_Duke_off - adj_ND_def) + div_1_avg = 1.216
Duke's adjusted D against ND = (raw_Duke_def - adj_ND_off) + div_1_avg = 0.955
Duke's adjusted efficiency margin in this game therefore was 1.216 - 0.955 = 0.261

So, in this game, we played like the #1 offense in the country (Iowa's #1 offense is at 1.19) and like the 88th best defense in the country (#88 UNCG is at 0.956).

Overall, via efficiency margin, we played like the third-best team in the country (#3 Villanova is at 0.2587) in this game.



Cool, thanks. Just wanted confirmation that I was doing it right.


My understanding is that your approach is pretty much how KenPom does it. Bart Torvik does it a bit different (http://adamcwisports.blogspot.com/p/every-possession-counts.html) (ratios instead of margins), but the results are pretty similar. The other factor that would be included in a normal year is home court advantage. Torvik incorporates home court advantage by increasing the adj_off of the home team by 1.4% and reducing the adj_def of the home team by 1.4%.

So, based on the numbers you list above, ND's adj_off and adj_def at home would be 1.101 and 0.972.

That would result in the following:

Duke's adjusted O vs ND = 1.23 (1.204 - 0.972 + 0.998 = 1.23)
Duke's adjusted D vs ND = 0.94 (1.043-1.101+0.998 = 0.94)
Duke's adjusted EM vs ND = 0.29 (1.23 - 0.94 = 0.29)

So Duke looked even better than you calculated.

Of course, who knows how to factor home court advantage in a (nearly) empty arena. So the math may be a bit different this year.

[Kedsy]

If he continues working on that shot and takes it as confidently as he takes free throws, I could see a starting lineup next year of Roach-Moore-Griffin-(Baldwin-knock-on-wood)-Banchero.

You don't expect Steward to still be on the team next season?


I'm surprised to read that our defensive efficiency rating was so low. My eye test (which is highly unreliable) saw us doing a really good job of individually staying in front of our man, fighting over screens, pressuring the ball, rebounding, and preventing live ball runouts. Yes we made mistakes, but for a young team in this environment I was pleased.

Notre Dame's eFG% was over 56%. And the makes didn't seem (to me) to be predominantly "lucky." If your opponent shoots that well, your defense did not effectively hinder their scoring efforts.

[Troublemaker]

You don't expect Steward to still be on the team next season?

Exactly. I think we have two OADs, maybe three.

[Kedsy]

Exactly. I think we have two OADs, maybe three.

Who would be the third? Roach?

[Troublemaker]

Who would be the third? Roach?

You won't like it. All I gotta say is I'm Jaemyn, and I wanna Jaemyn with you.

[dukelifer]

I don't have high expectations for Moore finding his offensive game this year, nor do I have high hopes for a major shooting role for Baker. What I'd like to see is Roach and Steward continue their ascent (they make for a really dynamic backcourt combination, with skills that complement each other), Hurt's 3pt shot to start falling again, Johnson to get healthy and find the right role on offense, and Moore to focus on defense and rebounding and minimize his offense altogether. That team would be a top-5 or top-10 caliber team, in my opinion.

I was assuming Johnson may not be back- always worry about foot injuries. I agree- Roach and Steward have potential to be a very dynamic backcourt.

[Kedsy]

You won't like it. All I gotta say is I'm Jaemyn, and I wanna Jaemyn with you.

Wow. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.

[Troublemaker]

5. Let's not see any "we are better off without Johnson" takes. Duke needs him back, needs him to get into rhythm.

I agree, in the long-term. As I said in the pregame thread, Jalen coming back will raise our ceiling, and I wish him all the best.

With that said, I did point out the Ewing Theory potential of Jalen's injury in that same pregame post, and because I predicted it pregame, allow me to say that I think I'm right that Duke is better off without Jalen in the short-term.

In my pregame post, I mentioned that Jalen had been inefficient while being our highest usage player. I asked where would his missing usage now flow to? I mentioned the possibility that we would increase Matt's usage (and he has been our most efficient player who plays a lot), and I mentioned that Jaemyn, who had been our most efficient player in fewer minutes would all of a sudden get a bump in playing time, most likely, which did materialize.

I'm not surprised that those two changes -- making efficient Hurt the fulcrum of the offense, and giving efficient Jaemyn more minutes -- would lead to much more efficient offense than we had seen previously.

Coach K did well with how he distributed Jalen's missing usage.

[Steven43]

Exactly. I think we have two OADs, maybe three.

Just assume that every freshman Duke gets who was ranked in the Top 50 or so in high school will be OAD.

And then be pleasantly surprised if they’re not.

[Troublemaker]

Just assume that every freshman Duke gets who was ranked in the Top 50 or so in high school will be OAD.

And then be pleasantly surprised if they’re not.

While I agree with you that that is a good outlook for most fans, my feelings don't really get hurt either way if a guy goes OAD. The context to the conversation wasn't about managing expectations; the context was about whether I'm conceited enough to project Jaemyn as OAD based off a few decent games from him coming off the bench, hahahaha. Verdict: I am conceited enough.

The NBA is starving for SF-sized players who can shoot. If he keeps shooting like this (not 62% from three, obviously, but 38+% on continued high volume of attempts / minute), and knowing what we have coming in next year (Griffin, Banchero, Baldwin?), I think Jaemyn could leave for the draft. I think he could be a late first-rounder.

[azzefkram]

While I agree with you that that is a good outlook for most fans, my feelings don't really get hurt either way if a guy goes OAD. The context to the conversation wasn't about managing expectations; the context was about whether I'm conceited enough to project Jaemyn as OAD based off a few decent games from him coming off the bench, hahahaha. Verdict: I am conceited enough.

The NBA is starving for SF-sized players who can shoot. If he keeps shooting like this (not 62% from three, obviously, but 38+% on continued high volume of attempts / minute), and knowing what we have coming in next year (Griffin, Banchero, Baldwin?), I think Jaemyn could leave for the draft. I think he could be a late first-rounder.

While Jaemyn's shooting has been a revelation, he seems to have a decidedly below the rim game. Do those guys tend to go in the first round?

[Kedsy]

Just assume that every freshman Duke gets who was ranked in the Top 50 or so in high school will be OAD.

And then be pleasantly surprised if they’re not.

I understand where you're coming from, and I realize you're exaggerating, but based on history it would be kind of silly if we did as you suggest.

Since OAD started before the 2005-06 season, Duke has had 55 top 50 recruits and 19 of them have been OAD (34.5%). If you only want to count the last 10 years (since Kyrie's freshman year), we've had 37 top 50 recruits and 19 of them have been OAD (51.3%).

But the full story makes your statement even sillier. In the past 10 seasons we've had:

15 top 10 recruits (15 OADs out of 15 = 100%);

9 recruits rated between 11 and 15 (3 OADs out of 9 = 33.3%)

13 recruits rated 16+ (1 OAD out of 13 = 7.7%)

In other words, the odds are stacked heavily against Steward, Roach, or Brakefield being OAD (though of course it could happen). It would be unprecedented at Duke for two of them to go after their freshman year. To say we should assume all six of our recruits (rated #11, #20, #24, #25, #33, #49) will be OAD is beyond absurd.

[Steven43]

I understand where you're coming from, and I realize you're exaggerating, but based on history it would be kind of silly if we did as you suggest.

Since OAD started before the 2005-06 season, Duke has had 55 top 50 recruits and 19 of them have been OAD (34.5%). If you only want to count the last 10 years (since Kyrie's freshman year), we've had 37 top 50 recruits and 19 of them have been OAD (51.3%).

But the full story makes your statement even sillier. In the past 10 seasons we've had:

15 top 10 recruits (15 OADs out of 15 = 100%);

9 recruits rated between 11 and 15 (3 OADs out of 9 = 33.3%)

13 recruits rated 16+ (1 OAD out of 13 = 7.7%)

In other words, the odds are stacked heavily against Steward, Roach, or Brakefield being OAD (though of course it could happen). It would be unprecedented at Duke for two of them to go after their freshman year. To say we should assume all six of our recruits (rated #11, #20, #24, #25, #33, #49) will be OAD is beyond absurd.
Ha! I knew with virtual certainty that you were going to come in and use statistical history of Duke OADs to refute what I said. In fact, one of my primary motivations for posting was precisely to elicit the very response that I got. And I don’t begrudge you doing it. I like having certain things about DBR to rely upon. It’s oddly comforting.

For the record, I was fairly well-versed in the history of Duke OADs before you posted. I know the statistics. But unlike Troublemaker, my feelings do actually get hurt when guys go OAD. Well, not “hurt” exactly, but I do get selfishly sad.

I really value getting to know Duke players over a period of years. I’ve felt considerably less connected with and invested in the team during the OAD era. And every single Duke fan I’ve spoken with feels almost exactly the same. And I’m talking about legit long-term Duke fans, many of whom are season ticket holders.

Anyway, keep up the good work, Kedsy. You provide a valuable statistical service to DBR. Thank you for consistently putting in the time and effort.

[Troublemaker]

While Jaemyn's shooting has been a revelation, he seems to have a decidedly below the rim game. Do those guys tend to go in the first round?

Probably not, but I'm sure there are exceptions. Just down the road, for example, Cam Johnson was a lottery pick recently. (And here I'm only saying Jaemyn could be a late first-rounder).

Also, I'd like to see more of Jaemyn before drawing firm conclusions about his athleticism. For example, I remember in those "uncut" scrimmage videos, he seemed to have a decent amount of dunks, including a couple of alley-oops thrown to him. Put it this way: I think I've seen enough to conclude he wouldn't be an above-average NBA athlete, but I haven't seen enough to conclude that his athleticism would be a negative in that league yet.

First things first, though, we need to see if the shot is real. I think it is. (Again, not the current 62% he's shooting, which is fluky, but that he's a legitimate 38+% 3-pt shooter). One of the things I like to look at in early season stats is 3-pt attempt rate. From Duke's sports-reference (https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2021.html) page, here is attempts per 40 minutes:

https://i.imgur.com/ICgT7kH.png

Jaemyn is letting it fly!

One of the reasons I like to look at 3PA per 40 is because I have a theory that the players themselves will tell you how good they are at shooting through this stat. So, for example, Joey's only hit 1 for 9 (11%) from three so far. If you were an alien who came to Earth with no previous knowledge of Joey's shooting ability besides this season's stats, you could look at the stat above (where Joey is one of Duke's four high-volume three-pt shooters) and conclude that Joey is likely a good shooter despite his 11% start, i.e. that Joey's 11% start is a fluke of small sample.

Players who shoot well in practice, who therefore have confidence in their shot, and who have their teammates's confidence in their shot, are going to let it fly in games and be high-volume shooters. I suspect that all four of Jaemyn, DJ, Matt, and Joey are very good shooters who shoot with confidence. Likewise, I suspect that the next quartet down in that table, the low-to-mid-volume shooters of Wendell, Jalen, JGold, and Jeremy, have their struggles shooting in practice and are not fully confident in their shot and might not have their teammates' full confidence in their shot. And finally, the bottom three (our centers) are non-shooters.

[UrinalCake]

But the full story makes your statement even sillier. In the past 10 seasons we've had:
...
13 recruits rated 16+ (1 OAD out of 13 = 7.7%).

But our memories are skewed by the fact that the one 16+ recruit who did go OAD (Cassius Stanley) happened just last season.

For me, I feel the most burned by Tyus Jones, Gary Trent and Frank Jackson, all of whom I expected to be multi-year guys and all of whom I feel would have made a huge impact had they returned. Trevon Duval also stings, even though he was a top-10 recruit it was clear that he was at most a mid-second round pick but he chose to leave anyways. So I understand the sentiment of “any top 50 freshman is a candidate to leave” even if it’s not statistically accurate.

[Kedsy]

But our memories are skewed by the fact that the one 16+ recruit who did go OAD (Cassius Stanley) happened just last season.

For me, I feel the most burned by Tyus Jones, Gary Trent and Frank Jackson, all of whom I expected to be multi-year guys and all of whom I feel would have made a huge impact had they returned. Trevon Duval also stings, even though he was a top-10 recruit it was clear that he was at most a mid-second round pick but he chose to leave anyways. So I understand the sentiment of “any top 50 freshman is a candidate to leave” even if it’s not statistically accurate.

I guess, although Tyus Jones was also top 10. All four of the guys you mention were top 15 recruits. If Steven43 had said "top 15" instead of "top 50," I might have agreed with him, even though the actual history doesn't show that, either -- in fact, Trent and Jackson were two of only three Duke guys ranked between 11 and 15 that went OAD (the other was Justise Winslow).

But if a Duke player ranked 20+ out of high school goes OAD, it would be a historical anomaly. And frankly, right now none of our freshmen have the statistical profile of a one-and-done player (not even Johnson). Obviously things could change between now and the end of the season (whenever that turns out to be).

[MartyClark]

I guess, although Tyus Jones was also top 10. All four of the guys you mention were top 15 recruits. If Steven43 had said "top 15" instead of "top 50," I might have agreed with him, even though the actual history doesn't show that, either -- in fact, Trent and Jackson were two of only three Duke guys ranked between 11 and 15 that went OAD (the other was Justise Winslow).

But if a Duke player ranked 20+ out of high school goes OAD, it would be a historical anomaly. And frankly, right now none of our freshmen have the statistical profile of a one-and-done player (not even Johnson). Obviously things could change between now and the end of the season (whenever that turns out to be).

What do you mean when you say Johnson does not fit the statistical profile of a one and done player? I'm not arguing, I know better than to argue with stat man, just curious.

[UrinalCake]

All four of the guys you mention were top 15 recruits. If Steven43 had said "top 15" instead of "top 50," I might have agreed with him, even though the actual history doesn't show that, either -- in fact, Trent and Jackson were two of only three Duke guys ranked between 11 and 15 that went OAD (the other was Justise Winslow).

The period from 2014-2019 was one in which a guy ranked #15 was considered one of our "lesser" recruits.

[Kedsy]

The period from 2014-2019 was one in which a guy ranked #15 was considered one of our "lesser" recruits.

True. In that period we had 19 recruits better than #15 and only 11 recruits ranked #15 or worse.

Are you suggesting that the main reason our guys ranked from, say, #15 to #35, didn't go OAD was they had less opportunity to shine because were playing behind the better recruits? That given the playing time of, e.g., Cassius Stanley last season or DJ Steward, Jeremy Roach, or even Jaemyn Brakefield this season, the guys ranked in the 20s and 30s would all go pro after one year?

If so, then the whole idea of recruiting guys in the 20s and 30s because they'll stay more years is blown to pieces, isn't it?

Fortunately, I don't entirely buy that theory (not necessarily saying it's your theory, FWIW, I'm just talking here). Matthew Hurt (#12), Wendell Moore (#25), Tre Jones (#13), and Luke Kennard (#21) all got a lot of playing time as freshmen and didn't go OAD. Guys like Grayson Allen, Matt Jones, and Amile Jefferson all got lots of playing time their sophomore and junior seasons and didn't leave early. I suppose it could be mostly about expectations and individual circumstances, in which case this conversation is mostly something frivolous to talk about while the team's next game isn't for two weeks.

[Kedsy]

What do you mean when you say Johnson does not fit the statistical profile of a one and done player? I'm not arguing, I know better than to argue with stat man, just curious.

A 95.8 oRtg with a 26.8 usage rate and a 24.6% TO%? That's hardly the stuff to make NBA scouts drool. For comparison's sake, as a freshman James Michael McAdoo had a 104.7 oRtg with a 20.6% usage and a 10.8 TO% and we all laughed and laughed. And it gets much worse if you discount Jalen's amazing first game against a vastly overmatched opponent. Take that game away, for example, and Jalen's eFG% is a dreadful 44.4% (with a 3pt% of 25% and a FT% of 37.5%), with 9.3 rebounds per 40, 1.3 assists/40 against 4.0 turnovers/40, along with 2.7 stls/40 and 2.7 blks per 40. Again for comparison, JMM's eFG% was basically the same, 43.4% as a frosh, with 9.9 rebs/40, 0.7 assts/40 against 2.0 turnovers/40, with 2.2 stls/40 and 0.9 blks/40.

I'm not saying he's James Michael McAdoo -- for one thing he handles and passes the ball much better (though you maybe couldn't tell that statistically, considering his outrageously high TO rate) and he has much better shooting range than McAdoo (though, again, if he doesn't make his threes, who cares if he can take them?). He probably plays better defense (I'm not sure yet). But his statistical profile so far is frighteningly similar.

Of course, Jalen's statistics are from just a few games, mostly meaningless in the long haul. When I say he doesn't meet the statistical profile of a one-and-done player, I mean if that profile stayed constant over the course of the season. I'm also not saying Jalen won't decide to leave or that he wouldn't be drafted, I assume he'll do both. But if his stats continue at this level, it's hard to imagine many NBA teams being particularly enthusiastic. Unless his pre-draft workouts are amazing he almost certainly wouldn't be lottery and maybe not first round.

All that said, it's also possible that his injury (whatever it is) is at least partially responsible for his recent poor play and then whenever he comes back he'll look like he did against Coppin State. In which case his statistical profile will improve and he'll be back looking like a lottery pick. No way to know at this point, we can only hope.

[UrinalCake]

I don’t have the numbers to back this up, but I suspect that after five games Jayson Tatum didn’t have the statistical profile of a OAD either. I remember a home game against NC State in which he repeatedly blew open layups and on the final possession he dribbled the ball behind his back and off his foot at mid court, allowing Dennis Smith Jr. to slam it down our throats (I was standing right under the basket where he did that). After that game the message boards were flooded with furious Duke fans, some literally claiming we should revoke Tatum’s scholarship. After watching his development that season, I learned to give freshmen time.

[Kedsy]

I don’t have the numbers to back this up, but I suspect that after five games Jayson Tatum didn’t have the statistical profile of a OAD either. I remember a home game against NC State in which he repeatedly blew open layups and on the final possession he dribbled the ball behind his back and off his foot at mid court, allowing Dennis Smith Jr. to slam it down our throats (I was standing right under the basket where he did that). After that game the message boards were flooded with furious Duke fans, some literally claiming we should revoke Tatum’s scholarship. After watching his development that season, I learned to give freshmen time.

It's true that Jayson Tatum was not a very efficient shooter his first few games (he took a lot of two-point jumpers), and I completely agree we have to give all players (especially freshmen) time to find themselves on the court. I wasn't badmouthing Jalen Johnson, either. I said his statistical profile to date wasn't that of an OAD and someone asked me why I said that. I specifically disclaimed that my comments only qualified if he continued the way he's gone so far.

That said, I think Tatum in his first few games looked a lot more like a one-and-done than Jalen has in his past three games. And that State game? Jayson scored 16 points on 50% shooting (53.6% eFG%) with 9 rebounds, 3 assists (against 2 turnovers), 2 blocks, and a steal. Anyone who suggested revoking his scholarship was talking out of their you-know-where.

[dukelifer]

It's true that Jayson Tatum was not a very efficient shooter his first few games (he took a lot of two-point jumpers), and I completely agree we have to give all players (especially freshmen) time to find themselves on the court. I wasn't badmouthing Jalen Johnson, either. I said his statistical profile to date wasn't that of an OAD and someone asked me why I said that. I specifically disclaimed that my comments only qualified if he continued the way he's gone so far.

That said, I think Tatum in his first few games looked a lot more like a one-and-done than Jalen has in his past three games. And that State game? Jayson scored 16 points on 50% shooting (53.6% eFG%) with 9 rebounds, 3 assists (against 2 turnovers), 2 blocks, and a steal. Anyone who suggested revoking his scholarship was talking out of their you-know-where.

I also recall that Tatum was coming off an summer - early season injury. Johnson has all the raw potential of a OAD player - and we know how much the NBA loves potential- but he has a long way to go to be a good player. I would say the same for someone like Nassir Little who jumps off the page in his athleticism and potential but is still a below average NBA player and may be out of the league in a year or so.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I also recall that Tatum was coming off an summer - early season injury. Johnson has all the raw potential of a OAD player - and we know how much the NBA loves potential- but he has a long way to go to be a good player. I would say the same for someone like Nassir Little who jumps off the page in his athleticism and potential but is still a below average NBA player and may be out of the league in a year or so.

I saw Tatum early in the season (ETSU? MTSU?) and my main takeaway was that he had serious shoulders for an 18 year old kid.

[dukelifer]

I saw Tatum early in the season (ETSU? MTSU?) and my main takeaway was that he had serious shoulders for an 18 year old kid.

Apparently he just grew into them this year

[Spanarkel]

Probably not, but I'm sure there are exceptions. Just down the road, for example, Cam Johnson was a lottery pick recently. (And here I'm only saying Jaemyn could be a late first-rounder).

Also, I'd like to see more of Jaemyn before drawing firm conclusions about his athleticism. For example, I remember in those "uncut" scrimmage videos, he seemed to have a decent amount of dunks, including a couple of alley-oops thrown to him. Put it this way: I think I've seen enough to conclude he wouldn't be an above-average NBA athlete, but I haven't seen enough to conclude that his athleticism would be a negative in that league yet.

First things first, though, we need to see if the shot is real. I think it is. (Again, not the current 62% he's shooting, which is fluky, but that he's a legitimate 38+% 3-pt shooter). One of the things I like to look at in early season stats is 3-pt attempt rate. From Duke's sports-reference (https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/2021.html) page, here is attempts per 40 minutes:

https://i.imgur.com/ICgT7kH.png

Jaemyn is letting it fly!

One of the reasons I like to look at 3PA per 40 is because I have a theory that the players themselves will tell you how good they are at shooting through this stat. So, for example, Joey's only hit 1 for 9 (11%) from three so far. If you were an alien who came to Earth with no previous knowledge of Joey's shooting ability besides this season's stats, you could look at the stat above (where Joey is one of Duke's four high-volume three-pt shooters) and conclude that Joey is likely a good shooter despite his 11% start, i.e. that Joey's 11% start is a fluke of small sample.

Players who shoot well in practice, who therefore have confidence in their shot, and who have their teammates's confidence in their shot, are going to let it fly in games and be high-volume shooters. I suspect that all four of Jaemyn, DJ, Matt, and Joey are very good shooters who shoot with confidence. Likewise, I suspect that the next quartet down in that table, the low-to-mid-volume shooters of Wendell, Jalen, JGold, and Jeremy, have their struggles shooting in practice and are not fully confident in their shot and might not have their teammates' full confidence in their shot. And finally, the bottom three (our centers) are non-shooters.

Not sure your theory holds up when assessing JG's 3-point prowess: he's a career .274. He does bring a huge amount to the team with his D/hustle/smarts, and I've loved watching him improve and be a solid contributor.

[Troublemaker]

Not sure your theory holds up when assessing JG's 3-point prowess: he's a career .274. He does bring a huge amount to the team with his D/hustle/smarts, and I've loved watching him improve and be a solid contributor.

Why? JGold is a low-volume shooter.

I believe he's improved his shooting over the years to the point where he's now a ~35% shooter from three, and my complaint about him is that he doesn't shoot enough from out there at this point, not that he shoots too much.

[DukieInBrasil]

Why? JGold is a low-volume shooter.

I believe he's improved his shooting over the years to the point where he's now a ~35% shooter from three, and my complaint about him is that he doesn't shoot enough from out there at this point, not that he shoots too much.

JGold's career 3pt% is marred by his horribly inept 1st 2 seasons, but last year he started poorly and finished very strong. While his % is kinda low this year, he hasn't taken enough for it to be a good measure yet. Prior to the last game, his 3FG% was almost 40%, he missed 2 and it dropped to the 20s.
I agree with Troublemaker, i'm all good with JGold taking the 3s he takes, b/c they're usually good shots, even if he misses.
ed.- well, he's 1-7 in his last 2 games, so that skews my argument a bit...

[Troublemaker]

JGold's career 3pt% is marred by his horribly inept 1st 2 seasons, but last year he started poorly and finished very strong. While his % is kinda low this year, he hasn't taken enough for it to be a good measure yet. Prior to the last game, his 3FG% was almost 40%, he missed 2 and it dropped to the 20s.
I agree with Troublemaker, i'm all good with JGold taking the 3s he takes, b/c they're usually good shots, even if he misses.

Yeah, and it feels like, with this team, out turnover rate after hesitating and not pulling the trigger on an open three is 75%.

I'd rather see a missed open three than a drive into a turnover following passing up that open three. Misses are okay. The team can offensive rebound it, and if it's a good shot, the team will get back in transition better even if we don't get the O-board. This is because teammates are more prepared to run back when a player takes a good shot, a shot they expect the teammate to take. Whereas, if you get stripped driving, the transition defense might not be in a good position to get back.

[House P]

I don’t have the numbers to back this up, but I suspect that after five games Jayson Tatum didn’t have the statistical profile of a OAD either.

The top 5 draft pick I recall taking a few games to figure it out is Brandon Ingram. Here are Brandon's stats from his first 7 games at Duke:

24.6 Min/G
10.9 Points/G
38.8% FG%
24.0% 3PT%
56.3% FT%
3.7 Reb/G
1.7 Ast/G
1.6 To/G

In his first 3 games against Top 75 competition (Kentucky, VCU, and Georgetown), Brandon's stats were even less impressive.

20.3 Min/G
5.7 Points/G
25.0% FG%
0.0% 3PT%
46.7% FT%
2.3 Reb/G
1.3 Ast/G
2.0 To/G

Brandon had a breakout game vs Indiana (24 pts, 4-6 from 3pt range) and was outstanding the rest of the season. From the Indiana game onward, Brandon averaged 37.0 MPG, 18.9 PPG, and 7.5 RPG while shooting 43.5% from 3pt range and 71% from the free throw line.