PDA

View Full Version : You know what's awesome?



Jumbo
02-13-2008, 09:45 PM
Duke played its reserves considerably less tonight, yet no one is starting a panicked thread worrying about the team's "depth." Does this mean that people might be coming around to my way of thinking, that depth isn't a measure of how many guys you do play in a given game, but how many you can play? And that minutes should be distrubuted based on performance that night? Clearly, Smith was off his game. I'm pretty sure McClure hasn't been healthy all year and is gutting it out. Zoubek is still working his way back. King is struggling. But those guys all got at least one stint in the first half. K got 10 guys into the game in the first 20 minutes of a big matchup. In the second half, he went with the guys who were playing well, and they responded. So hopefully we've put this issue to bed this season. (Yeah, I probably just jinxed things.)

mehmattski
02-13-2008, 09:54 PM
Not to mention that for most of this season, we've played some of the most effective stall ball I've ever seen. Tonight, Jon Scheyer spent 10 seconds teasing James Osby out of the low block and then drove right past him for an easy layup with 5 seconds left on the shot clock. Absolutely beautiful execution.

Depth? Check.
Stall-ball works? Check
Crazies at the top of their game? Check
Keeping up with/outrebounding bigger teams? Check
Taking plenty of mid-range shots? Check

What in the world will Duke fans complain about????

OldPhiKap
02-13-2008, 09:56 PM
I haven't looked at the stat sheet, but McClure seemed to get a few key rebounds when he was in. Zoubek gave Lance a good rest and is still working himself into shape. Smith, IIRC, ran into some foul trouble. So it's not like these guys didn't get into the game or that they didn't play key roles. King was given some time to get his shot down, too -- if he had hit a few, i bet he'd have stayed in longer.

But, to jinx you, I'm gonna start a thread about how much better we would have played if Marty was available. (And in all honesty, I look forward to a healthy Marty contributing big-time next year).

dukelifer
02-13-2008, 10:02 PM
Duke played its reserves considerably less tonight, yet no one is starting a panicked thread worrying about the team's "depth." Does this mean that people might be coming around to my way of thinking, that depth isn't a measure of how many guys you do play in a given game, but how many you can play? And that minutes should be distrubuted based on performance that night? Clearly, Smith was off his game. I'm pretty sure McClure hasn't been healthy all year and is gutting it out. Zoubek is still working his way back. King is struggling. But those guys all got at least one stint in the first half. K got 10 guys into the game in the first 20 minutes of a big matchup. In the second half, he went with the guys who were playing well, and they responded. So hopefully we've put this issue to bed this season. (Yeah, I probably just jinxed things.)

All is usually good when Duke is winning by double digits. Duke always seems to look fresher then their opponent in the last five minutes. I am not sure why that is- but given that Duke has SO many options, mentally- these guys are not wearing down. Tonight- they really played like a senior ladened team. Scheyer and Singler seem to always make the right play and with a dash of the spectacular drive/dunk by Henderson and Nelson - you have a very tough team to play in crunch time. The three-headed center is doing well and I expect King and Smith to get their second wind- but they have hit - dare I say- a bit of a wall.

Channing
02-13-2008, 10:11 PM
Zoubek gave us exactly what we needed out of him - some good strong low post defense. He came in had an immediate impact on the defensive end. I watch him on offense, and while it isnt always pretty - it is obvious he has made strides. I dont think I have seen him called for a walk yet this year. It seems that the skill is there, it just needs to be brought out.

TNTDevil
02-13-2008, 10:18 PM
Zoubek gave us exactly what we needed out of him - some good strong low post defense. He came in had an immediate impact on the defensive end. I watch him on offense, and while it isnt always pretty - it is obvious he has made strides. I dont think I have seen him called for a walk yet this year. It seems that the skill is there, it just needs to be brought out.The aforehighlighted sentences should not be used consecutively.

Other than that, I agree completely.

ice-9
02-13-2008, 10:25 PM
Oops, you might have -- I just posted in the GP thread that I was getting worried about NS' low minutes. I haven't checked but it seems like a trend the past few games...NS has not been playing much. Freshman wall?

Truth
02-13-2008, 10:28 PM
Duke played its reserves considerably less tonight, yet no one is starting a panicked thread worrying about the team's "depth." Does this mean that people might be coming around to my way of thinking, that depth isn't a measure of how many guys you do play in a given game, but how many you can play? And that minutes should be distrubuted based on performance that night? Clearly, Smith was off his game. I'm pretty sure McClure hasn't been healthy all year and is gutting it out. Zoubek is still working his way back. King is struggling. But those guys all got at least one stint in the first half. K got 10 guys into the game in the first 20 minutes of a big matchup. In the second half, he went with the guys who were playing well, and they responded. So hopefully we've put this issue to bed this season. (Yeah, I probably just jinxed things.)

I hope you're right, but I think it's more of an issue that we're only 2.5 hours away from the game's conclusion. Let's see what tomorrow brings... By mid-tmw, I'm sure I'll be responding to friends' emails about why TK didn't get 2nd half PT...

SlimSlowSlider
02-13-2008, 10:31 PM
TK was brutal. Hope your friends don't sent such emails. He will, however, snap out of this funk.

SNewman 92
02-13-2008, 10:33 PM
I hope you're right, but I think it's more of an issue that we're only 2.5 hours away from the game's conclusion. Let's see what tomorrow brings... By mid-tmw, I'm sure I'll be responding to friends' emails about why TK didn't get 2nd half PT...
And your prophecy is confirmed! See the recent post by Tchoup in the post-game thread. Sorry, Jumbo. . .

bluepenguin
02-13-2008, 10:52 PM
Duke played its reserves considerably less tonight, yet no one is starting a panicked thread worrying about the team's "depth." Does this mean that people might be coming around to my way of thinking, that depth isn't a measure of how many guys you do play in a given game, but how many you can play?

Just wishful thinking on your part.
You need to come around to everyone else's thinking, that K doesn't know how to use his bench. He's probably just getting lucky this year. It was bound to happen eventually. :rolleyes:

BigTedder
02-13-2008, 11:35 PM
Not to mention that for most of this season, we've played some of the most effective stall ball I've ever seen. Tonight, Jon Scheyer spent 10 seconds teasing James Osby out of the low block and then drove right past him for an easy layup with 5 seconds left on the shot clock. Absolutely beautiful execution.

Depth? Check.
Stall-ball works? Check
Crazies at the top of their game? Check
Keeping up with/outrebounding bigger teams? Check
Taking plenty of mid-range shots? Check

What in the world will Duke fans complain about????

Chapel Hill is still there....no good team is there anymore, but the city still remains....so we still got that...oh and we lost a game this year....30something - 1 aint too bad.

Lulu
02-14-2008, 12:57 AM
If I'm being honest, I did have some nagging, negative thoughts about a 7-man rotation throughout this last game. That's just if I'm being honest, otherwise I didn't notice and I think we're going to roll through the tourney this year, well rested and only paring down the rotation if it's better suited for certain matchups, or mismatches.

Lulu
02-14-2008, 04:54 AM
So long after my previous post I was looking at the box score...

Our top 5 did average 31.8 minutes tonight. I am not complaining, simply stating that I remember when we didn't have a single player playing as many minutes earlier this season. Thomas did play 22. The rest played 19.

Is this just a function of the way Maryland was playing us (giving up the 3, though that doesn't explain TK so well except that his shot has been off), OR, is this some kind of deliberate shift being imposed to start preparing us for the post -season? For reference, the numbers are below:
K. Singler, F 37
L. Thomas, F 22
G. Paulus, G 34
G. Hend, G-F 28
D. Nelson, G 35
N. Smith, G 6
D. McClure, F 7
T. King, F 2
J. Scheyer, G 25
B. Zoubek, C 4

Really, you can jump all over me all you want for posting this, but I guarantee every rival of ours is already talking about it.

dukelifer
02-14-2008, 06:30 AM
So long after my previous post I was looking at the box score...

Our top 5 did average 31.8 minutes tonight. I am not complaining, simply stating that I remember when we didn't have a single player playing as many minutes earlier this season. Thomas did play 22. The rest played 19.

Is this just a function of the way Maryland was playing us (giving up the 3, though that doesn't explain TK so well except that his shot has been off), OR, is this some kind of deliberate shift being imposed to start preparing us for the post -season? For reference, the numbers are below:
K. Singler, F 37
L. Thomas, F 22
G. Paulus, G 34
G. Hend, G-F 28
D. Nelson, G 35
N. Smith, G 6
D. McClure, F 7
T. King, F 2
J. Scheyer, G 25
B. Zoubek, C 4

Really, you can jump all over me all you want for posting this, but I guarantee every rival of ours is already talking about it.

But here we have Smith playing 6 minutes- but we all know if called upon (due to foul trouble or situation) he can preform at a high level. This is also true of McClure, King and to some degree Zoubs in a few weeks after he gets his conditioning back. I think the key is that Smith and King are ready if needed and I also expect they will get their second wind. The next few weeks will be tough on all.

MarkD83
02-14-2008, 06:37 AM
First, it is really hard to assess depth by the minutes played in one game so we probably should not over analyze this.

If you do look at minutes played you can see that the most effective players played the most minutes: Singler 37, Paulus 34. Since Md could not handle these two the only way to stop them would have been to put them on the bench.

To give you a comparison, I went to the UNC-UVA ame on Tuesday. Hansbrough had his normal game but Roy kept taking him out so that Stephenson and Thompson could get playing time. UVA loved it. Whenever, Hansbrough was out of the game UVA crept back in. The easiest way to stop someone is have him sit on the bench.

weezie
02-14-2008, 07:39 AM
Seeing the Devils play that stall ball is like opening a hidden Christmas present tucked way, way under the tree in the back. It's surprising and giddy-making each and every time. And frankly, amazing!

Troublemaker
02-14-2008, 07:40 AM
Our top 5 did average 31.8 minutes tonight. I am not complaining, simply stating that I remember when we didn't have a single player playing as many minutes earlier this season. Thomas did play 22. The rest played 19.

Is this just a function of the way Maryland was playing us

It's a function of Coach K's respect for Maryland. All coaches shorten their rotation for the big games, the most competitive games. The next time Duke plays a scrub team, the rotation will expand again.

Check almost any team's box scores, not just Duke, and they will shorten their rotation for the competitive games. This goes for the top teams as well.

Just in the past few days:

UCLA at WSU: http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/boxscore;_ylt=AuS5LcBtnC3LJ3we27G5fN0SvbYF?gid=200 802070632

Kansas at Texas:
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/boxscore;_ylt=AuS5LcBtnC3LJ3we27G5fN0SvbYF?gid=200 802110585

I think if you start looking at other box scores instead of just Duke's, you will see that almost everyone does this. (And it's the right thing to do to play your best players the most minutes in your toughest games).

This season has done a good job weaning people off the "every player on the roster should play [roughly the same minutes]" notion. Now we just have to get everyone used to the fact that competitive games dictate shorter rotations.

Troublemaker
02-14-2008, 08:00 AM
If I'm being honest, I did have some nagging, negative thoughts about a 7-man rotation throughout this last game. That's just if I'm being honest, otherwise I didn't notice and I think we're going to roll through the tourney this year, well rested and only paring down the rotation if it's better suited for certain matchups, or mismatches.

There are two things wrong with your thought process. Implicitly, you are stating that:

1) Depth controls how well Duke will fare in the tournament. But depth is only one small aspect of how well a basketball team functions. If this year's Duke team shot and passed and handled the ball like last year's Duke team did, then they could have an 11-man rotation and still struggle. Depth is just one small strength for this team among many strengths.

2) You are also implying that you will judge this team based on how well it fares in the tournament. Mathematically (probability-wise), it's a terrible way to judge. And I'm not picking on you because the vast majority of college basketball fans think that the single-elimination crapshoot-ish NCAA tournament is the best way to judge teams. If the NBA held a 1-game-series tournament instead of the 7-game-series tournament that they do, Jordan's Bulls would only have 2 rings instead of 6, Duncan would only have 1 ring instead of 4, Shaq would have 2 instead of 4, etc etc. The differences reflect how often those teams lost the first game of a series. Those teams still ended up winning championships under this method (single-elimination) but they won them at a much lower rate mostly due to the bad luck of matchups being 1 game series instead of 7.

dukegirlinsc
02-14-2008, 08:01 AM
no complaints here!
i love this team...they could do cartwheels bringing the ball down the court, and i'm not sure i would care, as long as it worked.

fine with me.
keep it up boys.

Carlos
02-14-2008, 08:43 AM
Since the first Maryland game Paulus is averaging 16 pts., hitting on 52% of his threes, and carrying a 2.3:1 ATO ratio. I kind of want him in the game a bunch right now.

Since the NC State game Singler has been averaging 19 points, 7 rebounds, and has shot 52% from the field and 50% from the three-point line. I kind of want him in the game a bunch right now.

Since the opening tip in the NC Central game Demarcus Nelson has kicked butt. I kind of want him in the game right now.

Conversely, Nolan Smith is struggling a little at the moment. since the first Maryland game he's had exactly 1 assist and 9 turnovers. More concerning is that he's also making some poor decisions on defense. Likewise, Taylor king has not been playing too well either.

So all that adds up to a shorter bench - at least in big games. As others have noted, that's not exactly unique to Duke. The difference between this year and last year is that Duke would be playing guys for a bunch of minutes in every game, not just the big games.

elvis14
02-14-2008, 09:19 AM
I really like that we have been playing lots of players this year and want our top players to be fresh in the tournaments. That said, I have no problem with the rotations in last night's game. In the second half, we couldn't throw it in the ocean from a boat for a while there. It seemed to me that K shortened the bench trying to use the most effective players last night as we tried to hold off Maryland. To put it another way, it was a bit of a weird game so the rotation was altered. Thank God for Kyle Singler.

Jumbo
02-14-2008, 09:20 AM
Really, you can jump all over me all you want for posting this, but I guarantee every rival of ours is already talking about it.

Huh? What would "every rival of ours" be talking about?

dukegirlinsc
02-14-2008, 09:23 AM
Really, you can jump all over me all you want for posting this, but I guarantee every rival of ours is already talking about it.


who cares what they talk about?
let 'em talk.
sincere flattering, imo.

ugadevil
02-14-2008, 09:33 AM
Really, you can jump all over me all you want for posting this, but I guarantee every rival of ours is already talking about it.

Are they talking about it before or after they talk about how we've beaten them this year?:D

Dukiedevil
02-14-2008, 09:56 AM
So long after my previous post I was looking at the box score...

Our top 5 did average 31.8 minutes tonight. I am not complaining, simply stating that I remember when we didn't have a single player playing as many minutes earlier this season. Thomas did play 22. The rest played 19.

Is this just a function of the way Maryland was playing us (giving up the 3, though that doesn't explain TK so well except that his shot has been off), OR, is this some kind of deliberate shift being imposed to start preparing us for the post -season? For reference, the numbers are below:
K. Singler, F 37
L. Thomas, F 22
G. Paulus, G 34
G. Hend, G-F 28
D. Nelson, G 35
N. Smith, G 6
D. McClure, F 7
T. King, F 2
J. Scheyer, G 25
B. Zoubek, C 4

Really, you can jump all over me all you want for posting this, but I guarantee every rival of ours is already talking about it.

Honestly, I think that that the minutes distribution had a lot to do with the performance of our bench yesterday. Smith was really off of his game for some reason. He made several bad decisions and as well as Paulus played in the first half, it's not hard to see why his minutes were limited. It also helped that Maryland had Hayes playing a lot and Paulus did not have a difficult time staying in front of him. McClure simply did not match up well with Marylands bigs and I'll echo Jumbo in saying that he still doesn't look quite right. Taylor is simply a one dimensional player at this point. If he's not providing those deep threes and pulling a big man out to guard him, it severely hampers his effectiveness. Also, particularly against Marylands frontcourt, TK is a big defensive liability. Coach K played a ton of guys in the first half to see who was "feeling it" and spread the minutes accordingly. I think Nolan was just off for one game and TK and McClure did not match up well against MD. No big deal.

OldPhiKap
02-14-2008, 10:06 AM
The problem with lack of depth is not that you have folks going a lot of minutes in a single game. It is that they get worn down over time. Here, K has used the bench all year and so it's not like these guys are worn out at this point. So looking at any one game does not tell much of the picture.

Also, some large portion of these games is in the delay game at the end -- not the most physically taxing part of the game.

Jumbo
02-14-2008, 10:10 AM
The problem with lack of depth is not that you have folks going a lot of minutes in a single game. It is that they get worn down over time.

I don't believe that at all. And, if it's somehow true, we're fine because we've played a lot of guys all year.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
02-14-2008, 10:30 AM
Agree that winning quiets a lot of criticism. I've generally been somewhere in the middle of the Great Depth Debates, but my sense of the critique was that, beyond simple fatigue, three areas of concern were stated:

1) Guys playing 39-40 minutes game-in and out, thus tiring them, exposing them to higher chance of injury, etc. Tonight only one guy played more than 35 and two more played more than 33. No 40 minute iron men (except for Kyle, who mr. synellinden will tell you, is actually iron), just pressing an advantage.

2) Guys "in the doghouse" who don't get a chance to contribute. Tonight 10 guys played including Dave, Taylor, Nolan, and Z. They all did some good things (Taylor's 2 consecutive blocks deserve mention) but also showed some weaknesses. Everybody got a chance to contribute.

3) Versatility. On the '05 and '06 teams it was too often The J.J. Show with his trusty sidekick Shel and a special guest appearance by The Three Screeners. Tonight a number of guys initiated the offense, we had four guys in double figures, and G simply had a very off night.

Simply put, there's no problem with depth, so there are no complaints. :)

Zeb
02-14-2008, 11:26 AM
You know what is not surprising?

That Jumbo can start his own thread talking about last night's game and it doesn't get moved to the post game thread.

Dukiedevil
02-14-2008, 11:36 AM
The problem with lack of depth is not that you have folks going a lot of minutes in a single game. It is that they get worn down over time. Here, K has used the bench all year and so it's not like these guys are worn out at this point. So looking at any one game does not tell much of the picture.

Also, some large portion of these games is in the delay game at the end -- not the most physically taxing part of the game.

I think what wears on guys more than the minutes is having the pressure to be the main and sometimes ONLY scoring threat (see Redick, Hansblahblah). I think even if our guys were logging heavy minutes, not having the mental pressure of knowing if they don't play well, we'll probably lose, is huge. I wouldn't worry about this team getting worn down too much.

edensquad
02-14-2008, 11:44 AM
I don't believe that at all. And, if it's somehow true, we're fine because we've played a lot of guys all year.

During several broadcasts this year, Mike Gminski has stated that the staff is trying to keep the players' minutes under 30/game. Each time, he mentioned that this would "pay big dividends" for Duke as the season wore on.

I assume that he has talked with the staff firsthand; and that they believe it makes a difference (or else why mention it?).... He has also experienced the effects (or non-effects) of cumulative minutes as a player for Duke and in the NBA. Gminski seemes to find this significant.

Just find that interesting.

Jumbo
02-14-2008, 01:35 PM
During several broadcasts this year, Mike Gminski has stated that the staff is trying to keep the players' minutes under 30/game. Each time, he mentioned that this would "pay big dividends" for Duke as the season wore on.

I assume that he has talked with the staff firsthand; and that they believe it makes a difference (or else why mention it?).... He has also experienced the effects (or non-effects) of cumulative minutes as a player for Duke and in the NBA. Gminski seemes to find this significant.

Just find that interesting.

I haven't heard him say that during a broadcast, and let's just say that I'm basing my analysis on first-hand conversations as well. Plus, Duke has been playing Nelson 30-plus minutes basically all year and several other guys 30-plus in big games, so it doesn't seem as if they're terribly concerned with that threshold.

Jumbo
02-14-2008, 01:43 PM
You know what is not surprising?

That Jumbo can start his own thread talking about last night's game and it doesn't get moved to the post game thread.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? (Plus, this thread wasn't Maryland-game specific. It's about a general theme with the team that's been going on forever. You'd have a better argument if you suggested moving it to a generic "depth" thread.)

OldPhiKap
02-14-2008, 01:59 PM
I don't believe that at all. And, if it's somehow true, we're fine because we've played a lot of guys all year.

That's my point -- we've played a lot of guys all year, so this is not an issue. That was what the rest of that paragraph was intended to convey, although I apologize if I was not clear on that point (always a possibility with me). By and large, when the game is on the line we have looked like the fresher team all year. And that, as they say, makes all the difference in the world -- a key rebound or punch-out, rubbery legs of the opponent leading to a missed outside shot, etc.

_Gary
02-14-2008, 02:40 PM
I haven't heard him say that during a broadcast, and let's just say that I'm basing my analysis on first-hand conversations as well. Plus, Duke has been playing Nelson 30-plus minutes basically all year and several other guys 30-plus in big games, so it doesn't seem as if they're terribly concerned with that threshold.

While I'm not concerned about the depth issues this year, or more accurately the worn down and tired issues that I feel did affect us during the JJ years, I can't believe anyone would deny the basic point that some of us have made for quite some time now. I thought it was a matter of public record that both players and coaches conceded to the fact that we were tired come tourney time on more than one occasion. I'm flabbergasted that anyone would out and out deny that lack of depth can, and has, hurt Duke in the recent past as we approached March.

Again, I'm not really concerned at all this year even though I think we need fresh legs with this team more than any other in recent memory because of the style we play. The pressure "d" has ruled the day on many occasions and that does require the guys being fresh and able to really extend arms and legs for the full 40 minutes on defense. And on offense we have to continue moving, slashing, cutting, etc. Therefore it's imperative that everyone stay as fresh as possible.

Would I like to see a guy like Taylor get just a few minutes in the second half of most every game? Sure. Is it going to kill us if he doesn't? Very doubtful. I only hope we don't tighten the reigns at all from this point on. I do think we benefit from having 9 or 10 playing as opposed to 6 or 7. And while I understand there will be games like last night when we do kinda shorten the bench in the second half, I hope we err a little in the other direction on average from here on out. And I think the coaches are committed to doing all they can to keep the team fresh - in large part because they have seen the results of "tired teams" over the last several years.

Just my two cents.


Gary

jma4life
02-14-2008, 02:51 PM
I agree that depth is ability to use many players. Furthermore, I also believe that depth is using more players in blow outs so that in the tight games, you can tighten the reigns and have players fresh enough to play.

My question is can we call it a coincidence that this team does seem particularly fresh compared to some of the other shorter benched Duke teams. I would assume that it probably is but many people have commented on how fresh the players look late in games and this is one factor that could be contributing. The fantastic endurance of guys like Singler, Scheyer and Demarcus could be just as plausible a reason however.

edensquad
02-14-2008, 03:07 PM
I haven't heard him say that during a broadcast, and let's just say that I'm basing my analysis on first-hand conversations as well. Plus, Duke has been playing Nelson 30-plus minutes basically all year and several other guys 30-plus in big games, so it doesn't seem as if they're terribly concerned with that threshold.

Because this seems to be a recurring theme here, I quoted Gminski in posts earlier in the year... and I even noted the time left in the game when such quotes were made. (Someone more industrious than I could search for said posts... and, if they had the game(s) taped, could verify).

G-man has a jersey in the rafters, and is a respected analyst. The fact that he weighed in on this topic twice (that I heard), I find noteworthy.

DU Band Prez 88
02-15-2008, 12:05 AM
I don't think it would be too bold to say that Duke is the best-conditioned team in the ACC, and certainly one of the best-conditioned teams in all of college hoops. They get 3-4 days off between games in the reg. season, but when it comes time to 3 days in a row in the ACCs in mid-March, Duke will be prepared to give 100% on less than 24 hours rest - probably better-prepared than any of the other teams in the league.

I still think back to something that I know Coach K has said in the past, which applies to all of his teams: they have three team goals 1. win the ACC regular season, 2. win the ACC tournament, 3. win the whole thing. They're now in the driver's seat for goal #1, have a great chance to win 3 in a row in mid-March, and the way they have continued to hustle, play great defense, and because they have so many guys who can shoot, I love our chances to get to the Regional Finals and beyond.

Jumbo
02-15-2008, 08:38 AM
Another theory: The long layoff between the Pittsburgh and Cornell games achieved its goals, andthe players are fresher physically and mentally.

RepoMan
02-15-2008, 09:05 AM
While I'm not concerned about the depth issues this year, or more accurately the worn down and tired issues that I feel did affect us during the JJ years, I can't believe anyone would deny the basic point that some of us have made for quite some time now. . . .I only hope we don't tighten the reigns at all from this point on. I do think we benefit from having 9 or 10 playing as opposed to 6 or 7. And while I understand there will be games like last night when we do kinda shorten the bench in the second half, I hope we err a little in the other direction on average from here on out. And I think the coaches are committed to doing all they can to keep the team fresh - in large part because they have seen the results of "tired teams" over the last several years.


Jumbo, I hope you realize that by starting this thread you have elicited the very dialogue you were glad was missing.

While I find it easy to understand the argument that if Player A plays fewer minutes during the course of a game, he is less fatigued at the end of that game, which might be beneficial to team success. You will never convince me that well conditioned 20 year old athletes somehow get "worn down" physically by playing 35 minutes, 2 games a week.

_Gary
02-15-2008, 09:24 AM
While I find it easy to understand the argument that if Player A plays fewer minutes during the course of a game, he is less fatigued at the end of that game, which might be beneficial to team success. You will never convince me that well conditioned 20 year old athletes somehow get "worn down" physically by playing 35 minutes, 2 games a week.

Look, I'd really like to enjoy this current team and not keep talking about this - so I'll make this my final post in this thread. I get that you and others here don't think playing less minutes really makes a difference. What I don't get is that both JJ and Coach K have said that it was an issue. Maybe not a big issue, but an issue nonetheless. If you want to dispute them, go ahead.


Gary

dukie8
02-16-2008, 11:01 AM
There are two things wrong with your thought process. Implicitly, you are stating that:

1) Depth controls how well Duke will fare in the tournament. But depth is only one small aspect of how well a basketball team functions. If this year's Duke team shot and passed and handled the ball like last year's Duke team did, then they could have an 11-man rotation and still struggle. Depth is just one small strength for this team among many strengths.

2) You are also implying that you will judge this team based on how well it fares in the tournament. Mathematically (probability-wise), it's a terrible way to judge. And I'm not picking on you because the vast majority of college basketball fans think that the single-elimination crapshoot-ish NCAA tournament is the best way to judge teams. If the NBA held a 1-game-series tournament instead of the 7-game-series tournament that they do, Jordan's Bulls would only have 2 rings instead of 6, Duncan would only have 1 ring instead of 4, Shaq would have 2 instead of 4, etc etc. The differences reflect how often those teams lost the first game of a series. Those teams still ended up winning championships under this method (single-elimination) but they won them at a much lower rate mostly due to the bad luck of matchups being 1 game series instead of 7.

your logic is extremely flawed regarding your nba analogy. first, the only team that could have won the opening game in each series is the team that ultimately wins the nba title. there are many years that the winner doesn't win the opening game in every series so there would be no winner in your artificial world. second, and more importantly, you have no idea how players would have reacted if the nba had been playing a single elimination tournament all these years. the bulls very well could have won 10 titles in such a scenario. i could see a jordan-led bulls team coast by the dregs of the nba in rounds 1 and 2 (against the 8 and 4/5 seeds) and then have jordan completely focus for the last 2 games (the conference finals and the finals) and win both of those games every year. my money says that jordan plays harder in those games than he does in the opening game in every round every year.

getting back to your point, yes the bulk of how people judge a team is how it does in the ncaat. whether you like it or not, the ncaat is what it is all about and flaming-out early largely erases success during the regular season and, conversely, exceeding expectations in the ncaat largely erases disappointment during the regular season. do you ever hear anyone complain that unc did not win the acct in 2005? do you ever hear anyone complain that duke lost so many regular season games in '90 that it was a 3 seed but nonetheless went on to the finals?

Troublemaker
02-16-2008, 11:24 AM
your logic is extremely flawed regarding your nba analogy. first, the only team that could have won the opening game in each series is the team that ultimately wins the nba title. there are many years that the winner doesn't win the opening game in every series so there would be no winner in your artificial world.

What???


second, and more importantly, you have no idea how players would have reacted if the nba had been playing a single elimination tournament all these years. the bulls very well could have won 10 titles in such a scenario.

Yes, and it's possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow. You're talking fairy-tale rubbish. It's a FACT that a 7-game series favors the better team over a 1-game series. How much more duh-obvious common sense can it be?


i could see a jordan-led bulls team coast by the dregs of the nba in rounds 1 and 2 (against the 8 and 4/5 seeds) and then have jordan completely focus for the last 2 games (the conference finals and the finals) and win both of those games every year. my money says that jordan plays harder in those games than he does in the opening game in every round every year.

Right, because ultra-competitors like Jordan, Magic, and Bird were known for coasting in the playoffs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You can go back and look at the playoff records yourself. There was no preponderance of Game 1 losses in the early rounds. For example, Jordan's first championship team lost Game 1 in the NBA Finals to the Lakers. The Lakers used their experience to steal the first game, in Chicago Stadium, no less. But the Bulls were a waaay better team, adjusted, and won the next four games to capture the trophy. Played under college rules, though, the Bulls would've never gotten a chance to adjust.


getting back to your point, yes the bulk of how people judge a team is how it does in the ncaat. whether you like it or not, the ncaat is what it is all about and flaming-out early largely erases success during the regular season and, conversely, exceeding expectations in the ncaat largely erases disappointment during the regular season. do you ever hear anyone complain that unc did not win the acct in 2005? do you ever hear anyone complain that duke lost so many regular season games in '90 that it was a 3 seed but nonetheless went on to the finals?

Yes, I know that's how the public judges. That was the whole point of my post. I am saying it's an unintelligent way to do it, and that's not opinion, it's fact. Judging a team by how it fares in a single-elimination tournament is much, much, MUCH less accurate than judging teams in a 7-game series.

Go back and check. Magic would've won 2 rings instead of 5. Bird 1 instead of 3. Jordan 2 instead of 6. Shaq 2 of 4. Duncan 1 of 4. That's the effect of single elimination.

Troublemaker
02-16-2008, 11:30 AM
Note, though, that I love the NCAA tournament and wouldn't change the format. I like watching the little guy have a chance and the tradeoff is that sometimes, Duke will lose to an inferior team when they would've beaten in a 7-game series. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.