When do you have enough scorers?

[MarkD83]

I usually do not like to pick on anyone but the following quote in the DBR summary of the Tulsa game struck a nerve.

"Toss the Big Three and Zoubek out and the rest of the team was 3-12"

So lets forget about the teams top 4 scorers and what happens. This same sentiment has been stated for many teams and not just Duke by many announcers. I am sure you have heard, "They need a 3rd option...a 4th option...a 5th option..."

So how many scoring options is enough?

[Matches]

3 is usually enough. Sometimes a team can get by with 2. It's nice to have as many as possible, of course, but really so long as the 4th and 5th options aren't SO BAD that they don't draw a defender, you're okay.

[langdonfan]

I agree with what you are saying, but just to clarify, the problem is really the lack of balanced scoring. The fact that Smith, Singler, and Scheyer all averaging around 18 ppg isn't a good sign for what would happen if the team were to lose one of them. It's not like this is a team that is averaging 100 ppg. The rest of the team has produced very little offense during the ACC season.

[DurhamMatt]

We are a dangerous team this year. We have THE bIG 3. Known nationaly as the most awesome trio in the country. Duke haters in the media try to turn this into a flaw somehow, saying we need more scorers. This team has way more scorers than we have had in years. Just remember last year, G gets shut down or has an off night and that was a wrap. I would like to see Zoubs start getting some national credit, but I guess it will take more than 4 games after a dismal 3 years. I know its been said but if he can keep that presence up, OMG. Wow, is all I can say about his play. That semi finger roll to the basket from 4-5 feet was ridiculous. He could not score from under the basket a month ago, it's really astonishing. We are still gaining scorers, guys are still emerging! Miles looked like he is getting it going, and we all know Mason and Dawkins are capable of being scoring threats. It will be March 1st on Monday and we are still getting better, way better. Let the critics keep trying to point out flaws, I like our scorers.

[Dukefan4Life]

I dont think you can ever have enough scoring. The problem with our team is we do not have enough inside scoring, IMO that has been our problem for a few years now. we just dont use the post or drive to the basekt enough to make sure when our outside shot isnt falling we can rely on an inside game.

[Matches]

I agree with what you are saying, but just to clarify, the problem is really the lack of balanced scoring. The fact that Smith, Singler, and Scheyer all averaging around 18 ppg isn't a good sign for what would happen if the team were to lose one of them.

Sure, but isn't that true of most teams? How many teams can lose one of their top three players without it being a major hit? I agree we'd be in huge trouble if one of those guys went down, but I think most teams would be as well in similar circumstances.

Heck, look at UNC last year without Lawson. That was a very deep, very balanced team, and all it took was one key guy being out for them to become average.

[flyingdutchdevil]

IMO, 2004 was the last time that we had this many scorers. Duhon, Ewing, Redick, Deng, and S. Williams could all score to a certain degree. This year isn't bad - 3.5 (still need to see more Z to be considered anywhere near the 3 S's). But 2004 was an absolutely luxury.

[Dukefan4Life]

This all sounds pretty crazy to me! I think we are damn lucky to have three scorers on our team. How about other teams have guys that average these numbers? but ill say it again its not how many scorers you have.. the "balence" that we need is inside and outside scoring! we need to use our bigs to do more than just set picks for our big three

[crote]

This team has way more scorers than we have had in years. Just remember last year, G gets shut down or has an off night and that was a wrap.

I disagree. Last year we had a Big Three of Kyle, Jon, and G which averaged only ~5ppg less than is Knolon Schmingler this year, and that's looking at averages over the whole year and probably doesn't give enough weight to how much G's scoring picked up over the last half of the season.

I guess it sort of depends on how you define scorer. If you arbitrarily cut it off at, say, 15 ppg, before this year we haven't had three scorers since Ewing-Redick-Shelden in 04-05. If you use a lower thresh hold of 10 PPG, you could argue we had more balance in '07 and '08, although you'd be hard pressed to argue those were better teams.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

IMO, 2004 was the last time that we had this many scorers. Duhon, Ewing, Redick, Deng, and S. Williams could all score to a certain degree. This year isn't bad - 3.5 (still need to see more Z to be considered anywhere near the 3 S's). But 2004 was an absolutely luxury.

2004 was a luxury! You also had Shav Randolph who before/after the bout of mono was capable of putting up a decent game. For this year, I tend to look at it from a bench production point of view. I feel that now, we know what we're going to get from Zoubs, he's been aswesome. I want to see someone from the bench come in and put up ~7 points a game. We're getting nothing from the bench so that puts pressure on the 3 and we can't seem to go very long with one of them on the bench. Andre is 1-14 and has 4 points total in his last 6 games. Mason has been a little better with the exception of the last few games. We just need a consistenet effort. It's almost time for Andre to chalk it up as a dissapointing year and start working his butt off for next year when more competition comes in, but I won't give up on the kid.

[Mal]

I read the quote above in the DBR writeup as part of point about the team shooting poorly. Maybe it was stated awkwardly, but I think it was along the lines of "Tulsa was held to a low shooting percentage, but then again, so was Duke. The three stars shot thusly: ___, ___, ___. Zoubek was the exception to the rule at 4/5. Everyone else was 3-12." It finished the point of saying the team had a bad shooting night.

That said, I don't disagree with the comments on the issue the OP brings up. Sure, I'd like the 4th and 5th guys to be averaging 9 and 8 instead of 6 and 5. But at the same time, it's generally conventional wisdom that you need three legit scorers to make a serious NCAA run. Well, we have three very legit scorers. Part of the trouble, I suppose, is that all three of them are perimeter players, so their nightly output is more dependent on their touch that game, rather than a lowpost guy who's gonna get his 14 minimum if you just feed him enough. So we're maybe more susceptible to a game where two of the three of them are off. Still, I do think it's a bit overblown. Why the fetishistic worry that three guys who get 50+% of the minutes have scored 65% of the points? I guess the press needs a prescripted article about our preordained Sweet 16 loss, so they've floated both unathleticism and now this.

[CDu]

I usually do not like to pick on anyone but the following quote in the DBR summary of the Tulsa game struck a nerve.

"Toss the Big Three and Zoubek out and the rest of the team was 3-12"

So lets forget about the teams top 4 scorers and what happens. This same sentiment has been stated for many teams and not just Duke by many announcers. I am sure you have heard, "They need a 3rd option...a 4th option...a 5th option..."

So how many scoring options is enough?

I agree that it's silly to overlook the top four scorers in any particular game when those four got 60+ points. It doesn't matter how you distribute the points on any given night. You just need to have X number of points from the on any given night.

The point of discussing having an Xth option is to provide more flexibility and more cushion to withstand an off-night from any particular player or groups of players. If you can get 20+ points every night from three guys, then you probably only need 5-10 points from everybody else to win almost every game. But you aren't going to get 20+ points every night from three guys, so it's nice to have that 4th/5th/6th option.

I don't know what the right number of scoring options is, and the reality is probably that it depends upon whom the scorers are. But more is generally better than less.

[Matches]

The '09 team was probably more balanced than this year's model, though when Nolan went into his mid-season slump we relied pretty heavily on 3 guys. Even when Nolan was slumping, though, one had the sense that he, Paulus and EWill were realistic scoring options. Until Zoo's recent resurgence I'm not sure we've had that this year.

The '08 team got scoring from Singler, Scheyer, Paulus, Henderson, Nelson, and occasionally Nolan. It was VERY well-balanced but had no standout performer.

[superdave]

One of the jobs of a point guard is to get easy buckets for the team. Jon Scheyer is simply not a natural point guard, similar to 2005 when Daniel Ewing played point. He's more of a playmaker and he's good at it.

Next year I think Kyrie Irving will be so good at pentrating and drawing an extra defender that our bigs will get more dunks (think Boozer's easy buckets because of JW) and our spot up shooters will get more open looks. Those are easy scoring opprtunities that we just dont get as often we'd liek this year.

unc last year is a good comparison. How much better did Ed Davis, Deon Thompson and Ginyard look because Ty Lawson was feeding them? They were average offensive players playing at a higher level because the point put them in great position to score. They just had to catch and score a lot of the time.

I dont think it's about # of scoring options, but more about better balance than we have. Our lack of balance very well mean an early end to our season if we play the wrong team.

[jjasper0729]

we have 3 players that are in the top 7 in the conference in points per game. You have to go to #12 to find another team with a second person.

1. Malcolm Delaney-VT (20.2)
2. Jon Scheyer-DU (18.8)
3. Greivis Vasquez-MD (18.7)
4. Nolan Smith-DU (17.9)
5. Sylven Landesberg-VA (17.4)
6. Tracy Smith-ST (17.1)
7. Kyle Singler-DU (16.9)
8. Al-Farouq Aminu-WF (16.8)
9. Trevor Booker-CU (15.3)
10. Joe Trapani-BC (14.3)
11. Deon Thompson-NC (14.1)
12. Dorenzo Hudson-VT (14.0)
13. Gani Lawal-GT (13.9)
14. Ed Davis-NC (13.4)
15. Reggie Jackson-BC (13.2)
16. Ishmael Smith-WF (13.2)
17. Landon Milbourne-MD (13.1)
18. Mike Scott-VA (12.8)
19. James Dews-UM (12.3)
20. Dwayne Collins-UM (12.2)

In the top 20 (which the conference lists), the breakdown is as follows:

Duke - 3
BC - 2
MD - 2
Miami - 2
UNC - 2
UVA - 2
VPI - 2
WF - 2
CU - 1
GT - 1
NCSU - 1

I think we have a great luxury and any added points from any other team members (we've seen it happen before this season, why shouldn't we expect to see it again) is gravy on the country fried steak.

[DukeUsul]

Based on what I've learned reading these boards, if we don't have 5-6 10pt scorers and at lest 8 guys averaging 15 minutes a game, this team is a complete and utter disappointment to me personally and will flame out in the first weekend. Coach K just needs to listen to me.

[CDu]

The '09 team was probably more balanced than this year's model, though when Nolan went into his mid-season slump we relied pretty heavily on 3 guys. Even when Nolan was slumping, though, one had the sense that he, Paulus and EWill were realistic scoring options. Until Zoo's recent resurgence I'm not sure we've had that this year.

The '08 team got scoring from Singler, Scheyer, Paulus, Henderson, Nelson, and occasionally Nolan. It was VERY well-balanced but had no standout performer.

Right. Which is why I said the answer depends upon whom the scorers are. Obviously, this team (with only three consistent scoring options but maybe developing a fourth) is better than the '08 and '09 teams. The question is whether or not they could also use another option or two (along with the better top-end trio) to push them from a questionable final four team to a legitimate final four threat.

There is clearly some difference of opinion as to whether this team is "final four caliber" or not. Having a consistent 4th or 5th option available would strengthen the case for being final four caliber.

[oldnavy]

I dont think you can ever have enough scoring. The problem with our team is we do not have enough inside scoring, IMO that has been our problem for a few years now. we just dont use the post or drive to the basekt enough to make sure when our outside shot isnt falling we can rely on an inside game.

I think we tend to over analyze these things. We can look at our team and say we need more scorers inside. Or we can say we have 3 guys scoring 18 ppg, what if one of them is off, or what if one gets hurt, or whatever. Point is that we have 3 guys that can and do routinely put the ball in the bucket.

There is only so much scoring to go around. Would it be better if we had 4 guys averaging 12 ppg? or 5 guys averaging 10 ppg? What if one of them go down? You cannot assume that all of their scoring is lost. Others will pick it up. When SSS are on the floor, they are options 1, 2, and 3 for scoring. Usually one of them will make the bucket, that does not mean that the others cannot score it just means that one of the first three options came through.

It would be great if Zoubs or MP1 or MP2 could pick up a few more points in a game, but most likely they are going to be the last option in the set, unless K calls a play specifically to the post for one of them. He has done this on several occassions to keep defenses honest.

I do not worry that we have 3 guys doing the bulk of the scoring at all.

[CDu]

I think we tend to over analyze these things. We can look at our team and say we need more scorers inside. Or we can say we have 3 guys scoring 18 ppg, what if one of them is off, or what if one gets hurt, or whatever. Point is that we have 3 guys that can and do routinely put the ball in the bucket.

There is only so much scoring to go around. Would it be better if we had 4 guys averaging 12 ppg? or 5 guys averaging 10 ppg? What if one of them go down? You cannot assume that all of their scoring is lost. Others will pick it up. When SSS are on the floor, they are options 1, 2, and 3 for scoring. Usually one of them will make the bucket, that does not mean that the others cannot score it just means that one of the first three options came through.

It would be great if Zoubs or MP1 or MP2 could pick up a few more points in a game, but most likely they are going to be the last option in the set, unless K calls a play specifically to the post for one of them. He has done this on several occassions to keep defenses honest.

I do not worry that we have 3 guys doing the bulk of the scoring at all.

The issue isn't a redistribution of scoring. The issue is having other guys who can pick it up when one or two of our big three are having an off-night. The reason people talk about having a 4th/5th option is not that they want those guys to take away some of the scoring of the big three, but rather to be able to pick it up if the big three aren't on.

In other words, the bolded statement is the part that is in question. If you assume that others will pick it up, then you are implicitly assuming we have a consistent/ready 4th/5th option. If you don't think we have a consistent/ready 4th/5th option, then the concern is that we don't have someone to pick it up if one or two of the big three are off.

I think there are guys on the team who could become consistent/ready 4th/5th options (Zoubek, Dawkins, the Plumlees). Zoubek is heading in that direction. Dawkins was there earlier in the season, but has fallen off in 2010. The Plumlees have had intermittent moments. We don't need them to average double-figures. They just need to be consistently ready to bring it when needed, and right now I think that's still a question mark.

[oldnavy]

The issue isn't a redistribution of scoring. The issue is having other guys who can pick it up when one or two of our big three are having an off-night. The reason people talk about having a 4th/5th option is not that they want those guys to take away some of the scoring of the big three, but rather to be able to pick it up if the big three aren't on.

In other words, the bolded statement is the part that is in question. If you assume that others will pick it up, then you are implicitly assuming we have a ready 4th/5th option. If you don't think we have a consistent 4th/5th option, then the concern is that we don't have someone to pick it up if one or two of the big three are off.

I would say then that we do have a 4th or 5th option. Mason did it in the WF game, Zoubs in the MD game, LT has contributed scoring in several games, MP1 has in a few games, AD picked us up in the UW game (albeit a loss, but mainly because we couldn't get a stop on D).

The point I am trying to get across is that with a 24-4 record and three of the top scorers in the ACC on our team, we are spending a lot of thought on "what ifs". Sure, if Nolan, Scheyer, and Singler are slumping we are going to struggle. But, is there a team out there now that you (not picking on you CDu specifically), would trade with for scoring balance? I cannot think of one.

It could always be better, but what we have now is pretty darn good IMO.