Phase 0 - 2011-12

[Kedsy]

Andre reminds me more of Wayne Ellington than he does of JJ. Neither was as good of a shooter as JJ (who is?), but both were underrated athletically and could probably be the #1 option on a good team if they didn't have guys like Hansbrough, Lawson, Nolan, etc as teammates.

Well, I hear you, but how do you measure that? Andre's shooting form looks as good as JJ's to my untrained eye. His range seems equivalent. And his career shooting percentage (overall and 3-point) is actually a little better. In his sophomore year, Andre's overall shooting and 3-point percentages were better than JJ's best year. I guess you could say JJ took more difficult shots, but how do you measure that?

Would Andre's percentage stay high if he shot as often as JJ did, with the defenders as close as they were to JJ? I don't know. But based on the evidence we have, I'm not so sure JJ was a better shooter than Andre.

[Des Esseintes]

Well, I did think about that before I said what I said. I agree that JJ had a very quick release off a curl and also off a screen. I don't think we've seen how quick Andre's release is in those situations, though, because he's done that sort of thing so seldom. But the way he squares his body before he catches a pass suggests to me he could be pretty quick as well.

That's fair. Andre's feet are very good, as you say. I would only reply that the NBA is rife with guys who shoot very well one way, and yet for whatever reason their accuracy does not translate into another way. There are few players who can excel at both a flat-footed catch-and-shoot and catch-off-a-curl-and-shoot. Odd that it should be so, but it is. And this completely leaves aside the much smaller population who can nail a jumper off the dribble, which Redick also had in his toolbox and which Andre has not yet shown. (He's also hasn't *not* shown it either, if that makes sense.)

I'm excited for Dawkins, and I think he'll be excellent this year. My one fear is that I remember reading one of the Basketball Prospectus guys--sorry I cannot think of the author or a link at this moment--saying that his research showed most guys who are good high-usage players start high-usage. Even if they play little, they use a lot of possessions while on the court. Dawkins has yet to be a high-usage guy, and guys who start low-usage rarely graduate to that higher level. There are exceptions to this rule, Jon Scheyer being a major one that springs to mind, but I've wondered about it nonetheless in the case of Andre.

[Des Esseintes]

Andre reminds me more of Wayne Ellington than he does of JJ. Neither was as good of a shooter as JJ (who is?), but both were underrated athletically and could probably be the #1 option on a good team if they didn't have guys like Hansbrough, Lawson, Nolan, etc as teammates.

This comparison makes sense. Or, to mention a guy to whom JJ was often compared, Salim Stoudamire. I remember various media types and maybe Lute Olsen grinching that Stoudamire was obviously an equivalent and probably better shooter than JJ, and their evidence was Stoudamire's higher three-point percentage. What got overlooked by that analysis was the types and volume of shots each guy was taking. JJ was a greater part of our offense and was taking more and therefore, on average, harder shots than Stoudamire. JJ and Jimmer Fredette were remarkable for maintaining superlative efficiency at super-high volume. My guess is Andre could do a great Stoudamire/Ellington impersonation, but the one-time leading scorer in NCAA history will remain a cut above him.

[Kedsy]

I'm excited for Dawkins, and I think he'll be excellent this year. My one fear is that I remember reading one of the Basketball Prospectus guys--sorry I cannot think of the author or a link at this moment--saying that his research showed most guys who are good high-usage players start high-usage. Even if they play little, they use a lot of possessions while on the court. Dawkins has yet to be a high-usage guy, and guys who start low-usage rarely graduate to that higher level. There are exceptions to this rule, Jon Scheyer being a major one that springs to mind, but I've wondered about it nonetheless in the case of Andre.

Very interesting. It makes sense to me, because being "the man" is a mindset, and working to get the ball and/or your shot takes a grit that not everybody has. There's a big difference between shooting well when you happen to be open and get the ball, and shooting well when you're "hunting" for your shot. Your teammates are counting on you in a different way, and the defense is keying on you in a different way. Maybe you rush the shot just a teensy bit, and it throws you off. To me, that's what separated JJ from other high-percentage but not necessarily high-volume shooters. That's what I meant when I said Andre hasn't shown JJ's "competitive desire."

[Mcluhan]

3 thoughts on Andre:

1. It's conceivable that we could be successful if Dawkins shot only 3s. It's insane to leave him open, and
he can open up things for Austin and Seth. He also potential as a zone buster.

2. If Andre were to take on a more versatile role within the offense, I agree with those who are suggesting he watch some old tape of Reggie Miller and Rip Hamilton running around picks.

3. Those dunks in China were genuinely bold baseline drives.

[Wander]

Would Andre's percentage stay high if he shot as often as JJ did, with the defenders as close as they were to JJ? I don't know. But based on the evidence we have, I'm not so sure JJ was a better shooter than Andre.

I think you're trying a bit too hard and outsmarting yourself. Andre Dawkins is a nice role player. JJ Redick was one of the best shooters in the history of college basketball - some would argue the best. The difference is so ridiculously large that it can't simply be accounted for with "competitive desire."

(also, Andre has shot 73% and 79% from the free throw line)

[dcar1985]

3 thoughts on Andre:

1. It's conceivable that we could be successful if Dawkins shot only 3s. It's insane to leave him open, and
he can open up things for Austin and Seth. He also potential as a zone buster.

2. If Andre were to take on a more versatile role within the offense, I agree with those who are suggesting he watch some old tape of Reggie Miller and Rip Hamilton running around picks.

3. Those dunks in China were genuinely bold baseline drives.

They both actually came off back-door cuts which is something Andre could definitely take advantage of to vary his game and get to the rim without necessarily having to dribble-drive to the rim...something to this point he hasn't seemed all to comfortable doing

[sagegrouse]

I think you're trying a bit too hard and outsmarting yourself. Andre Dawkins is a nice role player. JJ Redick was one of the best shooters in the history of college basketball - some would argue the best. The difference is so ridiculously large that it can't simply be accounted for with "competitive desire."

(also, Andre has shot 73% and 79% from the free throw line)

The only people that believe in the perfectability of mankind are Catholic priests, recruiting sergeants, and some of the fans on this Board,like me. I believe Andre has the potential to be a star in the ACC and a long-time player in the NBA.

sage

[Bob Green]

3. Those dunks in China were genuinely bold baseline drives.

I desire to see Dawkins work the baseline this year. It is a thing of beauty when he knocks down the corner 3-pointer, but mixing in backdoor cuts and baseline drives would increase the team's firepower.

[CDu]

I think you're trying a bit too hard and outsmarting yourself. Andre Dawkins is a nice role player. JJ Redick was one of the best shooters in the history of college basketball - some would argue the best. The difference is so ridiculously large that it can't simply be accounted for with "competitive desire."

(also, Andre has shot 73% and 79% from the free throw line)

Agreed. I think people are going too far in suggesting that Dawkins has as good a shot/form as Redick. If Redick was able to only shoot set shots (when open), I'm guessing his percentage would be as good or better than Dawkins' percentage. But Redick had to work so hard to get many of his attempts, and took a much wider variety of types of looks.

As you suggest, Redick was a MUCH better free throw shooter than Dawkins. Obviously that's not a complete picture (there are some good free throw shooters who couldn't shoot 3s, and vice versa).

Dawkins is a terrific 3pt shooter. But Redick had such an incredible ability to hit 3s in any situation (anywhere on the floor, set shot or on the move, with the ball or on the catch and shoot, mid-range, at the line, 5 feet beyond the line).

[J4Kop99]

Dawkins is in no way a "role player" (at least by the common definition) but I don't care what his statistics say so far, he is not even close to JJ Redick. Maybe his form looks similar... but that's where the comparisons end.

All he needs to do is put a little more effort into moving without the ball. I don't know if he needs to drive the ball to the hole as much as some of you want but as long as he can keep his defender honest, that will open up space for Curry, Rivers, and maybe most importantly, our bigs. It's not the worst thing to go back door once or twice a game.

-It's not even that JJ took more difficult shots in his Soph. campaign, it's that JJ took almost 200 more shots than Andre did. Then you start to take into account that JJ was the focal part of the offense (which benefits him in touches) but also hurts him because the opposition's game plan is to stop him (or in most cases, slow him down)


So aside from the idea that their shots look quite similar, I think these JJ-Andre comparisons are useless.

[Kedsy]

I think you're trying a bit too hard and outsmarting yourself. Andre Dawkins is a nice role player. JJ Redick was one of the best shooters in the history of college basketball - some would argue the best. The difference is so ridiculously large that it can't simply be accounted for with "competitive desire."

(also, Andre has shot 73% and 79% from the free throw line)

Hard to imagine anybody arguing that JJ Redick was the best shooter in college basketball history, at least if they'd ever heard of Pete Maravich.

Obviously JJ scored a lot more than Andre has, and obviously he was a focal point of both our offense and the opposing defense. He took many more difficult shots and that affects the percentages. There's no doubt he was a much better free throw shooter. He was a superstar, and so far Andre hasn't been close.

My guess, however, is if Andre's usage % and shots taken % was doubled (which would put him approximately at JJ's levels for those percentages), you wouldn't say the difference between them was "ridiculously large." There's no way that's going to happen, though, so we'll never really know.

I stand by my original point, that Andre has all the tools and if he fought for his shot the way JJ did he could be just as good. He doesn't, and he won't, but I still think the potential is there.

[JMarley50]

Dawkins is in no way a "role player" (at least by the common definition) but I don't care what his statistics say so far, he is not even close to JJ Redick. Maybe his form looks similar... but that's where the comparisons end.

All he needs to do is put a little more effort into moving without the ball. I don't know if he needs to drive the ball to the hole as much as some of you want but as long as he can keep his defender honest, that will open up space for Curry, Rivers, and maybe most importantly, our bigs. It's not the worst thing to go back door once or twice a game.

-It's not even that JJ took more difficult shots in his Soph. campaign, it's that JJ took almost 200 more shots than Andre did. Then you start to take into account that JJ was the focal part of the offense (which benefits him in touches) but also hurts him because the opposition's game plan is to stop him (or in most cases, slow him down)

So aside from the idea that their shots look quite similar, I think these JJ-Andre comparisons are useless.

I don't see how anyone could really argue that Dre has been anything more than a role player thus far in his career... With that said I do think he has the ability and will become a great player, but at this point a role player is all he has been. My idea of a traditional role player is someone does one or two things really well, but is limited in other areas. This player usually plays a supporting role to the main cast and for the most part stays out of the limelight so to speak. His role has been clearly defined, stand around on the wing to spread the defense out. If they sag off, be ready to knock down the open shot. He has done a great job of that I might add. But he hasn't been the go to scorer, a defensive stopper, assist leader or a beast on the boards. If he was capable of doing more than just that one role I'm sure K would have found a way to integrate it into the system.

I agree with the JJ comparisons. Once we see Andre knocking shots down with the opposing coaches throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him then maybe we can compare. Til then JJ rules supreme!!

Just to be clear, I do like Dre and I expect to see big things out of him this season. I will be very disappointed if we don't. I would love to remove that role player tag from him, just can't do it yet!

[CDu]

Hard to imagine anybody arguing that JJ Redick was the best shooter in college basketball history, at least if they'd ever heard of Pete Maravich.

I think as far as pure shooters go, one could put the two players in a similar breath. As far as scoring, playmaking, and overall offensive skills go, it's obviously no comparison.

I stand by my original point, that Andre has all the tools and if he fought for his shot the way JJ did he could be just as good. He doesn't, and he won't, but I still think the potential is there.

I don't think you're appreciating how versatile Redick's shooting ability was. I simply don't think that Dawkins has the same tools that Redick has. When both players' feet are set, maybe. And Dawkins is stronger and a better leaper. But Dawkins has never shown the variety of shots that Redick has, nor the ability to score with the ball in his hands that Redick had. Thus, even if he fought for his shot the same way Redick has, I don't think he'd produce the same results.

[Kedsy]

I think as far as pure shooters go, one could put the two players in a similar breath. As far as scoring, playmaking, and overall offensive skills go, it's obviously no comparison.

I read that Dale Brown went back over the shot charts for Maravich's college career and concluded that if the 19'9" line was in place, Maravich would have averaged 13 made three-pointers per game. (To compare, JJ's career high was 9.) If that's true and the three was part of the game when Pistol Pete played, that means he would have averaged something like 57 points a game, almost exclusively on outside shooting, while being double- or triple-teamed most of the time. And he still had a higher shooting percentage than JJ did. Every argument you make for JJ being a better shooter than Andre can be made equally for Pistol Pete being a better shooter than JJ. So I don't think there's a comparison on any front.

I don't think you're appreciating how versatile Redick's shooting ability was. I simply don't think that Dawkins has the same tools that Redick has. When both players' feet are set, maybe. And Dawkins is stronger and a better leaper. But Dawkins has never shown the variety of shots that Redick has, nor the ability to score with the ball in his hands that Redick had. Thus, even if he fought for his shot the same way Redick has, I don't think he'd produce the same results.

I do appreciate JJ's versatility, as well as his talent and greatness. I was at the Meadowlands for the Texas game his senior year and saw him several other times in person plus practically every game on TV. But how much scoring versatility and shot variety had JJ shown through the end of his sophomore season? My recollection is the criticism of JJ going into his junior year was he was nothing but a spot-up shooter. But putting that aside, I freely admit that Andre hasn't shown the variety of shots or ability to score that JJ showed during his upperclass years. I respect that you don't think he could produce the same results under any circumstances, and you very well may be right. I don't think we'll ever know for sure, because Andre will never be used the way JJ was. Is that because the coaches don't think he could do it? Probably, but maybe it's because of the surrounding personnel.

Either way, that game last year against Bradley, Andre looked pretty unstoppable to me. Far as I can see, there's no reason he couldn't play like that most of the time, if the coaches wanted him to and he had the desire.

[CDu]

I read that Dale Brown went back over the shot charts for Maravich's college career and concluded that if the 19'9" line was in place, Maravich would have averaged 13 made three-pointers per game. (To compare, JJ's career high was 9.) If that's true and the three was part of the game when Pistol Pete played, that means he would have averaged something like 57 points a game, almost exclusively on outside shooting, while being double- or triple-teamed most of the time. And he still had a higher shooting percentage than JJ did.

Maravich made 1368 FG in 83 games (16.5 FG/game). Now, I don't have access to all of his game footage, but I'm going to call shenanigans on any analysis that suggests Maravich would have averaged 13 3pt makes per game. Considering how many fast breaks LSU ran and how many drives to the basket Maravich took (just looking at the video highlights), I just don't see Maravich having hit that many 3s. In my opinion, you should chalk that analysis up to hyperbole. I'd believe 7-8 per game, but not 13.

Further, remember that Maravich attempted nearly 40 shots per game from the field, so 7-8 wouldn't be so unreasonable if he took 20 3s per game.

Every argument you make for JJ being a better shooter than Andre can be made equally for Pistol Pete being a better shooter than JJ. So I don't think there's a comparison on any front.

No disagreement there. Maravich was certainly an even more versatile shooter than Redick (with the leaners and crazy bank shots).

That said, I think the Maravich-to-Redick comparison is analagous (though on a MUCH different scale) to the Redick-to-Dawkins comparison. Dawkins just hasn't shown the versatility to be a Redick-like offensive force. He's got the ability, when open, to bury a ton of 3s. But he's never shown the ability to score when the defense was focused on him. Redick had to have that from day 1, and only got better.

That doesn't mean that Dawkins can't be effective. I certainly think he has the potential to be a 15+ ppg guy this year. I just think the discussion/comparison to Redick is unfair to him.

But how much scoring versatility and shot variety had JJ shown through the end of his sophomore season? My recollection is the criticism of JJ going into his junior year was he was nothing but a spot-up shooter.

Those criticisms would be, in my opinion, incorrect. Underclassman Redick certainly wasn't the force he was as a junior and senior. But his ability to hit shots curling off screens was there as a freshman and sophomore. He was far more than a set shooter from day 1. It was his ability to attack off the dribble and his endurance that improved over time.

[Kedsy]

Maravich made 1368 FG in 83 games (16.5 FG/game). Now, I don't have access to all of his game footage, but I'm going to call shenanigans on any analysis that suggests Maravich would have averaged 13 3pt makes per game.

Well, the "analyst" in this case was Dale Brown, and it wouldn't be the first time he's had shenanigans called on him.

That said, I think the Maravich-to-Redick comparison is analagous (though on a MUCH different scale) to the Redick-to-Dawkins comparison.

I agree, although personally I don't think the scale is really all that different.

But he's never shown the ability to score when the defense was focused on him.

The good news is with the firepower we have in our lineup, opposing defenses will rarely if ever be focused on Andre, at least not the way they were on JJ.

[CDu]

The good news is with the firepower we have in our lineup, opposing defenses will rarely if ever be focused on Andre, at least not the way they were on JJ.

Agreed. Which is part of why I could see him potentially averaging 15+ ppg this year. The key to that will be showing up more in ACC play. Hopefully he breaks through this year in that regard.

[jv001]

I wonder if Andre's work effort is anywhere near JJ's? JJ worked really hard on making himself better and not just a one dimensional player. JJ had better ball handling skills and that came from hard work. I think light will come on for Andre and he'll be a very valuable player for Duke this year. GoDuke!

[ChillinDuke]

Does anyone know how to watch the game tonight? It looks like GoDuke will be streaming it but requires subscription.

Any other ways to view the game? If not, I'll subscribe on GoDuke. Really want to watch the team tonight.

Thanks in advance.

- Chillin