MBB: Duke 69, Virginia 65 -- Post-Game Thread

[Kfanarmy]

...You are incorrect, I am totally an MP3 fan. I expect him to be a solid 10 to 15 backup next season and a starter his senior season, and I'm looking forward to it. But I also know there are only 200 player-minutes available each game and I think the other options generally bring more to the table than Marshall does at this time.

In addition, I think there are people around here who are convinced that we desperately need Marshall's size and those people seem to trumpet how well he played if he simply gets on the court and doesn't fall down. I have already said I thought his D was decent last night, but his defensive rebounding has been poor all season (including last night). And yet people clamor for him to play to fix our "rebounding problem."

And despite his decent D last night, I haven't seen anything from Marshall that suggests he'd guard an offensively gifted big man (from Syracuse or anywhere else) any better than Amile would.

Finally, as I said earlier, plus/minus for one game doesn't tell us much, and when we're doing five-for-five substitutions it tells us absolutely nothing. Marshall, Andre, and Tyler all played pretty much the same 12 minutes. Why would you credit the plus/minus to Marshall and not the others...

fan of a player you want to achieve backup status -- next year ? I haven't seen anyone on this team effectively guard an offensively "gifted" big man, but clearly JP trying to deny the post hasn't worked on several occasions; folks are simply shooting over JH. Amile is playing the best, but I think his slim build limits his ability somewhat. He's got the quickest hands and length to rebound a miss however.

I don't think the five-for-five substitution continued for the whole game...meaning that the +- for this game will be different for each player. Hard to understand why you even mention that as you then argue one game doesn't matter statistically anyway. Wouldn't that also mean his lack of rebounds last night could be statistically insignificant? IDK. The rest of MP3's "sample size" in games for this season is also too small to mean anything because he's really not been in long enough in most games to establish any kind of comfort, rhythm, etc. I think you can safely argue that any player getting scant minutes (1-2) at a time will never have a sample size that you can conclude anything on...as challenging as it may be to someone who likes statistics, sometimes the eye test has to be used when stats aren't useful. So I concur that he hasn't been rebounding well. I do think he challenges other teams interior shooting. I thought he played well against UVA and I think there are only two players on the team who have shown the ability to alter interior shots with their presence: Amile and MP3...just my take. I'm more a fan of the team so I don't really root for any of them to achieve backup status next year if they can contribute this year.

[rtnorthrup]

Last night was a pure emotion game. With the loss to Clemson on Saturday and the short turnaround, there really was no time to make substantive tactical changes to the team. Instead Coach K just willed them to win. Last night was about getting a win, by whatever means. UVa presented a lot of the same problems that Clemson posed (btw, whatever happened to the handcheck fouls that were being called earlier in the season?). We were a tired team facing a top ACC defense on short rest. You could tell Coach K was emotionally invested in the game from the beginning. I honestly can't remember seeing so much post-game emotion from a Duke team in a January home ACC contest.

IF, and I don't mean to insinuate that there will be, but if there are tactical changes to be made, my guess is that they will be started this week, since we have 4 practices before we face NC State. That is a much more realistic time frame for making offensive or defensive adjustments. I'm sure Coach K will look at his substitution patterns, his rotations, which guys play well together, etc.

[CDu]

We came into last night's game absolutely needing a win. We got that. So for that I'm extremely happy. I think a loss (especially if we'd lost the way we almost did last night) could have been devastating, both from our season's outlook as well as our team's psyche. That's the type of loss that could send a team into a spiral.

Despite the win, though, in a way I'm glad we had the letdown near the end. Had we simply won by 10-15 points in a game that we led by 5+ for most of the game, I would worry about complacency setting back in. But now Coach K has a teaching point - you can't lose your grip on the game at any point. Very few leads are safe, especially in conference play. You have to play hard and smart through the entire game.

As for the game itself:

1. I LOVED the idea to shake up the lineup and play more guys. I think it energized everybody on the team. You could see it in Matt Jones' play. You could see it in Marshall's energy, getting a block, a defensive board, and tipping a missed shot out to Hood who then drained a 3. Everybody seemed fired up, everybody seemed into the game. Heck, even Hairston got a rebound!

2. Despite that, I think there are still plenty of concerns with our pressure defense. Namely, we don't play pressure defense very well. Last night was not an exception. UVa missed several layups, and nearly won in spite of those missed layups. The effort was definitely better for us than against Clemson, but there is still work to do on that end of the floor.

3. Loved the "lines" concept for a second reason: it gave Sulaimon a defined role. Instead of getting lost in the shuffle alongside Hood and Parker, he got to be the go-to guy on the second unit, with Dawkins and Thornton serving as the spot-up guys and Plumlee/Hairston/Ojeleye as the dirty-work guys. I don't know if we'll see it moving forward, but it was pretty effective last night. I suspect that we fared better with that second unit than we did with the first unit.

4. We spent very little time with Hood at PF. That, I think, is a recipe for success moving forward. If we can avoid having Parker play C and Hood play PF, we're a much better team on the boards and a much better team in terms of interior defense. I think that's true regardless of whether we're talking about Jefferson, Plumlee, Hairston, or perhaps even Ojeleye. Parker and Hood just aren't interested in banging inside, either to hold defensive position or to get defensive rebounds. Those other four are willing and able to do that dirty work. Ultimately, I think a rotation of Jefferson for 25-30 mpg, Plumlee for 10-15 mpg, and Hairston/Ojeleye for 5 mpg is a good way to keep Parker and Hood fresh and able to focus on what they do best. Last night we basically saw that, with Jefferson getting 28 mpg, Plumlee getting 12 mpg, and Hairston/Ojeleye getting 9 mpg. I hope we continue to see that moving forward.

5. Speaking of Jefferson, he had a great game. Sure, he missed a few assignments on ball screens, but he killed it on the glass on both ends of the floor. His willingness to do the dirty work and do it well has been huge for this team. And he's become quite a rebounder this year.

6. Welcome back Sulaimon! As I mentioned above, he clearly thrived in the role of go-to guy on the second unit. 21 points in 24 minutes is fantastic.

7. I thought that, aside from a few minutes late in the game, this was perhaps Cook's worst game of the season. His shot selection was poor. He was sloppy with the ball. He wasn't creating much off the dribble. And he was getting beaten off the dribble on defense. Once we get the rest of the guys' roles figured out, we'll need him to return to playing better to steer the ship.

8. Parker is a phenomenal talent, but right now he's running into some of the same hurdles that Rivers faced at Duke. Namely, that he's facing more capable and better-coached defenses who are prepared to challenge him when he attacks off the dribble. His response has been to settle for jumpers (often the off-balance kind). He's probably going to need to ditch hero ball for a while and start (a) passing out of double/triple teams and (b) working off the ball to get easier looks. It's a learning process for any freshman, and hopefully he figures it out.

9. Hood has clearly benefited from the extra attention being paid to Parker. And he's started to do a better job of attacking the basket again (rather than just relying on 3pt shots). For him, it's going to be a constant balancing act: do I take the open 3, or do I attack the basket?

Still plenty of work to do, but it was nice to see us respond early to our poor play over the weekend. Hopefully this is just the beginning of things to come!

[bbosbbos]

imho, Parker is the best freshman in the nation. However, he's struggling now.

His performance always looks like this in the last few games:

1. At the beginning of every game, he tried playing down low once or twice to test opponents' D. Usually 2 or 3 opponent players clogged the lane or blocked his shot.

2. Then he tried to do some very difficult jump shots, including 3 and long 2s.

3. Afterwards, he tried to make some plays by passing.

4. Then he disappeared in O for a long time. In D, he grabbed few D rebounds to contribute.

5. When opponents caught up or led the game. Our whole team lost confidence. Teammates were looking at Parker. He responded by going inside and played hero ball. Teammates were watching, not helping. Very often his shots did not go in due to tough D.

6. Lost the game or became a close one.

Frankly say, his struggle is caused by bad shot selection, weak D. And his teammates seldom ran to his back to establish inside-out O.

[azzefkram]

Virginia was the hottest team in the ACC coming into this game, and is ranked #17 by Pomeroy (i.e., 5 spots better than Duke). I believe UVa was also ranked pre-season, so it's not like their recent stellar play was a fluke. They are far, far better than "mediocre."

I think they were 16 before we played them. We knocked them down a peg.

Against Virginia, we were running the shot clock down the entire game, as many of UVa's opponents do, because Virginia is a very good defensive team, against which it is difficult to get a good shot early in the clock.

I agree. I think too many people are sleeping on Virginia. Aside from Arizona and Kansas, Virginia was the best team we played. I'm too lazy to look it up again but I think we pretty much out performed their numbers across the board.

In addition, I think there are people around here who are convinced that we desperately need Marshall's size and those people seem to trumpet how well he played if he simply gets on the court and doesn't fall down. I have already said I thought his D was decent last night, but his defensive rebounding has been poor all season (including last night). And yet people clamor for him to play to fix our "rebounding problem."

And despite his decent D last night, I haven't seen anything from Marshall that suggests he'd guard an offensively gifted big man (from Syracuse or anywhere else) any better than Amile would.

Finally, as I said earlier, plus/minus for one game doesn't tell us much, and when we're doing five-for-five substitutions it tells us absolutely nothing. Marshall, Andre, and Tyler all played pretty much the same 12 minutes. Why would you credit the plus/minus to Marshall and not the others?

I think you are selling Marshall short on the defensive end. He does a really good job of staying in front of his man and bodying him off the block without fouling. He is not an elite defender but I think he would do a better job than Amile against a offensively gifted big man just because he wouldn't be giving up so much bulk. I do think Amile has gotten better defending the post.

Marshall's rebounding is problematic. I can't remember seeing a player get into good rebounding position as often as Marshall does and not get the rebound. Maybe it's hyperactivity, maybe they butter his hands. It's a puzzle. I think many were/are clamoring for Marshall because, as bad as Marshall's been, he's still significantly better than Josh.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think I want to see Amile or Marshall shooting mid-range jumpers anytime soon. It's not a high percentage shot for either of them.

I wouldn't want Amile to make a habit of it but I don't think it would be cringe worthy.

[CDu]

fan of a player you want to achieve backup status -- next year ? I haven't seen anyone on this team effectively guard an offensively "gifted" big man, but clearly JP trying to deny the post hasn't worked on several occasions; folks are simply shooting over JH. Amile is playing the best, but I think his slim build limits his ability somewhat. He's got the quickest hands and length to rebound a miss however.

I don't think the five-for-five substitution continued for the whole game...meaning that the +- for this game will be different for each player. Hard to understand why you even mention that as you then argue one game doesn't matter statistically anyway. Wouldn't that also mean his lack of rebounds last night could be statistically insignificant? IDK. The rest of MP3's "sample size" in games for this season is also too small to mean anything because he's really not been in long enough in most games to establish any kind of comfort, rhythm, etc. I think you can safely argue that any player getting scant minutes (1-2) at a time will never have a sample size that you can conclude anything on...as challenging as it may be to someone who likes statistics, sometimes the eye test has to be used when stats aren't useful. So I concur that he hasn't been rebounding well. I do think he challenges other teams interior shooting. I thought he played well against UVA and I think there are only two players on the team who have shown the ability to alter interior shots with their presence: Amile and MP3...just my take. I'm more a fan of the team so I don't really root for any of them to achieve backup status next year if they can contribute this year.

Count me in the group that thought Plumlee played well last night. Also count me in the group that thinks statistics aren't really useful given Plumlee's VERY limited action - that applies to ALL of his statistics. He hasn't produced much statistically, but he seems to be in the right spots and he is certainly challenging and altering shots on defense.

None of this is to suggest that he should start. But I think he brings more to the table at this point than, say, Hairston. And I think he's absolutely a better option at C than Parker. I think that the C position moving forward this year should be Jefferson and Plumlee, with Jefferson taking the vast majority and Plumlee taking the lesser share. But if we can get 40 solid mpg from those two at C, I think that's where this team reaches its ceiling.

[Kedsy]

fan of a player you want to achieve backup status -- next year ?

Why should being a fan preclude having realistic expectations of his playing time? My favorite player on the team is Andre Dawkins and yet I'm not clamoring for him to start.

And, wait, do you really think Marshall will start next year over Jahlil Okafor? If not, then you think he's going to be a backup, too. As do most people, would be my guess.

If Marshall plays close to 10 mpg this season, I'll be thrilled. If he plays significantly more than that, I'll be surprised.

[roywhite]

Last night was a pure emotion game. With the loss to Clemson on Saturday and the short turnaround, there really was no time to make substantive tactical changes to the team. Instead Coach K just willed them to win. Last night was about getting a win, by whatever means. UVa presented a lot of the same problems that Clemson posed (btw, whatever happened to the handcheck fouls that were being called earlier in the season?). We were a tired team facing a top ACC defense on short rest. You could tell Coach K was emotionally invested in the game from the beginning. I honestly can't remember seeing so much post-game emotion from a Duke team in a January home ACC contest.

IF, and I don't mean to insinuate that there will be, but if there are tactical changes to be made, my guess is that they will be started this week, since we have 4 practices before we face NC State. That is a much more realistic time frame for making offensive or defensive adjustments. I'm sure Coach K will look at his substitution patterns, his rotations, which guys play well together, etc.

Well, sorry, but I'd say the use of full-platoon substituting was a tactical change, and a big one.

I do agree that this week is a key practice week. Going from Monday to Saturday for the next game, no travel, and being early in the academic semester allows for a good stretch of practice. Based on what we saw last night, the motivation level of the players and coaches is high. I expect the team to play well Saturday vs NCSU and am eager to see whether the platoon system survives or just what the gameplan is.

[sagegrouse]

Well, sorry, but I'd say the use of full-platoon substituting was a tactical change, and a big one.

I do agree that this week is a key practice week. Going from Monday to Saturday for the next game, no travel, and being early in the academic semester allows for a good stretch of practice. Based on what we saw last night, the motivation level of the players and coaches is high. I expect the team to play well Saturday vs NCSU and am eager to see whether the platoon system survives or just what the gameplan is.

The platoon system was a big change.

Not only did it allow the first-tem players to play with greater energy, it also enable Duke to run a pressure defense against the Wahoos, which helped immensely until the last four minutes.

sage

[El_Diablo]

Has someone actually run the Plus-minus for each player last night? Obviously you aren’t a MP3 fan, but he blocked one and altered several other VA shots as they tried to shoot over him.

Yes, SCACCHoops runs these numbers. Marshall's +/- was the highest on the team last night, at +11.

Finally, as I said earlier, plus/minus for one game doesn't tell us much, and when we're doing five-for-five substitutions it tells us absolutely nothing. Marshall, Andre, and Tyler all played pretty much the same 12 minutes. Why would you credit the plus/minus to Marshall and not the others?

Because they were not actually in the game at the exact same times for the entire game. You credit the plus/minus to those actually on the court, and when Marshall was on the court, we were +11. When Andre was on the court, we were +10. When Tyler was on the court, we were +6. When Amile was on the court, we were -6.

As far as lineups, the top 4 combinations (in terms of +/-) all had Plumlee in them. The worst 4 combinations (in terms of +/-) all had Jefferson in them. Does this mean that Plumlee should be starting over Jefferson and playing 40 mpg? No. Definitely no. But it suggests that he may be bringing something extra to the table when he's in there. I agree that one game's worth of +/- does not tell us much, but if Marshall continues to rack up high +/- numbers, it would be foolish to continue to say that those numbers are not relevant. I remember early in the 09-10 season, Zoubek's +/- numbers stood out as very good despite the low playing time. This was way before the Maryland game, when he started getting the minutes to show it to the skeptics more focused on total rebounds or some other metric. If people want to continue to think that, e.g., Plumlee's tipped rebound to Hood for an open three is not relevant because Hood was given credit for the rebound rather than Plumlee, then fine. Same for Plumlee's tipped rebound to Semi--doesn't show up on the box score, so Plumlee did not really do much there. Okay, but I will continue to think he adds value, even where he doesn't produce a measurable stat on the box score.

You take particular issue with his defensive rebounding. I actually think he is an asset in that respect, even last night when his individual numbers did not show much. If you watch him when the shot goes up, he generally puts his head down and searches out the nearest opponent and works to get in position and seal him off. Amile, on the other hand, tends to watch the ball in flight and float to the rim sometimes. It gets Amile rebounds, but it also allows people to come in for offensive boards. I started commenting on it in the in-game chat because Amile was doing it so often--even on a free throw, where he just turned and stepped towards the rim (and gave up an o-board to the guy he should have boxed out). I am not saying there is not value to Amile's ball-hawking approach, because it lets him grab some boards that others might not get and because when he does box out he sometimes just gets pushed under the rim due to his size (which happened a few times last night). But to say Marshall is a poor defensive rebounder because he doesn't personally end up grabbing the rebound is doing a disservice to his effort (which is clearly there) and the results (which may mean someone else on our team gets the rebound). He's clearly not perfect on the glass, but I think he's better than he is getting credit for.

All that said, I am fine with Marshall getting 12 minutes per game like he did last night vs. Amile's 28.

[uh_no]

Isn't that true of every one-possession game ever?

yep. which is why using whether one won or lost as the starting point for analyzing a game is silly.

[CDu]

Yes, SCACCHoops runs these numbers. Marshall's +/- was the highest on the team last night, at +11.

Because they were not actually in the game at the exact same times for the entire game. You credit the plus/minus to those actually on the court, and when Marshall was on the court, we were +11. When Andre was on the court, we were +10. When Tyler was on the court, we were +6. When Amile was on the court, we were -6.

As far as lineups, the top 4 combinations (in terms of +/-) all had Plumlee in them. The worst 4 combinations (in terms of +/-) all had Jefferson in them. Does this mean that Plumlee should be starting over Jefferson and playing 40 mpg? No. Definitely no. But it suggests that he may be bringing something extra to the table when he's in there. I agree that one game's worth of +/- does not tell us much, but if Marshall continues to rack up high +/- numbers, it would be foolish to continue to say that those numbers are not relevant. I remember early in the 09-10 season, Zoubek's +/- numbers stood out as very good despite the low playing time. This was way before the Maryland game, when he started getting the minutes to show it to the skeptics more focused on total rebounds or some other metric. If people want to continue to think that, e.g., Plumlee's tipped rebound to Hood for an open three is not relevant because Hood was given credit for the rebound rather than Plumlee, then fine. Same for Plumlee's tipped rebound to Semi--doesn't show up on the box score, so Plumlee did not really do much there. Okay, but I will continue to think he adds value, even where he doesn't produce a measurable stat on the box score.

You take particular issue with his defensive rebounding. I actually think he is an asset in that respect, even last night when his individual numbers did not show much. If you watch him when the shot goes up, he generally puts his head down and searches out the nearest opponent and works to get in position and seal him off. Amile, on the other hand, tends to watch the ball in flight and float to the rim sometimes. It gets Amile rebounds, but it also allows people to come in for offensive boards. I started commenting on it in the in-game chat because Amile was doing it so often--even on a free throw, where he just turned and stepped towards the rim (and gave up an o-board to the guy he should have boxed out). I am not saying there is not value to Amile's ball-hawking approach, because it lets him grab some boards that others might not get and because when he does box out he sometimes just gets pushed under the rim due to his size (which happened a few times last night). But to say Marshall is a poor defensive rebounder because he doesn't personally end up grabbing the rebound is doing a disservice to his effort (which is clearly there) and the results (which may mean someone else on our team gets the rebound). He's clearly not perfect on the glass, but I think he's better than he is getting credit for.

All that said, I am fine with Marshall getting 12 minutes per game like he did last night vs. Amile's 28.

I can't recommend this post enough. It summarizes my thoughts on the matter exactly.

I thought Plumlee had a very solid game last night. I'm not a +/- fan, and I think looking at it overstates his play last night. But I thought it very clear that he provided more in his minutes last night than can be found in his stat line.

And I completely agree with your comments on Plumlee's defensive rebounding role. I think what he provides is the ability and willingness to box out hard along with the ability and willingness to challenge shots at the rim. Jefferson provides some ability to challenge shots at the rim and some great hands and go-go-gadget-arms, but he doesn't box out and I don't think he'd be great at it if he focused on doing that. Hairston boxes out well but can't challenge shots and can't go up and get rebounds.

From an interior defense perspective, I think a Plumlee/Jefferson duo would be incredibly dynamic. Both could challenge shots around the rim. Plumlee could be in charge of putting a body on the opposing team's big rebounder, while Jefferson could be in charge of "going and getting it" on missed shots. I suspect that opposing teams would have a great deal of trouble scoring around the basket, and I'd suspect opponents would get VERY few second-chance points. Whether or not it could work on the other end, I don't know. Obviously neither can shoot outside of 3 feet, so they'd be screener/rebounders on offense. It would put a lot of pressure on the perimeter guys. But it could work.

But, that's just a thought experiment. We aren't going to go with a primary lineup that doesn't include Parker. I would like to see our lineup include 10-15 minutes per game of Plumlee though, along with 25-30 mpg of Jefferson.

[throatybeard]

Kind of funny, if you think about it. After all the angst and supposition about the changes to come, Coach K came up with something none of us even dreamed of. The big question is whether we'll continue the two line thing in future games.

Cue speculation about whether Coach K will become the next coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

[BD80]

So, um...did anyone else think that we were a better team this game when Jabari wasn't on the floor? ...

Coach K. Jabari was on the bench most of the last 5 minutes

Parker is a freshman going through a slump. Nothing more. It's all mental. He'll be totally fine.

There is a lot to it. Physical in that he is playing against guys bigger and older than him, practicing every day longer and harder than he ever has. Add the mental/emotional toll of his first year of being challenged academically at such a high level while traveling practicing and playing - it will take some adjustment.

Of course unc players are completely isolated from the emotional/mental toll of academics.

That woulda been a double digit loss if we were at their place, so thank goodness for Cameron. ...

Bilas even noted how quiet (comparatively) Cameron was. Of course, he is one of us old alums that remember when the Crazies were so good that we tilted the floor to make loose balls roll toward our players.

K said on the radio interview post-game that the assistants urged him to play more guys so that everyone would go all-out, and he agreed to do it.

Kudos to the assistants. It seems THEY read these boards! The blue team is well thought out, Rasheed being the offensive leader, having Andre to dish to once he draws the D in, having Marshall for energy and rebounding, and Josh and Tyler to play D and keep things on track.

By that logic Semi, who got 2 rebounds in 2 minutes, should be playing more than Amile.

Either use stats or don't, but be consistent. I don't mind him getting some of Josh's minutes on the blue team.

... Marshall played reasonably well tonight, but he didn't show me anything that suggests he should be playing more minutes.

The energy and the blocked shot were enough for me.

... I haven't seen anything from Marshall that suggests he'd guard an offensively gifted big man (from Syracuse or anywhere else) any better than Amile would. ...

But Amile can't guard for 40 minutes. Marshall is far better (and more expendable from a foul standpoint) than option #2.

[Kfanarmy]

...And, wait, do you really think Marshall will start next year over Jahlil Okafor? If not, then you think he's going to be a backup, too. As do most people, would be my guess....

worrying about next year in a January post-UVA-Duke matchup thread is your gig. I'm hoping he'll be developed as much as possible so THIS team can go as far as possible. I'll meet you back here to wring our hands over PT for next year's team after this one wins an NCAA tournament game or 6.

[wilson]

yep. which is why using whether one won or lost as the starting point for analyzing a game is silly.

Funny...I thought that was, like, the whole point.

[CDu]

Funny...I thought that was, like, the whole point.

If you're only interested in analyzing the end result, then sure: whether we won or lost matters. If you're interested in analyzing the process (as part of a "looking forward" approach), then no.

From the perspective of winning or losing, I'm very pleased with last night's result. But from a perspective of "how well the team played", the actual W/L result doesn't matter much.

[rsvman]

...Finally, as I said earlier, plus/minus for one game doesn't tell us much, and when we're doing five-for-five substitutions it tells us absolutely nothing. Marshall, Andre, and Tyler all played pretty much the same 12 minutes. Why would you credit the plus/minus to Marshall and not the others?...

This is a problem with the plus/minus system in general; why would you EVER attribute the team's advantage to any one player when there are ALWAYS five guys playing? This is the fundamental limitation of the plus/minus. I don't think the team-for-team substitution thing plays into it at all. All it tells us is that our team scored more points than did the other team when Marshall was in the game. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're probably going to say that if the remaining players were subbed in and out a lot, and Marshall retained a positive plus/minus that that would tell us more about Marshall's contribution. I'm going to counter that that's nothing more than an over-interpretation of what plus-minus means. Put Marshall on the Heat for one night, have him play the entire game, but rotate the other 11 players randomly. Oh, and have the Heat play against your local high school team. In this scenario, Marshall's plus/minus would be astronomical, and it still probably wouldn't be reflecting his actual value to the team.

In short, plus-minus is perfectly fine, but tends to be overinterpreted.

[bob blue devil]

Virginia was the hottest team in the ACC coming into this game, and is ranked #17 by Pomeroy (i.e., 5 spots better than Duke). I believe UVa was also ranked pre-season, so it's not like their recent stellar play was a fluke. They are far, far better than "mediocre."

I'll concede that mediocre is too harsh - they're roughly the equivalent of a 7 seed. We barely pulled out a home win against an opponent we'd be lucky to see in the round of 32. I don't see how that is particularly good news unless your expectations are lower than mine. I'm still optimistic things get better for us.

p.s. hottest/stellar play is a big stretch - two weeks ago they lost by 35 to an unranked team and since then they've beaten FSU, WFU, and NCSU... so just 1 decent win. No need to exaggerate to make your point.

[Duvall]

I'll concede that mediocre is too harsh - they're roughly the equivalent of a 7 seed.

Based on what?