State of the team entering the NCAA Tournament

[Owen Meany]

Excuse me if this has been posted, but on the News and Observer site, Duval says he will be fine tomorrow and Carter says his foot injury is something he'll have to play with. I'm on mobile and can't post a link.

[throatybeard]

Agree. The great batsman Rogers Hornsby, when asked about his approach to hitting, said the key thing was to "get a good ball to hit."

That is really elegant; it feels like a philosophical truth.

[Saratoga2]

biggest problem I see is the lack of a smaller 4 means that whlie the two bigs DO shoot well, the defenders can still largely stay at home...making screens less effective. The passing out of the post is also lackluster. Duval also is hit or miss. I think over the course of the season, he's clearly become more controlled (doesn't try to go into 4v1 so often anymore), but also doesn't know when he needs to attack. Hopefully he's encouraged to be agressive. I'm guessing making turnovers when he DOES get aggressive makes him more passive than we'd want. Basically I think he's afraid of making mistakes. You can see it in his expression after a turnover...he gets frustrated with himself. the fact that he's not really a threat to hit that midrange shot hurts as well, so nobody really needs to step up off a big to help, since they just wait for duval to come to them.

Anyway, that's just my thought. I'm sure someone who knows much more than I can tell me why it's wrong.

I never played BB at anywhere near the Div I high major level so find it hard to imagine what is like at floor level to face such long and quick defenders and to make good decisions with the ball against a variety of defenses that they play. Duval and Allen do face that in every game. It got me to wondering, "What are they thinking"?

Do they assess what defense is playing against them on the way up the floor probably knowing the favorite one or two defenses a team might use? Do they look to see what defensive personnel are on the floor and also what Duke players are in the game to decide on a course of action? Do they look for mismatches or errors made by defenders? Do they think at all or just react to the situation at hand? Do they communicate with others what course of action they want to follow by talking or by hand signals?

I have considered Jon Scheyer as sort of a thinking man's PG from recent teams who didn't get sped up or let his emotions take over. I really don't know if he performed in a way I attribute to him, while I think Grayson is more an emotional player. Hard to form an opinion of Trevon. Really hard to know what these PGs face and the only way to evaluate them is through the number of sloppy plays, turnnovers and effectiveness of the offense with them in the game. I wonder if the coaches have discussions with the pGs to try to help them with the incredible difficult situation they face in the game.

[TruBlu]

I never played BB at anywhere near the Div I high major level so find it hard to imagine what is like at floor level to face such long and quick defenders and to make good decisions with the ball against a variety of defenses that they play. Duval and Allen do face that in every game. It got me to wondering, "What are they thinking"?

Do they assess what defense is playing against them on the way up the floor probably knowing the favorite one or two defenses a team might use? Do they look to see what defensive personnel are on the floor and also what Duke players are in the game to decide on a course of action? Do they look for mismatches or errors made by defenders? Do they think at all or just react to the situation at hand? Do they communicate with others what course of action they want to follow by talking or by hand signals?

I have considered Jon Scheyer as sort of a thinking man's PG from recent teams who didn't get sped up or let his emotions take over. I really don't know if he performed in a way I attribute to him, while I think Grayson is more an emotional player. Hard to form an opinion of Trevon. Really hard to know what these PGs face and the only way to evaluate them is through the number of sloppy plays, turnnovers and effectiveness of the offense with them in the game. I wonder if the coaches have discussions with the pGs to try to help them with the incredible difficult situation they face in the game.

Good questions.

To add another question (or two or three), what percentage of the plays are set plays called from the bench? And how does this percentage of set plays for Duke compare with other teams? Then if a "called" set play breaks down due to poor execution on our part or good defense by the opponent, do we then we go into a second alternative, or is it merely "take what you can get"?

There was one game this year where Coach K told the team at halftime, in a game where we were playing poorly, that there were no more "set" plays in the second half . . . to just go out and play ball. It worked, IIRC.

[CDu]

I have considered Jon Scheyer as sort of a thinking man's PG from recent teams who didn't get sped up or let his emotions take over. I really don't know if he performed in a way I attribute to him, while I think Grayson is more an emotional player. Hard to form an opinion of Trevon. Really hard to know what these PGs face and the only way to evaluate them is through the number of sloppy plays, turnnovers and effectiveness of the offense with them in the game. I wonder if the coaches have discussions with the pGs to try to help them with the incredible difficult situation they face in the game.

I think Allen and Duval are both guys for whom their athleticism has allowed them to not have to think much as players. Both are just so gifted athletically that they've gotten by largely on being able to outathlete their opposition, and are just now (well, in Allen's case it was true last year too) starting to face competition that is ready for and able to combat their athletic onslaught.

In a way, I feel like Kennard would be the better fit on this year's team than Allen. He's the more savvy player. Having not been able to outathlete his opponents for years, he's really developed his game with guile and nuance, and really knows how to react to what the defense is doing. On this team, with the crowded lane that we will face every game, I think he'd have been the better fit. Don't get me wrong: I'm not upset that we have Allen. He's a great player too. But if I could pick in this hypothetical extremely-first-world scenario, I think Kennard would be the better fit.

I'm sure that the coaching staff works hard in talking to these guys about what they are facing. But it's really tough, if you are not a "high bball IQ" type of player, to recognize what the defense is doing and make good decisions against it in real time. And I don't think Duval and Allen are naturally good reactive players. They seem to make their decision in advance, and let their athleticism take over, for good or for bad.

[Reilly]

Agree. The great batsman Rogers Hornsby, when asked about his approach to hitting, said the key thing was to "get a good ball to hit."

That is really elegant; it feels like a philosophical truth.

I'm partial to Vlad Guerrero's direct reply when someone asked him about his approach and the pitch he had hit for an important HR: "I see the ball, I hit the ball."

[jv001]

I'm partial to Vlad Guerrero's direct reply when someone asked him about his approach and the pitch he had hit for an important HR: "I see the ball, I hit the ball."

Didn't Willie "say hey" Mays say; "they hit it, I catch it, they pitch it", I hit it? GoDuke!

[Saratoga2]

I'm partial to Vlad Guerrero's direct reply when someone asked him about his approach and the pitch he had hit for an important HR: "I see the ball, I hit the ball."

Those type of statements apply when it is one on one. Hitter against pitcher, etc. But basketball is a team game and it is usually not about one blowing by another, it has nuances where thinking gets involved to go with the special abilities. A basketball statement might be more of I see whats going on and I make the right play. sometimes, as others have said, I know what I want to do and I am going to do it regardless.

[Spanarkel]

Those type of statements apply when it is one on one. Hitter against pitcher, etc. But basketball is a team game and it is usually not about one blowing by another, it has nuances where thinking gets involved to go with the special abilities. A basketball statement might be more of I see whats going on and I make the right play. sometimes, as others have said, I know what I want to do and I am going to do it regardless.

I think Hornsby's approach of "get a good ball to hit" applies pretty well to college basketball: "get a good shot and shoot."