J Gold

[Wander]

What's next? An analysis of Mike Buckmire's dunking ability?

[Acymetric]

What's next? An analysis of Mike Buckmire's dunking ability?

I need to spread my sporks around apparently so I can't perform the positive or negative sporkings I would like to in this thread. That said, consider this an honorary sporking from yours truly. It could be a series of articles that includes an ESPN "Sports Science" style look at Zoubek's vertical, a deep dive on how Lance Thomas developed his shooting mechanics, and a final installment called "The Graceful Art of Friendly Chest Stomps" by Christian Laettner.

[Acymetric]

Negative sporks are warranted for the previous 17 posts in this thread for failing to provide a link. Here you go:

Barry on Bad Duke Three Point Shooting: Jordan Goldwire Is Near the Top of the List, by Barry Jacobs
https://www.dukebasketballreport.com...ordan-goldwire



Who is BlueDevil005? There is no comment on the main site. Maybe it got deleted later. Next time give your thread a title that refers to the front page article in some meaningful way, something more revealing than "J Gold". (Presumably, you started the thread because you had strong feelings replying to something. Don't make us hunt for it.) And include the link -- even seemingly short-lived DBR threads have a habit of lingering, long after the article leaves the DBR main page. In a few days no one visiting the thread will have any idea what anyone here is talking about.

The article itself is meh. A journalist searches for a unique angle on the three-point shooting story, finds it, and writes an article that follows through on that angle, dives deep into stats, and conveys a complete thought. Unfortunately, that complete thought was probably not worth pursuing. Why would anyone think Jordan Goldwire's three-point performance was indicative of the team at large?



Woof. Setting aside the tacky "Georgian" thing, Goldwire is leading the way with those 0.75 three pointers he attempts every game.

The stat table, while pretty, is similarly useless. What are we supposed to learn about some of the most infrequent 3-point shooters in recent Duke history? These are reserves who did not play many minutes, or regular rotation players who were not in the habit of taking outside shots. Had he expanded the parameters to the lowest percentages rather than fewest makes, he might have stumbled across a high-volume shooter that (numerically) had no business being a high-volume shooter. But this table shows me nothing.

Part of bad journalism is lacking a second person -- copy editor, publisher, even a friend -- who is willing to tell the writer to try again.

Negative sporks are warranted for this post for the opening statement alone, but I need to spread my spork progeny around before I can re-spork/un-spork you.

Emphasis on:

Negative sporks are warranted for the previous 17 posts in this thread for failing to provide a link.

I never go to the front page. It has been a really long time since I went to the front page or read a front page article, even when one is referenced on the forumns. It was pretty obvious from reading the OP that this was in reference to a front page article. I went to the front page and read the article in order to form an opinion. Would have been easy enough for anyone else (including you, apparently, who managed to find the article* just fine). I'm sure everyone else is capeable of doing the same. This is a pretty weak complaint. Nice petty condescension though.

*I've written the word article enough now that it has lost all meaning to me. Article Article Article. Is that even a real word?

That said, we're in total agreement as far as the rest of your post goes. I think that's what most people making negative comments about the article are trying to get at.

[porkpa]

There is a huge difference between constructive criticism and piling on. This was piling on.

[johnb]

Before the forum was named after Elizabeth King, before there was a forum or a DBR, before anyone on the team was born, before there was an internet or ESPN, there was Barry Jacobs writing a fan’s guide that marked for me not just the beginning of the basketball season but an annual window into a world of facts and perspectives that simply didn’t exist until Barry put pencil to paper and then went out of his way to publish. Sure, there were other preseason guides, but nothing remotely as good, deep, and math-y as Barry’s stuff. And stuff it was, the kind of stuff that a presumably obsessed Duke fan would create if he had a head for stats, a lively personality, and relentless gumption.

The internet allows for some of the above. It certainly allows for endless details and opinions. And quick cuts and pastes. And free publishing and distribution.

The internet does not, however, encourage the use of pencils. It doesn’t encourage slowness and digestion and opinions that develop over time. While I have never met the man, Barry’s basketball work—and his esteemed work as Orange County Commisioner—has always been marked by dispassionate observations about topics about which he is passionate.

It seems impossible that Barry has a vendetta against Mr. Goldwire or that he has concluded that Jordan will never improve as a shooter. Barry’s just pointing out facts, including “facts” that wouldn’t exist as thoughts unless he’d created and developed them with a pencil and paper. And for that—and for all of those pencils over the decades—I come not to bury but to praise.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

There is a huge difference between constructive criticism and piling on. This was piling on.

Perhaps, but there is also a huge difference between a veteran writer who has been respected for multiple decades - and your average 20 something hipster columnist at, say, Grantland. I don't claim to know what motivated Jacobs to write this piece in this manner - perhaps he is frustrated with Duke's shooting and blew a little gasket. What I do know is that he has a long career that is worthy of the benefit of the doubt.

[clinresga]

Negative sporks are warranted for the previous 17 posts in this thread for failing to provide a link. Here you go:

Barry on Bad Duke Three Point Shooting: Jordan Goldwire Is Near the Top of the List, by Barry Jacobs
https://www.dukebasketballreport.com...ordan-goldwire



Who is BlueDevil005? There is no comment on the main site. Maybe it got deleted later. Next time give your thread a title that refers to the front page article in some meaningful way, something more revealing than "J Gold". (Presumably, you started the thread because you had strong feelings replying to something. Don't make us hunt for it.) And include the link -- even seemingly short-lived DBR threads have a habit of lingering, long after the article leaves the DBR main page. In a few days no one visiting the thread will have any idea what anyone here is talking about.

Yikes...

Mea culpa for neglecting to link. I forget that some folks don't read the daily DBR posts before anything else every morning--I guess they just skip right to the boards? And I wasn't posting for posterity--I assume that this thread will disappear into obscurity in a few days, which is fine. Citation of missing BlueDevil005 comment was just to give credit to another poster for having the same reaction before me. Credit where credit is due, yada yada.

But I will say I'm surprised by the vehemence bordering on venom. I am, as they say, "long time reader, very infrequent poster." Mostly because the smart folks here know this stuff better than I even will. But I do think that there is sometimes a bit of the "old boys/girls club" mentality here, such that conversations are dominated by the select few of many sporks. Those of us with few sporks (or now, no sporks after Brevity's negative sporking), are, I suspect, in some cases, wary of treading on the feet of the gods. Maybe that's bad? Would more opinions be better than less?

But it's all good. I love this site and these boards, will keep reading, avoid posting, and enjoy being a Duke fan since 1977 with all of you

[jv001]

Yikes...

Mea culpa for neglecting to link. I forget that some folks don't read the daily DBR posts before anything else every morning--I guess they just skip right to the boards? And I wasn't posting for posterity--I assume that this thread will disappear into obscurity in a few days, which is fine. Citation of missing BlueDevil005 comment was just to give credit to another poster for having the same reaction before me. Credit where credit is due, yada yada.

But I will say I'm surprised by the vehemence bordering on venom. I am, as they say, "long time reader, very infrequent poster." Mostly because the smart folks here know this stuff better than I even will. But I do think that there is sometimes a bit of the "old boys/girls club" mentality here, such that conversations are dominated by the select few of many sporks. Those of us with few sporks (or now, no sporks after Brevity's negative sporking), are, I suspect, in some cases, wary of treading on the feet of the gods. Maybe that's bad? Would more opinions be better than less?

But it's all good. I love this site and these boards, will keep reading, avoid posting, and enjoy being a Duke fan since 1977 with all of you

I'm in the camp that loves Barry's articles. I didn't take it as bashing Jordan, but just pointing out the stats. Matter of fact, some of our own posters are way harder on Duke players than Barry was. GoDuke!

[dukelifer]

Constructive criticism is done in private, one on one sessions, not in an article on the subject put into the public realm. This article is destructive and mean, IMO.

Well this raises the question if it is mean spirited to critique any college player. Clearly Zion will be a multimillionaire in a few months- so the hurt is not that bad- but plenty of folks have taken shots at his weaknesses as a player. JGold is a scholarship player on one of the best programs in the nation. It does come with the territory- as hard as it is to hear. I am not sure it was really needed- except that there is a record here.

[CDu]

Neither here nor there, but didn't somebody on DBR suggest that Goldwire would hit more threes and get more assists than Tyler Thornton? Yeah, that prediction hasn't aged well.

That being said, Goldwire is essentially a practice player. He should not be expected to be a regular in-game contributor. He's not going to shoot much. If he attempts more than 25 3s on the season, that'll be a surprise. And a good chunk of the ones he has taken have been in garbage time. It seems much ado about nothing.

[jv001]

Neither here nor there, but didn't somebody on DBR suggest that Goldwire would hit more threes and get more assists than Tyler Thornton? Yeah, that prediction hasn't aged well.

That being said, Goldwire is essentially a practice player. He should not be expected to be a regular in-game contributor. He's not going to shoot much. If he attempts more than 25 3s on the season, that'll be a surprise. And a good chunk of the ones he has taken have been in garbage time. It seems much ado about nothing.

Good point CDu. I'm too lazy to see what the team's 3 point percentage is without Goldwire's 3 point attempts and his 1 make. I don't think it would get the team up to the 35% mark. Like you mentioned Jordan is basically a practice player and maybe he shouldn't be shooting the 3 ball. You didn't say that I did. GoDuke!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yikes...

Mea culpa for neglecting to link. I forget that some folks don't read the daily DBR posts before anything else every morning--I guess they just skip right to the boards? And I wasn't posting for posterity--I assume that this thread will disappear into obscurity in a few days, which is fine. Citation of missing BlueDevil005 comment was just to give credit to another poster for having the same reaction before me. Credit where credit is due, yada yada.

But I will say I'm surprised by the vehemence bordering on venom. I am, as they say, "long time reader, very infrequent poster." Mostly because the smart folks here know this stuff better than I even will. But I do think that there is sometimes a bit of the "old boys/girls club" mentality here, such that conversations are dominated by the select few of many sporks. Those of us with few sporks (or now, no sporks after Brevity's negative sporking), are, I suspect, in some cases, wary of treading on the feet of the gods. Maybe that's bad? Would more opinions be better than less?

But it's all good. I love this site and these boards, will keep reading, avoid posting, and enjoy being a Duke fan since 1977 with all of you

If anyone really shared negative sporks with you for that, I'm disappointed. Flames are reserved for trolls and people flagrantly not obeying forum decorum (great rhyme!).

On the off chance someone did toss you a down vote, I recompensed you with a positive huzzah. Stay around!

[jv001]

If anyone really shared negative sporks with you for that, I'm disappointed. Flames are reserved for trolls and people flagrantly not obeying forum decorum (great rhyme!).

On the off chance someone did toss you a down vote, I recompensed you with a positive huzzah. Stay around!

So did I. GoDuke!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So did I. GoDuke!

The system works!

[Neals384]

Yikes...

Mea culpa for neglecting to link. I forget that some folks don't read the daily DBR posts before anything else every morning--I guess they just skip right to the boards?

No problem, as others have stated, it wasn't that hard to find on the home page. I'm in the camp that skips the home page articles, because they are "old school" journalism - the journalist writes, you read. If there are errors of fact (yes even on DBR) or opinions that don't sit well with the reader, there's little recourse. I'd rather be here on the forum where mistakes get corrected and opinions debated.

[Neals384]

I think the author might have provided some context and better analysis to get to the heart of Duke's 3 point shooting woes. Of Goldwire's 17 3 pt attempts, 6 have come in garbage time, and an additional 6 have come in games won by 20 or more. In closer games, he had one 3 pt miss against GA Tech (plus one in garbage time), one against Pitt, one against Auburn. In Duke's closest games, he played only 1 minute combined vs. Gonxaga, VA and Fla St, with no 3 pt attempts. That leaves Syracuse, when he missed his 2 attempts (he did have a steal and an assist) in 8 minutes. If anyone wants to blame Goldwire's 3 point shooting for the Syracuse loss, go ahead, but the starters were 5 for 33.

When Goldwire is on the court, he's bringing the ball up and providing adequate defense. He's not launching ill-advised, closely guarded 3's with plenty of time on the shot clock and the game outcome still in doubt. The article might well have asked why Duke took 15 first half 3's v. BC, none by Goldwire.

[clinresga]

If anyone really shared negative sporks with you for that, I'm disappointed. Flames are reserved for trolls and people flagrantly not obeying forum decorum (great rhyme!).

On the off chance someone did toss you a down vote, I recompensed you with a positive huzzah. Stay around!

So did I. GoDuke!

Wow, warm and fuzzy moment! Thanks, Mtn and jv--y'all made my day.

[NSDukeFan]

Wow, warm and fuzzy moment! Thanks, Mtn and jv--y'all made my day.

I hope you stick around and agree that it is nice to have a variety of posters. I do agree with jv001 and johnb that Jacobs deserves the benefit of the doubt for years and years of facts about Duke and ACC basketball and the article seemed factual to me. I also think brevity deserves some benefit of the doubt as he doesn’t tend to attack posters, from what I have seen, but likes to have a reference for what is being discussed, to make the board better. As a long time reader, I would assume you have seen many of his great posts.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Flames are reserved for trolls and people flagrantly not obeying forum decorum (great rhyme!).
!

You would think...but I've gotten two flames over mild disagreements...FROM A MOD...in the past month. I won't mention names.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You would think...but I've gotten two flames over mild disagreements...FROM A MOD...in the past month. I won't mention names.

One person's "mild disagreement" may be someone else's "lack of decorum?"