MBB: Duke 94, NC State 78 Post-Game Thread

[CDu]

Clarification: add "...if triple doubles really were meaningless" to that previous post of mine.

Ahh, yes, that makes a ton more sense. Sorry.

Although I would note that it's still a somewhat rote analysis done by Bell, and doesn't really suggest whether or not Westbrook selling out for triple doubles is better or worse for the Thunder. Now, him getting triple doubles is clearly better for the Thunder than him not getting them given that they have committed to this approach. But it's quite possible that they could be better if the gameplan didn't in some ways revolve around creating chances for Westbrook to get a triple double (e.g., him cheating down to go for defensive rebounds, him handling so many possessions looking for assists).

Now, that's not to say that their approach is wrong, either. It's not a great team aside from Westbrook and George, so running everything through Westbrook probably does make some sense. Relatedly, though, it is perhaps worth noting that some guys (Reggie Jackson, Victor Oladipo, Donatas Sabonis) all got notably better immediately after leaving OKC. All in all, I'm somewhat ambivalent . Hard to say one way or the other as we don't have any real counterfactuals to work with.

[Indoor66]

This has become an Angels and Pinheads discussion.

[Steven43]

Ahh, yes, that makes a ton more sense. Sorry.

Although I would note that it's still a somewhat rote analysis done by Bell, and doesn't really suggest whether or not Westbrook selling out for triple doubles is better or worse for the Thunder. Now, him getting triple doubles is clearly better for the Thunder than him not getting them given that they have committed to this approach. But it's quite possible that they could be better if the gameplan didn't in some ways revolve around creating chances for Westbrook to get a triple double (e.g., him cheating down to go for defensive rebounds, him handling so many possessions looking for assists).

Now, that's not to say that their approach is wrong, either. It's not a great team aside from Westbrook and George, so running everything through Westbrook probably does make some sense. Relatedly, though, it is perhaps worth noting that some guys (Reggie Jackson, Victor Oladipo, Donatas Sabonis) all got notably better immediately after leaving OKC. All in all, I'm somewhat ambivalent . Hard to say one way or the other as we don't have any real counterfactuals to work with.

Fair analysis. I will happily go with it. Let me add this little hypothetical just for fun. Let’s say that Kyrie were to leave the Celtics as a free agent. The C’s would then be in need of a starting PG, right? Well, let’s also say that OKC then offers Westbrook to the Celtics for FREE, but only under the condition that they would have to agree to make him their starting PG. I would hope and expect that Danny Ainge would politely say to OKC, “Umm, thanks, but no thanks. We don’t want him.” That’s honestly how I feel about Russell Westbrook. I wouldn’t take him for free.

[killerleft]

If we are done with the debate about the efficacy of triple doubles, perhaps we could take a second to reflect on the fact that a kid we have accused of being a ball hog had ten assists last night.

I have reflected on this fact, and found it to be GOOD! I'm an RJ fan, though.

[killerleft]

Oh okay, thanks for clarifying. Yeah, RJ’s shot selection has shown some improvement. And not a minute too soon with UNC looming. Let’s hope he continues trending that way. Duke needs smart-shot-selection RJ more than anything else.

As our record against all comers attests, RJ is doing just what we need for him to do. Ask Coach K, he'll tell you. That doesn't mean that Coach K, you, me, and even RJ don't cringe at a shot now and then. We need the shots, that's all.

[duke4ever19]

This has become an Angels and Pinheads discussion.

Those pompous angels.

Everybody wants to debate how many angels can dance on a pinhead, but nobody stops to consider if us pinheads are okay with it.

[Green Wave Dukie]

Those pompous angels.

Everybody wants to debate how many angels can dance on a pinhead, but nobody stops to consider if us pinheads are okay with it.

From what I recall in 1985, the Pinheads were too darn loud. Doesn’t matter what they think. They were quickly escorted off stage. Audition over.

[subzero02]

From what I recall in 1985, the Pinheads were too darn loud. Doesn’t matter what they think. They were quickly escorted off stage. Audition over.

Perhaps my favorite movie... I guess it could also qualify as an extremely long "the power of love" music video.

[Ian]

That seems like a horrible analogy, actually. In basketball, coaches encourage players to create easy buckets for their teammates and for guards to help out with rebounding. Coaches don't encourage players to shoot 40 times 30 feet from the bucket.

If it's a sample size issue you are worried about, Bell's data include 93 games WITH a triple double and 127 games WITHOUT. And it's the against-the-spread stats that are really interesting since ATS is a rough measure for expectations.

It has nothing to do with sample size and everything to do with the method of analysis.

If the critique on a player is that he swings for the fences on every atbat, and thus makes very poor contact overall and has a ton of pop ups and strikeouts and hits for a low batting average and On-base Percentage, and that his approach is hurting his team despite his impressive homerun total. The analysis to counter that can't just be "well, in games where he homers, his teams wins 70% of the time and in games where he doesn't homer, they win 30%, so his approach on hitting homeruns is obviously correct because the more he homers the more his team wins". You actually have to look at how often he homers versus how often he doesn't, how if he wasn't trying to homer in every atbat he might have more hits, and walks that can also help his team score more runs.

In other words, I am not saying that TD are in of themselves worthless. But that the fact when the pursuit of them are successful it helps the team does not by itself prove that the pursuit is worth it.

[uh_no]

It has nothing to do with sample size and everything to do with the method of analysis.

If the critique on a player is that he swings for the fences on every atbat, and thus makes very poor contact overall and has a ton of pop ups and strikeouts and hits for a low batting average and On-base Percentage, and that his approach is hurting his team despite his impressive homerun total. The analysis to counter that can't just be "well, in games where he homers, his teams wins 70% of the time and in games where he doesn't homer, they win 30%, so his approach on hitting homeruns is obviously correct because the more he homers the more his team wins". You actually have to look at how often he homers versus how often he doesn't, how if he wasn't trying to homer in every atbat he might have more hits, and walks that can also help his team score more runs.

In other words, I am not saying that TD are in of themselves worthless. But that the fact when the pursuit of them are successful it helps the team does not by itself prove that the pursuit is worth it.

While you're generally correct, one could counter that by saying that in this case, the subject seems to be quite successful in getting TDs...so the % of times your subject homers is quite high.

The counter to that is that your example demonstrates that it's far more useful to look at a players overall contribution rather than whether they achieved an arbitrary benchmark in one or a compilation of stats.

[Ian]

While you're generally correct, one could counter that by saying that in this case, the subject seems to be quite successful in getting TDs...so the % of times your subject homers is quite high.

The counter to that is that your example demonstrates that it's far more useful to look at a players overall contribution rather than whether they achieved an arbitrary benchmark in one or a compilation of stats.

I haven't looked at Westbrook's numbers to have an opinion on his contributions, I just objected to the flawed analysis that purports to prove that his pursuit of TD helps his team win. There might be a proof out there that backs up the claim, but the one provided failed to persuade.

[uh_no]

There might be a proof out there that backs up the claim, but the one provided failed to persuade.

We're in agreement there.

[PensDevil]

Some reporter tweeted that he had chatted with Mayweather, who said he was hoping to sign Zion to his “money team” agency and would “make him a very rich man.” He allegedly opened up a duffel bag full of cash as an example of what he could provide. I trust that Zion is staying within the rules while he’s at Duke, but reading that Tweet made my skin crawl.

A few of the players have posted pictures with Mayweather recently. Not Zion... he posts a picture of himself with a former Disney Channel star that he probably watched in his younger days. Best part is the huge smile.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BuALOJigVKi/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

[phaedrus]

it's almost as if players might improve while being coached by K...who knew?

Him having been a hog at times earlier in the year does not preclude 10 assists now.

I'm sure RJ has improved over his short stint at Duke, but I'm also fairly certain that he was capable of a 10-assist game earlier in the season - even while being accused of being a ballhog. Case in point: he had 9 assists (against one turnover) against Syracuse, to go with 23 points and 16 rebounds - but he shot 8-for-30 from the floor.

RJ is so good (and uses so many possessions) that he can rack up a lot of assists even while missing a lot of opportunities to set others up for easy buckets. To put it another way: RJ is already really good, and he can get so much better. Sometimes we focus on the latter and ignore the former.

[BandAlum83]

i was driving back from wilmington yesterday, right at game time, so i listened to the AM station until out of range, but the Duke IMG network didn't have anything until Fayetteville...lot's of static/tuning...i wound up stumbling upon the wolfpack network.

it was really interesting listening to the announcers from that side of the game. the resolution in their voices each time Z got the ball inside was amusing. "one man wrecking crew" and "completely unstoppable" were used often.

they tried to stay positive, but the pessimism really dripped through. In the 2nd half, they had some bright spots to talk about, but then the attention turned to RJ and the damage he was doing. I got back on the Duke broadcast when i crossed I-95.

I could have logged onto my slingbox and listened all the way home, but, i was afraid bilas or vitale were on, and i'd rather listen to static, and just check the game-cast score rather than listen to those guys...

loved zion's interview with RJ after the game...there seems to be ZERO conflict with those to stars...

Tune In Radio! You can get IMG on there. Just search Duke basketball. Other teams are on there also, and there is no subscription fee. I access and stream from my phone when I am on the road.

[BandAlum83]

State managed to score all of 24 pts in an entire game vs. VaTech, and managed to shoot a scintillating 16.7% on FGs. I'm sure the Crazies were reminding State of that ineptitude.

I guess freshmanjs had the sound turned off on his television, or he has learned to tune out the commentary.

[BandAlum83]

Ahh, yes, that makes a ton more sense. Sorry.

Although I would note that it's still a somewhat rote analysis done by Bell, and doesn't really suggest whether or not Westbrook selling out for triple doubles is better or worse for the Thunder. Now, him getting triple doubles is clearly better for the Thunder than him not getting them given that they have committed to this approach. But it's quite possible that they could be better if the gameplan didn't in some ways revolve around creating chances for Westbrook to get a triple double (e.g., him cheating down to go for defensive rebounds, him handling so many possessions looking for assists).

Now, that's not to say that their approach is wrong, either. It's not a great team aside from Westbrook and George, so running everything through Westbrook probably does make some sense. Relatedly, though, it is perhaps worth noting that some guys (Reggie Jackson, Victor Oladipo, Donatas Sabonis) all got notably better immediately after leaving OKC. All in all, I'm somewhat ambivalent . Hard to say one way or the other as we don't have any real counterfactuals to work with.

Not picking on you CDu, but would love to point out to all that there is a great thread out here for people who want to talk about the NBA:

NBA Regular season thread 2019

[jv001]

I'm sure RJ has improved over his short stint at Duke, but I'm also fairly certain that he was capable of a 10-assist game earlier in the season - even while being accused of being a ballhog. Case in point: he had 9 assists (against one turnover) against Syracuse, to go with 23 points and 16 rebounds - but he shot 8-for-30 from the floor.

RJ is so good (and uses so many possessions) that he can rack up a lot of assists even while missing a lot of opportunities to set others up for easy buckets. To put it another way: RJ is already really good, and he can get so much better. Sometimes we focus on the latter and ignore the former.

If RJ could use his right hand in finishing shots, he could improve immensely. Zion goes left a lot and I mean a lot, but he can finish with his right hand. Now if RJ could do that. GoDuke!

[Lar77]

What was reason for the “twenty four” chant? Or at least that’s what it sounded like from my seat.

Thought the 24 was kind of funny in a Cameron way, but I have a question. For years, the Crazies would do the "ole" cheer when an opponent kicked the ball. This year the derision is directed at any player who kicks it. Can someone explain?

[uh_no]

Thought the 24 was kind of funny in a Cameron way, but I have a question. For years, the Crazies would do the "ole" cheer when an opponent kicked the ball. This year the derision is directed at any player who kicks it. Can someone explain?

meanings of chants change...it's not really derision in that case...and it's not like kicking a ball is bad defense in the first place...so there's nothing to really make fun of anyone for.