Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 136
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by rtnorthrup View Post
    I don't think people appreciate how minute the difference between losing a one possession game in the elite eight and winning a national championship is. Last season we won a conference championship and we're a whisker away from final four. In truth, that was well within the reasonable expectation of that team given how young we were. As UrinalCake said, the post Kentucky hype got way out of proportion. Talking heads opining about Duke vs. Cavs, Zion should stop playing etc.
    The hype may have gotten out of proportion, but if the injury bug had not hit, I think it would have been only slightly out of proportion. I think the team would have reached ‘99 level heights (which, in and of itself tells us something about tying enjoyment to a National Championship).
    Carolina delenda est

  2. #42
    I look forward to every season. In terms of delivering jump out of my chair and shout levels of excitement and stress, last season was pretty darn exceptional. The 2015 championship run was a lot of fun, the 2010 run a lot of stress. The Rivers shot is still probably the only time I've spread arms and airplane-d around the room. JJ was a joy to watch and I was there for 2001.

    Duke's delivered so many wonderful sporting moments and personalities in the past and I have no doubt they will in the future. But boy, I just had so much damn fun last year watching Zion play!

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK View Post
    That's a 12% drop off - during a period where one would typically expect improvement, not a drop off. That said, his play suffered post injury all over, not just shooting. Also, do you have his 2 point shooting stats pre and post injury?
    If Tre had missed one (1) more of his pre-injury threes, the percentages would have been virtually identical (25.0% before vs. 25.3% after). I understand one made shot comes to 12% in this math problem, but it's still just one shot. I'm not going to do any stats on this, but I'm not convinced we should expect improvement in the latter part of the season when we're playing tough teams almost every game as opposed to 40% cupcakes we play in the early season.

    As far as two-point shots, Tre shot 46 for 94 (48.9%) pre-injury and 59 for 122 (48.4%) post-injury. That comes out to half a shot different, so even closer to the same.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    ^ nice to see Kedsy is in mid-season form 8-)

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    If Tre had missed one (1) more of his pre-injury threes, the percentages would have been virtually identical (25.0% before vs. 25.3% after). I understand one made shot comes to 12% in this math problem, but it's still just one shot. I'm not going to do any stats on this, but I'm not convinced we should expect improvement in the latter part of the season when we're playing tough teams almost every game as opposed to 40% cupcakes we play in the early season.

    As far as two-point shots, Tre shot 46 for 94 (48.9%) pre-injury and 59 for 122 (48.4%) post-injury. That comes out to half a shot different, so even closer to the same.
    I know a lot of posters here absolutely despise the eye test versus cold, hard stats. And in many cases I agree with them. But I stand firm that Tre was simply not the same player when he came back from injury, including and especially his shooting. My eyes told me that in no uncertain terms.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    I know a lot of posters here absolutely despise the eye test versus cold, hard stats. And in many cases I agree with them. But I stand firm that Tre was simply not the same player when he came back from injury, including and especially his shooting. My eyes told me that in no uncertain terms.
    Don't let the facts confuse you!

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by AtlDuke72 View Post
    Don't let the facts confuse you!
    And what are the “facts”? You think you can measure the value of a player simply by looking at statistics? I don’t know if you feel that way; I’m just asking.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    I know a lot of posters here absolutely despise the eye test versus cold, hard stats. And in many cases I agree with them. But I stand firm that Tre was simply not the same player when he came back from injury, including and especially his shooting. My eyes told me that in no uncertain terms.
    My own eye test suggested his lateral movement (and thus his defense) wasn't quite the same after the injury. His shooting didn't look any different to me, and the stats back that up.

    Maybe his shooting looked worse to you after the injury because he attempted so many more outside shots (and therefore missed so many more outside shots) after the injury -- 1.75 three-attempts per game pre-injury and 3.41 three-attempts per game post-injury. I guess it's possible he shot more threes because he didn't feel as comfortable driving on an injured leg; no way to know that unless he said so (and as far as I know he hasn't).

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven43 View Post
    And what are the “facts”? You think you can measure the value of a player simply by looking at statistics? I don’t know if you feel that way; I’m just asking.
    Oh, come on. If someone posits a hypothesis that player X shot worse after a certain date, there are clearly facts that can test that hypothesis. Namely, how well he shot, before and after. If the facts show he did not shoot worse after a certain date, I think you can measure the value of the hypothesis, even if you can't measure the value of the player.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    My own eye test suggested his lateral movement (and thus his defense) wasn't quite the same after the injury. His shooting didn't look any different to me, and the stats back that up.

    Maybe his shooting looked worse to you after the injury because he attempted so many more outside shots (and therefore missed so many more outside shots) after the injury -- 1.75 three-attempts per game pre-injury and 3.41 three-attempts per game post-injury. I guess it's possible he shot more threes because he didn't feel as comfortable driving on an injured leg; no way to know that unless he said so (and as far as I know he hasn't).
    There’s nothing doubt his defense suffered after the injury as well. But I also maintain his shooting simply wasn’t the same after the injury, per using my two eyeballs. If you think he was just as strong and effective as a shooter after the injury (using stats alone), so be it. Variety is the spice of life.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by AtlDuke72 View Post
    Don't let the facts confuse you!
    Do the facts show he shot better after the injury?

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Oh, come on. If someone posits a hypothesis that player X shot worse after a certain date, there are clearly facts that can test that hypothesis. Namely, how well he shot, before and after. If the facts show he did not shoot worse after a certain date, I think you can measure the value of the hypothesis, even if you can't measure the value of the player.
    Via the stats you yourself supplied, I was correct. Why the argument?

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Oh, come on. If someone posits a hypothesis that player X shot worse after a certain date, there are clearly facts that can test that hypothesis. Namely, how well he shot, before and after. If the facts show he did not shoot worse after a certain date, I think you can measure the value of the hypothesis, even if you can't measure the value of the player.
    I was not referring strictly to Tre’s shooting percentage, which, by the way, is a fairly crude measure to determine one’s value as a shooter.

    To truly determine value as a shooter you would have to know so much more than just percentage — such as who was guarding him on his shots, how open he was, how important the shots were, etc. — to even begin to get any sort of definitive answers. And anyway, shooting is just one aspect of what some of us were referring to in noting a decline in Tre’s play after his injury.
    Last edited by Steven43; 08-06-2019 at 10:00 PM.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    If Tre had missed one (1) more of his pre-injury threes, the percentages would have been virtually identical (25.0% before vs. 25.3% after). I understand one made shot comes to 12% in this math problem, but it's still just one shot. I'm not going to do any stats on this, but I'm not convinced we should expect improvement in the latter part of the season when we're playing tough teams almost every game as opposed to 40% cupcakes we play in the early season.

    As far as two-point shots, Tre shot 46 for 94 (48.9%) pre-injury and 59 for 122 (48.4%) post-injury. That comes out to half a shot different, so even closer to the same.
    IIRC, it wasn’t the offensive efficiency in the half court that declined after the injuries to Tre, Cam and Zion, it was the live ball turnovers, leading to off the charts efficiency in transition.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    If you think he was just as strong and effective as a shooter after the injury (using stats alone), so be it. Variety is the spice of life.
    I wasn't using stats alone. As I said in an earlier post, my eyes disagreed with yours so I checked the stats, which didn't show any significant difference. Has nothing to do with variety, spice, or anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    IIRC, it wasn’t the offensive efficiency in the half court that declined after the injuries to Tre, Cam and Zion, it was the live ball turnovers, leading to off the charts efficiency in transition.
    Yeah, the thing is that there's no way to tell how much (if any) of the difference in turnovers (or any other stat) was due to the injuries, vs. how much was due to the fact that we played a much tougher schedule in the last 22 games than we did in the first 16 games. You all are assuming without evidence that it was about the injuries, but to my mind it's more likely to be about the other.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post

    Yeah, the thing is that there's no way to tell how much (if any) of the difference in turnovers (or any other stat) was due to the injuries, vs. how much was due to the fact that we played a much tougher schedule in the last 22 games than we did in the first 16 games. You all are assuming without evidence that it was about the injuries, but to my mind it's more likely to be about the other.

    It does not sound like we are arguing about evidence, but about interpretation of why it was that Duke stopped turning teams over and scoring in transition. Are you saying it had nothing to do with injuries?
    Carolina delenda est

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    IIRC, it wasn’t the offensive efficiency in the half court that declined after the injuries to Tre, Cam and Zion, it was the live ball turnovers, leading to off the charts efficiency in transition.
    Agreed. The live ball turnover thing peaked first four minutes (or was it 6 minutes) into Syracuse 1 at Cameron - and was never the same after that. That was the main inflection point of the season. You could see it, you could sense it, you could feel it. Tre was never the same, nor was the D. Jack White was never the same, and his launching of so many three pointers in that one game had to do with Tre and Cam being sidelined unexpectedly. And of course, it didn't help that Zion had his shoe explosion and that Cam had various issues later either.

    My hunch is this team, with just normal luck on injuries, etc, was far far superior to any other team in the country. That they had so many problems, and yet were only one hoop from the Final Four, would lend credibility to that argument.
    Don't waste your time on House of Cards S6!
    -We found out Frank was critical to making anyone else in the show interesting...not a surprise...

  17. #57
    I know this is not completely rational, but having the next Lebron James on our team not getting a shot in the final minute of a one possession game was a specific characteristic of the loss that totally drained me (especially since the same thing happened in the one other game we lost while healthy). Somehow I would have been more emotionally accepting of the loss if we had Zion make an attempt at a score. Sort of in the vein of "hey, we weren't perfect, but we tried our best, what can you do?" Now it feels too "what if".

    I'm hyped for the season to start but not as expecting of a Final Four. Maybe that's better.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK View Post
    Agreed. The live ball turnover thing peaked first four minutes (or was it 6 minutes) into Syracuse 1 at Cameron - and was never the same after that. That was the main inflection point of the season. You could see it, you could sense it, you could feel it. Tre was never the same, nor was the D. Jack White was never the same, and his launching of so many three pointers in that one game had to do with Tre and Cam being sidelined unexpectedly. And of course, it didn't help that Zion had his shoe explosion and that Cam had various issues later either.

    My hunch is this team, with just normal luck on injuries, etc, was far far superior to any other team in the country. That they had so many problems, and yet were only one hoop from the Final Four, would lend credibility to that argument.
    Bingo. That summarizes the point I was trying to make perfectly. And Tre was the focal point.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    It does not sound like we are arguing about evidence, but about interpretation of why it was that Duke stopped turning teams over and scoring in transition. Are you saying it had nothing to do with injuries?
    I'm saying I don't know how much (if any) of the difference was caused by injuries. And neither does anybody else.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I'm saying I don't know how much (if any) of the difference was caused by injuries. And neither does anybody else.

    Respectfully, regarding turnovers, which was the topic of that other poster, with Tre out of the line up versus in the line up, I would think it could indeed be measured to some degree. Even when he returned, you can still make a very reasonable assumption about the difference caused by injuries. The fact that no one knows specifically doesn't mean you can't know generally. I appreciate metrics, but do not need them to tell me Duke was never quite the same after the first few minutes against Cuse at Cameron.
    Last edited by HereBeforeCoachK; 08-07-2019 at 02:58 PM.
    Don't waste your time on House of Cards S6!
    -We found out Frank was critical to making anyone else in the show interesting...not a surprise...

Similar Threads

  1. Measurements are out for the 2019-2020 team
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-17-2019, 08:11 PM
  2. ACC Rosters 2019-2020
    By HCheek37 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 06-17-2019, 01:17 PM
  3. NCAA D1 Rule Changes for 2019-2020
    By kAzE in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 06-10-2019, 09:07 AM
  4. ACC Football 2019-2020
    By sagegrouse in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-04-2019, 09:22 PM
  5. Duke women's basketball, 2019-2020
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-18-2019, 02:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •