Duke 75, Ga Tech 68 Post Game Thread

[gep]

For what it is worth, this team is getting better and stronger mentally. I think Wendell and Goldwire will become captains soon and I think a healthy Jalen could begin to just freaking dominate, putting up 25 on several nights. If Roach can give us 8-10 points per game and Baker could wake up from his seasonal slumber we just might make some noise! These kids are playing hard, fighting hard, and learning every day under some crazy circumstances. I feel bad for them that many of them will never experience a game at Cameron with Fans. Doesn't seem right does it?

I was wondering for the last few games... if the lack of a "real" designated captain was part of the issues. Maybe if someone, like JGold or Wendell gets "named" captain, they will actually feel that they can lead. Without the captain designation, they might defer to the greater whole.

[CDu]

You have a lot of time on your hands...

For what it is worth, this team is getting better and stronger mentally. I think Wendell and Goldwire will become captains soon and I think a healthy Jalen could begin to just freaking dominate, putting up 25 on several nights. If Roach can give us 8-10 points per game and Baker could wake up from his seasonal slumber we just might make some noise! These kids are playing hard, fighting hard, and learning every day under some crazy circumstances. I feel bad for them that many of them will never experience a game at Cameron with Fans. Doesn't seem right does it?

As for time on my hands, that was just a quick-and-easy copy/paste from your profile page. I only went there because I remembered the "ball game" quote - hadn't really noticed the others before hitting up your page. The dangers of game-thread vent-posting are that it's really easy to look silly the next day. Better of doing any venting in the chat feature (sorry chatters!) .

Regardless, glad to hear you coming around on the team though. I doubt Baker makes an impact this year, but I don't think we need him to do so to make noise. I think the Hurt/Johnson combo along with a solid Steward will be enough to be an upper-end ACC team.

I also suspect that perhaps only one of them will never experience playing a game in Cameron with fans (Johnson). The rest either already have or will next year (unless we see transfers, of course). But yes, it does stink for Johnson that he won't get to play in a true Cameron environment. It stinks that the world is in this mess.

[Troublemaker]

Just my opinion, but I doubt the defense would have progressed to where it was yesterday without trying and learning from playing a zone defense.

And we now have a zone as a workable alternative in some situations, and an additional area for opposing teams to have to plan for.

Why? Can you articulate a reason? I don't have to agree, of course (and probably won't), but I just want to hear the argument.

I think if we had spent the "bye week" before Pitt focusing on m2m and then gotten two additional m2m games under our belt, our m2m would be better off. Your counter is?

(Also, while I like having a backup plan zone defense as well, I prefer the 2-3 zone that we've used for that purpose in previous seasons.)

[CDu]

Also, while I like having a backup plan zone defense as well, I prefer the 2-3 zone that we've used for that purpose in previous seasons.)

In general, I agree that the 2-3 is preferable to the 1-2-2. It is better suited to rebounding than the 1-2-2, it's the one players are most familiar with, and it's a bit better for handling dribble penetration.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the reason we went 1-2-2 instead of the 2-3 is because we don't have the personnel to run a 2-3 without weakening the offense. Moore is a pretty perfect fit for the "1" in the 1-2-2, and we theoretically have the right type of forwards for the "2". In the 2-3, you want longer guards on the perimeter, a true big in the middle, and longer forwards on the baseline. Goldwire and Roach are length liabilities, and Moore is not as valuable on the back line in a 2-3. The optimal 2-3 lineup would be Moore and Steward up top, Johnson/Williams/Hurt across the back line. Or if needed, you could move Johnson to the middle and plug Brakefield on the backline.

Given that Roach was playing well offensively at the time, and given that without Roach or Goldwire on the floor we'd be without a "PG", and given that our third bigs haven't been terribly useful on offense, I think the staff didn't want to neuter the offense for the sake of the defense. So they decided to keep a PG on the floor. And that made the the 1-2-2 a better option than the 2-3.

Of course, Roach's offense then cratered, so that part was made moot. Had he continued to play well as a scorer, we might have beaten those two teams.

[rsvman]

But will it wound a lot of Heels?



Yes, I can see why you say that. I guess the answer is it depends on the rest of your defense or the rest of your offense.

In general, the three-point shot is a high efficiency shot (assuming you make a reasonable percentage of them), so on defense limiting your opponent's three-attempts reduces the risk of them getting hot and burying you with offensive efficiency. And if you believe Pomeroy (who says the only effective way to defend the three is to keep them from shooting it, though I don't entirely believe him as you know since you and I went round and round in another thread), it's even more important to limit opposing three-attempts.

Historically, Duke's defense is at its best when we run our opponents off the line while also limiting their effectiveness on 2pt shots (under 47% 2pt FG%). The "Goldilocks zone" for us has been limiting our opponents to around 25% of their shots from three (too much less than that means they're probably feasting inside). The national trend is for teams to take more threes in recent years, so I'm happy with anything from 25% to 30%.


So with everything I just said, I understand why you think I should be applauding when we take a lot of threes on offense. There are several reasons I don't:

(a) we don't shoot the three very well, and haven't since 2018. If you only shoot 31% from distance, it's not a high-efficiency shot.

(b) there's a difference between good, in-rhythm threes and inadvisable shots. Unless your offense is based around taking lots and lots of threes (e.g., Villanova), the more threes you put up, the more likely you're taking more bad shots. Though in the past our offense has been built to shoot lots of threes, our offense in recent years hasn't (probably because we don't shoot them very well), so more threes means more low-probability shots;

(c) there's a variability issue with taking lots of threes, so if you take a bunch of them it leaves you vulnerable to losing on a "cold" shooting night (the old "live and die by the three" complaint). Also, when we get into the habit of just chucking up threes, our offense tends to stagnate as we tend to settle for an ill-advised three instead of motion, moving the ball, and looking for a better shot;

(d) historically, our best teams (e.g., 1998, 1999, 2004, 2010, 2013, 2015) have taken fewer than 34% of their shots from three (also all the teams in the 80s and early 90s, but you can't really count them since the game was different then with respect to the three-point shot). The only true exception was 2001 (41.8% of shots from three), and to a lesser extent 2018 (36.3%) and 2019 (37.3%), but one could argue that the higher three-point shot rate may have contributed to some extent to those latter teams failing to reach the Final Four. By contrast, Duke teams that have attempted more than 38% of their shots from three (again with the exception of 2001) have tended to underperform expectations (e.g., 2008, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, all between 38.3% and 39.9%).

So, for the above reasons, I'd like to see us attempt 30% to 35% of our shots from three, especially in a year like this one, when we can't really shoot them effectively.

Wouldn't the most logical way to determine "three-point defense" be to look at what percentage of the opponents points were scored from behind the line? This would automatically combine two things: 1) limiting the number of attempts by the other team (i.e., "driving them off the line") and 2) limiting their percentage made (i.e., "forcing tough threes").

Is this concept just too simplistic? Seems to me that the whole point of good "three-point defense" is to keep the other team from scoring a lot of points from behind the three-point line.

[Acymetric]

Wouldn't the most logical way to determine "three-point defense" be to look at what percentage of the opponents points were scored from behind the line? This would automatically combine two things: 1) limiting the number of attempts by the other team (i.e., "driving them off the line") and 2) limiting their percentage made (i.e., "forcing tough threes").

Is this concept just too simplistic? Seems to me that the whole point of good "three-point defense" is to keep the other team from scoring a lot of points from behind the three-point line.

I think the problem with that is that it measures how good the team was from 2 just as much as it measures how good they were from 3.

[roywhite]

Why? Can you articulate a reason? I don't have to agree, of course (and probably won't), but I just want to hear the argument.

I think if we had spent the "bye week" before Pitt focusing on m2m and then gotten two additional m2m games under our belt, our m2m would be better off. Your counter is?

(Also, while I like having a backup plan zone defense as well, I prefer the 2-3 zone that we've used for that purpose in previous seasons.)

Mostly my own observations.

And Coach K said after the Louisville game:
About what he is seeing defensively? Are you seeing some good play there to build on:

Yeah. The fact that we’ve done the zone, at least we have it. It’s something that you would’ve wanted to do in November in a lot of
non-conference games or exhibitions and have a few different things you would do defensively. We’re trying to get that done on
January 23, right now.

[Kedsy]

Wouldn't the most logical way to determine "three-point defense" be to look at what percentage of the opponents points were scored from behind the line? This would automatically combine two things: 1) limiting the number of attempts by the other team (i.e., "driving them off the line") and 2) limiting their percentage made (i.e., "forcing tough threes").

Is this concept just too simplistic? Seems to me that the whole point of good "three-point defense" is to keep the other team from scoring a lot of points from behind the three-point line.

It's not that it's too simplistic, and I think it may be an interesting way to look at things. But it also ignores efficiency. What makes the three point shot dangerous is it gives you three points in one possession if it goes in. Your stat has no idea how many possessions were used to get the points.

So it would be difficult to judge how the defense actually performed from your stat. If a team scored 80 points with 24 points on threes (30% of points) it would make a huge difference whether those 24 long-distance points came on, for example, 10 attempts vs. 30 attempts. In one case, the defense kept them off the three-point line but did not limit their percentage (80%). In the other case, the D did not keep them off the line very well but limited their percentage made (26.7%). The fact that we can't tell which from your stat probably limits its effectiveness as an analytical tool.

[rsvman]

It's not that it's too simplistic, and I think it may be an interesting way to look at things. But it also ignores efficiency. What makes the three point shot dangerous is it gives you three points in one possession if it goes in. Your stat has no idea how many possessions were used to get the points.

So it would be difficult to judge how the defense actually performed from your stat. If a team scored 80 points with 24 points on threes (30% of points) it would make a huge difference whether those 24 long-distance points came on, for example, 10 attempts vs. 30 attempts. In one case, the defense kept them off the three-point line but did not limit their percentage (80%). In the other case, the D did not keep them off the line very well but limited their percentage made (26.7%). The fact that we can't tell which from your stat probably limits its effectiveness as an analytical tool.

Makes sense. Thanks.

[brevity]

The dangers of game-thread vent-posting are that it's really easy to look silly the next day. Better of doing any venting in the chat feature (sorry chatters!) .

Fighting words!

It may be the weirdness of this season, but the in-game chat seems way less harsh than the in-game thread these days.

[dm9e24]

If the rest of DJ's season is mostly performances like last night, and if he begins consistently shooting like he's capable of, dragging up his 3-pt average, he'll possibly be sitting next to Quinn on the Lakers bench next season.

I miss the days of when a young freshman begins to get it and his game is getting better, it meant good things for Duke's future. Instead of it meaning he may be playing himself into the next years draft.

[-jk]

I miss the days of when a young freshman begins to get it and his game is getting better, it meant good things for Duke's future. Instead of it meaning he may be playing himself into the next years draft.

An unfortunate collision of the NBA's rules and going after the best prospects.

-jk