MBB: Ohio State 71, Duke 66 Post-Game Thread

[scottdude8]

Scott, I appreciate you always looking at the brighter side, and man, I want to subscribe. I do hope our coaches will use this as a learning instrument, but will we diversify our offense when the going gets tough? Iso ball to a certain degree seems to be our MO, at least for the last few years. I’m also jaded by recent history that seems to have us peak early and not see marked improvement (the Zion/RJ team saw us peak in game one vs UK).

Also, how do we fix poor shooting mid-season especially with our guards? Small sample size, I know and understand. But unless it is injury-driven, I am not supremely optimistic on significant improvement.

Our primary goal needs to be a number one seed for the NCAAT. In a perhaps historically weak ACC (no other teams ranked, although that could change) the danger of bad losses is high and therefore margin for error is low. Win the regular season and/or ACCT and we should be okay, but only if we avoid two or more bad losses.

I think the feeling you're describing is the epitome of "recency bias". Let me ask you a hypothetical question: how would you be feeling about this team if we lost at Ohio State last Friday, and beat Gonzaga on a neutral site last night? I don't think you can claim a team is going to change, in either direction, that drastically over the course of four days. Yet, because we lost last night, we're worried about having "hit our ceiling"... but if the dates were reversed, I think we'd be talking about how we were already "over the hump" of our loss and had a sky-high ceiling. Come March, these will all just be November games in our memory.

The trouble with our offense in the second half last night was certainly too much iso ball. But I would disagree that that has been our hallmark this season as a whole... we've had a lot of success in transition, a lot of success playing high-low with Paolo and Mark, and a lot of success with Wendell facilitating, as evidenced by his excellent assist numbers. And that is something that should improve over time... two weeks of practice and another week of games against low-tier opponents should yield dividends there. But these are young players, and they are certainly vulnerable to revert back to iso ball on occasion, especially in hostile environments... we saw that last night, and may again.

As to the poor shooting, Trevor is just three games removed from a period where he shot >33.3% from three for three straight games (including a 4-for-6 performance). He has clearly shown that he has the skills to shoot, even if he's in a rut. Paolo is shooting 33.3% from three for the season, quite solid for our 4 man. Joey is shooting 40% from three for the season. Wendell is shooting 32%, and given how much his mid-range game has improved I'd expect that number to creep up. The only objectively poor shooter that is seeing the floor consistently right now is Jeremy, who is shooting 25%, but given he shot 31% over the course of next year we could reasonably expect that to creep up too. We've had a bad stretch shooting from deep over the past few games, two of which came against high-level, strong defensive teams. That does not make us a bad shooting team. And lest we forget, AJ has the reputation of being a knock-down shooter (yes, that is nowhere to be seen at the moment), so his health could help there.

I agree that this loss gives us a much smaller margin for error for a No. 1 seed (I discussed that in my front page article). But there's no reason to believe this team's ability to accomplish that is any different today than it was yesterday morning, when we were riding high off of our No. 1 ranking.

Hopefully that allows you to absorb some of my optimism

[azzefkram]

Me too. Bad decision by the staff. The game was being fairly tightly called, we were ahead and playing pretty well, and we just didn't need Paolo in there. Risk/reward should've said to leave him on the bench and start the second half with two fouls, not three.

K has always done this and it drives me crazy. There is a huge difference between starting the second half with 2 fouls versus starting the second half with 3. To be fair, K does seem to get away with far more often than he doesn't. Still it is a huge pet peeve of mine.

AJ got 11 minutes against Kentucky. So three weeks ago his conditioning and integration with the other guys was sufficient to get 11 minutes in an important, difficult game. Since, then, he has gotten double digit minutes four other times, including 21 minutes against Lafayette, where he scored 18 points. He's had plenty of minutes/reps at "lower intensity," and some at higher intensity vs. Kentucky. He's up to big game speed. For some reason, K just didn't play him against Gonzaga or especially Ohio State, and last night it seems to me that with our foul trouble and fatigue, we definitely could have used him. At least would've been worth a try.

AJ still looks a bit lost to me out there, but I'd rather have him out there in the first half than Paolo with 2 fouls.

It mattered in the sense that the game was fairly tightly called, and we failed to adjust to that reality. The refereeing was not unfair or biased. And it wasn't "absolutely miserable." I've seen miserable, and this wasn't it. At all. You can say it was tight, and that's fine. Part of maturing as a player and as a team is adjusting to the whistle. We didn't do that, and that's on us.

I agree with you far more often than not, but not with respect to the officials last night. I thought the game was called tight for Duke and markedly less so for OSU. Should Duke have been able to overcome this? I think so. A little better coaching and a little more composure and Duke can probably salt away the win. I think Duke is at its best when it is playing downhill both on offense and defense. If the game is called tightly both ways, Duke will probably have to dial it back a bit on D but it should open up the O. If Duke is called tightly, well we just saw what happens.

The refs did not lose the game for Duke, but they certainly had a negative impact.

[scottdude8]

K has always done this and it drives me crazy. There is a huge difference between starting the second half with 2 fouls versus starting the second half with 3. To be fair, K does seem to get away with far more often than he doesn't. Still it is a huge pet peeve of mine.

AJ still looks a bit lost to me out there, but I'd rather have him out there in the first half than Paolo with 2 fouls.


I agree with you far more often than not, but not with respect to the officials last night. I thought the game was called tight for Duke and markedly less so for OSU. Should Duke have been able to overcome this? I think so. A little better coaching and a little more composure and Duke can probably salt away the win. I think Duke is at its best when it is playing downhill both on offense and defense. If the game is called tightly both ways, Duke will probably have to dial it back a bit on D but it should open up the O. If Duke is called tightly, well we just saw what happens.

The refs did not lose the game for Duke, but they certainly had a negative impact.

I thought the same as the bolded, and I have to imagine the staff thought about that as well. The fact that they didn't put AJ out there at that stage is strong evidence to me that, as you also said, he is just lost right now. This next month will be big for AJ, and I would expect K to try to feature him heavily in our three remaining non-conference games to boost his confidence and see what we can reasonably expect from him during conference play. I'm one of Joey's biggest advocates on this board, but I think we all can agree our ceiling this season is higher if AJ is our sixth man and Joey our eighth, not the other way around. AJ has to earn that though, and Joey is holding his own.

[ChillinDuke]

I thought the same as the bolded, and I have to imagine the staff thought that as well. The fact that they didn't put AJ out there at that stage is strong evidence to me that, as you also said, he is just lost right now. This next month will be big for AJ, and I would expect K to try to feature him heavily in our three remaining non-conference games to boost his confidence and see what we can reasonably expect from him during conference play. I'm one of Joey's biggest advocates on this board, but I think we all can agree our ceiling this season is higher if AJ is our sixth man and Joey our eighth, not the other way around. AJ has to earn that though, and Joey is holding his own.

I also strongly suspect, although it will never be confirmed, that some coaches hold a little something (or multiple some things) back. In order to give the team a different look later on in the year. Certain years it's a new defensive look (zone, etc), certain years it's a new player featuring, certain years certain players develop strongly that the offense can be tweaked. The examples are plentiful. But the results are mostly confirmation bias.

I'm hopeful AJ will be unleashed later this season and give Duke a new wrinkle that teams don't have enough film on.

- Chillin

[rsvman]

Given the option of beating Gonzaga and losing to Ohio St vs beating Ohio St and losing to gonzaga, I would take the former all day every day.
In fact, if we had to go 2-1 over the Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Ohio state, the loss to Ohio State is the best possible choice.

The reason it hurt so much is not THAT it happened, but HOW it happened.

[simplyluvin]

I’ll grant you that I may be mired in extreme recency bias as well as a medium-grade depression from last night. December can be a very good growth period for us, especially if we can get AJ to adjust more and our guards getting out of their shooting funk.

I am more pessimistic about our coaching staff able to make significant mid-season adjustments to our offense, but maybe we can, or maybe we don’t need to…our D is really good and getting to championship caliber. The only major improvement as a team I can recall in recent history is our 2015 defense, but please prove me wrong .

[uh_no]

I watched the play again just now, and the foul did happen with 0.1 on the clock. My issue with that play during the game, and still now, is that the ref did not call the foul until after time had expired. So on the review, they determined that the foul happened before the ref called it. While that may be true, I have a problem with using video review to, in effect, do something that didn't actually happen in the game. If that play happened before time expired, then the clock would have stopped on the whistle/raised arm of the official, not before.

the rulebook is explicit that on fouls near the expiration of the clock, the time of contact is what matters, not "when the ref called it." It is a mandatory review, and the rule I cited above. The fact that the ref did not call the foul until after time had expired is irrelevant.

Whether you have a problem or not with that rule, I can't argue. But that is the rule, which I'll cite again more completely:

Section 3. Instant Replay—Mandatory Use
Art. 1. Officials shall use such available equipment in the following situations:
a. When there is a reading of zeroes (or should have been zeroes on the
clock) on the game clock at the end of any period, after making a call on
the playing court, in the following situations:
...
3. Determine whether a foul occurred before the reading of zeroes on
the game clock. When it is determined that the foul occurred before
the reading of zeroes on the game clock, the official is permitted to
put the exact time back on the game clock as to when the foul was
committed.

Emphasis mine. When the foul occurred is all that matters. Not when the call is made by the official. And by rule, the refs had to video review it. There is no grey area there.

[CDu]

Given the option of beating Gonzaga and losing to Ohio St vs beating Ohio St and losing to gonzaga, I would take the former all day every day.
In fact, if we had to go 2-1 over the Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Ohio state, the loss to Ohio State is the best possible choice.

Absolutely agree. I'll take the two neutral site wins over potential 1- or 2-seeds and the road loss to a potential 4- or 5-seed. Gives more optimism about our ceiling and profiles better on the resume.

The reason it hurt so much is not THAT it happened, but HOW it happened.

Honestly, even the way we lost can be seen in a positive light. We were dominating that game before foul trouble took over. I think it's easier to learn to adjust to officiating than it is to be able to play well enough to take a 15 point lead on a good team on the road.

Losing still sucks, of course. But there was still plenty of good signs to take from it. So long as the team learns lessons from the loss and continues to improve.

[Phredd3]

Given the option of beating Gonzaga and losing to Ohio St vs beating Ohio St and losing to gonzaga, I would take the former all day every day.
In fact, if we had to go 2-1 over the Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Ohio state, the loss to Ohio State is the best possible choice.

The reason it hurt so much is not THAT it happened, but HOW it happened.

Exactly. It was an eminently winnable game that we let slip away. That should not have happened, and any number of things could have gone differently to keep it from happening. It's always helpful to remember that it is a November loss to a very good team, but preventable losses are never happy things.

[DukeHoo]

I'm sure its been mentioned, and the call will never be made, but on EJ Liddell's last bucket (to go up 3), he did the exact same forearm push-off that PB was called for earlier in the game. It was the exact. same. play. You can clearly see him use the forearm to create space and then make the shot.

I noticed that as well. Sadly, there was a lot of that in this game.

[scottdude8]

Given the option of beating Gonzaga and losing to Ohio St vs beating Ohio St and losing to gonzaga, I would take the former all day every day.
In fact, if we had to go 2-1 over the Kentucky, Gonzaga, and Ohio state, the loss to Ohio State is the best possible choice.

The reason it hurt so much is not THAT it happened, but HOW it happened.

100% agree with essentially everything you've said here. My one caveat: I'd much rather the team lose a game they arguably should've won, and be able to hang on to that positive (I imagine the coaching staff, knowing how importance confidence is in a young team, will emphasize that in the coming days) rather than get blown out on the road (like we did in Columbus back in 2011). As much as the end result was painful, there were positives to take from the film last night, which is better than a "let's burn the film" type of game.

[Saratoga2]

For Griffin, I think it would be a combination of a few more minutes from each of John (going "small" with Banchero at the 5), Roach, and Keels (going bigger with Griffin at the 3). The degree to which those minutes come will depend on how much Griffin improves. Talentwise, he could force about 10-15 mpg at the 4 (with half of those coming from Banchero resting a bit and the other half us going "small"), then another 10-15 minutes at the 3 (with him and Baker each getting about 10-15 minutes per game on the perimeter).

I agree with this and instead of thinking of Griffen not being ready, a fresh Griffen with no fouls should be compared with a tired player with multiple fouls who he would have subbed for. Not a perfect solution, but the alternative wasn't working.

[scottdude8]

Absolutely agree. I'll take the two neutral site wins over potential 1- or 2-seeds and the road loss to a potential 4- or 5-seed. Gives more optimism about our ceiling and profiles better on the resume.

Honestly, even the way we lost can be seen in a positive light. We were dominating that game before foul trouble took over. I think it's easier to learn to adjust to officiating than it is to be able to play well enough to take a 15 point lead on a good team on the road.

Losing still sucks, of course. But there was still plenty of good signs to take from it. So long as the team learns lessons from the loss and continues to improve.

Looks like CDu beat me to the punch on this point

[JetpackJesus]

the rulebook is explicit that on fouls near the expiration of the clock, the time of contact is what matters, not "when the ref called it." It is a mandatory review, and the rule I cited above. The fact that the ref did not call the foul until after time had expired is irrelevant.

Whether you have a problem or not with that rule, I can't argue. But that is the rule, which I'll cite again more completely:



Emphasis mine. When the foul occurred is all that matters. Not when the call is made by the official. And by rule, the refs had to video review it. There is no grey area there.

Thanks for including the rule language. There may be clarifying language elsewhere in the rulebook, which I do not have, or in some NCAA memoranda re: replay review, which I have never seen, but the language you emphasize is ambiguous as to whether a foul occurs on contact or at the time the ref makes the foul call. Contact happens all the time. It is only a foul once the ref blows the whistle and signals a foul. That is how I interpret (in a vacuum) the language you emphasized because replay otherwise could (and did last night) lead to a different standard of officiating than exists at all other times during the game. At no other point during a basketball game does a foul occur before the official actually makes the call on the floor. That standard for when a foul occurs should not change based on the amount of time left on the clock.

However, if your interpretation of the language is accurate, and it may well be, I do have an issue with that application of the rule because the refs are ultimately using replay to change what actually transpired in real-time. It's one thing to check when a ball or player went out of bounds or when the ball left a player's hand. I think that's different than using replay to say a foul happened before the refs called the foul.

In effect, what happened last night is that the ref said, "I did not stop play before time expired, but I guess I should have, so we're going to pretend that I did stop play before time expired."

The ref along the sideline called the foul in real time. The ref under the basket did not, but it was called in real time. You can see it in the replay, with the official with a raised arm and then giving the "basket is also good" signal.

The scorekeeper didn't catch the sideline official raising his arm for the foul, or did so 0.1 seconds after he raised his arm (hence the clock had reached zero).

I just want to be clear that the Center ref did not make the call until well after the clock hit 0.0. That call was outside the Lead's area of responsibility, so it makes sense he did not make a call.

0.0 No Foul.jpg
Note the time on the official game clock (also the backboard and shot clock red lights being on) and not the ESPN clock. This screenshot is from before the Center called the foul or blew his whistle.

0.0 Foul Being Called.jpg
This screenshot is from after the one above and is when the ref begins raising his right arm and blows the whistle to signal the foul. At this point, even the ESPN clock says 0.0.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Absolutely agree. I'll take the two neutral site wins over potential 1- or 2-seeds and the road loss to a potential 4- or 5-seed. Gives more optimism about our ceiling and profiles better on the resume.



Honestly, even the way we lost can be seen in a positive light. We were dominating that game before foul trouble took over. I think it's easier to learn to adjust to officiating than it is to be able to play well enough to take a 15 point lead on a good team on the road.

Losing still sucks, of course. But there was still plenty of good signs to take from it. So long as the team learns lessons from the loss and continues to improve.

I'll add the following:

-Our guards did not shoot well (7-22)
-AJ Griffin gave us nothing
-John had 5 fouls in 15 minutes
-Banchero shot 4-14 and had 4 fouls, most of them warranted and unnecessary
-Duke blew a 15 point lead in the second half
-Our coaching staff had a bunch of questionable decisions


Despite all this and what CDu mentioned, we lost by 5. Every player except Wendell played poorly compared to their usual output.

Losing happen. We'll definitely lose another game in the ACC and it will be okay. What matters is what happens in March.

I'm very optimistic. This game actually made me even more optimistic.

[lotusland]

I was going to finish reading the thread before replying, but this one needs a reply now. Personal fouls were 23-14. In other words, Duke got called for 64% more fouls than Ohio State. That not a "call here or there". Put another way, for every 2 OSU fouls, there were 3.3 Duke fouls. At the end of the game, they had two players with three fouls. We had four players with four AND a player disqualified. Given how physical the game was, that's just bad officiating. I'd bet even the refs would tell you they missed some after reviewing the stats and game tape. Did we have some dumb and obvious fouls? Of course we did. But they had a few, too, and at least some of theirs were not called.

Is that the primary reason we lost? No, I don't think so. Poor ball movement, poor coaching, and poor shot selection in the second half (all of which are related) is the primary reason we lost. In the second half it felt like the players were competing with one another to see who could take the most contested two-point shot possible. I think they all won that competition. Ball movement was practically non-existent, and you certainly can't blame the refs for us completely failing to score over the last four minutes of the game.

It was a five-point game, and there were plenty of contributing factors. But to say that refereeing wasn't one of those factors in this game is just ignoring the obvious. Hopefully, the factors we can actually control will be addressed over the next two weeks.

Gonzaga was whistled for 24 fouls to Duke’s 15. Bad officiating?

[Wander]

Honestly, even the way we lost can be seen in a positive light. We were dominating that game before foul trouble took over. I think it's easier to learn to adjust to officiating than it is to be able to play well enough to take a 15 point lead on a good team on the road.

Yeah, put another way, I think it's better to lose an early season game because of mental mistakes and not doing well in crunch time than because of reasons fundamentally related to physical talent. The former you have hope of getting better at over the course of the season, the latter is sorta locked in by this point.

Otherwise my most positive takeaway is liking Coach K's snarky timeout call with 0.1 seconds left after the nonsense halftime buzzer foul call.

[dukelifer]

This game brings to mind the scene from Hoosiers where the coach has the star player do a one on one drill while the coach acts as the referee. When the star player so much as breathes on his man the coach calls a foul, and on the other end he allows the defender to basically punch the star player in the face without calling anything. The exercise is meant to make the player mad, but also to prepare him for moments in games when terrible calls go against you. Because bad calls are going to happen, that's just a fact of life. There will be games that we get some favorable calls too. We're less likely to notice them, but they happen. The question for the players is whether they will fold up and complain and just give up, or will they fight through it?

I didn't see anyone losing their composure or reacting in frustration, so that was good. They weren't whining and chirping at the refs, they were trying to play through it. Despite all the calls we were still in plenty good position to win the game had we made some better decisions and/or hit a couple shots. So I'll choose to see that as a positive. There's going to be a game in the tournament where we're getting hosed by the refs, and going through a game like this could wind up being a positive learning experience.

Hoosiers? I believe it is the classic One on One with Robby Benson

https://youtu.be/vkqjjHDEt_w

[rasputin]

Maybe I missed this or it's in another thread, but were the Ohio State fans chanting "DUI" when Banchero was at the FT line?

[flyingdutchdevil]

Maybe I missed this or it's in another thread, but were the Ohio State fans chanting "DUI" when Banchero was at the FT line?

Yup. They sure did. Classy bunch