Duke MBB vs. Pitt Post-Game Thread

[Fish80]

I must disagree with you on this point. Yes, it looked ugly, but Blair was off balance and falling. He hooked Singler around the neck and that was ugly but not dirty. There is a big difference between an ugly foul and a dirty foul and I believe Blair's foul was clearly ugly but not dirty.

Bob, I was at the Garden and didn't have a great angle on this play. So this morning I watched the replay several times and listened to Bilas. I have to agree with Bilas, this clearly looked like a deliberate take down. Blair wrapped his arm over Singler's shoulder and around his chest and then body slammed him. You can see Blair twisting to put more force into the slam. The only thing that saved Singler from serious injury was that he landed on top on Blair.

I didn't see this mentioned in this thread yet - Singler is a very very tough character. He took a beating, continually fought back, and kept his composure. Tremendously tough.

[dw0827]

Jumbo: "Those stats are utterly meaningless. Why? Henderson handles the ball WAY more than Scheyer, who spends most of his time standing in the corner waiting for kickouts from Henderson that rarely come. Also, how many times does Henderson make a hockey assist (the pass that leads to the pass that leads to the score)? Why is it not possible to realize that Henderson has a legitimate and important flaw in his game?"

Ok Jumbo, educate me. You're charting the minutes so you may know. You say that Henderson handles the ball WAY more than Scheyer. So how many minutes has Henderson handled the ball and how many minutes has Scheyer handled the ball?

I suspect you don't actually know.

How many times does Henderson make a "hockey" assist?

I suspect you don't actually know.

How many times does Scheyer, on the other hand, make a hockey assist?

I suspect you don't actually know.

How often do college basketball statisticians award a "hockey" assist in a basketball game? I suspect rarely if ever. So what are you talking about?

If you are going to disagree, thats fine. Happens to me all the time. I'm married, after all. But use facts.

I give you some data. Assists per 40 minutes. You have NOTHING to refute the data. NOTHING. Other than your conventional wisdom about who handles the ball the most. So show me. Where's the data that proves your point?

By the way, hasn't Jon handled the point on occasion this year? But in his 306 minutes he's handled the ball less than Henderson in his 260 minutes?

Can't wait to see your data.

I'm not saying Henderson is the living end. But you are constantly on his case whereas, for you, Scheyer farts rose petals. That'd fine . . . . beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Personally, I love Scheyer's game. But I wish he had some of Henderson's traits . . . just as I wish Henderson had some of Scheyer's traits.

I just think it's a little unseemly for no-talent basketball hacks like us to be criticizing these kids. I mean, who the hell are we to criticize them? But you just can't let loose of Henderson.

[Bob Green]

I must disagree with you on this point. Yes, it looked ugly, but Blair was off balance and falling. He hooked Singler around the neck and that was ugly but not dirty. There is a big difference between an ugly foul and a dirty foul and I believe Blair's foul was clearly ugly but not dirty.

Bob, I was at the Garden and didn't have a great angle on this play. So this morning I watched the replay several times and listened to Bilas. I have to agree with Bilas, this clearly looked like a deliberate take down. Blair wrapped his arm over Singler's shoulder and around his chest and then body slammed him. You can see Blair twisting to put more force into the slam. The only thing that saved Singler from serious injury was that he landed on top on Blair.

I didn't see this mentioned in this thread yet - Singler is a very very tough character. He took a beating, continually fought back, and kept his composure. Tremendously tough.

I stick by my initial assessment that Blair's foul was not dirty. It was an ugly foul and a hard foul, but I do not believe Blair intended to hurt Singler. My definition of a dirty play is one in which one player intentionally injures another player. However, I respect your opinion and have no problem with us disagreeing.

[Constantstrain 81]

I stick by my initial assessment that Blair's foul was not dirty. It was an ugly foul and a hard foul, but I do not believe Blair intended to hurt Singler. My definition of a dirty play is one in which one player intentionally injures another player. However, I respect your opinion and have no problem with us disagreeing.

By Bob Green's definition, I'll agree with him. Blair was mad over getting bumped on the rebound by Singler and so grabbed him and took him down intentionally. Why he was mad, I don't know, since he bumped someone on practically every play. However, he was clearly angry and took Singler down. Didn't look like he wanted to hurt him, though - just take him out of the play and possible put the foul on Singler.

Does Henderson play with his head down? Maybe too simplistic an argument. There are times when Henderson looks like he decides that he is going to shoot the ball and does. (Of course, there are times when Scheyer does that , as well). There are other times when Henderson is looking for a shot or a pass. I don't mind him looking for his shot at crunch time - he can create his own shot and he can make it. That is star power that we need. Despite Demarcus and his great skills - I am always a little nervous at crunch time when he has the ball. Henderson, I feel, can make the shots. Should he play with his "head up" all the time? Probably. Is he approaching "black hole" status? IMO, no. Not at this time. I don't have that sense.

I think that he will get better with finding others the more he plays with them. Right now, he has confidence in his shot - he needs to have the confidence in all of his team mates and where they are and how they move. It will come.

[Fish80]

I stick by my initial assessment that Blair's foul was not dirty. It was an ugly foul and a hard foul, but I do not believe Blair intended to hurt Singler. My definition of a dirty play is one in which one player intentionally injures another player. However, I respect your opinion and have no problem with us disagreeing.

I too have no problem disagreeing. But I'm not sure that we do, it may be semantics. I think Blair's foul was intentional, and that the zebras made the correct call. Intentional doesn't make it dirty. Chris Paul punching Hodge below the belt was a dirty foul.

Whether Blair was trying to harm Singler, I can't say. If you think about it, body slamming someone to the court might result in injury. But there probably wasn't a lot of thinking going on, just reacting.

[Jumbo]

Ok Jumbo, educate me. You're charting the minutes so you may know. You say that Henderson handles the ball WAY more than Scheyer. So how many minutes has Henderson handled the ball and how many minutes has Scheyer handled the ball?

I suspect you don't actually know.

Obviously I don't know, since I'm not charting minutes or "time spent handlign the ball." That said, you'd need to watch about three minutes of Duke basketball to see that Henderson handles the ball WAY more in the offense than Scheyer does. Scheyer's role in Duke's current scheme mostly involves setting up in the corner. Are you really going to argue that he gets the ball -- or holds it as long -- as Henderson does? Because if you want to do that, it's a clear indication that you're not watching the games. And if you're not watching the games, why are you talking about them?

How many times does Henderson make a "hockey" assist?

I suspect you don't actually know.

How many times does Scheyer, on the other hand, make a hockey assist?

I suspect you don't actually know.

How often do college basketball statisticians award a "hockey" assist in a basketball game? I suspect rarely if ever. So what are you talking about?

If you are going to disagree, thats fine. Happens to me all the time. I'm married, after all. But use facts.

You're right. I should keep my own stats on everythng I witness. Gotcha. Again -- WATCH THE GAMES. Some stuff should be obvious. And, again, if you want stats, try the one I posted earlier: When Henderson was in the game, he scored 17 of Duke's 35 points. He took 17 shots. That's a heck of a lot of usage for only one assist. And he can't have had many hockey assists, because Duke only scored a total of 18 other points when he was in the game. But if you really, really crave stats, check out a couple of sites. First, there is pfrduke's excellent blog, which has all sorts of goodies. And then there is obviously Ken Pomeroy's site, which probably comes closest to supporting my point. As you can see, Gerald Henderson's usage rate is 28.7%, which is quite high (read Ken's glossary of terms for context). Scheyer's is 16.2%. The best (and only, as far as I can see) counter to my argument is Henderson's slightly higher ARate. But given the stark difference in usage, that's to be expected.

I give you some data. Assists per 40 minutes. You have NOTHING to refute the data. NOTHING. Other than your conventional wisdom about who handles the ball the most. So show me. Where's the data that proves your point?

I refuted your data immediately. I just refuted it again. Would you like a third helping with your holiday meal?

By the way, hasn't Jon handled the point on occasion this year?

Duke used Scheyer for a brief stretch in a lineup that included Pocius, Nelson, King and Thomas one game. He also ran the point with a group that included Pocius, Henderson, King and Singler. That's two shifts all season. Every other time he has played, Paulus or Smith has been in the game. So, no, for all intents and purposes Scheyer has not played PG this year.

But in his 306 minutes he's handled the ball less than Henderson in his 260 minutes?

Can't wait to see your data.

I would venture to say that yes, he has. Considering that Henderson has attempted 42 more shots, that's a good place to start.

I'm not saying Henderson is the living end. But you are constantly on his case whereas, for you, Scheyer farts rose petals. That'd fine . . . . beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And now you've delved full into the realm of idiocy. I'm "constantly on [Henderson's] case?" Are you kidding? Is the world that black and white for you? I want him to improve one area of his game, and that means I'm all over him. Uh, right. "Scheyer farts rose petals?" Not only is that crass, it's ridiculous. I've critiqued Scheyer's game just as much as Henderson's or anyone else's -- his release needs to be quicker, he needs to look for his shot more and he needs to go up stronger around the hoop. Nice straw dog ... err ... man.

Personally, I love Scheyer's game. But I wish he had some of Henderson's traits . . . just as I wish Henderson had some of Scheyer's traits.

Apparently we agree on more than you realize.

I just think it's a little unseemly for no-talent basketball hacks like us to be criticizing these kids. I mean, who the hell are we to criticize them? But you just can't let loose of Henderson.

More lunacy. I'm too critical? Me? Generally, people give me grief for not letting them be as critical as they'd like around here. Again, if you can't understand that I'm focusing on a particular aspect of Henderson's game -- one that can take him from good to great -- I feel sorry for you in your inability to understand the concept of "degree." Furthermore, most of what I'm posting is merely a reaction to outsized expectations for Henderson that have been unfair since he was in high school. The kid is still learning the game, and people are placing him on a pedestal way too quickly.

[Grey Devil]

I agree with everything in Jumbo's post. When he had the data to back up his statements he provided it; when he didn't have it, he said so. Much better than many of us, who have a tendency to speculate based on impressions and (in my case) failing memory of a particular play in any given game.

FWIW, Henderson is very athletic. He can make spectacular plays. Sometimes his abiliity to be spectacular blinds us to his weaknesses and causes us to assume he can do anything we wish. It is clear to me from watching all the games that he is very talented, but it is also clear (to me, at least) that when the ball goes to him he has plans to shoot, or to make a move and then shoot. The point I think Jumbo is making is a simple one: that Gerald would be a better player, and we would be a better team, if he would share the ball more often and pass to open teammates.

That's all that's being asserted. Nothing more.

Grey Devil

[dw0827]

Curious as to why the coaching staff has Jon standing in the corner on offense . . . and GH with the ball trying to create.

Jon has the better handle, is a better passer, and is more likely to "see" someone in the flow of the offense.

I'm assuming the coaches want it that way.

I'm suggesting that GH isn't as bad as you (Jumbo) suggest . . . he isn't a black hole and he gets just as many assists as 40 minutes as Scheyer.

This is what I am saying: GH is not the most gifted ballhandler or assist man that we have. He will miss some open looks. We would be better if he had better skills in that respect. So I do agree with your central point . . . and perhaps your only point.

And this is MY central point: you (and, perhaps more so, many other) posters spend time criticizing the players . . . and that bothers me. These are kids, really, under a lot of pressure doing the best they can. Having played the game, I understand that its a damned difficult thing to excel in all areas of the game. Very few players master all aspects of the game . . . and the ones who do become superstars. For the rest, if you play at Duke, you get criticized because you just aren't quite good enough.

Ok, Jumbo, GH needs to get his head up. We've heard you (on more than one occasion). So move on.

[dw0827]

Let me correct something.

Above, I said that Jumbo criticizes the players . . .

I've reread some of the posts that (I thought) gave me that impression . . . and I'm just flat out wrong.

Jumbo's comments and posts about the players have almost always been positive . . .

So Jumbo, I apologize for casting aspersions upon your character . . .

I did, however, find a misspelled word in one of your posts, though . . . heh heh . . .

[Kilby]

I agree that Paulus is a spot-up shooter that needs a feed when he's open to score. That takes movement in the offense and Duke hasn't shown a good motion offense since Paulus has come to Duke and I don't mean to imply that it is all his fault. Unless Duke is running, the offense seems to be more give the ball to Henderson or Nelson and let them penetrate. Scheyer is a garbage player and I mean that in he is always doing the little things in a Battier mode. Helping out on D, getting the loose ball, taking the spot up three. A good motion offense would help both their games. Paulus will not score when guarded closely while Scheyer will have a few more opportunistic looks.

[Kilby]

Jumbo, give me an example of a player, that is a scorer, that is not a PG, who sees other people once he decides to take his man. I was trying to think of NBA players and all that I could come up with were PG's. I'm trying to see your side.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, give me an example of a player, that is a scorer, that is not a PG, who sees other people once he decides to take his man. I was trying to think of NBA players and all that I could come up with were PG's. I'm trying to see your side.

Sure -- here are some guys who are blessed with great court vision. They're not even all great players. For fun, I'll throw in some classic greats too.
Current
LeBron James
Brad Miller
Rasheed Wallace
Andrei Kirilenko
Kevin Garnett
Boris Diaw
Brandon Roy
Luke Walton
Yao Ming.
Plus, the Duke contingent -- Grant Hill, Mike Dunleavy and Carlos Boozer, in particular -- are all excellent passers with great vision.

Those are just off the top of my head. Plus, two of the best passers of all time are a forward and a center -- Larry Bird and Bill Walton.

[ACCBBallFan]

Question for those espousing the Duke does not play its bench theory - How come the starters had but 12 rebounds and the subs 19?

The starters logged 52 minutes and the subs, notably Jon Scheyer with 35, amassed 73 for about a 2/3 to 1/3 split which is not bad. The difference is that for the first time, the subs hardly scored, not that they hardly played enough minutes.

Jon Scheyer pulled down the same number of rebounds as all five starters combined. Though he may have rushed the shot, better that he wanted to pull the trigger and took the shot rather than his usual fake before shooting.

The main problem was Henderson 2 rebounds and none for Lance or Paulus, as shots sometimes fall and sometimes do not but rebounds should be pretty constant.

If Lance is unable to board due to the injury, Zoubek and King should play more, rather than playing small ball for 13 minutes with Lance only playing 15, King 11 and Zoubek but 6.