Are we too dependent on the three?

[grc5]

All of our jealous rival fans and all the negative pundits out there qualify Duke's success with the same talking point: "Duke lives and dies with the three, and they will be exposed when they have the inevtiable poor shooting night."

Frankly, I don't buy this arguement, for two reasons:

1. There's no reason that we can't stay hot for the entire season. Our high 3-point % is not a product of luck; it is a product of an offense that is designed to get the defense to collapse and create open 3-point attempts. As long as those open shots are available, there's no reason we can't continue to hit them.

2. If, for some reason, Duke got out on the wrong side of the bed and simply could not hit the outside shot, we have alternate sources of offense. Henderson and Nelson's ability to get to the basket is a very viable Plan B. Hendo and DMarc have taken a back seat the past couple games because we've been shooting the lights out, but I think that they'll be there if we need them. They provide an element we desperatley needed in 2006 vs. LSU.

That said, we have shot a LOT of threes lately. Please assuage my fears or confirm my doubts. I don't know what to think.

[Classof06]

I mostly disagree with the critics in terms of our dependence on the 3 because, like you said, a lot of our 3 point shots come off of drive-and-kick opportunities; that's just good offense.

But there are times, usually only short stretches in games, where I feel Duke does get a little trigger happy from long range and I've noticed it more lately than earlier in the season. Usually though, Duke is good about breaking out of that spell. They realize when they're shooting too many 3s and get back to the main strength of this team: having multiple players that can dribble penetrate, pass and shoot on the court at all times.

It's also hard to argue with hoisting 'em up when we shot 48% from 3 against UNC, 35% against BC and 48% once again vs. Maryland. That's an average of 44% from 3 over the last few games and I'll take that any day.

I don't think it's any surprise that Duke has to shoot well from the 3 point line to beat most good-to-elite teams. As long as that's the case, we're going to shoot a lot of 3s. That being said, if teams think Duke can only shoot 3s and tries to pressure us on the perimeter, we can and will hurt them with dribble penetration. Our floor spacing combined with our deep ball-handling personnel allow us to attack the rim as well as anyone in America.

Our ability to both dribble penetrate and shoot the 3 is why we're #2 in America right now.

[Dukefan4Life]

i am a Duke fan from way back that lives in maryland. Last night after the game my cousin who attends maryland said, we will be in trouble come march if our outside shot does not fall. I told him we will still be alright even if we arent hitting the three. I know this shot has been huge for us in the past and alot of this year, but i think we do have the guys that can take it to the hole if we choose to.

[Olympic Fan]

The commentators always know what they're talking about. Duke doesn't beat Maryland last night if they don't hit 12 3-pointers.

If Duke was, say, a mere 6-of-18 from the 3-point line, they could never beat the Terps -- right?

Except that's exactly what Duke did shoot from the 3-point line in College Park to beat the Terps. Duke hit just six 3s against Marquette and won. Duke hit just seven (of 22) 3s against Clemson and won.

I think what they don't emphasize enough is that Duke has two other ways to beat you -- points off turnovers and penetration.

Go back and look at the first Duke-Maryland box. Duke wasn't making the 3s, but DeMarcus had 27 points and Henderson added 23. Smith came off the bench and sliced the Terps up for 14 -- almost all of that coming on drives to the basket.

Gary Williams was obviously determined to cut off the drives ... his defense normally defends the 3 very well (they are second in the ACC in 3-point defense). But last night, he pulled his defense back to cut off the drives.

It was very effective in that regard -- neither Nelson nor Henderson could get much of anything going. Smith was ineffective as well.

But to do that, Williams had to soften his defense on the perimeter -- giving Singler and Paulus open looks. Those two combined for 19 points in College Park -- they had 45 in Cameron. Nelson and Henderson went for 50 in College Park, they had 16 in Cameron.

It's that balance that makes Duke so effective -- yes, the 3-point shot is a huge part of Duke's offense. But this team forces defenses to make some tough choices. If you spread out to stop the 3, Nelson and Henderson (and increasingly Singler) can make you pay with the drive.

On nights when Duke is hot from the 3-point line, the Devils are going to be very, very tough to beat. On nights when the 3's aren't falling, Duke is more vulnerable, but will still be a tough out.

The Pitt game proved that. Duke had its worst night of the season from 3-point line -- 4-of-19. Duke got pounded on the boards by a bigger, stronger team (53-39). Duke missed 12 of 26 free throws. Duke shot 37.7 percent from the floor -- all against the No. 9 team in the nation (I know Pitt has dropped in the rankings, but only after losing two starters -- including their point guard -- to injuries immediately after the Duke game).

All that went wrong and Duke lost by one in overtime on a clutch 3-pointer with four seconds left (by one of the Pitt guys who was lost in the next game).

My point is that the perception that Duke is dependant on the 3-point shot is a bit overblown.

[BigTedder]

i am a Duke fan from way back that lives in maryland. Last night after the game my cousin who attends maryland said, we will be in trouble come march if our outside shot does not fall. I told him we will still be alright even if we arent hitting the three. I know this shot has been huge for us in the past and alot of this year, but i think we do have the guys that can take it to the hole if we choose to.

tru, our big man is/was out...so we have been doing what it takes to win. I dont expect us to shoot more 3's than 2's come tourney time. We do shoot a lot of 3's...but that's because Duke can hit em because they practice it...it's luck for everyone else. Also, 3 or 4 players cant have a bad night shooting all on the same night, even if they do I'm pretty sure that G and Demarc know where the paint is. I love this damn team!!!!!!

[OldPhiKap]

You notice that when we hit a rough patch of quick outside shots, the whole team starts driving and attacking the basket after the next T.O. The spread gives us great scoring opportunities when our outside shot isn't falling, at least against m-2-m. Plus, our offensive rebounding seems to be there when we need it.

[Troublemaker]

Duke ranks high in the country in 2-pt FG percentage (currently 34th out of 341 teams: http://www.kenpom.com/tmleaders.php?c=FG2Pct ), so yes, it's obvious Duke can win on a bad shooting night from long range. Note also that ANY team will struggle when they're not shooting well from outside because the defense can collapse on the inside.

Now, Duke DOES shoot more threes than the average contender, but the team has also done a good job improving in other areas in order to compensate if the 3 doesn't go down. As the season has progressed, Duke has gotten better and better at using the high pick to spring drives to the basket, and it's now become a signature play for us (If you go back to the beginning of the season, Duke did not employ Singler and Thomas on high picks nearly as often as we do now). Also, individually, the players have gotten better at driving to the basket for scores. I think both Scheyer and Singler are clearly better at this now than they were earlier in the season. When Duke was struggling last night and Maryland had shaved the lead to 2 points, the basket that got Duke rolling again was a baseline drive by Singler.

Does this mean Duke is perfect? No, of course not. But Duke is less reliant on the 3 now than we were at the beginning of the season, and the improvement has reached the point where I would say only a handful of teams can survive a bad shooting night from 3 better than us. And if we actually become a consistent free-throw shooting team (where we actually hit our FTs at a good rate throughout the game), and get just a teensy bit better at driving for scores and mid-range shots, then I would say there really is almost no difference between us and any other team.

[Billy Dat]

Nobody is talking about them.

[CMS2478]

To the critics who say this is a) we have only lost 1 game, so apparently we are hitting enough. b) this argument is legit for teams that have 1 or 2 guys that shoot it well, but virtually our whole team shoots the 3-ball well, excpet Thomas and Z. So the odds of 7-8 guys all being off on any given night are slim. Which is why I like our chances.

[dukepsy1963]

We are much more than three's. Forcing turnovers and our defense, as well as our balance, stands us in good stead IMO. And, there is something called "chemistry" and guts that don't translate well into statistics. We've got that as well...not to mention K and the staff.

Isn't it something that we are where we are? I mean, opponents trying to think of ways to beat us and disparaging our success. Who would have thunk it? I certainly didn't before the season. Somehow we win despite all the critics. We may not win every game from here on out; but it won't be from not trying by using all of our tools.

In short, we have many many ways to win. And that's what makes us so successful and envied by so many.

Always Duke!!!!!

[dukelifer]

All of our jealous rival fans and all the negative pundits out there qualify Duke's success with the same talking point: "Duke lives and dies with the three, and they will be exposed when they have the inevtiable poor shooting night."

Frankly, I don't buy this arguement, for two reasons:

1. There's no reason that we can't stay hot for the entire season. Our high 3-point % is not a product of luck; it is a product of an offense that is designed to get the defense to collapse and create open 3-point attempts. As long as those open shots are available, there's no reason we can't continue to hit them.

2. If, for some reason, Duke got out on the wrong side of the bed and simply could not hit the outside shot, we have alternate sources of offense. Henderson and Nelson's ability to get to the basket is a very viable Plan B. Hendo and DMarc have taken a back seat the past couple games because we've been shooting the lights out, but I think that they'll be there if we need them. They provide an element we desperatley needed in 2006 vs. LSU.

That said, we have shot a LOT of threes lately. Please assuage my fears or confirm my doubts. I don't know what to think.

I would be more worried if the threes came from one or two players. But in 2001, Duke also got a lot of threes from the O. That year like this- a number of guys could hit them. Then it was Williams, Duhon, Battier, Dunleavy and James. James like Nelson, needed to be set. Singler like Battier was able to shoot over smaller guys who chased him, Williams was a huge threat to drive but liked to knock them down (no real comparison- but for the sake of argument, Scheyer can do both well), Duhon like Paulus/Smith had the ball in his hands. And of course that team did not have Boozer for the famous stretch run. But the inside play is pretty important as we learned that year.

[Billy Dat]

...so we carry the tagline 'live and die by the 3'
Bottom line, we all know that whether you live and die by the 2, the 3, the offense, the defense, the coach, the fans, Psycho T, the running game, the halfcourt game or the sword, it's all about winning 6 straight games in March/April. To do that, you have to live more then you die and get pretty lucky all the way around. Every team except one dies by something before One Shining Moment is played. If the country thinks we live and die by the 3, I'll take those chances.

[The Gordog]

I mostly disagree with the critics in terms of our dependence on the 3 because, like you said, a lot of our 3 point shots come off of drive-and-kick opportunities; that's just good offense.

But there are times, usually only short stretches in games, where I feel Duke does get a little trigger happy from long range and I've noticed it more lately than earlier in the season. Usually though, Duke is good about breaking out of that spell. They realize when they're shooting too many 3s and get back to the main strength of this team: having multiple players that can dribble penetrate, pass and shoot on the court at all times.

It's also hard to argue with hoisting 'em up when we shot 48% from 3 against UNC, 35% against BC and 48% once again vs. Maryland. That's an average of 44% from 3 over the last few games and I'll take that any day.

I don't think it's any surprise that Duke has to shoot well from the 3 point line to beat most good-to-elite teams. As long as that's the case, we're going to shoot a lot of 3s. That being said, if teams think Duke can only shoot 3s and tries to pressure us on the perimeter, we can and will hurt them with dribble penetration. Our floor spacing combined with our deep ball-handling personnel allow us to attack the rim as well as anyone in America.

Our ability to both dribble penetrate and shoot the 3 is why we're #2 in America right now.

Exactly. Did you see the easy layups the Paulus, Singler and (I think) McClure had vs. MD last night? That's what we'll do ad nauseum if you overplay the 3.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

As I was typing this CMS2478 made a lot of my point, but it bears elaborating on. We don't have 2-3 shooters who can go cold, we have four amazing shooters (Greg, Kyle, Jon, Taylor) and 2-3 more (DeMarcus, Nolan, Hendo) who can hit a lot on a given night. In fact, I'd argue that two of our best shooters are in fact going through a nasty slump right now: Jon and Taylor (maybe throw in Hendo given his wrist). Those guys were expected to be 2 of our best before the season and both are really struggling with their outside shot right now. They're still finding other ways to contribute, and Greg and Kyle are still shooting lights out.

As others have said, given our semi-new offense that creates so many wide open looks, the chances of 5-7 guys all being ice cold for an entire game is pretty slim. Add in our stifling defense that generates a lot of points from TO's, and the ability of Demarcus, Jon, Hendo, Greg, and even Kyle to penetrate, are we're much more versatile than many give us credit for. The NCAA's are always a crapshoot, and a cold night from 2-3 guys would probably doom us in a Great 8 or Final Four game, but the same could be said for most every team.

[gw67]

Olympic - Your points are on the mark! That is what makes the Devils so difficult to defend. They have a half dozen quality perimeter players who can hit the three as well as drive to the basket. Most teams will give up one or the other because they don't have four players who can guard the Duke perimeter players closely. The only team that I can think of that starts four small, quick players is UCLA. Personally, I think you play off Nelson, Henderson and Smith and play tight against the others but even that strategy is difficult to execute because of match up problems with Singler and rubbing defensive players off with screens. IMO, the key player for the Duke offense is Singler because most teams cannot matchup with him. Another strategy is to go at Singler when he is on defense to try and get him in foul trouble. This is easier said than done because the Duke defense makes it difficult to get the ball inside.

IMO, the Duke offense will take what the defense gives it. The Devils are nearly unbeatable in the cozy confines of CIS. On the road, they may be vulnerable to either a strong defensive team or one that simply decides to try and outscore them.

gw67

[Troublemaker]

I think what they don't emphasize enough is that Duke has two other ways to beat you -- points off turnovers and penetration.

Go back and look at the first Duke-Maryland box. Duke wasn't making the 3s, but DeMarcus had 27 points and Henderson added 23. Smith came off the bench and sliced the Terps up for 14 -- almost all of that coming on drives to the basket.

Exactly. Duke "goes inside" about as much as any other team, in most cases more often. We just go inside via the dribble instead of the entry pass.

When Duke kicks out for threes, it's no different (practically speaking) than when Horford and Noah kicked out to Humphrey and Green for Florida the past two seasons. Florida passed the ball into the paint, drew defenders, and kicked out, and Duke drives the ball into the paint, draws defenders, and kicks out. The real difference is that when there is no kickout, we don't score the ball on drives as efficiently as Horford scored it in the paint.

But you don't go from being a bad offensive team like Duke was last season to being a dominant offensive team like Florida's championship team in just one year. Our improvement from last year to this year has already been remarkable. And we're getting better and better at driving for scores, which adds consistency to the offense. Next season, I expect Duke to be a dominant team after another offseason of skillwork. Next season, Duke should be able to drive for scores and hit mid range shots very efficiently, and our FT shooting will get better, and then there will be ZERO difference between a dominant inside-outside team built around post players and Duke's brand of inside-outside built around drives.

[VaDukie]

The talking heads were so wrong in predicting our team this year that I think they're all in damage control mode and trying to spin away our success.

[Spret42]

Three ways you can score; shoot from the outside, drive the ball to the rim and dump it inside to big people who can score it. Duke can do two of three very well and do it consistently.

I hate the shortness of the college three (it is actually an embarrasment for the game that the high school and major college three point line is the same distance) , but it is the same for every team and Duke reallydoesn't shoot that many more than other teams. The shots are quality and they come from an understanding of the offensive philosophy.

Duke will be beat in March not due to a "cold" night and fans of other teams shouldn't view it that way, it is a weak minded way to see it. It means you can't win by your effort, only the other guys failure. Loser mentality. Duke will be beat when another team defends with discipline, contests shots, rebounds, learns to take what Duke's defensive strategies give up (no defense is perfect, even Duke's, the openings are there but most teams aren't skilled enough to do what Duke gives, primarily pull up baby jumpers off glass.) The smartest thing Krzyzewski has always done is teach his players to force the opposition into the kinds of shots the modern baskeball player is uncomfortable taking. Duke is completely vulnerable defensively from the 8-18 foot range. They defend the three pointers and look to take charges (lets not have the flop argument again) against driving players. The player who can beat the perimeter over play, drive to 8 feet, stop and drop in the tear drop jumper scores at will and forces Dukes defenders to do more than work to a spot and wait for contact.

I may be wrong, but that is what I see when I watch.

[SMO]

Saying Duke is too dependant on the 3 is like saying Carolina is too dependant on its inside game. Has team ever been criticized for being dependant on playing inside?

[OldPhiKap]

I think we are too dependent on scoring more than our opponents. Clearly there has to be a better strategy.