Are we too dependent on the three?

[tux]

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.

I agree with OF as well --- penetration and pts off turnovers are the key. Teams with an experienced backcourt and a good big man/men could give us trouble. (UCLA, or UNC w/ Lawson) I.e., keep turnovers low and out-rebound us. Speaking of, I think one of the big stories of this season is how Duke has managed to hold its own on the boards despite being undersized. Duke's approach has consistently forced other teams out of their comfort zones on both ends of the court. Respectable rebounding has kept the mismatches to our advantage...

[watzone]

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?

uh, yeah and we are just 22-1. where do these threads come from?

[UrinalCake]

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?

I agree completely. After the Carolina game everyone said that if Duke hadn't shot the three so well, while Carolina did not, then Duke would have lost. My response was that if Hansbrough hadn't scored 28 points, Carolina would have gotten blown out of the gym. So obviously they're too dependent on him.

Of course, this is a stupid argument. Hansbrough is their strength, so they will exploit it to the greatest extent possible. Same with us; creating and hitting wide open threes is our strength, so we'll keep doing it as long as it's working.

Also, it's entirely possible for an inside player to have an "off night" too. Maybe he blows a couple layups early and loses confidence. Maybe he gets into foul trouble. Maybe the guards can't get him the ball. Whatever. I just don't get the argument that depending on an inside guy is "reliable," while depending on three-point shooters is "risky" and makes you prone to an upset.

[UrinalCake]

I think one of the big stories of this season is how Duke has managed to hold its own on the boards despite being undersized...

True, though in fairness a lot of that has to do with the fact that we do shoot a lot of threes and therefore get a lot of long rebounds. Rebounding off a missed three is more of a 50/50 tossup, while rebounding a two requires more positioning and strength (IMO).

[Troublemaker]

I just don't get the argument that depending on an inside guy is "reliable," while depending on three-point shooters is "risky" and makes you prone to an upset.

It's because a great inside player will shoot around 60% or so and a great 3-pt shooter will shoot around 40% or so. Now, over the course of an entire season, 40% from 3 is equivalent to 60% from 2 because the 3 is worth 50% more in point value than the 2 (obviously), and your good shooting nights even out your bad shooting nights. BUT, if you choose a much shorter timeframe like, say, the last 5 minutes of a regional final in a tie game, you would prefer the security blanket of the 60% shooter from 2. That's why it's important for Duke to be able to drive for scores, hit midrange shots, and hit their FTs. Those things add consistency to the higher-risk (and granted, higher-reward) 3-pt shot. Over a long timeframe, the fact that the 3 is worth 50% more than the 2 carries the day. Over a short timeframe, the fact that a 3-pter is a riskier shot than a 2-pter carries the day.

[dukestheheat]

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.

When I think of that statement 'live by the three, die by the three', I think of a team that has ONE shooter that keeps a team winning by hitting those gasping, off balance 3 ball shots (ie, JJ Redick).

I do not think that this statement applies to Duke, at all, this year, for the simple reason that our offense is designed to open up many chances for open shots, from 3 ball or 2 ball range, this year (drive, kick, shoot, high/low screen, drive, shoot, you know the deal we've been discussing all year).

Many people out there are hilariously, terrifically and totally JEALOUS of Duke and they have been for the last 15 years, and they have resorted to making histrionic statements and painting with the proverbial wide paint brush when it comes to describing stuff: 'Duke flops more than any team, ever', 'live by the three, die by the three', 'Duke gets all of the calls and can't win games without the referees giving them games'.

Anyway, our offense is very high-powered and we are playing well within it, as I see it.

dth.

[ice-9]

I agree that the sentiment we live and die by the 3 is WAY over blown, but there is some merit to it too.

Take the second Maryland game where the Twerps tried to cut off the drive to the basket, rendering Nelson and a wrist-injured Henderson ineffective. (Henderson would actually be fine if he could shoot the mid-range jumper off a drive.) If Paulus and Singler had both been cold that night, we would have been in trouble! Taylor might be able to pick-up the slack, but with Taylor the defense isn't as good. Scheyer might be able to pick-up the slack, but he's not usually a volume 3-point shooter.

As has been pointed out many times, we have a lot of good shooters so the chance that everyone turns cold is slim, however, it IS possible. The Pitt game is one example where everyone shot poorly. Thankfully in that game our defense was able to kept things close, but what if Pitt had turned hot while we remained cold?

[Classof06]

If teams want to take way the drive, Duke can shoot from the outside as well as anyone; over play like 3-point line and we'll make you pay off the dribble.

Like Demarcus said after the Maryland game: "Pick your poison."

[jzp5079]

teams that are too dependent on the 3 tend to be more likely to get knocked out of the NCAA tourney unexpectedly in my observations.

[ice-9]

If teams want to take way the drive, Duke can shoot from the outside as well as anyone; over play like 3-point line and we'll make you pay off the dribble.

Like Demarcus said after the Maryland game: "Pick your poison."

Very true, but when I think of "cold shooting" I think of players missing open 3-point shots, e.g. the kind created from drive-and-kicks.

[UrinalCake]

It's because a great inside player will shoot around 60% or so and a great 3-pt shooter will shoot around 40% or so...

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I don't disagree. Perhaps I'm just being argumentative, or perhaps I just want to justify they way Duke's current team is set up... but I still think that there are just as many ways to defend against a great inside player as there are ways to defend a great 3-point shooter. Ideally you'd have both, of course, but not many teams do.

Tim Duncan never got past the sweet 16... but then again JJ Redick never won a championship either.

[Heelkiller1]

If only one or two players were the only ones draining threes I would be worried,but it can be just about anyone on any given night that can light it up .

[greybeard]

Three primary elements of Duke's offense begin with the penetration of the defense by one of the potential finishers who, when they reach the paint, either look to create inside-out play (3 ball opportunities for others), pull up jump shots, or, and this is key, attacks to the rim if they see the lanes.

This is in lieu of penetrating the defense with the pass to a pivot player who creates inside-out play and threatens to take it to the rim, starting of course from in close.

What seemed exposed in the Maryland game was Maryland's ability in the second half to close on the attacks to the rim using both its bigs, while staying home for the most part on the three shooters. They stopped for a long period the high-percentage finishes, and 3s were challenged.

Maryland fell down, in Gary's view, on Osby's failure to transition out to Singler on a number of shots. When Osby was able to react early once the penetrator was stymied, Singler's looks had far less time.

It seemed during this stretch that a blueprint for defending Duke might have been revealed.

It seemed to me that that was a time to use whatever was being used in the Carolina game to get Lance some touches on the move, which in the Carolina game seemed to involve two-man interior play between Singler and Lance.

The key in my opinion to the effectiveness of Duke's offense is not the 3; it is the inside-out play, attacking-the-rim substitute to pivot play that is created by Demarcus, Henderson, Scheyer and more and more Singler, with Smith thrown in. With all the 3 shooters K has to choose from, the chances that the 3-ball will be off is remote if it is available the way K would like.

In the Maryland game, it wasn't for a lengthy period in the second half and 3s came in tighter circumstances because the ability to threaten the rim had been closed off without help from the perimeter defenders.

[YmoBeThere]

In a word, yes.

[greybeard]

In a word, yes.

How can that possibly be? Look at Duke's record. The answer to the question taken in its simplest terms has to be "no."

Put otherwise, how many games do you think they would have won had they employed a different style that resulted in less 3s?

[YmoBeThere]

Put otherwise, how many games do you think they would have won had they employed a different style that resulted in less 3s?

Not very many, which is why we are too dependent on it. If your point is that this is the style of play that suits this team...I am 100% in agreement.

[Summie444]

Assuming the three point line is moved back next year to the international distance, is it reasonable to expect that Duke will be less successful?

[greybeard]

Not very many, which is why we are too dependent on it. If your point is that this is the style of play that suits this team...I am 100% in agreement.

My point is that the style of play puts tremendous pressure on teams to defend the rim even though Duke lacks a "big" inside game. That opens up shooters. If you have guys who can hit 3s, they count more than 2s.

[MChambers]

Assuming the three point line is moved back next year to the international distance, is it reasonable to expect that Duke will be less successful?

On offense, it wouldn't seem to hurt Duke, because of the wealth of shooters with good range. It may change K's defensive approach, and allow Duke to double down on post players more.

[pamtar]

Yes.