MBB: Duke 70, Wake Forest 81 Post-Game Thread

[flyingdutchdevil]

The numbers you posted are pretty alarming. I don't believe Mitchell and Blakes can sustain their level of shooting. I have no particular reason to say this, other than it just doesn't seem like it to me. Of the remaining freshmen I have reason to hope that their numbers will improve as they get more adjusted, especially Proctor and Whitehead. With Flip I think it's a matter of him being more selective in choosing to only take good shots. I don't see him ever being a guy who should shoot contested shots off the dribble or off stepback moves like he sometimes does. Roach and Grandison I think we have what we're going to get. Roach has never shot a high percentage so I guess we should be happy that he's improved (even though he's still bad). The chances that he's going to magically become a guy who shoots 40% is pretty low. Grandison doesn't play enough minutes that it makes that much of a difference whether he shoots 38% or 43%.

I too don't think Mitchell and Blakes shooting is sustainable.

Like you mention, Roach has never shown the ability to be a consistent, knock-down shooter. 33% is an improvement from last year, but not by much.

I think the optimism needs to come from Grandison (a true proven shooter who should be closer to 40% than 35%) and Flip (29% is way too poor for a college 4 with an HS reputation for shooting).

Proctor needs to shoot less. And if we want shooting, I'm not against Grandison taking Proctor's starting position and more minutes. Whiteside strikes me as more of a RJ Barrett-type shooter (high volume, low efficiency).

[kAzE]

I too don't think Mitchell and Blakes shooting is sustainable.

Like you mention, Roach has never shown the ability to be a consistent, knock-down shooter. 33% is an improvement from last year, but not by much.

I think the optimism needs to come from Grandison (a true proven shooter who should be closer to 40% than 35%) and Flip (29% is way too poor for a college 4 with an HS reputation for shooting).

Proctor needs to shoot less. And if we want shooting, I'm not against Grandison taking Proctor's starting position and more minutes. Whiteside strikes me as more of a RJ Barrett-type shooter (high volume, low efficiency).

I do think Mark Mitchell 's shooting is sustainable, in a Justise Winslow type of way. Low volume, but decent efficiency. He's shooting almost 80% from the foul line, so while it looks flat as hell, it goes in, and if they're going to leave him wide open, he should take those. If defenders are closing out on him at all, it's a boost to his best strength, which is attacking the paint and getting to the foul line.

I've not been a huge fan of what I've seen from Grandison apart from his ability to knock down open corner 3s and some mid range looks. Some of his shot selection otherwise has been a bit questionable. He hasn't been very efficient shooting above the break 3s, and he's not a great ball handler or passer, so replacing Proctor as a starter would be a downgrade offensively IMO. As poor as Proctor played last night, he only turned it over once, compared to 5 times for Roach, who I thought was playing out of control for much of the game. Proctor is probably about a 35-37% shooter from 3 (which is where he's been for the past 5 games), and that's good enough. But this was undoubtedly a bad game for him, and he needs to be better.

I'm not sure what the deal is with Flip, he was either settling for a jump shot or turning it over trying to take it inside. Very sloppy effort offensively. I don't know if he is a 35% 3 point shooter, he's probably more like 30%, which is fine if he's only taking 2-3 a game, not 5-6.

Whitehead's real strength, which we've only seen glimpses of, is his incredible athleticism and slashing game. This is absolutely due to the injury and lingering mental effects of the injury. One can hope with 20 days off that he has regained some of his confidence in taking it to the rim. He has been far too reliant on his jumper, which is more of a complimentary part of his game rather than the meat. Once he is levitating over defenders and getting dunks and free throw attempts, he will be back to playing like the real Dariq Whitehead. If he's getting to the rim consistently, he doesn't need to be a super efficient 3 point shooter. I will point out though, once of the major positives that scouts took from his game in high school was his ability to hit shots off the dribble. He hasn't shown that much yet either. Hoping the new year will bring a new Whitehead.

[PackMan97]

Saying that should be grounds for a permanent vacation.

Then sweep Carolina and prove they aren't. Is it too much to ask for?

[UrinalCake]

Argument I'm making is you can't cherry pick a set of games and use a small sample size... I think Proctor is nowhere near a good shooter. 30% for the year is pretty bad, but that assumes he shoots 33% for the remainder of the season. That's meh at best and still makes for a really, really poor shooting starting backcourt.

Proctor began the season shooting 5 for 32 (15.7%) through the Purdue game. Since then, as has been mentioned he is 7 for 19 (36.8%). So the question is whether the earlier struggles were a matter of him adjusting to the game, or whether the combined 23.5% is a more accurate representation of his shooting ability. Given that his overall play has been on an upward trajectory (last night's game notwithstanding), and that he appears to be getting more comfortable through my highly subjective lens, I'm hopeful that he can at a minimum maintain the 36.8% for the remainder of the season.

[dukelifer]

We are shooting 31.5% for the season. We are collectively terrible at shooting 3s.

Our best shooter who is in the rotation - by far - is Mark Mitchell. He's shooting 45.8% despite one unorthodox-looking shot. And he's doing this while averaging 1.8 3pt shots per game. Really good and very, very surprising!

Our next two best shooters are Jaylen Blakes at 37.0% and Grandison at 36.1%. Grandison has been a 40%+ shooter during his Illinois days, so he's under. Blakes? Definitely not known as a shooter. And yet he's #2 on this team.

Roach is shooting 32.7%, which is higher than his previous two years but still pretty poor.

Filipowski, Whitehead, and Proctor are all shooting between 23.5-29.2%. Not good at all.

I don't know what the issue is with this team. Grandison was a known commodity and Flip/Proctor had at least decent reputations. As did Lively, to a lesser extent, for a college 5.

Safe to say that everyone - sans Blakes and Mitchell - are underperforming at 3pt shooting.

If you look at the three games prior- two against Ohio
State and Iowa- Duke shot over 35% as a team. So they are improving but I agree that there is no knock down shooter. Schutt may get there one day but for this year- it will have to be Grandison and Roach. I am still more concerned about what happened on D yesterday. Without more examples- we will have to link it to the absence of Lively. If Duke can defend and get to the line- they should have enough O without a great shooter from deep.

[NYBri]

I know we were down a couple of players, road game and all that, but this team just looked poorly coached. No changes, no adjustments, no spark. To look that bad against that team and have no life, Coach J, this one is on you to a great extent.

Hope to see some fire next time out, or at least a plan.

[Skydog]

Scheyer should be fired! I mean if he can’t come out with guns blazing in his first season like Coach K did why should we give him a couple of years to figure it out?

[flyingdutchdevil]

If you look at the three games prior- two against Ohio
State and Iowa- Duke shot over 35% as a team. So they are improving but I agree that there is no knock down shooter. Schutt may get there one day but for this year- it will have to be Grandison and Roach. I am still more concerned about what happened on D yesterday. Without more examples- we will have to link it to the absence of Lively. If Duke can defend and get to the line- they should have enough O without a great shooter from deep.

I'm pretty confident it's not going to Roach. He shot 31% as a frosh, 32% as a soph, and now 33% as a junior. During the tournaments run last year (8 games) where Roach played arguably the best basketball of his career, he shot 28%.

I hope Roach can get to 34-35%, but I think he's going to be an okay shooter this year.

I have high hopes for Grandison.

[camion]

Scheyer should be fired! I mean if he can’t come out with guns blazing in his first season like Coach K did why should we give him a couple of years to figure it out?

"Fire Scheyer." It's a catchy phrase. I hope it doesn't catch on.

Maybe one reason the Fire Krzyzewski movement didn't succeed was that it didn't make for a catchy slogan.

[Southgate0809]

Not sure I'm fully there. Most of the threes were very good shots that didn't go down. Trying to force up contested two's vs a packed-in paint may not have been great either (Flip got stuffed a few times inside), and it's not like our driving or PNR game was working either (too many turnovers on drives). We just missed shots. And as others have noted, D was more of the problem last night, and I think that was more effort/illness than coaching.

All that said, I do think the team could use Flip differently. It seems like they are using him a lot like Paolo, letting him face up from the perimeter and drive. While he can hit the three and has made spectacular drives at times, too often it results in a turnover - getting stripped on the drive or called for travelling when making his first move. Conversely, when he gets the ball in the blocks he tends to shoot fade-away jumpers that aren't effective either. I guess I'd rather see the team use him like Jabari Parker (once the step back three was outlawed mid-season) and get him the ball in the mid post to work. This is harder to do with Young taking up space, but with Lively hanging out on the opposite side dunkers spot I think it might be interesting. But my 6th graders are 0-2 under my coaching so what do I know.

I don't know if I agree that they were good shots. They were all open, but a lot of them weren't the best shot for us to take. Especially in the first half, I noticed a lot of 3's early in the shot clock off 1 pass without the ball going inside. They were open looks, but I don't see that as a good shot unless we've got some stone cold shooters on the team, which we don't have. Our 3-point success seemed to improve when we drove successfully and passed it out, and we even missed plenty of those. Unfortunately, our successful drives were rare. Roach's spree of out-of-control drives that led to hard falls on the floor were hard to watch.

[Skydog]

"Fire Scheyer." It's a catchy phrase. I hope it doesn't catch on.

Maybe one reason the Fire Krzyzewski movement didn't succeed was that it didn't make for a catchy slogan.

I entered Duke grad school in 1982. I didn’t hear that catch phrase but I certainly heard the sentiment!

[Kedsy]

It seems like they are using him a lot like Paolo, letting him face up from the perimeter and drive. While he can hit the three and has made spectacular drives at times, too often it results in a turnover - getting stripped on the drive or called for travelling when making his first move.

Filipowski's turnover pct for the season is 14.7% (including his poor performance last night). Banchero's TO% last season was 13.3%. That's a little better, but not so much better to justify thinking it was a good idea for Paolo but not a good idea for Flip. Especially since Flip's numbers are skewed a bit by last night's underwhelming performance.

Argument I'm making is you can't cherry pick a set of games and use a small sample size.

Except you're already using a small sample size. That's all we have, 13 games into a season.

For example, you've said Jaylen Blakes is performing well from three. You've also said 30% is "pretty bad" from three. But prior to last night's game, Blakes was shooting 30.4% from three for the season. He had a great game, so his percentage is now 37.0%. But I would argue that if one game (and only four three-point attempts) can convert someone's season from "pretty bad" to "pretty good" then the sample is too low to make judgments.

Also before last night's game, Grandison was shooting 38.7% for the season and Filipowski was shooting 33.3% for the season. Again, one game shouldn't be able to covert them from good (Grandison) and adequate (Filipowski) to bad. As UC noted (while I was composing this), Tyrese Proctor (who missed most of the summer) started out the season 5 for 32 from three (15.6%) and has shot 36.8% since (including last night's 1 for 5). So maybe he's a 23% shooter, or maybe he got his slump out of the way early and he's more like a 37% shooter moving forward. Or maybe the last few games are the fluke and he's really a 16% shooter (though obviously I don't think so; his form looks good and he takes mostly good shots). Really, no way for us to tell.

As a team, over our last six games, we've collectively shot 36.0% from three (including last night; in the five games before last night, we collectively shot 38.3% from three). For the full season, as a team, yes we're shooting 31.5%. But of our 13 games, we've had six games over 38%, and four more games between 29% and 35%. The reason our season percentage is so low is our remaining three games were 10.5%, 14.3%, and 17.2%.

Clearly, we're a streaky shooting team. Doesn't necessarily mean we're bad. Again, when three lousy games can sink you from 37.1% (our aggregate percentage in the ten games other than the three clunkers) to 31.5%, it's just as likely the problem is low sample size than it is we can't shoot.

[Southgate0809]

Filipowski's turnover pct for the season is 14.7% (including his poor performance last night). Banchero's TO% last season was 13.3%. That's a little better, but not so much better to justify thinking it was a good idea for Paolo but not a good idea for Flip. Especially since Flip's numbers are skewed a bit by last night's underwhelming performance.



Except you're already using a small sample size. That's all we have, 13 games into a season.

For example, you've said Jaylen Blakes is performing well from three. You've also said 30% is "pretty bad" from three. But prior to last night's game, Blakes was shooting 30.4% from three for the season. He had a great game, so his percentage is now 37.0%. But I would argue that if one game (and only four three-point attempts) can convert someone's season from "pretty bad" to "pretty good" then the sample is too low to make judgments.

Also before last night's game, Grandison was shooting 38.7% for the season and Filipowski was shooting 33.3% for the season. Again, one game shouldn't be able to covert them from good (Grandison) and adequate (Filipowski) to bad. As UC noted (while I was composing this), Tyrese Proctor (who missed most of the summer) started out the season 5 for 32 from three (15.6%) and has shot 36.8% since (including last night's 1 for 5). So maybe he's a 23% shooter, or maybe he got his slump out of the way early and he's more like a 37% shooter moving forward. Or maybe the last few games are the fluke and he's really a 16% shooter (though obviously I don't think so; his form looks good and he takes mostly good shots).

As a team, over our last six games, we've collectively shot 36.0% from three (including last night; in the five games before last night, we collectively shot 38.3% from three). For the full season, as a team, yes we're shooting 31.5%. But of our 13 games, we've had six games over 38%, and four more games between 29% and 35%. The reason our season percentage is so low is our remaining three games were 10.5%, 14.3%, and 17.2%.

Clearly, we're a streaky shooting team. Doesn't necessarily mean we're bad. Again, when three lousy games can sink you from 37.1% (our aggregate percentage in the ten games other than the three clunkers) to 31.5%, it's just as likely the problem is low sample size than it is we can't shoot.

Any significant difference in 3P% for home games vs. neutral/away games? I would guess it's staggering.

[Kedsy]

Any significant difference in 3P% for home games vs. neutral/away games? I would guess it's staggering.

The three awful distance performances were all at neutral sites. Once again, low sample sizes probably precludes any reliable conclusions.

[AllenBuilding]

"Fire Scheyer." It's a catchy phrase. I hope it doesn't catch on.

LOL

I'm uncertain if it's a parody account or something more substantive, but this sentiment already appears to be a thing: https://firejonscheyer.com/

[UrinalCake]

They were open looks, but I don't see that as a good shot unless we've got some stone cold shooters on the team, which we don't have.

Nope, we have ice cold shooters instead LOL.

[weezie]

Nope, we have ice cold shooters instead LOL.

Yikes. I'm going to need a tad more bourbon in the eggnog.

[mkirsh]

Filipowski's turnover pct for the season is 14.7% (including his poor performance last night). Banchero's TO% last season was 13.3%. That's a little better, but not so much better to justify thinking it was a good idea for Paolo but not a good idea for Flip. Especially since Flip's numbers are skewed a bit by last night's underwhelming performance.

Aren't the numbers also skewed by competition - ie Flip is earlier in the year and a higher % of games have been against lower competition vs Banchero's full year stats which has conference and tournament play which should theoretically be harder average competition?

[CDu]

Filipowski's turnover pct for the season is 14.7% (including his poor performance last night). Banchero's TO% last season was 13.3%. That's a little better, but not so much better to justify thinking it was a good idea for Paolo but not a good idea for Flip. Especially since Flip's numbers are skewed a bit by last night's underwhelming performance.

It's a bit wider gap than this, I think. We have just hit the ACC schedule. Through 13 games last year, Banchero's turnover rate was a bit lower than his final turnover rate. Still reasonably close, but probably more like a 20% difference than a 10% difference.

That said, I think the bigger argument against Filipowski being used the way he is currently being used is because he's averaging a ~0.5 assist/turnover ratio, a 51.9 TS%, and a 46.4 eFG%. Banchero averaged a 1.3 assist/turnover ratio, a .557 TS%, and a .520 eFG%. It doesn't seem to be an efficient approach to creating offense for Filipowski to be isolating on the perimeter. Definitely not as efficient as Banchero was at it. Especially if his ability to draw FTA (which is the best feature of his offensive game to this point) stays down as it has against better comp (9.0 FTA/40 against teams outside the top 150 vs 4.5 FTA/40 against teams inside the top 150; or 7.8 FTA/40 against teams outside the top 100 vs 5.1 FTA/40 against teams inside the top 100).

Except you're already using a small sample size. That's all we have, 13 games into a season.

For example, you've said Jaylen Blakes is performing well from three. You've also said 30% is "pretty bad" from three. But prior to last night's game, Blakes was shooting 30.4% from three for the season. He had a great game, so his percentage is now 37.0%. But I would argue that if one game (and only four three-point attempts) can convert someone's season from "pretty bad" to "pretty good" then the sample is too low to make judgments.

Also before last night's game, Grandison was shooting 38.7% for the season and Filipowski was shooting 33.3% for the season. Again, one game shouldn't be able to covert them from good (Grandison) and adequate (Filipowski) to bad. As UC noted (while I was composing this), Tyrese Proctor (who missed most of the summer) started out the season 5 for 32 from three (15.6%) and has shot 36.8% since (including last night's 1 for 5). So maybe he's a 23% shooter, or maybe he got his slump out of the way early and he's more like a 37% shooter moving forward. Or maybe the last few games are the fluke and he's really a 16% shooter (though obviously I don't think so; his form looks good and he takes mostly good shots). Really, no way for us to tell.

I don't quite agree here. While I definitely agree that the same size is way to small for assessing individual 3pt%, I think we're getting really close to having a sample size sufficient to feel confident in the team 3pt%. Team shooting percentage converges much faster than individual shooting percentage. This is simple logic: there are a LOT more team attempts than individual attempts. The sample size issue is not a game-level issue, it's a shot-level issue. The team has taken 279 3s this season. That's a pretty decent sample. That is a factor of 5-10x the individual player rate. So it takes much less time for a team's 3pt% to stabilize than it does for an individual's %. Yes, there is an added variable of who is shooting the shots at the team level, but that is generally not noisy enough to dramatically affect the time to stabilization.

As a team, over our last six games, we've collectively shot 36.0% from three (including last night; in the five games before last night, we collectively shot 38.3% from three). For the full season, as a team, yes we're shooting 31.5%. But of our 13 games, we've had six games over 38%, and four more games between 29% and 35%. The reason our season percentage is so low is our remaining three games were 10.5%, 14.3%, and 17.2%.

Clearly, we're a streaky shooting team. Doesn't necessarily mean we're bad. Again, when three lousy games can sink you from 37.1% (our aggregate percentage in the ten games other than the three clunkers) to 31.5%, it's just as likely the problem is low sample size than it is we can't shoot.

I don't think "just as likely" is correct. We're at 279 attempts as a team. Assuming a beta distribution (the norm for binary outcomes), we can estimate that based on 279 attempts, there is about an 11% chance that the team's true ability is 35% or better. And only about a 25% chance that the team is an average or better (33.4%) 3pt shooting team.

For an individual player the story is different. Let's take Dariq Whitehead, who has shot just 26% on 23 attempts, there is still a 20% chance he's an average 3pt shooter and a 16% chance that he is a 35% or better shooter. Despite being well below the team's average, it's more likely that he's a good 3pt shooter than it is that the team is a good 3pt shooting team, simply by virtue of him having such a low volume of attempts compared with the team as a whole.

There is of course still a chance that the team is decent at 3s. But I think it's much more likely that the team just isn't good at shooting 3s than it is that we're suffering from a small sample size problem.

[Skydog]

I propose we wait a few more games before we make sweeping generalizations about the team.

Wait, what am I thinking? There’s no fun in that.