MBB: Duke 71, Clemson 77: Post-game thread

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 said:
No offense, but I don't care at all what the narrative is. Duke is still very much in position for a one seed. Let the narrative be whatever it is, we still have to win the games in front of us.

I don't have the bandwidth to root for teams on Duke's schedule to win their games to raise the profile of our potential win against them in a few weeks.
Click to expand...

I agree with not spending time (and the remaining brain cells I have) trying to follow other teams on Duke's schedule.

Having said that, I think we probably need to win out to be 100% assured of a 1 Seed. Guess a loss in the ACC Tournament Final might not count against us. Sometimes it seems the Committee has already done the legwork by the time the final conference tournaments finish and they can't be bothered to penalize a 1 seed at the last second. But other than that one exception, I do think last night's loss takes away any wiggle room for error that we might have had.
 
SouthernDukie said:
I agree with not spending time (and the remaining brain cells I have) trying to follow other teams on Duke's schedule.

Having said that, I think we probably need to win out to be 100% assured of a 1 Seed. Guess a loss in the ACC Tournament Final might not count against us. Sometimes it seems the Committee has already done the legwork by the time the final conference tournaments finish and they can't be bothered to penalize a 1 seed at the last second. But other than that one exception, I do think last night's loss takes away any wiggle room for error that we might have had.
Click to expand...
I would be stunned if we don't end up a 1 seed. We might lose 1 more time. The other teams we are competing against with lose 2-3 more times.
 
Why does Cooper slide ? It seems every game he slides. Is it the shoes ? Was it the Kentucky game that he also fell ?
Just asking for a friend !!
 
Does Duke need to learn how to play defense physically and while hand checking without getting called for fouls? Somehow some opponents have figured that out. I believe the Duke players still try to use their bodies more and when they use their hands, someone has gotten by them and it is more clearly a foul. If we used our hands better before that, they wouldn't have gotten by. Maybe a double hand check would still be a foul if a Duke player did it.

I'd hate it, but I don't understand why some teams are rewarded for playing physical defense and it is apparently something that we struggle with at times.
 
Watched the game this morning (rare I miss a game live but I bought a ticket to see Dream Theater in Raleigh months ago). So.... ultimately the boys missed far too many makeable shots and could not rebound well at all. Man needs to quit tipping the ball as often and go up with two hands for boards. The intentional foul on Kon was a joke, especially with the fouls not being called on Clemson (the Jushin Liger facepalm Flagg took in the game with no call was awful). Those of you saying not to complain on officiating--it's been stated by others but should be said again: you have to call it the same for both teams. That didn't happen. The court stuff was odd between not being able to wipe it well to the issue with the lights. There's no harm to question either of these. Clemson did what I complain we and other teams should work to do more often--hit your 2's. If you hit those shots consistently it's better than no points on missed 3's. Clemson earned it but Duke definitely did not bring their A game at all. Next!!
 
TywinBlue said:
Next Play...
Click to expand...
but just one question....do the refs ever call 3 seconds again. I swear on Chase hunter's last drive or two ...the center was clearing out our guys but was in there a long time...think we should have been in zone there

may have been asked already...but am just on page 3...got a late start
 
UrinalCake said:
I'm not sure how you define inefficient, possibly looking at points per shot taken, but those look like really excellent performances to me. We're talking about opponents who were completely overmatched in games that were well out of reach, yet they could toss the ball into their bigs and score on KM one on one. Haynes averages 12.6ppg in the Patriot league and Kidd averages 11. Maybe it's too broad an overreaction to say I'm "concerned" about our ability to defend bruisers in the post, but I'll be paying attention to it moving forward.

Maluach rebounds well when he can use his size to reach over defenders, but he doesn't box out well and he goes stretches or sometimes entire games where he disappears on the boards. When he's engaged he can pull in balls out of his area, but he's inconsistent. I guess that shouldn't be surprising given how raw he is as a player, but we'll need him to make another jump as we hit the closing stretch of the regular season.
Click to expand...

18 points on 18 shots is inefficient. 20 points on 17 shots is not very efficient either. It was also on an unusually high success rate on 15-18 jump shots rather than posting up and scoring in the post. Kidd absolutely did not bruise his way to a good game against us, nor is he a bruiser. Haynes IS a bruiser, but he was inefficient (as noted above).

There is no common link between the games by Kidd, Haynes, and Lakhin. There IS commonality between the games by Vennings and Lakhin. And that's worth keeping an eye on. But the game by Haynes was not a good game (a team that scores 18 points on 18 shots is going to lose over the course of a game; that's a brutal efficiency rate), and the game by Kidd was more akin to a "stretch 4" game with hot shooting. It's apples and oranges.
 
FastBreak said:
Agree with this. But then again Clemson is an unranked team. Do they simply play to their level of competition?
Click to expand...
Clemson is unranked, but they are a top-30ish team. It's a good team. They are indeed inconsistent, but they are capable; they did beat Kentucky after all, so it is not that shocking that they won.

They certainly have also laid some eggs along the way, including losing to Tech at home. It appears that they didn't play with discipline: they took 37 3pt attempts in that game, making just 12. Nearly 50% of their shots in that game were 3s, vs under 20% of their shots in the game against us. It appears that they showed better discipline and focus against us than they did against Tech. So it may very well be that it's a team that plays up/down to their competition. Especially at home.
 
Duke76 said:
but just one question....do the refs ever call 3 seconds again. I swear on Chase hunter's last drive or two ...the center was clearing out our guys but was in there a long time...think we should have been in zone there

may have been asked already...but am just on page 3...got a late start
Click to expand...
Never and is one of my pet peeves.
 
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 said:
ke sense? Or defense is more impressive against poorer teams?
Click to expand...

No. These numbers are already adjusted for the difficulty of the other team.

You can take it as equivalent to the "slope" rating of a golf course. A course rating is a constant adjustment for a course (add/subtract X from your score). A slope rating is a linear adjustment (for every 1 over adjusted par you might be normally, on this course maybe you'd expect to be 2 over par AFTER the rating adjustment)

The fact that duke performs worse here is an additional adjustment which must be made after we've already considered the fact that those opponents score more in general. If this were an expected outcome, you wouldn't see teams like Tennessee who have much more consistent adjusted ratings, regardless of quality of opponent.

Put another way, the expected output of duke's opponent should be opp_OE+duke_DE-average (adjusted for tempo) regardless of opponent quality, on average. When duke plays quality opponents, this value is higher than it should be on average, and when duke plays mediocre opponents, this number is lower than it should be on average.
 
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 said:
But...

Doesn't that completely make sense? Or defense is more impressive against poorer teams?
Click to expand...
It's scaled for the quality of the opponent. Think of it as how well we do holding an opponent below their "average offensive performance". We do that well against weaker opponents but not as well against strong opponents.

Here's a look at how Torvik expects us to perform the rest of the season.

IMG_4338.jpeg
 
uh_no said:
No. These numbers are already adjusted for the difficulty of the other team.

You can take it as equivalent to the "slope" rating of a golf course. A course rating is a constant adjustment for a course (add/subtract X from your score). A slope rating is a linear adjustment (for every 1 over adjusted par you might be normally, on this course maybe you'd expect to be 2 over par AFTER the rating adjustment)

The fact that duke performs worse here is an additional adjustment which must be made after we've already considered the fact that those opponents score more in general. If this were an expected outcome, you wouldn't see teams like Tennessee who have much more consistent adjusted ratings, regardless of quality of opponent.

Put another way, the expected output of duke's opponent should be opp_OE+duke_DE-average (adjusted for tempo) regardless of opponent quality, on average. When duke plays quality opponents, this value is higher than it should be on average, and when duke plays mediocre opponents, this number is lower than it should be on average.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification! Legit appreciated.
 
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 said:
You don't have a 16 game winning streak by playing down to competition.
Click to expand...
I think the "they" was referring to Clemson, as in does Clemson play down to their competition (explaining why they are unranked). But I could be misreading it.

Clemson does indeed appear to play with inconsistency. They have a couple of very nice wins in beating Duke and Kentucky. But the loss to Tech at home was really bad. They appear to not play with great discipline. But when they are dialed in, they are very good. It's the type of team that could lose its opening round game... or make it to the Elite 8. They have talent at all 3 levels, but no depth and they struggle with consistency.
 
SkyBrickey said:
My YTTV recording glitched and I can't go look and verify, but that's a generous definition of a "layup" when he is driving right and shooting 6-8 feet away from the rim... I have no doubt he was bumped on those drives. But that's not what I would call attacking the rim.
Click to expand...
imo Cooper has to square his shoulders on those drives...they were hitting the side of the rim once they came off the backboard
 
uh_no said:
Adding some further flavor, since I didn't really like the analysis in the previous post. Duke is the #4 defense in Q4 or better games, #4 in Q3 or better, #5 in Q2 or better, #14 in Q1 or better, #27 in Q1A. Teams like Tennessee, Kansas, and St. John's have fared much better in this regard.

Those Q1/Q1A games are the ones we are going to get in the second weekend of the tournament, and that is where the data seems to show we are untowardly vulnerable.
Click to expand...
When I sort by AdjDE and filter Q1 or better games, I see that Duke is #14 as you said.

I think we’re seeing some small sample-size strangeness though. For example, some of the teams in front of Duke are suspect - teams like UC Irvine, Arkansas St, Boston U, McNeese St and Manhattan.

So, I think it’s hard to draw many conclusions from this.
 
DukieTiger said:
When I sort by AdjDE and filter Q1 or better games, I see that Duke is #14 as you said.

I think we’re seeing some small sample-size strangeness though. For example, some of the teams in front of Duke are suspect - teams like UC Irvine, Arkansas St, Boston U, McNeese St and Manhattan.

So, I think it’s hard to draw many conclusions from this.
Click to expand...
What is our AdjDE number in Q1 games?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top