MBB: Duke 84, Auburn 78 Postgame Thread

mattyoung18 said:
I've never seen Bilas so clueless on the arm to the neck and head on James by Auburn.Bilas, "looked like a play on the ball ".Bilas has achieved a new low.
Click to expand...
Yeah. As an ardent Bilas defender, that made me cringe. "Making a play on the ball" is better than not, but if you get your forearm on an airborne player's face and knock him to the ground, I don't see that the intent is very relevant.
 
Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 said:
Yeah. As an ardent Bilas defender, that made me cringe. "Making a play on the ball" is better than not, but if you get your forearm on an airborne player's face and knock him to the ground, I don't see that the intent is very relevant.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think conceptually the "making a play on the ball" might have differentiated it from "flagrant 1" vs "flagrant 2". Technically speaking, "making a play on the ball" isn't part of the rule at all. But I get the sense that it being a play on the ball is one of the ways the officials adjudicate whether to eject or not in those situations.

I don't think the foul was malicious or dirty, but it was excessive and deserving of a flagrant 1.
 
Kfanarmy said:
I guess if that one dimension is not beating Duke on 12/4/2024 okay. Otherwise maybe you could be more specific on that one dimension. I'm assuming it can only be one aspect of his offense or defense, and then of course only one thing he does well. Would be really great to pinpoint that so the rest of the country knows that one dimension they have to prepare for to neutralize him and then can focus on the other four guys on the floor.
Click to expand...
Maybe you could be more specific on the aspects of his game that make him multi-dimensional then?

As for me, I saw a bruiser who can finish:

1) going downhill on a pick and roll where the defense isn't willing to give up the three
2) when he gets deep position and spins and his defender forgets he's left handed

Things he can't do well, making him one dimensional:

1) shoot threes
2) create his own shot
3) defend away from the basket
4) block shots
 
Edouble said:
Maybe you could be more specific on the aspects of his game that make him multi-dimensional then?

As for me, I saw a bruiser who can finish:

1) going downhill on a pick and roll where the defense isn't willing to give up the three
2) when he gets deep position and spins and his defender forgets he's left handed

Things he can't do well, making him one dimensional:

1) shoot threes
2) create his own shot
3) defend away from the basket
4) block shots
Click to expand...
He's one of the leading shotblockers in the nation. He didn't block shots in last night's game, but that was aberrant.

He also is averaging 3.3 assists per game on the season. And nearly a steal per game. And shoots over 30% from 3.

"One dimensional" is not a word I would use to describe Broome. He's limited in the way that he typically scores. But he's not one-dimensional.
 
CDu said:
Yeah, Evans is a gunner, and he knows how to get his looks. It helps that he is tall and long, but he definitely knows how to hunt for his shots. And that is definitely a skill in and of itself. He's definitely not a passive/deferential player.

The danger comes when he isn't hitting his shots. But, the solution then is "he just goes back to the bench." But last night illustrated what Evans can provide when he IS on.
Click to expand...
Yeah, two of my concerns about Evans heading into this season were he's a bad shot taker and he's a bad shot maker. Duke appears to have done a great job with the former which will help with the latter.

I would imagine that is a tough situation for a coach. At what point does it become he isn't hitting his shots? Tough call.
 
Rewatching the highlights over lunch now. A couple of things stood out to me about Isaiah's monster first half:

1) A big part of why he was getting such good looks is because he was the "secret weapon" coming off the bench. In those dual pin-down actions, Auburn was keyed on Tyrese which allowed Isaiah to get open. One or two of his other threes came from Kon demanding help on an attack in the lane, leaving Evans open. I think this context is key when we start retroactively asking, "Why didn't Isaiah play earlier in the year?" Yes, he made big shots, and you can't teach the confidence and energy he brought to the court—perhaps the team could've used that against Kansas or Kentucky. But a big part of why he exploded in this game was because it was unexpected, and something that was wayyyy down the scouting checklist. It wouldn't surprise me if Evans continues to be used in spurts to exploit that.

2) Related, as well as Evans played offensively, and as strong as his effort was defensively (including sticking his nose into some physical rebounding situations on multiple occasions), Auburn did pick on him defensively in the first half. A few open threes came directly off of off-ball screens on Evans that he wasn't quite strong enough to get around to provide a strong contest. If we're looking for a reason why Evans wasn't earning big minutes earlier, this is likely it, especially given how much we know Jon wants this team's identity to be defense.

I'm sure there's going to be a chorus of "Evans should start over Kon!" growing over the next few days, and that's certainly a reasonable debate for us to have. Based on my rewatch, I'd maintain that Evans' best role remains the microwave off the bench, particularly when Kon/Mason aren't shooting well, given his defensive limitations relative to those two at the moment. If Evans starts complimenting his shooting with an ability to create for himself off the dribble (which the scouting report says he has, but hasn't showcased at this level quite yet), that would change the calculus significantly.
 
CDu said:
They reviewed it and called goaltending on Auburn. They deemed that an Auburn player made contact while it was on the cylinder. So the basket went to Foster.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. This is what I assumed, as you could see Flagg making a motion to an Auburn player that appeared to resemble a cylinder, with a smile on his face while the Auburn player looked frustrated. Not to pile on the broadcast team but missing this explanation, which was pretty impactful given the time of the game was a pretty big miss.
 
scottdude8 said:
I think the bolded (Maluach's performance) is the most appropriate negative to take from last night's game. That said, it's pretty darn impressive that Scheyer was able to bring Maliq on board knowing that this would be a possibility. I'm not worried at all about Man Man, personally... we've seen this story before with Williams and Lively. Part of my optimism for the long-term ceiling of this team is that history tells us Man Man is going to continue to get better, and IMHO his ceiling is at minimum the best of Williams and Lively. If you add that, or something approximating it, to this team, woooo boy.
Click to expand...
Coming into the season I wasn't sure how well Maliq would do against big post players, but he just played against two of the best offensive post players in the country in Dickinson and Broome and did very well. What Maliq lacks in size he more than makes up for with those quick hands. That gives us a very nice insurance policy while Man Man gets up to speed.
 
Western said:
The thing about Evans that has really impressed me isn’t his shooting, it’s his ability to get shots. He understands how to get open, and has the speed, length, skill, and footwork to do so — and to get himself square and get a shot off quickly upon receiving the ball.

A couple of his shots last night were wide open, particularly the shot after Evans & Proctor switched sides and Auburn just lost Evans. But most were the result of Evans doing more to get open than you can realistically expect out of a freshman with 29 minutes of game experience coming into the night. Even the shot in the right corner on the kickout from Kon, which was pretty open, was there because Evans did a great job of backing out to the corner to make himself available on the drive (and to keep from crowding the paint around Kon.) The drift down the left wing to remain available for Flagg’s kickout (exactly what Flagg failed to do during Kon’s drive late in the Kansas game.)

A lot of guys can shoot. Evans can shoot, and showed advanced understanding of how to get shots, and ability to act on that understanding.

Kon’s ability to remain useful, or at least not a liability, even when he isn’t scoring continues to impress and encourage me.
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct about his nice ability to make the right runs to get open. He did it repeatedly in the first half.

What confounded me is that he played the 2nd half differently. Repeatedly he came up the court, went to a spot behind the arc and ..... stood there. I saw several possessions where he didn't move once; neither did the man marking him. I have no clue why his excellent 1st half motion ceased, but the result was stark - 0 second half points.

(Nota bene: This strategy critique is not from a professional bball coach and I’ve been told it therefore has no value. Caveat emptor.)
 
Skydog said:
You are 100% correct about his nice ability to make the right runs to get open. He did it repeatedly in the first half.

What confounded me is that he played the 2nd half differently. Repeatedly he came up the court, went to a spot behind the arc and ..... stood there. I saw several possessions where he didn't move once; neither did the man marking him. I have no clue why his excellent 1st half motion ceased, but the result was stark - 0 second half points.

(Nota bene: This strategy critique is not from a professional bball coach and I’ve been told it therefore has no value. Caveat emptor.)
Click to expand...
Settle down. Settle down.
 
Again, if anyone wants to discuss further, PM me. I'll show my receipts for why I feel this way. But be prepared to show yours. I feel like a reasonable accommodation was made for people who want to discuss strategy. But passive aggressive posts are weird. I wasn't passive aggressive. Just aggressive. Feel free to call me out. Just bring your receipts.
 
I don't know if this has been discussed in the thread, but does anyone know what was up with the goaltending that got reversed? We only got one replay, and it looked quite clear that the ball was in the cylinder when Maliq touched it. I was surprised when we got those two points back.
 

Dr. Maturin said:
I don't know if this has been discussed in the thread, but does anyone know what was up with the goaltending that got reversed? We only got one replay, and it looked quite clear that the ball was in the cylinder when Maliq touched it. I was surprised when we got those two points back.
Click to expand...
I was REALLY surprised about that. It was clear as day that Maliq touched it in the cylinder. No idea how we ended up getting the points. We will take it though!
 
ClemmonsDevil said:
Settle down. Settle down.
Click to expand...
I’m not the one saying that no one on here can have anything useful to say strategy-wise if they aren't a professional coach.

Look I have zero love for the always-negative guys on this board. Those who repeatedly say the team or a player sucks because they make some mistakes or miss a few shots drive me bananas. I hate the “it’s over” posters who invariably pop up every time the team goes through a dry stretch. Or make ridiculous claims like Jon isn’t a good coach and we should look elsewhere. That is not analysis - it's just piling on. And I’ve publically called a couple posters out for it.

But the answer to this problem is not to show disdain for any lay-person who critiques a game or strategy. If the critique is well thought out it is worth consideration, even if from a non-bball pro. After all some of the best analytics and insights have come from nerds who could barely make a free throw.

This is a discussion board. There needs to be room for team, player and even coach critiques that show thought behind them (rather than knee jerk negativism). But that is just my opinion, man.
 
Skydog said:
I’m not the one saying that no one on here can have anything useful to say strategy-wise if they aren't a professional coach.

Look I have zero love for the always-negative guys on this board. Those who repeatedly say the team or a player sucks because they make some mistakes or miss a few shots drive me bananas. I hate the “it’s over” posters who invariably pop up every time the team goes through a dry stretch. Or make ridiculous claims like Jon isn’t a good coach and we should look elsewhere. That is not analysis - it's just piling on. And I’ve publically called a couple posters out for it.

But the answer to this problem is not to show disdain for any lay-person who critiques a game or strategy. If the critique is well thought out it is worth consideration, even if from a non-bball pro. After all some of the best analytics and insights have come from nerds who could barely make a free throw.

This is a discussion board. There needs to be room for team, player and even coach critiques that show thought behind them (rather than knee jerk negativism). But that is just my opinion, man.
Click to expand...
And you can feel free to express it. Just be prepared to receive feedback in return. I am ok if you disagree with me here. Not the boss of anyone. There is now a thread where all of these things can be discussed without naysayers. That feels like a reasonable accommodation.
 
bshrader said:
Fortunately, the rule doesn't stipulate whether the play is a "play on the ball" or not. Is it excessive and unnecessary and/or avoidable? That's the question officials ask themselves in these situations regarding F1 fouls.
Click to expand...
You are correct, and -- though he'd never admit it -- Bilas is once again wrong about the officiating rules. Here's a good explanation of how the Flagrant 1 Foul rule is supposed to apply in situations like the one that occurred in the game last night:

Flagrant 1 foul general criteria​


In terms of general criteria, flagrant 1 fouls usually include reckless contact that could potentially result in minor injury but typically not major injury, when committed against an opponent.


For example, let’s say that a defensive player attempts to block the shot of an offensive player but as that occurs, the hand and/or arm of the defender makes contact with the offensive player’s head area.


As a result, that illegal contact could have potentially caused injury or general harm to the offensive player.


However, because that same defender attempted to make a legitimate play on the ball in reference to attempting to block the shot, the referee would most likely judge the illegal contact as a flagrant 1 foul as opposed to a flagrant 2 foul.

Flagrant Foul in Basketball: Basic Information Explained

A flagrant foul is an infraction that occurs during a basketball game when one particular player commits illegal contact against an opposing player that is deemed to be unnecessary and/or excessive.
hoopstudent.com

If you watch the replay at the 18:31 mark of the second half -- https://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=42786005 -- there's absolutely no question that when Auburn's Cardwell attempted to block Sion James' attempted driving layup on the breakaway, his arm raked James across the face. That is, by definition, a flagrant 1 foul.
 
Skydog said:
I’m not the one saying that no one on here can have anything useful to say strategy-wise if they aren't a professional coach.

Look I have zero love for the always-negative guys on this board. Those who repeatedly say the team or a player sucks because they make some mistakes or miss a few shots drive me bananas. I hate the “it’s over” posters who invariably pop up every time the team goes through a dry stretch. Or make ridiculous claims like Jon isn’t a good coach and we should look elsewhere. That is not analysis - it's just piling on. And I’ve publically called a couple posters out for it.

But the answer to this problem is not to show disdain for any lay-person who critiques a game or strategy. If the critique is well thought out it is worth consideration, even if from a non-bball pro. After all some of the best analytics and insights have come from nerds who could barely make a free throw.

This is a discussion board. There needs to be room for team, player and even coach critiques that show thought behind them (rather than knee jerk negativism). But that is just my opinion, man.
Click to expand...
100% agree. There are several posters here (especially 1-2 high volume posters) that seem to think ANY criticism of anything Duke is sacrilegious.

Criticizing the play, Coach, players, etc and loving Duke are not mutually exclusive.
If someone says,” our offense is stagnant, and wish coach would play player X, Y, Z, and sit player W, and we need to work on…”, WE STILL LOVE DUKE, and that’s WHY we strive for (near) perfection.

This is not a board exclusive for professional coaches. We are all armchair quarterbacks / fans.
More posting about DUKE, and less posting about other posters.
… rant over
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top