'If Parker didn't foul out duke wins easily' | Syracusefan.com

'If Parker didn't foul out duke wins easily'

O

Orangemen

All Conference
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
2,557
Like
2,681
I feel like I've read that sentiment in other places once or twice.

I decided to look at-the points per possession for duke while Parker was on the bench after his fourth and fifth fouls to see just how badly their offense operated and how lucky we were that Parker wasn't playing.

After Parker's fourth foul and before he came back in with 4 min left, duke had 10 possessions and scored 13 points for a 1.3 points per possession average.

After Parker's fifth foul, duke had 5 possessions in regulation, and they scored 8 points. Totaling 1.6 PPP!

In overtime duke had another 10 possessions and scored 11 points for an average of 1.1 ppp.

So, in summary, poor duke who has averaged 1.2 ppp in conference this year, was forced to survive on only 1.3 ppp without Parker on Saturday night.

Somehow I'm not convinced that losing Parker really hurt them offensively in this game.
 
Orangemen said:
I feel like I've read that sentiment in other places once or twice.

I decided to look at-the points per possession for duke while Parker was on the bench after his fourth and fifth fouls to see just how badly their offense operated and how lucky we were that Parker wasn't playing.

After Parker's fourth foul and before he came back in with 4 min left, duke had 10 possessions and scored 13 points for a 1.3 points per possession average.

After Parker's fifth foul, duke had 5 possessions in regulation, and they scored 8 points. Totaling 1.6 PPP!

In overtime duke had another 10 possessions and scored 11 points for an average of 1.1 ppp.

So, in summary, poor duke who has averaged 1.2 ppp in conference this year, was forced to survive on only 1.3 ppp without Parker on Saturday night.

Somehow I'm not convinced that losing Parker really hurt them offensively in this game.
Expand...

I don't get this sentiment. That's like saying, well if Thorton didn't decide to get hot for a 2 minute stretch, we easily would have won the game.
 
Lawrinson14 said:
I don't get this sentiment. That's like saying, well if Thorton didn't decide to get hot for a 2 minute stretch, we easily would have won the game.
Expand...

Well to be fair, that's what most of this board was saying about the Pitt game, just sub Lamar Patterson's name in there.

The bigger issue might have been defensively, since they basically had no way of checking Jerami in the OT. But he fouled out, so it doesn't matter. Certainly seems unlikely Duke would have won the game easily without Parker though.
 
If he wasn't using his elbows to clear space so often he likely gets a few more shots rejected and a few fewer trips to the free throw line. He's not exactly a lock down defender either so it may have helped them defensively with him on the bench.
 
The bigger issue was that they had a circus midget guarding Grant in overtime because the bigs had fouled out. I know Parker isn't any great shakes defensively, burt it was on defense where the bigs fouling out hurt Duke.
 
Orangemen said:
If Parker didn't foul out duke wins easily..
Expand...

What is missing from that line of reasoning is, our bigs were better than their bigs, causing their bigs to get into foul trouble.
 
But he did foul out. Who cares play the game, we won! If they need to come up with a million butt hurt excuses to why they lost let them, god their fans are acting like a bunch of freaking crybabies.
 
Parker has been getting benched at the end of games due to his defense. Their big loss was Jefferson, but even he couldnt guard Rak or Grant. Just like we don't know how to stop them, they dont know how to stop us. They will either get in foul trouble or Rak and Grant will score.
 
Who cares. We won.

Fouling out is part of the game and it's happened to us plenty.
 
longislandcuse said:
Parker has been getting benched at the end of games due to his defense. Their big loss was Jefferson, but even he couldnt guard Rak or Grant. Just like we don't know how to stop them, they dont know how to stop us. They will either get in foul trouble or Rak and Grant will score.
Expand...

Yeah Parker isn't a great defender by any means, but he would have put up more resistance than what Duke had. I'm not saying they would have won had he stayed in, Grant was great before he went out. But let's also not act like the first time we lose a game (if?) there won't be a million threads saying the refs cost us.

Jefferson was a bigger loss defensively, I would agree with that.
 
Knicks411 said:
Yeah Parker isn't a great defender by any means, but he would have put up more resistance than what Duke had. I'm not saying they would have won had he stayed in, Grant was great before he went out. But let's also not act like the first time we lose a game (if?) there won't be a million threads saying the refs cost us.

Jefferson was a bigger loss defensively, I would agree with that.
Expand...
Would Parker with 4 fouls really be that much more of a defender than Dawkins? He's already a bad defender to begin with, Grant would have just scored or Parker would have eventually fouled out anyway.

These games really are going to be incredible because neither team apparantly knows how to stop the other.
 
They get another chance to prove their point. I suppose we'll have to wait and see won't we?
 
Knicks411 said:
The bigger issue might have been defensively, since they basically had no way of checking Jerami in the OT. But he fouled out, so it doesn't matter. Certainly seems unlikely Duke would have won the game easily without Parker though.
Expand...


Agree that losing Parker caused them a serious matchup problem on the defensive end, but in reality we weren't having a lot of trouble scoring inside whether Parker was in there or not. Had Parker remained in the game we may not have scored as quickly or as easily as we did by posting and feeding Grant, but we would have scored.

They flip side is that they may not been so quick to launch a three and may have instead scored a two and been less efficient offensively.

As you point out, Parker being in the game would not have easily changed the outcome.
 
Hard to say, too many factors involved. IMO you're kidding yourself if you think Parker out of the game didn't significantly help our chances.

Kid is a stud. He will be at the foul line next game, and he is going to have a big game. Not sure why he wasn't there all game. He's the perfect turn-and-face player against the zone. Fun to watch him play. Seems like a good kid too, didn't lower his head when he fouled out, but kept cheering his teammates.
 
longislandcuse said:
Would Parker with 4 fouls really be that much more of a defender than Dawkins? He's already a bad defender to begin with, Grant would have just scored or Parker would have eventually fouled out anyway.

These games really are going to be incredible because neither team apparantly knows how to stop the other.
Expand...

Yeah I don't know. But Dawkins is a really good shooter and he's still a bench guy for them because his D isn't good, and he's a wing anyway.

I don't want to come off like optimistic orange colored glasses guy here, but I do think our offensive output is more sustainable against Duke than theirs against us. the Duke offense is incredible, and I'm not saying we will shoot 57% down at Cameron (taking the under there), but 3 pointers can come and go. They did get a lot of very good looks, but they could still get those next time and instead of makign 15-34 or whatever it was, that could easily be 10-34.

I think 2 stats that kind of told the story were them taking 34 3's to our 4, and our 9 blocked shots (on what, 32 2 pointers? that's nuts) vs their 0.

Hard to say, too many factors involved. IMO you're kidding yourself if you think Parker out of the game didn't significantly help our chances.

Kid is a stud. He will be at the foul line next game, and he is going to have a big game. Not sure why he wasn't there all game. He's the perfect turn-and-face player against the zone. Fun to watch him play. Seems like a good kid too, didn't lower his head when he fouled out, but kept cheering his teammates.
Expand...

Yup, I saw this on the highlights and watching the replay. Give the kid a lot of props for that. Very good player, seems like a real good kid as well. Much respect for that.
 
After watching the game on tv compared to being there live I have a totally different perspective on the game. Leaving the dome Saturday night I thought we played the best we could probably play. After watching the game on TV there is no doubt in my mind we can play a lot better. Big deal if Parker was in. He was 6-16 and really struggled finishing over Roc, Keita, and Grant.
I know Duke is a great offensive team, but man we played bad defense Saturday. I love Trevor and tyler as much as the next guy, but time after time after we pulled ahead by 7 they gave up open three pointer after open three pointer. They both kept getting sucked into the paint and gave Dawkins, Thornton, and Sulaiman multiple open looks.
I still think defensively we are not quite where we are last year,. It can get better. Also a lot of people thought we played great offense Saturday and we did hit some tough shots, but don't forget Duke isn't really a good defensive team. I thought we got more lay ups, and dunks than we did all year in this game. They really cannot guard penetration. Everyone got in the lane for us.
We could lose at Cameron and it wouldn't surprise me, but we can definitely play better than we did Saturday night.
 
GoHamSU said:
Hard to say, too many factors involved. IMO you're kidding yourself if you think Parker out of the game didn't significantly help our chances.

Kid is a stud. He will be at the foul line next game, and he is going to have a big game. Not sure why he wasn't there all game. He's the perfect turn-and-face player against the zone. Fun to watch him play. Seems like a good kid too, didn't lower his head when he fouled out, but kept cheering his teammates.
Expand...
I don't agree with this.

What would duke have done better with him in there?
 
Ive heard people say Ennis was sick Saturday. Could that have played into him not being able to get out on shooters? I dont know what Cooney or G's excuse was but Duke could literally penetrate or throw it to the high post and wait for someone to come wide open for a three...because they always did.
 
Orangemen said:
I don't agree with this.

What would duke have done better with him in there?
Expand...
Shoot more two's lol? At this point i'd welcome Parker shooting wide open foul line jumpers all game. Better than wide open three pointers. Duke would have actually lost points if they employed this strategy on Saturday. Maybe K knew they needed 3's to stay in the game with us.
 
longislandcuse said:
Shoot more two's lol? At this point i'd welcome Parker shooting wide open foul line jumpers all game. Better than wide open three pointers. Duke would have actually lost points if they employed this strategy on Saturday. Maybe K knew they needed 3's to stay in the game with us.
Expand...

K had a post game quote to that effect
 
longislandcuse said:
Ive heard people say Ennis was sick Saturday. Could that have played into him not being able to get out on shooters? I dont know what Cooney or G's excuse was but Duke could literally penetrate or throw it to the high post and wait for someone to come wide open for a three...because they always did.
Expand...


I think it had more to do with the number of competent 3 point shooters that were on the floor at any given time. Also that there were four or five guys that they needed to remember (they weren't in all at the same time) to check when they were on the floor.

Most teams have only 1 or 2 shooters you really have to be super worried about.
 
If Parker hadn't fouled out they probably wouldn't have hit all those 3's at the end. Strategy changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SWC75
    • Like
Final Net Points, etc.
Replies
0
Views
303
SWC75
SWC75

Forum statistics

Threads
167,998
Messages
4,743,736
Members
5,936
Latest member
KD95

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
15
Guests online
1,219
Total visitors
1,234
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom