Thank you for posting.  Glad they won and we can hopefully build off this.

Well I'm happy we bounced back and got the W, but our continued inability to put away mediocre teams is worrisome.We'll be facing much better competition in just about every game the rest of the way. I didn't expect to be sweating this one out, but it's like the team gets bored when they have a big lead. I did like the strong finish, but after letting Queens take us to overtime and now letting Stony Brook hang around until late in the second half I'm kind of reassessing my expectations for the conference season.

Congrats on the win.

Good win. I thought the first half was the best they played all year. Unfortunately, the defense regressed in the second half. Some of it was good shot making by Stony Brook but we need to do a better job defensively moving forward or this could be a long season. The 3-2 zone with Necas at the top worked best today. The good news is that this team is much better offensively top to bottom than we have been in a while.

David Dixon's dunk with 6:11 to go in the first half was arguably his best ever.  I have to say it was the most impressive that I've seen him make in person.  He threw it down with a great authority on a high difficulty play.  He's reminding this old guy of Jammin' James Bailey of Rutgers.

This post confuses me. Was this about the Stony Brook game?

CLK wrote:

Key Takeaways from the 84-75 Win Over Stony BrookWhew, what a bounce-back. After that gut-wrenching home loss to William & Mary, the Dukes responded with a gritty 84-75 victory to close out the homestand at 3-1. We improved to 6-3 overall, and this one felt like a step toward with the plan kicking in. Stony Brook (now 6-3) is no joke—hot from deep with 10 threes—but we controlled the paint and closed strong. Here's what stands out:Turnover Progress – Finally Seeing the Light: Preached it all week, and it showed. We cut the TOs way down from 21 vs. W&M (exact count TBD, but it felt clean—no massive runs off our mistakes). That let us hit 40 in the first half and build a 12-point lead. The "TO autopsies" and decision-making drills? Paying off. We turned aggression into efficiency, not giveaways. Keep this under 15/game, and we're dangerous.
Rebounding Edge Held Firm: + rebound margin was key (we outboarded them to match our paint dominance). Hugley and Dixon crashed hard—expecting double-digit boards combined. No more bottom-275 national ranking if we sustain this. Second-chance points were ours, not theirs, flipping the script from recent leaks.
Defensive Adjustments Worked, But Perimeter Lapses Remain: Held them to 75 despite 10 threes? That's the zone and help rotations clicking—sparked that late W&M rally, and it masked our rim issues here. But they got hot early (5 threes in first half), so closeouts need tightening. Opp FT rate still a concern if we hack; discipline inside (fewer fouls on bigs) was better today.
Balanced Attack, Bench Depth Shines: Five guys in double figures again. Hugley owning the glass, Crawford spotting up. Bench outscored theirs (per trends), showing our vets' depth. eFG% stayed elite (~57%), but FT%... still room (hitting ~70%?). 100 reps continue.
Clutch Time Maturity: Down to 5 with a minute left? We didn't flinch—veteran poise to seal it. That's March DNA emerging.

Overall, this feels like improvement in fundamentals: We're scoring at will (87+ PPG streak) when we protect the ball and crash boards. Road test now—Boise State midweek looms. Proud of the fight, but no coasting. On to the next.#GoDukes

Phil not sure what you are confused about unless you are being sarcastic. I get it—you want to live in the mud right now. Fine.
But I’m tired of the same broken record from the same accounts every single game.We just beat a 6-2 Stony Brook team by 9 at home, held them under their season scoring average, committed only 11 turnovers (lowest of the year), won the glass, and had three guys in double figures. That’s not “lucky” or “pretty losing basketball.” That’s exactly what we hoped we would be  fixing, and we fixed it yesterday.If your bar is “allow zero threes and win by 30 every night,” cool—root for someone else. The rest of us are rooting for something real here with a veteran group that just responded after getting punched in the mouth last week.I’ll keep posting the positive and truth—good and bad. You do you.

You’re 100% right—this is still a work in progress. Nobody’s pretending it’s finished. Ten threes allowed is too many, closeouts were late, and we’ve got plenty left to clean up. But why can't we just celebrate the fact that we just cut our turnovers nearly in half, won the glass decisively,and closed out a win when it got tight. That’s real progress from seven days ago, and these guys earned the right to feel good about answering the bell after the W&M disaster.I hope We’ll keep grinding on the flaws (because they’re obvious) and keep stacking the improvements (because they’re happening). Best of both worlds

I wasn't being sarcastic in any way. I was confused because the post seemed to be using some stats from a different game. I thought maybe this was a post written about a different game & reposted by accident. 

I agree that progress was made in yesterday's game. I expect further improvement in smoothing out the team's rough spots, but it will take more repetitions. This team is absolutely loaded with talent.

Aside from the first couple of Stony Brook 3s, I thought the Dukes did an acceptable job controlling the perimeter scoring. If the Dukes are going to play at a pace that generates 85ish points per game, they will likely give up more made 3s than in recent seasons because the opponent gets more opportunities. SB came in averaging 27 3s per game & took 30. They were averaging 9.25 made 3s & hit 10 against Duquesne. They were shooting 34.3% from distance, but shot 33.3% in last night's game. Not a great showing for the Dukes' defence, but a massive improvement over the Villanova & W&M games. One easy fix would be to have Hugleyt & Dixon aggressively but prudently contest 3s from opposing bigs to start the game as the scouting report on the Dukes definitely now says that they won't do that.

As I posted immediately after the game, "Today was a step in the right direction. I'll take it."

CLK wrote:

Phil not sure what you are confused about unless you are being sarcastic. I get it—you want to live in the mud right now. Fine.
But I’m tired of the same broken record from the same accounts every single game.We just beat a 6-2 Stony Brook team by 9 at home, held them under their season scoring average, committed only 11 turnovers (lowest of the year), won the glass, and had three guys in double figures. That’s not “lucky” or “pretty losing basketball.” That’s exactly what we hoped we would be fixing, and we fixed it yesterday.If your bar is “allow zero threes and win by 30 every night,” cool—root for someone else. The rest of us are rooting for something real here with a veteran group that just responded after getting punched in the mouth last week.I’ll keep posting the positive and truth—good and bad. You do you.

When I posted that I was confused, it was because I was reading your post, the box score, & looking at some advanced stats all at the same time. The number of Dukes in double figures, last night's FT percentage, winning the battle for 2nd-chance points, PPG streak, mentions of Hugley's & Dixon's rebounding prowess, eFG%, & Stony Brook being hot from 3 didn't jibe with what I was seeing in the stats. It made me think that either I was reading the wrong game stats or that your stuff was a breakdown of a different game. Even so, your analysis of the improvements to the Dukes' problem areas was all correct.

One of the things I found most encouraging about the Stony Brook game was that the relatively modest rebounding totals for Dixon & Hugley were more than offset by Necas (9), Guinyard (6), & Cam & Jimmy (5 apiece). I'll take that kind of gang rebounding anytime.

 I think it would really benefit the defense if Dixon made fewer attempts to block shots from the weakside/help side, in favor of gaining a better rebounding position. He seems to take himself out of the mix for defensive rebounds 5-7 times per game, going after shots that he has no chance of blocking and/or little chance of affecting.

This post reminded me how excited I was to see the outstanding entry pass Aekins made to Bus & Bus's finish through contact. (even though he didn't get the continuation call) Opposing defenses would be in big trouble if the Dukes could successfuly execute even a couple of textbook entry passes to post finishes per game from players that aren't Guinyard & Hugley.

levon1975 wrote:

I agree regarding shot-blocking attempts to a degree.  Dixon or any of the “bigs” need to be selective when leaving your man to try and block a shot, because it often leads to an opponent getting an easy offensive rebound.  The caveat is that this team has no rim protection unless David Dixon blocks shots.  So he has to hunt blocked shots on occasion just to give opponents something to think about around the rim. 

I wasn’t happy with the prime position the Stonybrook bigs were getting at the basket in the second half-half.  The Dukes gave up that position and easy entry passes for layups.  Their bigs were pretty thin, not powerful looking, but the Dukes weren’t physical enough on the defensive end underneath.