The Kyrie Irving Toe Vigil

[papa whiskey]

I want Kyrie to get healthy asap but is it wrong of me to feel that if he is out for the year than at least that could get him to comeback and helps the chance of a 3 peat. If the team can win the title this year without him than we could have Irving and Rivers paired together.

Big if. Without him we CAN win the title. With him we SHOULD win it. Big difference.

[_Gary]

Big if. Without him we CAN win the title. With him we SHOULD win it. Big difference.

Agreed, as long as rational people here understand the concept of speaking in "sports language" when you say SHOULD win. This terminology simply means that Duke is far and away the best team in the nation and all things being equal has the best shot at winning the title. Nothing is ever a sure thing in sports for a variety of reasons, but when speaking like this most posters here should understand the concept (no pun intended).

I'd add one point though. Duke was at that place of SHOULD win before Kyrie's injury. Personally, I think it's unrealistic to expect the kid, if he comes back this season at all, to come back and immediately begin playing at the same level as when he got injured. But if by some miracle that did happen then I agree completely with your sentiment that Duke is that much better than everyone else in the nation and should win the title. Without Kyrie we certainly fall back down to a level of can win, but not should win. And yes, there is a huge difference.

[roywhite]

Big if. Without him we CAN win the title. With him we SHOULD win it. Big difference.

I certainly want to see Kyrie return, but I'd have to disagree with "should" win expectation, even if he returns at full strength and re-integrates quickly with the team.

The NCAA Tournament with it's one loss format is just too hazardous to make a prediction about a team being in a "should" win position. Check the Vegas odds in any given year. Even the #1 teams don't go into the tournament actually favored with a better than even chance to win the whole thing.

[nocilla]

I certainly want to see Kyrie return, but I'd have to disagree with "should" win expectation, even if he returns at full strength and re-integrates quickly with the team.

The NCAA Tournament with it's one loss format is just too hazardous to make a prediction about a team being in a "should" win position. Check the Vegas odds in any given year. Even the #1 teams don't go into the tournament actually favored with a better than even chance to win the whole thing.

I think Gary covered exactly what you are saying:

Agreed, as long as rational people here understand the concept of speaking in "sports language" when you say SHOULD win. This terminology simply means that Duke is far and away the best team in the nation and all things being equal has the best shot at winning the title. Nothing is ever a sure thing in sports for a variety of reasons, but when speaking like this most posters here should understand the concept (no pun intended).

[ACCBBallFan]

A bit more information from Chris Collins

http://live-blogs.fayobserver.com/ac...’s-toe-continu

[Kedsy]

A bit more information from Chris Collins

http://live-blogs.fayobserver.com/ac...’s-toe-continu

That's a good article. And it seems to confirm what we've heard and also explain why there hasn't been any "news."

[mkirsh]

To add to the speculation file:

Seth Davis was on a sports talk radio station in DC this morning, and when asked about Kyrie he said that he hasn't heard results from last night's test/conference call, but the vibes coming from people he knows in the Duke program are slightly more positive, and Seth speculated Irving back late Feb/early March. Then went on to say might do more hurt than help at that point, but that's just Seth being Seth.

[Mike Corey]

For emphasis' sake:

“If we can avoid surgery, that’s the best-case scenario,” Collins said. “But what that means as far as a timetable for his return is hard to say. It’s such a delicate thing and it’s not an injury that’s very common and that we’ve seen before. It’s not like where if you break your foot, you can say ‘OK, we know in six-to-eight weeks, he’ll be back.’ This is truly a unique case where you have to go by feel. And that’s made it hard to say, ‘Hey, if all goes perfectly, he’s back in a month or six weeks.’ We just don’t know. That’s why we’re always talking about having the toe reevaluated. Every week we’re checking it out, seeing what the progress is. And the main thing right now is that we’re on a course that’s non-surgical. And as long as we see good progression, we’ll stay with that.”

[BD80]

Agreed, as long as rational people here understand the concept of speaking in "sports language" when you say SHOULD win. This terminology simply means that Duke is far and away the best team in the nation and all things being equal has the best shot at winning the title. ...

... Duke was at that place of SHOULD win before Kyrie's injury. Personally, I think it's unrealistic to expect the kid, if he comes back this season at all, to come back and immediately begin playing at the same level as when he got injured. ...

Don't you see the evil genius that is Coach K? By having Kyrie fake this injury (tar heels will say that Coach K had Kyrie hobbled, but that hasn't been done in the Duke program since last century) the expectations for Duke have been lowered to a point where they will actually be an underdog in the tourney. When Kyrie makes his miraculous comeback, the opposing teams will be so disheartened that they won't stand a chance. The referees will watch Kyrie remove his walking boot before tip-off and be so moved that they will call a foul anytime an opposing player makes contact with Kyrie and will not call a travel on Kyrie even if he were to go coast-to-coast without a dribble.

Come on people, doesn't anyone watch any of the crime-dramas on TV? Twice may be a coincidence, but three times is an MO.

Yes, this is all tongue in cheek (god help us that that had to be said), but it is stupefying that we have had over 1,000 posts on a teenager's toe - NOT COUNTING THE 200 OR SO "FRIVOLOUS" POSTS REMOVED TO ANOTHER THREAD!

Just how can a post be considered frivolous in a sea of a thousand + posts about a kid's toe? Tis the theater of the absurd it is.

[CDu]

To add to the speculation file:

Seth Davis was on a sports talk radio station in DC this morning, and when asked about Kyrie he said that he hasn't heard results from last night's test/conference call, but the vibes coming from people he knows in the Duke program are slightly more positive, and Seth speculated Irving back late Feb/early March. Then went on to say might do more hurt than help at that point, but that's just Seth being Seth.

The Fayetteville Observer blog post suggested that "there are those close to the program who believe that, in the best of circumstances, Irving could be able to return to action in late February or early March." That's a subtle but important difference. I don't know which is more accurate, but considering that he's still in a cast it would seem more like late February/early March is a best case scenario rather than the expectation.

[UrinalCake]

Then went on to say might do more hurt than help at that point, but that's just Seth being Seth.

That's certainly an overtly negative way of interpreting the situation, but I think it would be fair to suggest that Duke as a team may take a small step backwards if/when Kyrie returns before it takes several steps forwards. Bringing him back into the fold will take a lot of adjustment. Hopefully he'll have some time and some games against lighter opponents before the postseason hits.

Good information from Collins, it's nice to have some answers

[Kedsy]

Hopefully he'll have some time and some games against lighter opponents before the postseason hits.

You mean lighter opponents like UNC?

[yancem]

That's certainly an overtly negative way of interpreting the situation, but I think it would be fair to suggest that Duke as a team may take a small step backwards if/when Kyrie returns before it takes several steps forwards. Bringing him back into the fold will take a lot of adjustment. Hopefully he'll have some time and some games against lighter opponents before the postseason hits.

Good information from Collins, it's nice to have some answers

I Agree. It's a fairly wide held opinion that Kenny Smith's late return to UNC back in '84 hampered their championship mojo. Now, I want Irving to come back because a) I think he can improve the team and b) I selfishly want to see him suit up in a Duke uniform again and have my doubts about him returning next season. That being said, I certainly think that him returning for the ACC tournament or maybe a game or 2 earlier could (emphasis on COULD) have a negative impact on Duke's championship hopes.

If anyone can manage reintegrating a talent like Irving back into the lineup that late in the season it would be K but never forget that the '84 UNC team had a pretty good coach on their sideline as well.

[Troublemaker]

For emphasis' sake:

“If we can avoid surgery, that’s the best-case scenario,” Collins said. “But what that means as far as a timetable for his return is hard to say. It’s such a delicate thing and it’s not an injury that’s very common and that we’ve seen before. It’s not like where if you break your foot, you can say ‘OK, we know in six-to-eight weeks, he’ll be back.’ This is truly a unique case where you have to go by feel. And that’s made it hard to say, ‘Hey, if all goes perfectly, he’s back in a month or six weeks.’ We just don’t know. That’s why we’re always talking about having the toe reevaluated. Every week we’re checking it out, seeing what the progress is. And the main thing right now is that we’re on a course that’s non-surgical. And as long as we see good progression, we’ll stay with that.”

A good snippet, Mike. It looks like season-ending surgery can possibly(likely?) be avoided, which is great for Kyrie and his outlook for 2011; it would be a very rough year for him in terms of time lost if he needed surgery. I'll be very happy for him if it continues to be true that he can heal without going under the knife.

I guess the question becomes whether season-ending HEALING will take place. It's an injury that is apparently difficult to set a timetable for so we don't know whether Kyrie will take 4 months to heal or 2 months to heal, for example, and that's the difference between him missing the season or not. Here's hoping that his great genes that provide him with unique athletic talents also provide him with unique healing ability.

[jimsumner]

I think Gary covered exactly what you are saying:

There's a huge difference between "Duke is more likely than any other team to win it all" and "Duke is more likely than every other team to win it all."

[CDu]

You mean lighter opponents like UNC?

Looking at Pomeroy's projections, it's amazing how many games there are in which we're considered to have an 80+% chance to win. Only the games at Maryland, at UNC, and and at Va Tech fall below the 70%. And the Va Tech probability may go over 80% (it's currently at 79%) if Va Tech starts to struggle with the losses of Hudson et al. And even then, we're at least a 2:1 favorite in each of those three games anyway.

It's both a testament to how good this team is and to how mediocre the ACC is this year that we can lose a Freshman of the Year candidate/favorite (and 1st-Team all-conference candidate) and still be so heavily favored in every game. Hopefully we live up to Pomeroy's expectations!

[gofurman]

I think Gary covered exactly what you are saying:

RIght - I think the best odd last year was UK (?) and was about 3 - 1. So about a 33% chance for a dominant team. And, as we know, they indeed did not win.

I would be curious about 99 Duke or 92 UNLV but as I have watched most "top favorites" go in as about a 25% of winning - it is just so so so hard to win it all regardless.

[georg004]

RIght - I think the best odd last year was UK (?) and was about 3 - 1. So about a 33% chance for a dominant team.

I think 3:1 odds means you are considered to have 1 chance in 4 of winning - 25%. You guys who spend time in Vegas, feel free to correct me if I've got that wrong.

[sagegrouse]

I think 3:1 odds means you are considered to have 1 chance in 4 of winning - 25%. You guys who spend time in Vegas, feel free to correct me if I've got that wrong.

Yep, you put up $1 betting on Duke to win at 3-1 odds. The guy betting on "anybody but Duke" puts up $3. The winner gets the $4.

I suppose one would be a "heavy favorite" in the NCAAs at 3-1 odds (where the next lowest odds might be 10-1), but it isn't the same as an "odds-on" favorite, better than 1-1.

sagegrouse

[gofurman]

Yep, you put up $1 betting on Duke to win at 3-1 odds. The guy betting on "anybody but Duke" puts up $3. The winner gets the $4.

I suppose one would be a "heavy favorite" in the NCAAs at 3-1 odds (where the next lowest odds might be 10-1), but it isn't the same as an "odds-on" favorite, better than 1-1.

sagegrouse

yeah, sorry if I had that wrong. point is a typical one seed is usually about 5-1 payout or so .. maybe 4-1. So ranging around 20% or so for a top 1 seed. Sounds about right to me. Think of how many 1 through 3 seeds are legit contenders so that's 12 legitimate contenders right there. Not counting the Butlers and George Masons etc.