Would Duke have really been a final 4 team had Kyrie not been hurt?

[Buckeye Devil]

Heck, even the Duke team that played in the ACC tournament would've done major damage in the NCAAs, imo. Hopefully that aspect of this 2011 season does not become lost as time goes by.

If you followed the team closely this year, watched nearly every game, read the beat reporting, etc., you know that this Duke team really came together the week of the ACC tournament. The team had great practices and everyone in the rotation found a role and the team played great basketball and was extremely confident.

The proof is in the scoreboard.

Duke 87 - 71 over Maryland
Duke 76 - 63 over Virginia Tech, and finally, and most awesomely,
Duke 75 - 58 over UNC

MD and VT were on par with the last few at-large teams that got into the NCAAs (maybe not VCU in hindsight, but you see what I'm saying). And Carolina was a 2 seed. And Duke rolled all of them.

That Duke team would've done damage in the NCAAs. As I've said before, I'm not bitter. I'm not regretful. I'm not blaming. Stuff happens in a basketball season and in life; you roll with it.

But I just hope no one forgets the tremendous job that this 2011 team did to come together after their best player got injured. The team developed throughout the season. Every role player improved at various points in the season and, by ACC tournament time, everyone in the rotation was pitching in. This was a GREAT season for Duke and a GREAT job of leadership by Nolan and Kyle to steer the ship after Kyrie got sunk.

Nolan and Kyle should get their jerseys retired. Don't let the NCAA tournament performance when the team was in the midst of re-adjusting and re-integrating sway you otherwise.

Is this to say that the team that played so well in the ACC tourney would have played differently in the NCAA tournament? I think Duke lost its best and most consistent player, as he demonstrated throughout the entire season, in late March at NCAA tournament time. He never recovered and the team never fully recovered. I think AZ was a tough matchup for Duke regardless of who played, but Duke did not have its best player in that game.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Just a thought since I see the "if" game being played...how is the board going to react "if" the polls rank UNC higher than Duke in the final rankings, which is possible, "if" not likely

[Wander]

Heck, even the Duke team that played in the ACC tournament would've done major damage in the NCAAs, imo. Hopefully that aspect of this 2011 season does not become lost as time goes by.

The proof is in the scoreboard.

In 2009, Duke won the ACC tournament and got thrashed by Villanova. In 2006, Duke won the ACC tournament and was exposed by LSU. The 2005 team also won the ACC tournament and was upset in the Sweet 16. We can go farther back, and consider teams other than Duke, but I think the point is made.

I see no reason to believe the team that won the ACC tournament would have done any better against Arizona than the team we actually put on the floor.

[Richard Berg]

I don't find most of the comparison in this thread very useful. Too many variables, too many imprecise terms. (silly to argue who the "best team" is when nobody agrees what "best" means)

I will say this: the Arizona team that showed up on 3/24/2011 would have handily beaten Butler, UConn, OSU, and Kansas. Even Duke-with-a-full-year-of-Kyrie would've had their hands full, probably requiring a feat of Laettner-esque heroism for us to survive & advance.

All of the above would have waxed Arizona's 3/26 team.

That's basketball for ya.

[hurleyfor3]

I will say this: the Arizona team that showed up on 3/24/2011 would have handily beaten Butler, UConn, OSU, and Kansas. Even Duke-with-a-full-year-of-Kyrie would've had their hands full, probably requiring a feat of Laettner-esque heroism for us to survive & advance.

All of the above would have waxed Arizona's 3/26 team.

Agree completely, although maybe 2001 could have beaten Zona. Not only that, we would have slaughtered last night's Kentucky or Uconn teams.

Slot us where Kansas was, and there was a fair chance we would have lost to vcu. And if not, we would've gotten Butler one game earlier.

Crap happens.

[sagegrouse]

Just a thought since I see the "if" game being played...how is the board going to react "if" the polls rank UNC higher than Duke in the final rankings, which is possible, "if" not likely

Wheat --

The AP poll is done. Duke finished #5, UNC finished #6.

The ESPN/USA Today coaches Poll is a mystery, if not an outright fraud. It is published the day after the Final Four. And #1 is always the NCAA champion and #2 always seems to be the runner-up. Last year the first four teams in the final ranking were Duke, Butler, WVa, and Mich State -- the Final Four. At the end of the regular season they were #3, #8, #5, and #12. In the final poll last year, #5 and #6 were Kentucky and Kansas the #2 and #1 in the regular season. Baylor moved into the top ten from #21 on the basis of -- well -- losing to Duke in the Elite Eight.

This year I expect to see the same crapola -- but it will be humorous, to be sure. In the final regular season poll neither Butler nor VCU were ranked in the top 25. And not only unranked -- they didn't receive A SINGLE VOTE from the coaches, placing behind Tommy's Hah-vahd team, which did receive one vote.

So, therefore, the coaches will effectively say, "We were full of it. These were top five teams all along, as the NCAA tournament verified. And we should be red-faced that not a single one of us voted for either team in the top 25. But since we don't pay any attention to what we submit or to what the final results show, we aren't embarrassed at all." Such nonsense!

sagegrouse
'So, Wheat, you may well be right about the final coaches poll'

[BobbyFan]

I will say this: the Arizona team that showed up on 3/24/2011 would have handily beaten Butler, UConn, OSU, and Kansas. Even Duke-with-a-full-year-of-Kyrie would've had their hands full, probably requiring a feat of Laettner-esque heroism for us to survive & advance.

It's funny that you mention this. As I was watching the 2nd half of the Arizona game, I mentioned to my friend that the last time I remember a team playing over their heads offensively to this degree was the UK game in 92. Of course, we happened to be just as brilliant on offense in that game and survived.

[Richard Berg]

It's funny that you mention this. As I was watching the 2nd half of the Arizona game, I mentioned to my friend that the last time I remember a team playing over their heads offensively to this degree was the UK game in 92. Of course, we happened to be just as brilliant on offense in that game and survived.

I agree, and said something similar.

Something people often forget, however: '92 was not a very good defensive team. Aside from a few lapses (at really bad times, aided by foul trouble and a freakish laceration to Singler), I think our guys played over 30 minutes of solid D. Substitute the '92 squad, jack up the # of possessions to match their average pace, and Zona might've scored 110! As good as our O was in '92, we only achieved that feat a few times: vs Harvard, Clemson, & State, all of whom had defenses in the bottom 20% of D-1, all of them occurring in CIS. In fairness I'll balance that against Christian & Bobby's knack for playing up to the level of their opponents -- but you still have, at best, a dead heat. I think we lose 6 times out of 10.

Only in '99 and '01 would we match up well, IMO. Elton, Shane, and 'Los wouldn't have let the lead evaporate so quickly. (you could argue that defense doesn't matter, the way Zona was making shots, but if nothing else those guys would've corralled more rebounds and loose balls) And obviously those teams had the firepower to keep up the pressure once the endgame barrage started, *if* they played at or above their average. Call it even money.

Just to illustrate how crazy it is to compare "average" or "expected" performance (based on a whole season) against a strong outlier: the great teams from '91, '98, '02, '04, '06, and '10 would be at least 2-1 dogs against Zona that night. You'd have to cherry pick a performance like 12/10/2005 (vs #2 Texas) or 2/14/2002 (vs #24 NC State) to make us a believable favorite. I honestly doubt whether recent squads' best games (say, 3/28/2010 vs WVu or 3/13/2011 vs UNC) would've been good enough.

Who else might've survived with a singular performance? The Terps on Greivis' senior night? Still an underdog, methinks. UNC on 2/11/09? (57 pts in the 2nd half, while shutting us down, in Cameron) Tossup. Kansas on 4/5/2008 (with that delicious 40-12 opening)? Call them 1.5/1 favorites -- but don't forget they almost gave it away when the Holes started playing out of their minds.

As wild as these conjectures get, I'm not adding injury-free '11 to the list. Way too many unknowns; we don't even know what our "average" performance looked like, much less the variance etc etc. Maybe they lose focus like '02. Or maybe they truly become the most dominant team in the land...like '99, or Vegas '91...

[omar]

Kyrie, Kyrie, Kyrie, enough already. His talent indeed matched his performance. It was, and perhaps will be, a pleasure to watch him play. It was refreshing to see his positive mental attitude on the bench, he was "all in" as the expression goes. The late season speculation of whether he would return stoked the dreams of back-to-back success. Personally, I cannot help but feel that the flow of the game changed when he returned to the madness of what is surely March. Nolan, Nolan, Nolan was the heart and sure shot of this team. Something called the bulk of the basketball season separated Kyrie's two act performances. K's statement that Kyrie would play, "a significant amount of time" was a thrill and put more octane in the tank. IMHO, however, the engine didn't run as efficiently as it used to. Could it be that our guard play was hampered by small amounts of indecision, a hesitancy to make a play rather than do what you did all year? You don't always go home with the person who took you to the dance. Perhaps less would have been more in this instance.

[Duvall]

IMHO, however, the engine didn't run as efficiently as it used to. Could it be that our guard play was hampered by small amounts of indecision, a hesitancy to make a play rather than do what you did all year?

Well, that and Seth Curry's hip pointer.

[loldevilz]

I agree, and said something similar.

Something people often forget, however: '92 was not a very good defensive team. Aside from a few lapses (at really bad times, aided by foul trouble and a freakish laceration to Singler), I think our guys played over 30 minutes of solid D. Substitute the '92 squad, jack up the # of possessions to match their average pace, and Zona might've scored 110! As good as our O was in '92, we only achieved that feat a few times: vs Harvard, Clemson, & State, all of whom had defenses in the bottom 20% of D-1, all of them occurring in CIS. In fairness I'll balance that against Christian & Bobby's knack for playing up to the level of their opponents -- but you still have, at best, a dead heat. I think we lose 6 times out of 10.

Only in '99 and '01 would we match up well, IMO. Elton, Shane, and 'Los wouldn't have let the lead evaporate so quickly. (you could argue that defense doesn't matter, the way Zona was making shots, but if nothing else those guys would've corralled more rebounds and loose balls) And obviously those teams had the firepower to keep up the pressure once the endgame barrage started, *if* they played at or above their average. Call it even money.

Just to illustrate how crazy it is to compare "average" or "expected" performance (based on a whole season) against a strong outlier: the great teams from '91, '98, '02, '04, '06, and '10 would be at least 2-1 dogs against Zona that night. You'd have to cherry pick a performance like 12/10/2005 (vs #2 Texas) or 2/14/2002 (vs #24 NC State) to make us a believable favorite. I honestly doubt whether recent squads' best games (say, 3/28/2010 vs WVu or 3/13/2011 vs UNC) would've been good enough.

Who else might've survived with a singular performance? The Terps on Greivis' senior night? Still an underdog, methinks. UNC on 2/11/09? (57 pts in the 2nd half, while shutting us down, in Cameron) Tossup. Kansas on 4/5/2008 (with that delicious 40-12 opening)? Call them 1.5/1 favorites -- but don't forget they almost gave it away when the Holes started playing out of their minds.

As wild as these conjectures get, I'm not adding injury-free '11 to the list. Way too many unknowns; we don't even know what our "average" performance looked like, much less the variance etc etc. Maybe they lose focus like '02. Or maybe they truly become the most dominant team in the land...like '99, or Vegas '91...

I understand that Arizona had a bizarrely good game against Duke. The best in at least 8 years according to kenpom. But Duke's poor play had a lot to do with it. Duke was a bad matchup for them. No doubt in 91, Grant Hill would have taken Williams out of the game.

Thinking back on it, it wasn't Kyrie Irving who was missed but Harrison Barnes, who with Singler could have handled Derrick Williams.