Strange "regressions" this year

[throatybeard]

I don't know about "regression", but for me, the most perplexing was the performances in Cameron... win or lose

We lost three games. Two were basically one-possession deals. Yes, UNC, a more talented team, hurt us powerfully two weeks ago. But it's not like 1995, where we went 8-6 at home. 8-0 road and 5-3 at home with two of the three at the margin is not some sort of disaster.

[Hkhawkins]

I wouldn't say this was necessarily a regression. This is basically what has happened to us in nine of the last eleven seasons.

These are our seeds in the NCAA Tournament the last eleven years:

2002 1
2003 3
2004 1
2005 1
2006 1
2007 6
2008 2
2009 2
2010 1
2011 1
2012 2

In that time we have made it past the sweet sixteen exactly two times. That means that, based on our seeding, we have badly underperformed in eight of the last eleven tournaments.

It has been incredibly frustrating for the last decade plus to be knocked out of the tournament almost every year long before a handful of teams that we beat during the regular season were. What we have been doing for the last decade plus just does not win championships. We are year and and year out one of the most consistent and competitive programs in the NCAA all season long and through the ACC Tournament only to fall flat on our faces come NCAA Tournament time.

Almost every year it seems like we can vastly outplay top teams from November to February and then we collapse. My personal theory is that it has been years since we had a legitimate bruiser of a big man on the inside. For years we had guys like Boozer, Brand, and Sheldon and they allowed us to spread the court and shoot threes because they could single handedly battle for boards and get us second chances. In my opinion, Brian Zoubek's emergence as a dominant Center is what won us the title in 2010. I don't know, I just think that Coach K is always able to get his teams to overachieve during the regular season but come tournament time they just are not set up for success. You cannot argue that our performances over the last decade in the Tourney have been pretty pathetic compared to the way we have played in the regular season.

[gep]

I readily admit that I don't have the resources (knowledge) nor time to research this... but how does this compare to other "really top tier" programs... like unc, MiSt, UK, KU, SU, ucon. Are we just expecting too much? At least, I know unc and ucon have been in the NIT during that time frame

Yeah, you can't be bounced from the NCAAT in the 1st or 2nd round if you're not even in it. You rather not be in the NCAAT, or be in the NCAAT and "under-perform" by not reaching your seed? For me, I think I still think getting into the NCAAT is better... FWIW

[Des Esseintes]

I wouldn't say this was necessarily a regression. This is basically what has happened to us in nine of the last eleven seasons.

These are our seeds in the NCAA Tournament the last eleven years:

2002 1
2003 3
2004 1
2005 1
2006 1
2007 6
2008 2
2009 2
2010 1
2011 1
2012 2

In that time we have made it past the sweet sixteen exactly two times. That means that, based on our seeding, we have badly underperformed in eight of the last eleven tournaments.

It has been incredibly frustrating for the last decade plus to be knocked out of the tournament almost every year long before a handful of teams that we beat during the regular season were. What we have been doing for the last decade plus just does not win championships. We are year and and year out one of the most consistent and competitive programs in the NCAA all season long and through the ACC Tournament only to fall flat on our faces come NCAA Tournament time.

Almost every year it seems like we can vastly outplay top teams from November to February and then we collapse. My personal theory is that it has been years since we had a legitimate bruiser of a big man on the inside. For years we had guys like Boozer, Brand, and Sheldon and they allowed us to spread the court and shoot threes because they could single handedly battle for boards and get us second chances. In my opinion, Brian Zoubek's emergence as a dominant Center is what won us the title in 2010. I don't know, I just think that Coach K is always able to get his teams to overachieve during the regular season but come tournament time they just are not set up for success. You cannot argue that our performances over the last decade in the Tourney have been pretty pathetic compared to the way we have played in the regular season.

I don't know why you would pick 11 years as your term except to cherrypick the data to make it look as bad as possible. Because if you extend it one more year, we're going to three Final Fours in 12 years and winning two titles. No one else in college basketball has been better over that period. Carolina, UCONN, and Florida have also won two championships, but Carolina has completely missed the tournament twice in that time, Connecticut has missed it at least once, and Florida has not really been a contender aside from its back-to-back glory. No other program has been to more than three Final Fours. (I think. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) So, again, if literally no one else has been better over the past dozen years, what do we have to complain about?

And as for the team not "living up" to its seeding, maybe Duke is overachieving in the regular season. That would be bad why? Regular season overachieving has delivered us multiple titles and multiple Final Fours, a tournament performance bettered by no one in college basketball. The truth is that the tournament is incredibly randomized, incredibly hard to advance in, and the best teams lose all the time. Ask Bill Self. Be glad we have all those one seeds. Someday they'll run out, and we will be very, very wistful.

[gep]

And as for the team not "living up" to its seeding, maybe Duke is overachieving in the regular season. That would be bad why? Regular season overachieving has delivered us multiple titles and multiple Final Fours, a tournament performance bettered by no one in college basketball. The truth is that the tournament is incredibly randomized, incredibly hard to advance in, and the best teams lose all the time. Ask Bill Self. Be glad we have all those one seeds. Someday they'll run out, and we will be very, very wistful.

I don't know if the Duke 2010 NC team "overachieved" in the regular season... but so what... gives Duke a better seed But, boy, did the "overachieve" in the NCAAT. One of my fondest memories, esepcially for Zoubs, Jon, and Lance. GO DUKE!!!!

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Finally, as far as I saw, the team never "lost" its team chemistry. We merely lost a couple of games while playing without one of our top players.

That's quite an understatement. One of those games that we "merely lost" was in the NCAA tourney to a far less talented 15 seed team (which then lost to a 10 seed), possibly the most shocking & disappointing loss in the Coach K era at Duke.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I think there's an important element missing from this conversation. I'm not sure this is really about 'regression' or 'lack of progress' across the season or whatever you want to call it. I'm not even sure it's about 'chemistry' per se. What I saw (what many of us saw) missing from the start was consistency of leadership. I'm not talking about coaching. I'm talking about what appears to be a lack of emergence of a true leader(s) amongst the players themselves. All we can really do is speculate since none of us were there... but there wasn't a Kyle, a Nolan, a Jon carrying forward the tradition of Duke basketball excellence and leading by example for the younger and less experienced players. Who amongst the players was leading on the floor, during practices, in the weight room, etc. To me the most telling comment was Mason's comment about having not gotten in each others' grills more. I sense the players kept looking to each other for the emergence of a true leader and it never really happened. Maybe for brief moments but never with any consistency for this team. Certain guys likely tried to lead - TT with his energy, AR on the court, who knows. Anyway, I suspect in the end we came up short because there was no one among the players waking up every day and owning the situation, showing the rest how to be champions. And I think this manifested itself as what we saw on the floor during games... constant energy letdowns, miscommunication, standing around, etc.

Still, I have to remind myself, as we all should, that if a 27-7 record is any kind of 'regression' then we are lucky as heck.

[Kedsy]

It has been incredibly frustrating for the last decade plus to be knocked out of the tournament almost every year long before a handful of teams that we beat during the regular season were.

Teams in multiple final fours since 2000:

Team     Final Fours     Championships
-----    ----------      --------------
Mich St.     5                 1
UNC          4                 2
Duke         3                 2
Florida      3                 2
UConn        3                 2
Kansas       3                 1
UCLA         3                 0
Butler       2                 0

I guess one person's "frustrating" is another person's "pretty darn good."

[Des Esseintes]

Teams in multiple final fours since 2000:

Team     Final Fours     Championships
-----    ----------      --------------
Mich St.     5                 1
UNC          4                 2
Duke         3                 2
Florida      3                 2
UConn        3                 2
Kansas       3                 1
UCLA         3                 0
Butler       2                 0

I guess one person's "frustrating" is another person's "pretty darn good."

Thanks for this table. I'd (stupidly) forgotten in my earlier post about Michigan State. They've been to 4 Final Fours since 2001, more than us, though they have no titles over that span.

[Kedsy]

Thanks for this table. I'd (stupidly) forgotten in my earlier post about Michigan State. They're been to 4 Final Fours since 2001, more than us, though they have no titles over that span.

Yes, if you go from 2001, Michigan State is 4 and 0; and UNC is 3 and 2, same as us. But I thought doing that would be just as much cherry picking as the guy who started in 2002. Starting at the turn of the century seemed more "natural," although of course it's arbitrary as well.

If you go back to 1999, we're 4 and 2 (same as UNC), but Michigan State goes to 6 and 1, UConn goes to 4 and 3, and Ohio State (2 and 0) appears in the table. If you go back a few more years, Kentucky starts to move up the table and UNC's resume beefs up. A few more years, and Duke dominates.

Having said all that, the original guy who said we've underperformed to our seed since 2002 is right, of course. But we WAY overperformed to our seed in the late 80s and early 90s. Perhaps it's just a matter of it all evening out?

[freshmanjs]

Yes, if you go from 2001, Michigan State is 4 and 0; and UNC is 3 and 2, same as us. But I thought doing that would be just as much cherry picking as the guy who started in 2002. Starting at the turn of the century seemed more "natural," although of course it's arbitrary as well.

If you go back to 1999, we're 4 and 2 (same as UNC), but Michigan State goes to 6 and 1, UConn goes to 4 and 3, and Ohio State (2 and 0) appears in the table. If you go back a few more years, Kentucky starts to move up the table and UNC's resume beefs up. A few more years, and Duke dominates.

Having said all that, the original guy who said we've underperformed to our seed since 2002 is right, of course. But we WAY overperformed to our seed in the late 80s and early 90s. Perhaps it's just a matter of it all evening out?

I think the way to look at underperforming vs. our seed is to look at how the seeds typically do (not whether we lost to a lower seeded team). #1 seeds make the final four about 45% of the time, from the data I could find.

We have made it to the final four 2 out of 6 times as a #1 seed in the cherry picked time period since 2002. If you go back one more year to include 2001, we'd be 3 out of 7, which is pretty much right on target. add another year, 2000 and we're 3 of 8. one more (1999) and we are 4 of 9, which is almost exactly equal to typical #1 seed performance. I think all we're seeing is the effects of very small sample size on the numbers rather than any structural underperformance by Duke.

[Des Esseintes]

Yes, if you go from 2001, Michigan State is 4 and 0; and UNC is 3 and 2, same as us. But I thought doing that would be just as much cherry picking as the guy who started in 2002. Starting at the turn of the century seemed more "natural," although of course it's arbitrary as well.

If you go back to 1999, we're 4 and 2 (same as UNC), but Michigan State goes to 6 and 1, UConn goes to 4 and 3, and Ohio State (2 and 0) appears in the table. If you go back a few more years, Kentucky starts to move up the table and UNC's resume beefs up. A few more years, and Duke dominates.

Having said all that, the original guy who said we've underperformed to our seed since 2002 is right, of course. But we WAY overperformed to our seed in the late 80s and early 90s. Perhaps it's just a matter of it all evening out?

That late 80s, early 90s run is just such a massive statistical anomaly, and yeah, in the tournament casino things regress(!) to the mean over time. You can see it in the NFL, where Brady had a ridiculous playoff record to start his career. It remains excellent today, but you hear people talk about the magic having left him because the Patriots have suffered some upset losses. He remains the same dude, one of the best ever to play and plenty clutch. In fact, he's probably a better quarterback now than during any of his title seasons. Certainly he's more prolific. As the Romans said, Jupiter keeps a pot of good luck on one side of his door and a pot of bad luck on the other. The fortunate people of the world receive dust from both pots.

[Jderf]

This is basically what has happened to us in nine of the last eleven seasons.
(...)
That means that, based on our seeding, we have badly underperformed in eight of the last eleven tournaments.
(...)
We are year and and year out one of the most consistent and competitive programs in the NCAA all season long and through the ACC Tournament only to fall flat on our faces come NCAA Tournament time.
(...)
You cannot argue that our performances over the last decade in the Tourney have not been pretty pathetic compared to the way we have played in the regular season.

That won't stop us from trying. "Pathetic" seems an incredibly harsh categorization of our post-season play, especially when you consider that over the same period, out of all 300+ NCAA teams, exactly one coach has outperformed Coach K. And not by all that much. Unfortuantely, that one coach happens to work at a University 8 miles down the road, making it all-the-more salient, but still -- no one else is on the same level as these two.


NCAA Tournament Records since the start of the millenium, including this year

Roy Williams: 37-8, 2 championships, one miss. (26-5 at Carolina)

Coach K: 29-10, 2 championships, no misses.

Calhoun: 25-7, 2 championships, three misses.
Billy Donovan: 20-7, two championships, two misses.
Izzo: 24-11, no championships, no misses. (30-11 with a championship, if you go back one more season)
Bill Self: 26-10, one championship, no misses.
Boeheim: 16-7, one championship, three misses.
Calipari: 23-8, no championships, three misses.


If Coach K's (and Duke's) post-season performance over this period has been pathetic, then this must just be a pathetic sport, because only one other coach can boast a better record over that period. And even in that span, Roy had at least one year (NIT) that was much, much worse than the any of the worst years Coach K put forward.

The craziest thing is, this is how the numbers look during the period that we have cherrypicked to make Coach K look bad. If we stretch our period back to the early 90s or over K's entire career, the rest of the pack just can't keep up.

Having said all that, the original guy who said we've underperformed to our seed since 2002 is right, of course. But we WAY overperformed to our seed in the late 80s and early 90s. Perhaps it's just a matter of it all evening out?

Another possibility is that Duke is traditionally seeded such that it is virtually impossible not to underperform our seeding. Most of the highest seeds get "upset" at some point, simply because most of the teams they play have a lower seed than they do.

Think about it. Over the period in question, Duke's tournament seeds have been 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, and 1. So if you actually, seriously, legitimately believe that a team should perform relative to its seed -- that the seed line is what ultimately determines how far a team should go in the tournament -- then over this span you believe that Duke's post-season record should at least be this: Final Four, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet Sixteen, Final Four, Final Four, Final Four, Round of 32, Elite Eight, Elite Eight, Final Four, Final Four, and an Elite Eight. So we should expect no more than one exit before the Sweet Sixteen, and 8 Final Fours. Anything short of that is pathetic?

Man... I said this in a post last week, but I'll say it again: Glad you guys aren't my boss.

[Kedsy]

NCAA Tournament Records since the start of the millenium, including this year

Izzo: 24-11, no championships, no misses. (30-11 with a championship, if you go back one more season)

Izzo won in 2000. Are you not counting that as "since the start of the millennium"?

Man... I said this in a post last week, but I'll say it again: Glad you guys aren't my boss.

Well, to be fair, only one guy used the word "pathetic." Other than that, I completely agree with you.

[Jderf]

Tha So if you actually, seriously, legitimately believe that a team should perform relative to its seed -- that the seed line is what ultimately determines how far a team should go in the tournament -- then over this span you believe that Duke's post-season record should at least be this: Final Four, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet Sixteen, Final Four, Final Four, Final Four, Round of 32, Elite Eight, Elite Eight, Final Four, Final Four, and an Elite Eight. So we should expect no more than one exit before the Sweet Sixteen, and 8 Final Fours. Anything short of that is pathetic?

The funniest thing is, even if K had posted this record -- which in this day and age would be utterly, astonishingly impossible -- most fans would probably be disappointed. I can hear the hypothetical wailing already: "Why can't K win the Big One anymore?" "Sure, he stacks up lots of tournament wins, but anyone can do that." "We need a coach that can take us all the way to the Promised Land, not ditch us at Mt. Nebo!"

Ridiculous.

[Jderf]

Izzo won in 2000. Are you not counting that as "since the start of the millennium"?

Well, to be fair, only one guy used the word "pathetic." Other than that, I completely agree with you.

Of course, you did not use the word pathetic. That was someone else. Sorry if I implied otherwise, because I think we are firmly in the same camp on this one. I mostly used the tag of "pathetic" as a jumping point for my post because it was so laughably off-base.

And you are right that Izzo's championship was technically in this millenium, but I was only trying to track the seasons that started since 2000. Either way it is arbitrary, and our point holds no matter what years we choose, so I don't think it is all that important.

[throatybeard]

That late 80s, early 90s run is just such a massive statistical anomaly, and yeah, in the tournament casino things regress(!) to the mean over time. You can see it in the NFL, where Brady had a ridiculous playoff record to start his career. It remains excellent today, but you hear people talk about the magic having left him because the Patriots have suffered some upset losses. He remains the same dude, one of the best ever to play and plenty clutch. In fact, he's probably a better quarterback now than during any of his title seasons. Certainly he's more prolific. As the Romans said, Jupiter keeps a pot of good luck on one side of his door and a pot of bad luck on the other. The fortunate people of the world receive dust from both pots.

"There are two urns that stand on the door-sill of Zeus. They are unlike
for the gifts they bestow: an urn of evils, and urn of blessings.
If Zeus who delights in thunder mingles these and bestows them
on man, he shifts, and moves now in evil, again in good fortune.
But when Zeus bestows from the urn of sorrows, he makes a failure
of man, and the evil hunger drives him over the shining
earth, and he wanders respected neither of gods nor of mortals."
--Iliad XXIV.527-33 (trans. Lattimore)

[Wander]

So, our "regression" appears to me to be an illusion created by the fact that we didn't progress as much as many of us expected.

I think this is sort of right. More to the point, I don't think we regressed in an absolute sense, but we regressed relative to the other 344 teams in Division 1. More a case of overachieving at the beginning of the year compared to underachieving at the end of it.

Another possibility is that Duke is traditionally seeded such that it is virtually impossible not to underperform our seeding. Most of the highest seeds get "upset" at some point, simply because most of the teams they play have a lower seed than they do.

Actually, even when you correct for this factor, Duke has still underperformed its seeding since 2002.

[Jderf]

Actually, even when you correct for this factor, Duke has still underperformed its seeding since 2002.

Hmm. You've sparked my curiosity. In what way do you "correct for this factor?"

I would not be surprised to see a solid analysis showing, by one meaure or another, that we have underperformed in some sense of the term. But I strongly doubt that such underperformance could by qualified as "pathetic." (Still caught up on that...)

[Wander]

Hmm. You've sparked my curiosity. In what way do you "correct for this factor?"

Basically, instead of assuming that a 1 seed "should" make the Final Four (which I agree with you is silly), you just look at how 1 seeds have actually done over the time period in question. You mentioned our seeds have been 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, and 1. So, if 1 seeds on average win W games in the tournament, 2 seeds on average win X games in the tournament, 3 seeds on average win Y games in the tournament, and 6 seeds on average win Z games, then the number of games you expect Duke to have won in this time period is 8W + 3X + Y + Z. I did this once a long time ago while bored. I don't remember how the numbers worked out*, but I remember finding out that Duke won less games than expected. I'd still argue we're the best program in the country over that time period based on getting those seeds in the first place, having won the most tournament games in an absolute sense in that time period**, and having zero truly bad years, but I don't think there's any question we've underperformed relative to seeding.

*I do remember that the number of games a 1 seed wins on average is very close to 3, i.e. making the Elite 8.
**Though I think Michigan State or Kansas may pass us if they make the Final Four