Let's Face It - We are the Kings of November and December

[lotusland]

Thanks for the effort! Small correction: Duke is 5th in January. <shakes fist at January!!>

When are UNC and NCSU Kings? I'd rather be Duke. Not too many folks predicted we would be ranked #1 this early anyway so let's not have a panic attack just because we played a stinker in January. Let's see how we respond and if a couple of our heralded rectuits can make the most of their opportunity to contribute. Hopefully Ryan comes back and we have a solid bench by March.

[wsb3]

I agree with this post. The period of seven in nine final fours was remarkable. I was fortunate enough to attend senior day in 91 with a friend..(Koubek and Buckley) vs Clemson. Neither of us left that night thinking that was the team that would give us the National Champion we had pulled for since the mid sixties. The following weekend they were crushed in the ACC Championship lending even more doubt.

What makes that streak even more remarkable is how much talent was present across the country. What a masterful job of peaking at the right time. Now it seems we often play our best before January. Except as stated by Mike Corey the 2010 season. I won't pretend to know all the reasons.

I don't think the past few seasons are fairly included without an asterisk, given the precarious injury situations of Kyrie and Kelly.

However, there's something to this.

During the stretch early in Coach K's Duke tenure when we advanced to seven FFs in nine years, we peaked late despite not always having the most sterling of regular season records.

That does seem to have flipped a bit post-2004, whatever the reasons. Except for 2010, of course.

[mkirsh]

Truthfully - I think this is a huge point. Since 2001, and other than 2004 and 2010, Duke has been abysmal in the NCAA tournament. Before anyone says anything - yes 99% of the programs would kill to have our abysmal record. But we're talking about Duke and its performance relative to its seeding. Obviously this is separate and apart from incredible success in the ACC tournament, which makes the following all the more perplexing.

In 2002, as defending national champions, with four NBA starters on the roster, we lost to #5 seeded Indiana in a Sweet Sixteen game we were favored to win by 13 points.

In 2003, as a #3 seed, we lost to #2 seeded Kansas in a Sweet Sixteen game in which we were a 3.5 point underdog.

In 2004, as a #1 seed, we lost to #2 seeded UCONN in a Final Four game in which we were a 2.0 point underdog. **I still think the referees cost us this game and we outplayed them.

In 2005, as a #1 seed, we lost (by 10) to #5 seeded Michigan State in a Sweet Sixteen game in which we were a 4.5 point favorite.

In 2006, as a #1 seed, we lost (by 8) to #4 seeded LSU in a Sweet Sixteen game in which we were a 6.0 point favorite.

AT THIS POINT, WE HAD LOST FOUR OUT OF FIVE YEARS IN THE SWEET SIXTEEN, THREE OF WHICH WE WERE THE #1 SEED AND AN AVERAGE 8.0 POINT FAVORITE

In 2007, as a #8 seed, we lost to #9 seeded VCU in a first round game in which we were a 6.5 point favorite. (BY THE WAY, WE LOST 8 OF OUR LAST 12 GAMES THAT YEAR)

In 2008, as a #2 seed, we lost to # 7 seeded West Virginia in a second round game in which we were a 4.0 point favorite.

(**Also worth noting we beat #15 seeded Belmont by 1 in a first round game in which we were a 20.0 point favorite.)

In 2009, as a #2 seed, we lost to #3 seeded Villanova (by 23 points) in a Sweet Sixteen game in which we were a 2.0 favorite

AT THIS POINT WE HAD LOST 5 STRAIGHT TOURNAMENT GAMES IN WHICH WE WERE A FAVORITE

2010 - ONE SHINING MOMENT

2011 - as a #1 seed, we lost to #5 seeded Arizona (by 16 points) in a Sweet Sixteen game in which we were an 8.5 point favorite.

2012 - as a #2 seed, we lost to #15 seeded Lehigh (by 5 points) in a first round game in which we were a 12.0 point favorite.


Thus, without 2010:

Duke has been eliminated in the NCAA tournament seven straight times as a favorite.

Duke has not made the elite 8 or Final Four in seven straight years despite being a #1 or #2 seed in six out of seven of those years

Duke has underperformed, relative to the spread, by an average of 16 points in its elimination games during the past seven years.

Duke has not exceeded expectations in the NCAA tournament, relative to seeding, once since 1991 and the UNLV game.


Objectively, Duke has been terrible in the NCAA tournament since 2001 - abysmal since 2004, and 2010 saved us from that narrative being discussed more often.

Not sure if this confirms or disputes the original point, but think it is interesting to look at tournament performance relative to preseason expectations:

2002 - #1 pre-season, losing in sweet 16 pretty big disappointment
2003 - #6, losing in sweet 16 slight disappointment (one round early)
2004 - #2, made final four as expected
2005 - #11, losing in sweet 16 as expected
2006 - #1, losing in sweet 16 big disappointment
2007 - #12, losing in first round big disappointment
2008 - #13, losing in second round slight disappointment
2009 - #8, losing in sweet 16 slight disappointment
2010 - #9, Winner, substantial over-achievement
2011 - #1, losing in sweet 16 big disappointment (but with substantial KI injury)
2012 - #6 - results TBD

obviously a lot of flaws with this (mainly that preseason rankings are highly speculative), but using them as a rough guide to early expectations our tournament performance doesn't look as bad - not particularly good, but not terrible either. I see 4 of what I would call "big disappointments" in losing more than one round early (ie #4 team not making elite 8) in 2002, 2006, 2007, and 2011, 3 "slight disappointments" where we lose one round early (ie #4 team making elite 8 but not final 4) in 2003, 2008, and 2009, 2 years where we performed as expected in 2004 and 2005, and one year where we substantially over-achieved and won it all.

So going back to the main argument of whether we over-perform early and under-perform late vs over-perform early and just perform to expectations late, (don't think anyone is arguing that we don't over-perform early), it is probably true that we don't perform up to expectations in March, but it's also true that we ride the roller coaster during the year and let the hot starts raise expectations so March losses feel that much worse than if you re-set to early expectations.

[devilsadvocate85]

I agree with this post. The period of seven in nine final fours was remarkable. I was fortunate enough to attend senior day in 91 with a friend..(Koubek and Buckley) vs Clemson. Neither of us left that night thinking that was the team that would give us the National Champion we had pulled for since the mid sixties. The following weekend they were crushed in the ACC Championship lending even more doubt.

What makes that streak even more remarkable is how much talent was present across the country. What a masterful job of peaking at the right time. Now it seems we often play our best before January. Except as stated by Mike Corey the 2010 season. I won't pretend to know all the reasons.

1) Has anyone considered that in some years we may have been "over-seeded" in the NCAA tournament? Regardless of claims to the contrary, I think it's impossible for the seedings not to have some "name bias".

2) Using Las Vegas odds / point spreads to look at a single game is not really valid. Point spreads are set to balance the betting on an individual game. They are not set to indicate what anyone thinks will actually happen.


I personally feel this kind of thing is overblown. The longer you sustain excellence, the harder it is to measure up to your past.

[rsvman]

...
Thus, without 2010:

Duke has been eliminated in the NCAA tournament seven straight times as a favorite.

Duke has not made the elite 8 or Final Four in seven straight years despite being a #1 or #2 seed in six out of seven of those years

Duke has underperformed, relative to the spread, by an average of 16 points in its elimination games during the past seven years.

Duke has not exceeded expectations in the NCAA tournament, relative to seeding, once since 1991 and the UNLV game.


Objectively, Duke has been terrible in the NCAA tournament since 2001 - abysmal since 2004, and 2010 saved us from that narrative being discussed more often.

2010 didn't save us from a narrative, it brought us a national title. You can't just omit 2010 and then say we were terrible in the tournament. I'm struggling for an apt metaphor. This one isn't exactly what I want, but it makes me laugh, so I'll use it: A guy goes to 7-11 on his way home from work every Friday and buys a lottery ticket. In 2010, he wins $43 million in the lottery. Then his wife says, "Aside from that time you won $43 million, you've been abysmal in the lottery."

The 2010 victory, unexpected as it was, is as much a part of our tournament history as is the loss to Lehigh, unexpected as it was. It doesn't just stave off the narrative, it's an actual counter-example to the narrative.

[mo.st.dukie]

If you removed 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2001, 2004, and 2010 Duke and Coach K have been pretty terrible in the tournament. 21 of Coach K's seasons have been pretty awful by Duke's standards and only 11 (34%) have been good enough. He needs to pick it up.

[freshmanjs]

2010 didn't save us from a narrative, it brought us a national title. You can't just omit 2010 and then say we were terrible in the tournament. I'm struggling for an apt metaphor. This one isn't exactly what I want, but it makes me laugh, so I'll use it: A guy goes to 7-11 on his way home from work every Friday and buys a lottery ticket. In 2010, he wins $43 million in the lottery. Then his wife says, "Aside from that time you won $43 million, you've been abysmal in the lottery."

The 2010 victory, unexpected as it was, is as much a part of our tournament history as is the loss to Lehigh, unexpected as it was. It doesn't just stave off the narrative, it's an actual counter-example to the narrative.

there is no question that Duke's ncaa tournament performance during the period 1986 - 2001 was far superior to the performance from 2002 - today. maybe that is luck or small sample size randomness. or maybe it isn't. but denying that the performance has been worse is just not reflective of the facts. the lottery analogy just doesn't hold up. if your lottery guy had a 1 in 10 chance of winning the lottery and won it once in 20 tries, the analogy would be closer. and the wife would be right.

[rsvman]

I know the lottery analogy was terrible, but it still has a point. You lose the lottery every time you don't win it. If you win it, you didn't lose it. Looking back and saying, "if it weren't for the fact that you won the lottery, you always lose" is kind of like saying to the CEO of Citibank "if it weren't for the fact that you have a lot of money, you would be poor."

So, yes, we have underperformed relative to expectations several times in the recent past; an unnerving number, for diehard fans like myself. But 2010 is still a counter-example, and it shows that we can also overperform relative to expectations.

[Kedsy]

there is no question that Duke's ncaa tournament performance during the period 1986 - 2001 was far superior to the performance from 2002 - today. maybe that is luck or small sample size randomness. or maybe it isn't. but denying that the performance has been worse is just not reflective of the facts.

Well, facts plus a very subjective selection of the sample. In the six season sample from 1995 to 2000, we only made one Final Four and won zero championships. In fact, we only made it as far as the Sweet 16 three of the six years. That's a lot worse than the past six seasons.

The real facts are we had an unbelievable run from 1986 to 1994, unmatched by any team, ever, in the modern NCAA tournament era, and since then we've had great teams with an astonishing record in the ACC tournament but with only sporadic NCAAT success. So?

[freshmanjs]

Well, facts plus a very subjective selection of the sample. In the six season sample from 1995 to 2000, we only made one Final Four and won zero championships. In fact, we only made it as far as the Sweet 16 three of the six years. That's a lot worse than the past six seasons.

The real facts are we had an unbelievable run from 1986 to 1994, unmatched by any team, ever, in the modern NCAA tournament era, and since then we've had great teams with an astonishing record in the ACC tournament but with only sporadic NCAAT success. So?

the "so" is that Duke's performance has been significantly different recently vs early on in K's tenure. maybe that is uninteresting to you. i find it quite interesting and can consider several possible explanations including small sample size / random variation. your "real" facts (not sure what you mean by that) say the same thing. the recent ncaa tournament performance has not been as good as it used to be.

i apologize that my facts were not "real"...

[Kedsy]

the "so" is that Duke's performance has been significantly different recently vs early on in K's tenure. maybe that is uninteresting to you. i find it quite interesting and can consider several possible explanations including small sample size / random variation. your "real" facts (not sure what you mean by that) say the same thing. the recent ncaa tournament performance has not been as good as it used to be.

i apologize that my facts were not "real"...

What I meant by "real" is we made 7 Final Fours in 9 years. Expanding that range through 2001 as you did, presumably to make the more recent stretch seem worse, is not a "fact," it's a subjective sample selection designed to make a point that isn't necessarily valid.

The 1986 through 1994 stretch was glorious but unlikely. Nobody has done it since, and unless they change the rules there's a good chance nobody will ever do it again. So, yes, comparing any team's or coach's performance to that is "uninteresting" to me. Attempting to show a difference that really isn't there similarly lacks interest.

There have been 18 seasons after our 1994 championship game appearance. Split them evenly almost any way you want and you won't see much of a difference. Two nine season segments? 1995-2003: six times to Sweet 16 or past, two Final Fours, one championship; 2004-2012: six times to Sweet 16 or past, two Final Fours, one championship. Exactly the same. Three six season segments? 1995 to 2000: three times to S16 or past, one Final Four, zero championships; 2001 to 2006: six times to S16 or past, two Final Fours, one championship; 2007 to 2012: three times to S16 or past, one Final Four, one championship. So, not exactly the same but the outlier is actually in the middle of the timeframe and the worst segment is the earliest.

Unless you want to analyze why the first five years and the most recent 18 years of K's Duke career don't compare favorably to an incomparable nine year stretch in the middle, I don't see the point of this discussion.

[freshmanjs]

Unless you want to analyze why the first five years and the most recent 18 years of K's Duke career don't compare favorably to an incomparable nine year stretch in the middle, I don't see the point of this discussion.

then why do you keep engaging in it?

[OldPhiKap]

2010 didn't save us from a narrative, it brought us a national title. You can't just omit 2010 and then say we were terrible in the tournament. I'm struggling for an apt metaphor. This one isn't exactly what I want, but it makes me laugh, so I'll use it: A guy goes to 7-11 on his way home from work every Friday and buys a lottery ticket. In 2010, he wins $43 million in the lottery. Then his wife says, "Aside from that time you won $43 million, you've been abysmal in the lottery."

The 2010 victory, unexpected as it was, is as much a part of our tournament history as is the loss to Lehigh, unexpected as it was. It doesn't just stave off the narrative, it's an actual counter-example to the narrative.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

It is difficult to give a complete narrative by taking out key facts.

Agree 100%.

On a related note, Brad Stevens got to the national championship game 100% of the time from 2010-2011, but hasn't gotten there since. Big O-fer.

[freshmanjs]

What I meant by "real" is we made 7 Final Fours in 9 years. Expanding that range through 2001 as you did, presumably to make the more recent stretch seem worse, is not a "fact," it's a subjective sample selection designed to make a point that isn't necessarily valid.

The 1986 through 1994 stretch was glorious but unlikely. Nobody has done it since, and unless they change the rules there's a good chance nobody will ever do it again. So, yes, comparing any team's or coach's performance to that is "uninteresting" to me. Attempting to show a difference that really isn't there similarly lacks interest.

There have been 18 seasons after our 1994 championship game appearance. Split them evenly almost any way you want and you won't see much of a difference. Two nine season segments? 1995-2003: six times to Sweet 16 or past, two Final Fours, one championship; 2004-2012: six times to Sweet 16 or past, two Final Fours, one championship. Exactly the same. Three six season segments? 1995 to 2000: three times to S16 or past, one Final Four, zero championships; 2001 to 2006: six times to S16 or past, two Final Fours, one championship; 2007 to 2012: three times to S16 or past, one Final Four, one championship. So, not exactly the same but the outlier is actually in the middle of the timeframe and the worst segment is the earliest.

Unless you want to analyze why the first five years and the most recent 18 years of K's Duke career don't compare favorably to an incomparable nine year stretch in the middle, I don't see the point of this discussion.

that is not how i look at it. i am interested in performance in the ncaa-t RELATIVE to performance in the regular season in the same year. since you are accusing me (rudely) of cherry picking time frames to make a false point (a remarkably annoying accusation), i will choose 1 year chunks.

here is how i'd assess ncaat relative to regular season

1986 - on target
1987 - on target
1988 - exceeded
1989 - exceeded
1990 - exceeded
1991 - exceeded
1992 - on target
1993 - fell short
1994 - exceeded
1995 - n/a
1996 - on target
1997 - fell short
1998 - on target
1999 - on target
2000 - on target (given dunleavy sickness)
2001 - on target or exceeded
2002 - fell short
2003 - on target
2004 - on target / exceeded

2005 - fell short
2006 - fell short
2007 - fell short
2008 - fell short
2009 - fell short
2010 - exceeded
2011 - fell short
2012 - fell short


perhaps this sheds some light on why i drew the time periods the way i did. as i've said several times already, maybe this is explained by randomness or small sample size. but, i really don't see how you could say there is no difference in pre 2004 vs post.

[Kedsy]

Truthfully - I think this is a huge point. Since 2001, and other than 2004 and 2010, Duke has been abysmal in the NCAA tournament. Before anyone says anything - yes 99% of the programs would kill to have our abysmal record. But we're talking about Duke and its performance relative to its seeding.

Just to be complete, we also underperformed to our seeding in 1984 (3 lost to 6), 1985 (3 lost to 11), 1993 (3 lost to 6), 1996 (8 lost to 9), 1997 (2 lost to 10), 1998 (1 lost to 2) and 2000 (1 lost to 5). So we were also "abysmal" before 1986 and from 1995 to 2000. The only periods we didn't underperform to our seeding the majority of the time were 1986 to 1994 and the very subjectively chosen period of 2001 to 2004.

[Wander]

2005 - fell short
2006 - fell short
2007 - fell short
2008 - fell short
2009 - fell short
2010 - exceeded
2011 - fell short
2012 - fell short

Yeah, this is sort of the key point. We've won less than the expected number of tournament games relative to seeding in all the "fell short" years listed here. Again, my opinion is that it's really nothing to panic about, and I suspect it doesn't mean a whole lot, but I don't see why it's not an interesting point of discussion.

It might be useful to engage the null hypothesis for those who think this isn't even worth discussing. How many years would we have to "fall short" (again, defined by winning less than the average number of games according to our seed) before it does become a valid point of discussion? We're at 7 of the past 8 years at the moment. If it becomes 11 of the past 12, is it still not worth discussing? What about 15 of the past 16?

[freshmanjs]

Yeah, this is sort of the key point. We've won less than the expected number of tournament games relative to seeding in all the "fell short" years listed here. Again, my opinion is that it's really nothing to panic about, and I suspect it doesn't mean a whole lot, but I don't see why it's not an interesting point of discussion.

It might be useful to engage the null hypothesis for those who think this isn't even worth discussing. How many years would we have to "fall short" (again, defined by winning less than the average number of games according to our seed) before it does become a valid point of discussion? We're at 7 of the past 8 years at the moment. If it becomes 11 of the past 12, is it still not worth discussing? What about 15 of the past 16?

to put the data another way, in the 19 year period 1986 - 2004, duke never "fell short" two years in a row. not ever in 19 years. amazing. now it has happened in 7 of the last 8. again, i'm not commenting on causality, but it sure is a striking difference in performance.

[Kedsy]

here is how i'd assess ncaat relative to regular season

1986 - on target
1987 - on target
1988 - exceeded
1989 - exceeded
1990 - exceeded
1991 - exceeded
1992 - on target
1993 - fell short
1994 - exceeded
1995 - n/a
1996 - on target
1997 - fell short
1998 - on target
1999 - on target
2000 - on target (given dunleavy sickness)
2001 - on target or exceeded
2002 - fell short
2003 - on target
2004 - on target / exceeded

2005 - fell short
2006 - fell short
2007 - fell short
2008 - fell short
2009 - fell short
2010 - exceeded
2011 - fell short
2012 - fell short


perhaps this sheds some light on why i drew the time periods the way i did. as i've said several times already, maybe this is explained by randomness or small sample size. but, i really don't see how you could say there is no difference in pre 2004 vs post.

Again, you're being subjective. Personally I'd characterize many of these seasons differently. For example, we were the pre-season #1 team in the country in 1988-89 -- how could reaching the Final Four and losing the semifinal be considered exceeding expectations? And I think a lot of people around here would argue we fell short in 1999, and I doubt many would consider losing to a lower seeded directional school in 1996 to be "on target." In 1998 we fell short just as much as we did in 2009; in 2000 we fell short as much as we did in 2011; and in 2005 and 2008, while we lost to lower seeds, I personally didn't expect much (if at all) better than we did. So, in my subjective opinion, even using your arbitrary cutoff, the years from 1995 to 2004 included four or five "fall shorts" (depending on how you view 1999) and four or five "on targets." The years from 2005 to 2012 included four or five "fall shorts" (depending on how you view 2005) and three or four "on targets" or "exceeded." Not so much of a difference.

Also, you're completely ignoring 1981 to 1985 (or at least 1984 to 1985 if all you care about is the NCAAT), but we "fell short" in those years too, and they're "pre 2004," right?

Your earlier post spoke about pre-2001 vs. post and now you're talking about pre-2004 vs. post, so to me it seems like you're moving the goalposts again. I know you've mentioned small sample size, but the later you go with your cutoff date the smaller the sample becomes. At this point you're comparing 24 years to 8, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[throatybeard]

Except for Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, Roosevelt, and Kennedy, the President never dies in office.

[Kedsy]

We're at 7 of the past 8 years at the moment.

But we also fell short compared to expected number of wins relative to seeding in 5 of the previous 8 years, and that's using the most favorable cutoff for the argument.

If you take the past 20 years and cut it into two equal 10 year periods (still subjective, but at least we're using round numbers and even time periods), we fell short relative to seeding 6 times from 1993 to 2002 (and didn't make the tournament once) and 7 times from 2003 to 2012. Not much of a difference.

Ultimately I stand by my assessment that other than the amazing period from 1986 to 1994, we've performed pretty close to the same in the NCAAT for the other seasons of K's tenure.

Incidentally, the reason I keep trying to separate out 1986 to 1994 is because if you recognize that stretch as exceptional and probably unrepeatable, the question becomes "what did we do so well in that nine year period?" instead of "what are we doing so poorly in the past eight years?" Which I believe is an important distinction. The first question may be an interesting point of discussion. Personally, I don't think the second question is fair or reasonable.


.