Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 117
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    unfortunately, damned if you do, damned if you don't……take OAD's and lose, something wrong with the coaching, don't take OAD's and lose, can't recruit good talent like calimari….


    personally, i think the OAD's have a negative effect on the rest of the team……i would imagine that others on the "team" were pretty sick of hearing/reading about jabari, rivers and even irving……(the debate about irving's late return to the team has been slogged through plenty)


    what "star" did we have on the '10 team? all of them, or none of them….take your pick, but is wasn't ONE of them…


    we can look at Calimari's model and think we see patterns, but, even they had their problems with "star power"…..
    "One POSSIBLE future. From your point of view... I don't know tech stuff.".... Kyle Reese

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by COYS View Post
    Sports fans don't like to think about it, but can we pause for a second and think about how much of a factor luck plays in our tournament results over such a short span?
    Great point. Especially in the NCAA tournament, luck is critical if you want to make the Final Four. Also, if you're talking about four or five year stretches (like the poster in another thread who is disappointed because the most recent four years don't resemble 1999 to 2004), such a short time span can be highly affected by one recruiting class or even one player.

    Quote Originally Posted by COYS View Post
    People have cited 2011 as the first year our defense started to slide, but our final KenPom ranking is only out of the top ten because of the Arizona game.
    Indeed. Duke's pre-tournament defensive rank was #3 in 2011.

    However, the reason we slid out of the top ten wasn't entirely the Arizona game. After that game, our D rank slipped to #8. Then when Pomeroy changed his formula, we slipped in retrospect to #21.

    Who's to say whether Pomeroy's new formula is a better predictor than his old formula, but some portion of Duke's historical defensive shortcomings seem to be due to the change:

    Post-Tournament Pomeroy numbers
    Code:
    Year	Old Pom	New Pom
    2003	15	16
    2004	4	4
    2005	1	3
    2006	13	18
    2007	5	7
    2008	9	8
    2009	20	36
    2010	4	8
    2011	8	21
    2012	70	81
    2013	27	31
    For some reason I don't really understand, Pomeroy's new formula seemed to devalue our defense more from 2009 to 2013 then it did from 2003 to 2008. Maybe something changed in our scheduling? I think it's impossible for us with the information we have to know if the change is due to some post-2008 deficiency in our defense that Pomeroy's old formula masked or whether it's simply a quirk of Pomeroy's new formula that undervalued our defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by COYS View Post
    The first round loss was bad, but Lehigh was a VERY good 15 seed (better KenPom rank than Mercer this season) playing against a Duke team without an important player. I think our luck finally ran out.
    I don't think people give enough credit to the loss of Ryan Kelly in that game. Yeah, we probably should have won it anyway, but we didn't look so good in the first two games without him, either. Losing Ryan was huge.

    Quote Originally Posted by COYS View Post
    To me, last season is nothing but a success minus those glaring losses to Maryland. Duke was clearly an elite team and played like it, even if the defense could never quite get into perfect sync.
    Duke's defense seemed in pretty good synch before Ryan got hurt on January 8, 2013. On January 13, Pomeroy ranked us as the #4 defense in the land.

    And Ryan's injury hurt us on the other end, too. In the ACC tournament loss to Maryland, Ryan had a subpar game and the team didn't look like we had entirely integrated him back into the flow of things. If we'd won that game and maybe one more and we're possibly a #1 seed, and even if not a #1 we might not have had to play Louisville to make the Final Four. As you say, luck is a big factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by COYS View Post
    This season is the only season in the past four that hasn't included a significant injury (although Marshall was still injured during the summer which hindered his development). We had high expectations because, as usual, we had a very talented squad. However, the defense never came together. Of all the years, I think we as fans are right to wonder about the defensive strategy the staff employed because we had a healthy team all season but never seemed to improve on defense. There's a lack of any other explanation.
    Yeah, this season still mystifies me. Not just the Mercer game -- the whole season.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    I find it ironic that K asks for a three year commitment from his NBA guys hoping to play on the Olympic team, yet seeks out the one and done talent for his college team.
    I suppose that if the Olympics were played each year the tactics might be different, but the point is that he says for team USA to come home with the gold, it requires a long term investment from his players.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Facts are the facts you choose. Roy has lost twice as a #1 seed to a #8/#9 seed. He's lost as a #2 to a #7 seed. He's lost as a #3 to a #11 seed. All in all, Roy has lost 7 second round tournament games. Roy also missed the tournament altogether once. In the same time span, Coach K has lost in the 1st or 2nd round 7 times (exactly the same) and depending on whether you count 1995 (since K wasn't actually coaching I personally wouldn't count it), Duke has missed the tournament either zero or one times (the same or one season better). I can't imagine #1 Kansas losing to #8 Rhode Island or #9 UTEP felt any better to Kansas fans than Duke's first round losses feel to us. In that light, Roy's disappointments and K's disappointments are pretty much exactly the same -- facts are facts.

    Also, the idea that losing an early NCAA game somehow exposes a flaw in a coach is just plain silly. The facts are that 15% of 3-seeds lose their first round games and 6% of 2-seeds lose their first round games and 14% of 1-seeds lose their second round games. Since no #1 has lost to a #16 you could argue the #1's game against the #8/#9 is the 1-seed's first real game, and if you look at it that way, top-three seeds have lost 11.5% of their first real NCAAT games. Duke under Coach K has been a top-three seed 26 times and lost 7.7% of its first real games. It's unfortunate that both losses have come in the past three years, but Coach K has still performed better than average among top-three seeds overall.

    On a related note, I always find it funny that after many recent losses, UNC fans on IC have complained about how times have passed Roy by and say he should think about retiring. I'm saddened to find similar talk here at DBR. Because it really is ridiculous.
    When you have a large body of work, you are bound to show up in the record book in both positive and negative ways. Still it should be a little bit uncomfortable finding yourself among the "15% of 3-seeds lose their first round games and 6% of 2-seeds lose their first round games and 14% of 1-seeds lose their second round games," given that most of that performance is fairly recent...with a national championship thrown in there somewhere.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    When you have a large body of work, you are bound to show up in the record book in both positive and negative ways. Still it should be a little bit uncomfortable finding yourself among the "15% of 3-seeds lose their first round games and 6% of 2-seeds lose their first round games and 14% of 1-seeds lose their second round games," given that most of that performance is fairly recent...with a national championship thrown in there somewhere.
    Wait - did K lose a second-round game as a 1-seed? Please tell me there's not ANOTHER horrible loss out there...

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    The Northwest
    Not only is luck a big factor in the tournament, but so is seeding and particularly how poorly the committee does in seeding - especially the non-major conference teams.

    Mercer is a classic example. They had the same record in conference as Florida Gulf Coast and met them in the conference title game. If FGC wins that game and the bid, there is no way they come in as a 14 seed after their sweet sixteen run last year. But Mercer is essentially the same team and gets too low of a seed simply because they weren't there the year before.

    North Dakota St, Harvard, SFAustin - all of these teams went all season looking WAY better than 12 seeds. But the committee feels like they have to dump them lower than ALL major conference teams so they get 12 seeds. I have yet to find one person ANYWHERE who thought any of those three teams DURING THE SEASON looked worse than BYU or Nebraska or Xavier.

    Lehigh was another good example. They clearly should have been a better seed than 15.

    And again, luck is a great point. A little remembered item from the Kemba Walker-UConn title run is that EVERY team played one of their best games of the season the game before they played UConn - and then they missed all the same wide open shots they had just been burying.

  7. #67
    Sorry, I am just not seeing the benefits of the One and Done for Duke. Kyrie, Austin, and probably Jabari - what did we get? One Sweet 16? I don't think it's worth it. I realize that there is risk of the accusation of not being able to recruit by not landing alleged elite players. Give me a 3 or 4 year player any time and the maturity, knowledge of system, and often leadership that comes with them.

  8. #68
    I think the topic is fair. There are some stark contrasts for us in terms of the one-and-dones who were on successful teams and those that were not. Namely, the good seasons didn't have the freshmen as their best player, and they weren't awful on defense. It might be a small sample size thing though.

    I guess what I don't know because I'm not really into following recruiting, and what I think is necessary to answer the question, is: what is the opportunity cost in getting these players? Obviously, having Jabari Parker is much better than not having Jabari Parker. But does taking these guys hurt us in getting, say, a Nolan Smith type of talent for a few years? Honest question. Not so much because of a transfer issue or anything like that, which I don't think is a problem for us, but just because of the finite amount of scholarships and units of time to expend in recruiting.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I find it ironic that K asks for a three year commitment from his NBA guys hoping to play on the Olympic team, yet seeks out the one and done talent for his college team.
    I suppose that if the Olympics were played each year the tactics might be different, but the point is that he says for team USA to come home with the gold, it requires a long term investment from his players.
    CBB: I said this above, but probably not very well: A one-and-done can only be defined after he declares for the draft. Two or three years earlier, "everyone" may say a 15YO will be a OAD, but it probably isn't true. (a) He may not develop into the kind of player the NBA zealously covets or (b) he may actually decide to stick around more than one year.

    If the policy is to avoid OAD's, I dunno how to make it operational. What's the dividing line when you are focused on 15 and 16 YOs?

    I think, given that uncertainty, the smartest thing is just to recruit the best players you can find and let the OAD problem take care of itself.

    Kindly, Sage
    'But given the difficulties in roster planning because of the NBA draft, I would probably arrange to use every one of the 13 scholarships'
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye Devil View Post
    Sorry, I am just not seeing the benefits of the One and Done for Duke. Kyrie, Austin, and probably Jabari - what did we get? One Sweet 16? I don't think it's worth it. I realize that there is risk of the accusation of not being able to recruit by not landing alleged elite players. Give me a 3 or 4 year player any time and the maturity, knowledge of system, and often leadership that comes with them.
    Would you be okay with the 3 or 4 year players and a sweet 16 finish every year? It is just not clear what is the line of satisfaction.

  11. #71
    Why blame it on one and dones? Jabari had his flaws but without him this team doesnt make the nit..We didnt lose because of Jabari we lost because of our pathetic lack of size to where MERCER bullied us in the paint..

    Ironically the 4 year players we had this year didnt improve at all nor did most of the other upperclassmen..

    I think you need a good balance in todays college but to not go after the best players becasue thye might leave is not he way to go imo

    Recrutign all mid level guys becasue you think theyll stay 4 years doesnt guarantee anyhting either,alot of those guys end up busts...

  12. #72

    All coaches arer swimming in the same water

    re OAD, this is not a Duke problem. Like or not, Pittino, Calipari, Izzo, Roy et al are succeeding in this new world. Someone mentioned in the coaching thread that are defense is suffering because of the new crackdown hand-checking doesn't allow our guard overplay and the block charge adjustments takes away one of our great defense assets - drawing charges. Again, this applies to all teams. Coach K has to adapt

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by AAA1980 View Post
    Why blame it on one and dones? Jabari had his flaws but without him this team doesnt make the nit..We didnt lose because of Jabari we lost because of our pathetic lack of size to where MERCER bullied us in the paint..

    Ironically the 4 year players we had this year didnt improve at all nor did most of the other upperclassmen..

    I think you need a good balance in todays college but to not go after the best players becasue thye might leave is not he way to go imo

    Recrutign all mid level guys becasue you think theyll stay 4 years doesnt guarantee anyhting either,alot of those guys end up busts...
    Who are all these amazing new posters bringing in fantastic ideas? Sans Jabari = NIT? Makes about as much sense as a fish riding a bicycle
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    Who are all these amazing new posters bringing in fantastic ideas? Sans Jabari = NIT? Makes about as much sense as a fish riding a bicycle
    I was exagerrating my point it Jabari wasnt the main reason for our struggles people here just want to use him to push their agendas on the one and done rules and ignore the fact that most of the upperclassmen on this team just werent any good and more importantly our lack of size..i think coach k whiffing on big men aside from a few has been more problematic the past decade then anything else..

    If you want to field a team full of 3 and 4 year players and they end the majority up like Thornton and Hairston we arent winning any titles..

    UK just beat WSU so youth/talent can beat experience and vice versa recruting strictly 4 year kids doesnt guarantee anything in fact all it guarantees is a greater chance of more players on your team being a bust in college..

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by AAA1980 View Post
    I was exagerrating my point it Jabari wasnt the main reason for our struggles people here just want to use him to push their agendas on the one and done rules and ignore the fact that msot of the upperclassmen on this team just werent any good..

    If you want to field a team full of 3 and 4 year players and they end the majroty up like Thornton and Hairston we arent winning any titles..
    Yeah, you're right. The 2010 title team included a bunch of one-and-dones:

    Starters:
    -Scheyer: 4 years
    -Singler: 3 years
    -Smith: 3 years
    -Thomas: 4 years
    -Zoubek: 4 years

    The Duke glory years between 1990 to 2006 rarely fielded a one-and-done (Deng and Maggette being the exceptions). We did pretty well then as well.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    CBB: I said this above, but probably not very well: A one-and-done can only be defined after he declares for the draft. Two or three years earlier, "everyone" may say a 15YO will be a OAD, but it probably isn't true. (a) He may not develop into the kind of player the NBA zealously covets or (b) he may actually decide to stick around more than one year.

    If the policy is to avoid OAD's, I dunno how to make it operational. What's the dividing line when you are focused on 15 and 16 YOs?

    I think, given that uncertainty, the smartest thing is just to recruit the best players you can find and let the OAD problem take care of itself.

    Kindly, Sage
    'But given the difficulties in roster planning because of the NBA draft, I would probably arrange to use every one of the 13 scholarships'
    I agree with your points too, it's a tough call. But there are guys that we've (and presumably the coaching staff) have a feeling are going to be a one and done player. Jabari in a way is a good one for your side of the equation. There is a pretty split feeling from fans and press alike that he actually may stay. IF that turns out to be the case, and we had looked elsewhere, we would have robbed ourselves of having him for two years. It's a tough call. I was merely pointing out what I think is an irony in K's position on the Olympic team guys vs. the presumably one and done guys. (Kyrie was definitely one that we all thought would be here only a year, and to a similar extent, both Parker and Rivers.)
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    Yeah, you're right. The 2010 title team included a bunch of one-and-dones:

    Starters:
    -Scheyer: 4 years
    -Singler: 3 years
    -Smith: 3 years
    -Thomas: 4 years
    -Zoubek: 4 years

    The Duke glory years between 1990 to 2006 rarely fielded a one-and-done (Deng and Maggette being the exceptions). We did pretty well then as well.
    The "glory years" dont exist in todays cbb and there not coming back..its a different game..

    Theyre's more then one way to skin a cat in todays game..The idea you can snap your fingers and easily recruit guys you know for a fact will be good but not good enough to leave early and hit their peak and become great in year 3 or 4 is unrealistic..its mostly luck

    All you can do is balance your team get a few guys you hope to develop and stay a few years to be part of a veteran core and add a one and done or two to help push you over the top..

    You want K to recruit with a crystal ball and know how a players gonna look in a few years and whats in his head as to wheter or not hell want to leave school early..its impossible to gauge any of that..

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I agree with your points too, it's a tough call. But there are guys that we've (and presumably the coaching staff) have a feeling are going to be a one and done player. Jabari in a way is a good one for your side of the equation. There is a pretty split feeling from fans and press alike that he actually may stay. IF that turns out to be the case, and we had looked elsewhere, we would have robbed ourselves of having him for two years. It's a tough call. I was merely pointing out what I think is an irony in K's position on the Olympic team guys vs. the presumably one and done guys. (Kyrie was definitely one that we all thought would be here only a year, and to a similar extent, both Parker and Rivers.)
    I'm not sure I agree with this. Kyrie was a turning point for Coach K. With Kyrie, Coach K signaled to the recruiting world that he was interested in OADs. Before that? Coach K rarely made a push for an OAD (and even more rarely got one). However, it took a few months after Kyrie committed for fans to see that Kyrie was going to be an OAD (I think giving Kyrie the #1 jersey was the main signal to me). When we originally got Kyrie, I thought that he was going to be a really good player who would stay maybe 2 years.

    After Kyrie, the OAD floodgates opened. Rivers was next, followed by Jabari, followed by Jahlil. Coach K knew, Rivers knew, and fans knew that Rivers was an OAD. Jabari and Jahlil look to be next.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye Devil View Post
    Kyrie, Austin, and probably Jabari - what did we get? One Sweet 16? I don't think it's worth it.
    What did we get? What did we deserve to get? Kyrie, Austin, and Jabari were arguably the best players on their respective teams. Do you think they somehow deprived us of something we otherwise earned? More importantly, do you think if we recruited lesser players in their place our NCAA tournament performances would have somehow improved in those years?

    I can see the argument that recruiting a top 10 talent (who these days are mostly one-and-done) takes resources away from the recruitment of other players and I can sort of see the argument that playing guys who only stay for one year takes playing time away (and corresponding potential opportunities for development) from the 8th and 9th guys on the bench. But I don't consider either argument to be particularly strong. I doubt most people around here would be satisfied if we never tried to recruit top ten talent, and developing the 8th and 9th guys (while a laudable goal) won't turn us from a team that loses in the first round into a team that goes to the Final Four.

    A better argument might be that recruiting four-year guys will give you plenty of seniors and senior-laden teams perform better. Except this team had three seniors on it -- how many more did you want? If nobody ever left early and we kept 12 scholarship players, then three would be the average number of seniors you'd expect. If your response to that is the seniors this season weren't good enough players, I think you're arguing against yourself. These three seniors are exactly the sort of players we'd end up with every year if we never went after top ten guys. If these seniors aren't good enough (and that's a big if -- while I would have preferred Josh to have lived up to his recruiting ranking, overall I'm very happy with our seniors), then a plan to recruit lesser talent and avoid OADs would net us less overall success than we've had, not more.

    But most of all, I strongly object to the idea that all we're supposed to "get" out of players is NCAA tournament performance. If the rest of the season doesn't matter, we should just have a big 350-team tournament and be done with it.

    I also object to the idea that NCAA tournament performance is a reasonable way to evaluate a team's season or how good the team was. For one thing, how far you get in the NCAA tournament involves many factors that are entirely outside the team's control -- as an example, last season Duke played a 15-seed, by far the toughest 7-seed (according to Pomeroy), the 2nd toughest 3-seed, and the toughest 1-seed. Ohio State, by comparison, played a 15-seed, a 10-seed, a 6-seed, and a 9-seed. Florida played a 14-seed, an 11-seed, a 15-seed, and a 4-seed. Both those teams also lost in the Elite Eight, but I'd bet Duke wouldn't have if they'd gotten to play Ohio State's or Florida's path.

    For slightly different reasons, early round upsets aren't that reasonable a basis for evaluating teams, either. Based on both history and on Pomeroy's numbers, Duke had approximately an 85% chance to beat Mercer. Meaning in a seven game series, Duke would probably win six of the games. Meaning we would be expected to lose a game. Of course it doesn't always happen that way -- it would certainly be possible for a team like Duke to beat a team like Mercer seven times in a row, but if you played enough times on average Duke would lose one out of seven games. And if that's the case, the fact that we happened to lose the first game in the (admittedly non-existent) series doesn't define how good or bad Duke was this year. And certainly doesn't measure Jabari's worth or value to the team.

    So, what did we "get"? We got a chance to watch an amazing player for a season, to root for a top ten basketball team full of good guys, and to enter the tournament with hopes of winning it (even if those hopes were dashed). Your opinion may vary, of course, but that seems like a lot to me.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    The Duke glory years between 1990 to 2006 rarely fielded a one-and-done (Deng and Maggette being the exceptions). We did pretty well then as well.
    This is, of course, meaningless given the way college basketball and the NBA Draft have changed since then.

Similar Threads

  1. The Pay the Players Debate
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 526
    Last Post: 10-06-2017, 11:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •