Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Maybe. More likely there is no "strateg[y] that better ensure[s] consistent success in the tournament." Kentucky came a whisker away from losing each of his last three games in this tournament (and didn't win the first one by much, either). You think that last shot by Wichita State missed because of some super secret Calipari strategy, or because good shots sometimes miss? If it had gone in instead of missing, would it have made Cal any worse of a coach, or made his strategies any less reliable?

    Sometimes people look for connections that simply aren't there. If they look hard enough, though, they're sure they see the connections. But they're probably just deluding themselves.
    I think we can all agree that Cal's tournament performance has exceeded K's over the past 10 years. Now I'd bet their regular season winning percentages are very similar.

    So if the outlier is post-season, why might that be? Apparently no one on this board believes Cal could possibly be the better coach over that time period (I do). And talent levels are pretty similar. So either K has had just really bad postseason luck (and vice versa for Cal), or there's something about the systems that explains the differences. Unless you have another reason?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post

    Measuring coaches or teams by Final Fours or even championships without looking at the entire resume is shortsighted.
    Yet this is exactly what the sports media clings to this time of year. Probably because it provides such easy and simple consumption. 4+ wins in mid-late March simply resonate more than 25+ wins (or whatever occurred) in Nov-March.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by jipops View Post
    Yet this is exactly what the sports media clings to this time of year. Probably because it provides such easy and simple consumption. 4+ wins in mid-late March simply resonate more than 25+ wins (or whatever occurred) in Nov-March.
    Let's be honest here. It doesn't matter what you do from Nov-Feb. The only time that counts is winning time in MARCH. Growing up among UK fans, I heard umpteen times:
    "We don't count Final Fours. We only count Titles"...

    As short-sighted as that is, it's really true. To be considered a premiere program, we have to consistently win 3-4 games in the NCAAT. We simply haven't done that in a decade.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by LobstersPinchPinch View Post
    I think we can all agree that Cal's tournament performance has exceeded K's over the past 10 years. Now I'd bet their regular season winning percentages are very similar.

    So if the outlier is post-season, why might that be? Apparently no one on this board believes Cal could possibly be the better coach over that time period (I do). And talent levels are pretty similar. So either K has had just really bad postseason luck (and vice versa for Cal), or there's something about the systems that explains the differences. Unless you have another reason?
    Agreed. Very good point. No doubt Coach K enjoyed tremendous success earlier in his career. What has happened since then? (Yes, injuries, early exits, etc. But every program has to manage these). How did we go from 7 Final Fours in 9 years.... to 1 Final Four in 10?

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by LobstersPinchPinch View Post
    I think we can all agree that Cal's tournament performance has exceeded K's over the past 10 years. Now I'd bet their regular season winning percentages are very similar.

    So if the outlier is post-season, why might that be? Apparently no one on this board believes Cal could possibly be the better coach over that time period (I do). And talent levels are pretty similar. So either K has had just really bad postseason luck (and vice versa for Cal), or there's something about the systems that explains the differences. Unless you have another reason?
    Well, since Cal has been at Kentucky, Duke has had a higher winning percentage than Kentucky (85% for Duke, 81% for UK). Measuring Cal's win/loss record in a mid-major conference the previous five years against Duke's record in the ACC doesn't sound like apples-to-apples. Also, since Cal has been at Kentucky, his final AP rank has been: 2, 15, 1, unranked, unranked, while K's at Duke has been: 4, 5, 6, 2, 7 -- so big advantage to K on that one in my opinion. As for the difference in postseason performance, I will once again state I think you're putting way, way too much stock in NCAA tournament results over a relatively short period -- it's just not even close to enough to make sweeping generalizations like Cal is the better coach or his system is better.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by LobstersPinchPinch View Post
    I think we can all agree that Cal's tournament performance has exceeded K's over the past 10 years. Now I'd bet their regular season winning percentages are very similar.

    So if the outlier is post-season, why might that be? Apparently no one on this board believes Cal could possibly be the better coach over that time period (I do). And talent levels are pretty similar. So either K has had just really bad postseason luck (and vice versa for Cal), or there's something about the systems that explains the differences. Unless you have another reason?
    You also think that the game has passed Coach K by, that a failure to reach the Elite Eight next year means all bets are off and that the AD needs to get involved in a program that in the last half decade has won a title and been to the Elite Eight.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by kybluedevil View Post
    Agreed. Very good point. No doubt Coach K enjoyed tremendous success earlier in his career. What has happened since then? (Yes, injuries, early exits, etc. But every program has to manage these). How did we go from 7 Final Fours in 9 years.... to 1 Final Four in 10?
    Duke has been to the Final Four twice, 04 and 10. There is a reason Duke went from 7 in 9 to 2 in 10 and that is because 7 Final Fours in 9 years is historic and will most likely not be matched.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Well, since Cal has been at Kentucky, Duke has had a higher winning percentage than Kentucky (85% for Duke, 81% for UK). Measuring Cal's win/loss record in a mid-major conference the previous five years against Duke's record in the ACC doesn't sound like apples-to-apples. Also, since Cal has been at Kentucky, his final AP rank has been: 2, 15, 1, unranked, unranked, while K's at Duke has been: 4, 5, 6, 2, 7 -- so big advantage to K on that one in my opinion. As for the difference in postseason performance, I will once again state I think you're putting way, way too much stock in NCAA tournament results over a relatively short period -- it's just not even close to enough to make sweeping generalizations like Cal is the better coach or his system is better.
    Thanks for the data, it does seem to show that the difference the past 10 years is the postseason. Now I don't have the expertise than you (and many folks on this board) have, but don't you think our approach to O (heavy reliance on 3 pointers) and D (susceptibility to penetration, leading to easier shots) may be part of the issue in the post-season? Doesn't a consistent presence in the post, both on O and D (and which we don't often have), lead to more stable performances? Now why those differences would be magnified in the post-season (teams can better prepare for us? or our legs get tired with more frequent games and we lose our shooting touch?), I don't know.

    But you seem to shut that theory down without proposing an alternative other than chance...

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by LobstersPinchPinch View Post
    Thanks for the data, it does seem to show that the difference the past 10 years is the postseason. Now I don't have the expertise than you (and many folks on this board) have, but don't you think our approach to O (heavy reliance on 3 pointers) and D (susceptibility to penetration, leading to easier shots) may be part of the issue in the post-season? Doesn't a consistent presence in the post, both on O and D (and which we don't often have), lead to more stable performances? Now why those differences would be magnified in the post-season (teams can better prepare for us? or our legs get tired with more frequent games and we lose our shooting touch?), I don't know.

    But you seem to shut that theory down without proposing an alternative other than chance...
    Our defense was bad this year. That definitely contributed to an early ouster, as it did two years ago. But I don't know what you're talking about regarding "consistent post presence." JJ and Shelden's final two years, we had a terrific post presence on O and D, and we got bounced in the Sweet 16 both seasons. The following year, in which McRoberts anchored the team, the Duke team had many faults and went out in Round 1. Thing is, offensive and defensive post presence were not in the top ten things wrong with that team. The following two seasons, 2008 and 2009, we did not have traditional posts, so if they were the only data points, I could see where you were coming from. But in 2010, we won the title, with very little post offense. Zoubek was a mountain on D, and he was great at offensive rebounds and screening, but neither he nor Lance Thomas had any kind of reliable post game. That team was dominant from the perimeter in. (As was our previous title team in 2001, which had the second-highest percentage of points from 3s-taken in Duke history. That team, we should also note, went without Carlos Boozer through the early rounds of the tournament.) The next three years, we had Mason at center. He was criticized for a wooden post game a lot, but he was definitely a consistent presence, especially when you added in Ryan's contributions and, for two of those seasons, his brother Miles's. Last year, no one could say Mason was anything other than a terrific post. And as for this season, our post D was lacking, but Jabari definitely had a strong post game. We took a ton of threes, yes, but OFFENSE WAS NOT THE ISSUE WHAT DID IN THIS DUKE TEAM WAS AN INABILITY TO STOP THE OPPOSITION WE DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE MOST EFFICIENT OFFENSE IN THE COUNTRY WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT THE 100TH MOST EFFICIENT DEFENSE IN THE COUNTRY PLEASE PLEASE. Ahem. All of which is to say, Duke has had post presence when we've gone out early, and we've lacked it sometimes when we went deep. It has very little explanatory power regarding Duke's postseason performance.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by LobstersPinchPinch View Post
    Thanks for the data, it does seem to show that the difference the past 10 years is the postseason. Now I don't have the expertise than you (and many folks on this board) have, but don't you think our approach to O (heavy reliance on 3 pointers) and D (susceptibility to penetration, leading to easier shots) may be part of the issue in the post-season? Doesn't a consistent presence in the post, both on O and D (and which we don't often have), lead to more stable performances? Now why those differences would be magnified in the post-season (teams can better prepare for us? or our legs get tired with more frequent games and we lose our shooting touch?), I don't know.

    But you seem to shut that theory down without proposing an alternative other than chance...
    Our heavy reliance on threes isn't going away any time soon. A few people here have done some analysis (e.g. uh oh's "Offensive efficiency based on shot type" or Niveklaen's "Are 3's more variable than 2s?". These are just fan analysis and not what is influencing the coaches, but it's clear that the coaching staff firmly believe that 3 point shooting with the current rules and court configuration make the most sense.

    Our defense has to improve though -- that much is clear. Coach K alluded to that in his press conference.
    Last edited by gus; 03-31-2014 at 06:31 PM. Reason: spelling

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by LobstersPinchPinch View Post
    Thanks for the data, it does seem to show that the difference the past 10 years is the postseason. Now I don't have the expertise than you (and many folks on this board) have, but don't you think our approach to O (heavy reliance on 3 pointers) and D (susceptibility to penetration, leading to easier shots) may be part of the issue in the post-season? Doesn't a consistent presence in the post, both on O and D (and which we don't often have), lead to more stable performances? Now why those differences would be magnified in the post-season (teams can better prepare for us? or our legs get tired with more frequent games and we lose our shooting touch?), I don't know.

    But you seem to shut that theory down without proposing an alternative other than chance...
    What are you proposing other than the AD conducting exit interviews to get to the bottom of a "struggling" program?

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by LobstersPinchPinch View Post
    Now I don't have the expertise than you (and many folks on this board) have, but don't you think our approach to O (heavy reliance on 3 pointers) and D (susceptibility to penetration, leading to easier shots) may be part of the issue in the post-season?
    Thing is, we've been relying on the three at approximately the same rate since 1996, and we've been susceptible to penetration probably since 1981, because that's what Coach K's type of defense gives up -- maybe only since 1987, because that's when the three-point shot began, but still, those time periods cover a lot of post-season success for Coach K's system. And I'm not saying chance covers the entire difference, but it does cover a lot of it.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Re: Coach K vs Calipari

    It's quite possible that Calipari is better than Coach K at taking a roster with a bunch of one-and-dones and developing them to reach their potential by the end of the season.

    I would be perfectly fine with that assessment if it's true. Calipari built his entire program around performing that task, and he's gotten truckloads of talent as a result (more than Duke), so I would hope for his sake he IS very good at it.

    Coach K's wade into 1-and-done territory was never about that, though. And, as a fan, I would not even WANT Duke to emulate what Kentucky's doing. Duke should only have one, maybe two, 1-and-dones at most per season, ably supported by returning talent. THAT is how Duke is supposed to compete for championships in the 1-and-done era. This season, however, Jabari and Rodney just weren't able to receive consistent support from the returning players throughout the season, and then in the final game of the season when the support WAS there, those two didn't play well. A cruel, ironic end.

    I don't anticipate the support from the returning players to be inconsistent next season. If it's true that we're going to build around Jahlil and that Tyus could start at PG, those two freshmen are going to receive a lot of support from Amile, Sheed, Quinn, and Marshall. Those four returning players will comprise an upperclassmen spine for the team that is stronger than what Quinn, Tyler, Dre, and Josh provided this season. If Quinn doesn't start, he should at least be the 6th man. Marshall should be the 7th man. Amile and Sheed are going to be starters. I just think the team is clearly going to be better as a result of that support and the tweaks that Coach K mentioned in his postseason press conference.

    I think Duke is going to be better than Kentucky next season and the season after that. Hard to say Duke is a "declining" program if I'm right.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Thing is, we've been relying on the three at approximately the same rate since 1996, and we've been susceptible to penetration probably since 1981, because that's what Coach K's type of defense gives up -- maybe only since 1987, because that's when the three-point shot began, but still, those time periods cover a lot of post-season success for Coach K's system. And I'm not saying chance covers the entire difference, but it does cover a lot of it.
    Thanks (and also to the poster above who articulated our post presence). I suppose there's another factor that might explain performance and that's our recruiting success at key positions. It seems like, by and large, we generally get the PGs & SGs that we want, but more recently, we missed on some of the bigs we targeted and either settled or didn't get any bigs in some of those years. Calipari, by contrast, has gotten pretty much everyone he wanted, with the exception of 2014.

    I'm curious if you guys think out post-seasons have been impacted by not getting some of the bigs the coaches were counting on...

  15. #55
    Have the past 5 years been so bad? Duke has a National Championship in 10, Sweet 16 in 11, and an Elite 8 in 13 losing to the eventual national champion. I realize that losing to Lehigh and Mercer was just awful and degrading. But it isn't like Duke has dropped off the map.

    With that said, maybe the D has been subject to penetration for a long time but it sure seems like the past couple of years have been worse than usual. I don't recall guards getting beat to the extent of the past few years. I posted at the end of last year that we couldn't expect that aspect of the defense to be better this season with essentially the same personnel. It wasn't a popular comment at the time and I was rebuked by a couple of different posters. But it was true. I just hope it isn't the same situation again next season. And it still seems to me that it is helpful if your guards are beat to have a big stud waiting there to make the opposing player think twice about it.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by LobstersPinchPinch View Post
    Thanks (and also to the poster above who articulated our post presence). I suppose there's another factor that might explain performance and that's our recruiting success at key positions. It seems like, by and large, we generally get the PGs & SGs that we want, but more recently, we missed on some of the bigs we targeted and either settled or didn't get any bigs in some of those years. Calipari, by contrast, has gotten pretty much everyone he wanted, with the exception of 2014.

    I'm curious if you guys think out post-seasons have been impacted by not getting some of the bigs the coaches were counting on...
    In some years, yes; in others, no. I don't think the 2012 exit, for example, was in any way impacted by not having a particular big man recruit that year (I don't know how far down the road we got with our top big target that year or the year before. A center would have helped this year, probably, but I actually think better perimeter defense, particularly from the point guard position, could have been close to equally valuable. In 2008 and 2009, definitely we were hurt by being small. Getting Patterson or Monroe - both of whom we thought we were pretty close to - could have made a huge difference in either of those years.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  17. #57
    I can see the logic of the arguments focusing on the whole season versus the tournament, but as a big fan of a number of different sports this argument seems very odd to me. Would any NBA fans feel any better about getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs if they had had a good winning percentage in the regular season? Does a great record in the NFL regular season make up in any way for losing in the divisional round? In soccer, does winning all your qualifying round games do any good if you get knocked off early in the World Cup? Why is college basketball any different?

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Coach K's wade into 1-and-done territory was never about that, though. And, as a fan, I would not even WANT Duke to emulate what Kentucky's doing. Duke should only have one, maybe two, 1-and-dones at most per season, ably supported by returning talent. THAT is how Duke is supposed to compete for championships in the 1-and-done era.
    And yet, in the past ten NCAA tournaments, the one that won a national championship (2010) was the one that didn't have any OADs. Neither is the one that came the next closest (2013). Meanwhile, two of the three teams that got upset in the first round centered on OADs. Maybe a small sample size, but still. I guess in a perfect world, our freshman starts wouldn't be ably supported by returning talent, but would be ably supporting the returning talent.

    Anyway (not speaking to you specifically anymore), I think the premise of the conversation here is a little silly. I fully recognize this season was disappointing. Not "get upset in the first round of the NIT by Robert Morris" awful or Indiana Pacers meltdown awful or HIMYM finale awful, but disappointing. And we should take a look at why our defense was so bad this year, but I don't see a reason to specifically compare with Calipari and Kentucky in a greater program sense.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    Our heavy reliance on threes isn't going away any time soon. A few people here have done some analysis (e.g. uh oh's "Offensive efficiency based on shot type" or Niveklaen's "Are 3's more variable than 2s?". These are just fan analysis and not what is influencing the coaches, but it's clear that the coaching staff firmly believe that 3 point shooting with the current rules and court configuration make the most sense.

    Our defense has to improve though -- that much is clear. Coach K alluded to that in his press conference.
    If there is ever a time Duke is an inside outside offensive team, it should be next season. We should have the inside player(Oak) and the outside player(Tyus) to get the ball inside. However the 2nd bolded sentence is the most important weakness(defense) to correct and I think the coaches will work hard on getting the job done. GoDuke!

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by ICP View Post
    I can see the logic of the arguments focusing on the whole season versus the tournament, but as a big fan of a number of different sports this argument seems very odd to me. Would any NBA fans feel any better about getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs if they had had a good winning percentage in the regular season? Does a great record in the NFL regular season make up in any way for losing in the divisional round? In soccer, does winning all your qualifying round games do any good if you get knocked off early in the World Cup? Why is college basketball any different?
    In one sense, of course, you are right--the postseason competition is the prize. But I would still argue that college basketball, and college sports generally, are different from the pros because, well, they are college sports. Professional sports teams are just that--organizations that are in the business of providing a sports product with the goal of making money; they have no other purpose. Postseason success makes more money and usually attracts more fans, and you are right that a good regular season record doesn't offer much consolation to fans of a team that loses early in the playoffs (think, say, Washington Capitals).

    College sports, at least in principle, exist as part of larger institutions with many goals and purposes beyond running sports teams. And those sports teams have goals, at least in principle, beyond winning and making money--providing a fun activity and a sense of cohesion for students who follow the team (and alums), and providing some sort of educational experience beyond the classroom (in the category of "life lessons") for the participating athletes. Obviously, an unexpectedly early departure from the tournament is disappointing, as we well know. But a team that has performed solidly during the regular season may still be accomplishing those other goals quite well, while also winning a lot on the court. So a season could, in balance, be a moderately good one even if the ending is not so good.

    Edit: I want to make clear that I am speaking in general terms and not expressing an opinion about whether this particular season has been "good."

Similar Threads

  1. Duke Grads: Memory Lane Music
    By BlueintheFace in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-24-2009, 11:01 AM
  2. Presentations and...some trip down memory lane
    By ItalianDevil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-09-2008, 09:21 AM
  3. Problems With Memory
    By colchar in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-24-2008, 01:11 AM
  4. Featherston's Memory (DUMB past and present)
    By grossbus in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 11-24-2007, 06:15 PM
  5. CBS' One Shining Moment - a few clips down memory lane
    By BobbyFan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-02-2007, 04:36 PM

Posting Permissions

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