2014-15 Ridiculously Early Preseason Polls

[FireOgilvie]

Corey Maggette and los Tres Amigos say, "Buenos dias."

Yeah, I clarified that I was talking about the "one-and-done" rule era in another post.

Back to KU, funny that Thaarpe transfers only hours after making that comment. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing...

[Kedsy]

So maybe we've only had two instances where we've relied heavily on freshmen to lead, and that's Rivers and Parker. Only two data points, sure, but also 2 out of the 3 times Coach K lost in the round of 64 across 20 NCAA tournaments. It's not definitive, but it does say something.

I disagree with several of your assessments, but that's not the point, I expected you to say those things. The point is I don't think the fact that the 2012 and 2014 teams both lost in the first round says much, if anything, about anything. It wasn't Austin's fault that Ryan Kelly missed the 2012 post-season, and while we clearly still should have beaten Lehigh anyway, there's little chance we would have lost that game if a healthy Ryan had played in it. And if we had won that game, then this narrative doesn't exist. Which, again, is why you shouldn't make broad conclusions based on a sample size of 2.

More importantly, the fact that these two teams with one-and-done freshman stars both happened to lose in the first round could have many causes having nothing to do with the freshmen. For example, these two teams were each one of the few Duke teams that didn't have a clear starter at PG (along with 2009 and 1995 and that's about it during Coach K's time here). To me, that seems a more likely culprit than relying heavily on freshmen. Frankly, to me, blind chance seems a more likely culprit.

Curious to what our Kansas fans think of this -- my impression is that Tharpe provokes kind of the same reaction from Kansas fans that Quin Cook evokes from Duke fans -- sort of mixed. Still, tough to lose a senior point guard.

After the selfie thing, TexHawk said that Tharpe was probably gone. Turns out he was right. Sounds like Kansas fans are more interested in seeing Mason and Frankamp play, anyway.

[gumbomoop]

Luke Winn, post-Turner ridiculously early but interesting power rankings:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/col...sas/index.html

Winn compares Jahlil to Sullinger and Love as frosh, says 17/10 "within reach."

[Des Esseintes]

To win big with freshman stars, you still need upperclass stars. We didn't so much as build our team around Rodney and Jabari (though I know K said that) but simply recognize that they were our two best players and try to run the offense through them. I'm sure the coaches would have been fine if Quinn or Rasheed or Amile had stepped forward and played at an all-ACC (or all-American) level. The fact that they didn't wasn't Jabari's fault. I like our returning guys and am rooting for all of them to have breakout seasons. And I do realize that Jabari as a junior would be awesome, but Jabari as a freshman was pretty darn good. And I expect much the same next year for at least 3, and perhaps all, of our freshmen.

No, you don't. You just don't. Kentucky won a title with no upperclassman stars. They nearly won a title this year with no upperclassman stars. THERE ARE NO RULES FOR WINNING BIG IN A SINGLE-ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT. It drives me crazy how everyone wants to graft after-the-fact laws onto this extremely randomized event, and they are all garbage. More talent means you have a better chance of going deep. More veteran talent is even better and gives you an even better chance of going deep. A strong defense gives you a better chance of going deep. Great coaching gives you a better chance of going deep. A favorable draw gives you a better chance of going deep. Playing close to home gives you a better chance of going deep. Great guard play gives you a better chance of going deep. A "rim protector" gives you a better chance of going deep. Meaningful depth gives you a better chance of going deep. All of these things, they help. But they just help. None are necessary. Teams have succeeded in the NCAA tournament lacking these values, often several at a time. Every piece of analysis we have that attempts even the slightest degree of rigor says that teams constructed any which dumb way can and do succeed in the tournament.

Just think, you can be the worse team in EVERY game and still win big. A team with a 40% of winning each game it plays still retains a 2.5% of winning four games and making the Final Four. Again, that's a team that wasn't supposed to win a single game. The NCAA tournament has no rules other than being good is preferable to being bad, and being lucky is the most preferable thing of all.

[ice-9]

I disagree with several of your assessments, but that's not the point, I expected you to say those things. The point is I don't think the fact that the 2012 and 2014 teams both lost in the first round says much, if anything, about anything. It wasn't Austin's fault that Ryan Kelly missed the 2012 post-season, and while we clearly still should have beaten Lehigh anyway, there's little chance we would have lost that game if a healthy Ryan had played in it. And if we had won that game, then this narrative doesn't exist. Which, again, is why you shouldn't make broad conclusions based on a sample size of 2.

More importantly, the fact that these two teams with one-and-done freshman stars both happened to lose in the first round could have many causes having nothing to do with the freshmen. For example, these two teams were each one of the few Duke teams that didn't have a clear starter at PG (along with 2009 and 1995 and that's about it during Coach K's time here). To me, that seems a more likely culprit than relying heavily on freshmen. Frankly, to me, blind chance seems a more likely culprit.

I don't know why you're portraying my statements as definitive positions, where I've been careful to communicate them as open questions and theories to test on this forum.

Who really knows what's causation and what's correlation.

It's also interesting to note that your strongly worded response is based on suppositions -- in other words, just another opinion.

[ice-9]

To win big with freshman stars, you still need upperclass stars. We didn't so much as build our team around Rodney and Jabari (though I know K said that) but simply recognize that they were our two best players and try to run the offense through them. I'm sure the coaches would have been fine if Quinn or Rasheed or Amile had stepped forward and played at an all-ACC (or all-American) level. The fact that they didn't wasn't Jabari's fault. I like our returning guys and am rooting for all of them to have breakout seasons. And I do realize that Jabari as a junior would be awesome, but Jabari as a freshman was pretty darn good. And I expect much the same next year for at least 3, and perhaps all, of our freshmen.

It absolutely matters that Coach K designed last season's team around Parker and Hood. Rasheed is a perfect example; his role changed from his freshman to sophomore year. In his freshman year his job was to score in iso situations with the ball in his hands; especially whenever the offense stalled and during low shot clock situations. In his sophomore year, it was Parker's and Hood's roles to do that so Rasheed was asked instead to do other things. This was the big reason he struggled early on.

No, you don't. You just don't. Kentucky won a title with no upperclassman stars. They nearly won a title this year with no upperclassman stars. THERE ARE NO RULES FOR WINNING BIG IN A SINGLE-ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT. It drives me crazy how everyone wants to graft after-the-fact laws onto this extremely randomized event, and they are all garbage. More talent means you have a better chance of going deep. More veteran talent is even better and gives you an even better chance of going deep. A strong defense gives you a better chance of going deep. Great coaching gives you a better chance of going deep. A favorable draw gives you a better chance of going deep. Playing close to home gives you a better chance of going deep. Great guard play gives you a better chance of going deep. A "rim protector" gives you a better chance of going deep. Meaningful depth gives you a better chance of going deep. All of these things, they help. But they just help. None are necessary. Teams have succeeded in the NCAA tournament lacking these values, often several at a time. Every piece of analysis we have that attempts even the slightest degree of rigor says that teams constructed any which dumb way can and do succeed in the tournament.

Just think, you can be the worse team in EVERY game and still win big. A team with a 40% of winning each game it plays still retains a 2.5% of winning four games and making the Final Four. Again, that's a team that wasn't supposed to win a single game. The NCAA tournament has no rules other than being good is preferable to being bad, and being lucky is the most preferable thing of all.

I think the discussion is about what which variables raises the probability of winning most. We're all sophisticated enough (I hope) to recognize that there is no such thing as sure-fire equations and guaranteed outcomes.

So, is it better to have experienced but less talented teams, or talented but young teams? More or fewer OADs? And how does this all change when considered under the Duke context?

[Des Esseintes]

I think the discussion is about what which variables raises the probability of winning most. We're all sophisticated enough (I hope) to recognize that there is no such thing as sure-fire equations and guaranteed outcomes.

So, is it better to have experienced but less talented teams, or talented but young teams? More or fewer OADs? And how does this all change when considered under the Duke context?

I have seen a lot of absolute positions taken in this thread and others. Defense wins championships. You cannot go deep without great guard play. A team needs a veteran star to win it all.

As for the question, I think it's broken. You can build a dominant regular season team with either type, and I believe an equivalent level of dominance yields an equivalent chance of tournament success.

[ice-9]

I have seen a lot of absolute positions taken in this thread and others. Defense wins championships. You cannot go deep without great guard play. A team needs a veteran star to win it all.

As for the question, I think it's broken. You can build a dominant regular season team with either type, and I believe an equivalent level of dominance yields an equivalent chance of tournament success.

I hear ya; I chalk up those kinds of statements to convenient short-hand. As in, it's just easier to say "great guard play wins championships" vs. "great guard play raises the probability of winning a championship to a great degree."

I don't consider the question broken at all. FireOgilvie's observation is an interesting one to explore, and next year we'll have another team built around the talent of a freshman. If we lose again next year in the round of 64, it may still not mean anything definitive, but it'll indicate more about something.

Regardless, I will be rooting for us just as fervently as always.

[dukelifer]

I hear ya; I chalk up those kinds of statements to convenient short-hand. As in, it's just easier to say "great guard play wins championships" vs. "great guard play raises the probability of winning a championship to a great degree."

I don't consider the question broken at all. FireOgilvie's observation is an interesting one to explore, and next year we'll have another team built around the talent of a freshman. If we lose again next year in the round of 64, it may still not mean anything definitive, but it'll indicate more about something.

Regardless, I will be rooting for us just as fervently as always.

Players who play well under pressure win championships- Freshman- Senior - it does not matter. NCAA games come down to who executes in key moments. Games are usually not blowouts. Not every player- even good ones- do well under pressure. Shots get flat- free throws are missed. Great player like the big moment.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Players who play well under pressure win championships- Freshman- Senior - it does not matter. NCAA games come down to who executes in key moments. Games are usually not blowouts. Not every player- even good ones- do well under pressure. Shots get flat- free throws are missed. Great player like the big moment.

Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, Christian Laettner, etc.

[bob blue devil]

So, is it better to have experienced but less talented teams, or talented but young teams? More or fewer OADs? And how does this all change when considered under the Duke context?

i think a study is in order to assess the tradeoff - team achievement (using an intelligent quant ranking system as a proxy) predicted by talent (some quantification based on recruiting rankings) and experience (measured by age, class, games played, etc.). The answer will be talent is more predictive by a meaningful margin - duke, kansas, kentucky, etc. win with a mix of class representations, but obviously better talent, whereas a senior laden team in the mid-dakota conference is lucky to be fodder in a 1:16 match-up. i'm not saying a tradeoff doesn't exist, just that it takes a lot of experience to overcome having even somewhat inferior talent.

and before anybody starts cherry picking individual games to "prove" how important experience is, i say - "are you interested in playing games of chance with me for money?"

[sagegrouse]

i think a study is in order to assess the tradeoff - team achievement (using an intelligent quant ranking system as a proxy) predicted by talent (some quantification based on recruiting rankings) and experience (measured by age, class, games played, etc.). The answer will be talent is more predictive by a meaningful margin - duke, kansas, kentucky, etc. win with a mix of class representations, but obviously better talent, whereas a senior laden team in the mid-dakota conference is lucky to be fodder in a 1:16 match-up. i'm not saying a tradeoff doesn't exist, just that it takes a lot of experience to overcome having even somewhat inferior talent.

and before anybody starts cherry picking individual games to "prove" how important experience is, i say - "are you interested in playing games of chance with me for money?"

As Yogi Berra might have said: "Basketball is ninety percent talent. The other half is experience."

[Olympic Fan]

I can't link it because it's an insider article, but Jeff Goodman revised his 2014-15 preseason poll ... he says that because of the Devonte Graham pickup, he's moving Kansas up to No. 4 and Duke down to No. 5.

No problem with being No. 5, but did replacing a senior point guard with a two-star recruit (which is what Graham was coming out of Raleigh Broughton HS) make Kansas THAT much better?

Okay, I realize that his stock soared after a year at Brewster Academy. But he still didn't make ESPN's top 100 -- either in 2013 or 2014.

[MCFinARL]

I can't link it because it's an insider article, but Jeff Goodman revised his 2014-15 preseason poll ... he says that because of the Devonte Graham pickup, he's moving Kansas up to No. 4 and Duke down to No. 5.

No problem with being No. 5, but did replacing a senior point guard with a two-star recruit (which is what Graham was coming out of Raleigh Broughton HS) make Kansas THAT much better?

Okay, I realize that his stock soared after a year at Brewster Academy. But he still didn't make ESPN's top 100 -- either in 2013 or 2014.

Good question. But I wouldn't mind if Duke's preseason ranking went down even more. Since we will once again be building around a freshman, and potentially relying heavily on additional freshmen, I think it will be better for them to come in with just a little less pressure from sky-high expectations.

[TexHawk]

I can't link it because it's an insider article, but Jeff Goodman revised his 2014-15 preseason poll ... he says that because of the Devonte Graham pickup, he's moving Kansas up to No. 4 and Duke down to No. 5.

No problem with being No. 5, but did replacing a senior point guard with a two-star recruit (which is what Graham was coming out of Raleigh Broughton HS) make Kansas THAT much better?

Okay, I realize that his stock soared after a year at Brewster Academy. But he still didn't make ESPN's top 100 -- either in 2013 or 2014.

1-- It's Goodman.
2-- Even if Graham is a fantastic PG, he will still just be a freshman. He won't be materially better than Frank Mason was last year, who had some great moments, along with a bunch of wtf-oh-yea-he's-a-freshman moments.
3-- Rivals pushed Graham to #36 in their final rankings. Not that that really means much, especially for point guards.

[gumbomoop]

1-- It's Goodman.
2-- Even if Graham is a fantastic PG, he will still just be a freshman. He won't be materially better than Frank Mason was last year, who had some great moments, along with a bunch of wtf-oh-yea-he's-a-freshman moments.
3-- Rivals pushed Graham to #36 in their final rankings. Not that that really means much, especially for point guards.

I know nothing about Graham, have only paid any attention because of recruitment story. But Scout's final rankings, released a few days ago, moved him to #41 and to #9 PG.

Turner's choice of Texas rather than KU means KU doesn't move as high as pre-2/3, but addition of Graham will probably solidify them as ~ 5.

Guessing at next October's preseason consensus:

• UK a clear consensus #1
• Highly probable consensus #2-5, in some order, of Wisconsin, 'Zona, Kansas, Duke
• Likely 'Zona no lower than 3, KU no higher than 4
• Maybe most disagreement about Duke among prognosticators -- as high as 2, as "low" as 5
• Anyone name another team likely to be an October consensus preseason top 5?

I'm still pushing UVa ahead of Duke, UNC, and UL, but I suspect they'll be nationally pre-ranked closer to 10 than 5. But I do think they will be consensus top 10.

[Olympic Fan]

I know nothing about Graham, have only paid any attention because of recruitment story. But Scout's final rankings, released a few days ago, moved him to #41 and to #9 PG.

Turner's choice of Texas rather than KU means KU doesn't move as high as pre-2/3, but addition of Graham will probably solidify them as ~ 5.

Guessing at next October's preseason consensus:

• UK a clear consensus #1
• Highly probable consensus #2-5, in some order, of Wisconsin, 'Zona, Kansas, Duke
• Likely 'Zona no lower than 3, KU no higher than 4
• Maybe most disagreement about Duke among prognosticators -- as high as 2, as "low" as 5
• Anyone name another team likely to be an October consensus preseason top 5?

I'm still pushing UVa ahead of Duke, UNC, and UL, but I suspect they'll be nationally pre-ranked closer to 10 than 5. But I do think they will be consensus top 10.

I agree with most of this, including your high regard for Virginia.

And I repeat, I don't have a problem ranking Duke No. 5 -- even behind Kansas at No. 4. At this point, it's silly to get hung up on ratings -- especially when we're talking about 2-3 places.

My only objection was Goodman's reasoning for changing his ranking. He had Duke 4 and Kansas 5 ... then Tharpe leaves and Graham commits ... and because of that exchange he jumps Kansas over Duke.

THAT is what I have a problem with.

[gumbomoop]

Seems the news of USC's talented Byron Wesley transferring to Gonzaga for his senior/graduate season should push Zags toward pre-top 10-12.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...nzaga-bulldogs

Mark Few has maybe 8-9 guys who can play. Lots of talent/experience/depth in a 5-man perimeter [Pangos, Bell, Dranginis, now-transfer Wesley, frosh PG Perkins]. Solid interior starters [Karnowski, Wiltjer]. If either UL transfer Nunez or incoming Sabonis can play 20 mpg, that's strong interior. If both can play, it's a solid 9-man rotation, with size and 3-bombers.

Probably won't quite make October pre-top 10, but getting close.

I recall that Ryan Kelly made Wiltjer look bad several times in the game in Atlanta at the beginning of the 2012-13 season. [Poythress, btw, was UK star in that game, only his second at UK, and appeared a star-certain.] But Wiltjer has stretch-4 talent, will be a 4th-year junior, and should be an important player next season. Zags have talent/experience/depth. By mid-late season, once the vets, transfers, and frosh get to know the system, they could be very good.

[TexHawk]

Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk to KU.

Not sure if there are any recruit-niks around who know about this guy, but I am flummoxed. And excited. Excitedly flummoxed.

--He's only 16, but should play this fall.
--A scout was quoted that he would be a Top 10 recruit in 2015 or 2016.
--He supposedly turned down several European pro offers.
--He looks like a tall 8th grader. My sister could probably beat him up.
--Apparently the dude and his family are over-the-top in love with Sasha Kaun. They were shown highlights of the 2008 final, and they only got visibly interested when Kaun made two baskets.
--I have gone from "certain he will be a lottery pick in 2015" to "OMG, a dust mite could knock him down so he won't play in '14-15 at all" and back to "he's a Nik Stauskas clone". Somebody talk me down.