Duke's all time starting five

[Duvall]

1. There were great players before K.

There were. It's still silly to complain about recency bias when people pick consensus National Players of the Year from the 2000's over 2nd-team All-Americans from the 1960's.

[sagegrouse]

Here's a revised list with Olympic Fan's "suggestions." Of course, it is still the fault of the voters for the various awards.

First Team -- Consensus National Players of the Year:

Groat, 1952 (still broadcasting in Pittsburgh as an octogenarian)
Heyman, 1963
Ferry, 1989 (co-consensus NPOY with Sean Elliott)
Laettner, 1992*
Brand, 1999
Battier, 2001
JWill, 2002
Redick, 2006
(We recently lost Artie, but he's still on the team)

Second Team -- (All other NPOYs, First-Team All-Americans, and Retired Jerseys)

Mullins, 1964*
Verga, 1967
Gminski, 1980 (1st team in 1979)
JDawkins, 1986
Hurley, 1993
Grant Hill, 1994*
Carrawell, 2000
Shelden Wms., 2006
Nolan Smith, 2012
Jabari, 2014

*Olympic gold medal, plus Tate Armstrong (1976) and Carlos Boozer (2008, bronze 2004) and, for Trivia points, Crawford Palmer (silver medal for France, 2000)

NBA All-Star game appearances: Laettner, Brand, Mullins, Grant Hill plus, Jack Marin, Carlos Boozer and Kyrie Irving

[-jk]

I don't know what environmentalism has to do with anything, and I don't think there weren't great players before K.

But IMO a lot of the posters on this board take things way too far in that direction by outsmarting themselves. 100% of Duke's national titles and 75% of Duke's Final Fours have come in the past 28 years, and while team and individual success aren't the same thing, that recent dominance absolutely deserves to be reflected in these sorts of lists. That doesn't mean you can't make an argument for anyone before K: Groat, Heyman, and Mullins deserve to be in the discussion, but no one else in the pre-K era does for the top 5, and it's not close. Our athletic department apparently agrees, based on the retired jersey list.

I read the thread - kaze's post was obviously a joke.

Playing numbers? Bubas -10 years. 3 Final Fours and 5 NCAA appearances in an era when only a single ACC team got a dance card punched - and that based on three games in three days. K - 35 years. 11 Final Fours in an era when half the ACC went to the Tourney each year. I rather suspect Bubas' 5 appearances in 10 seasons was a more meaningful measure than anything K has done post-ACC-season short of actual championships. Bubas didn't have the same opportunities. I'd love to have seen Bubas coach until - oh -1980 or so, even with the one-team-per-conference limit.

Or, in other words, Duke was really good before K: 5th in all time NCAA wins when K joined. Now we're 4th. We have a tradition of winning since long before K joined Duke. And that's not an attempt to dis K. He's one of the all-timers! (Note: I plan to retire from this board when K retires from Duke, or I'll lose my mind. I hope we keep the tradition alive post-K. UCLA has struggled...)

-jk

[blueduke59]

Dick Groat scored 48 points against CaroWina in February, 1952. Danny Ferry is the only one to exceed that, by 10 points. Both players deserve the highest accolades for that and for everything else they accomplished. The Bleacher Report, in fact has Groat as #1 on its all all-time list of Duke players. Nice list, but it has a few flaws. My list would be similar, though. I'd have Grant Hill somewhere in the first two on the list, but I can't argue with the entirety of the list.

I am surprised by the fact that only Jeff Mullins from the Coach Vic Bubas years is mentioned in this thread's list. A lot of today's folks know very little about Coach Bubas and his program. As much as I admire Coach K, Bubas would have likely taken us to similar lofty levels had he stayed as head coach.

Bob Verga and Art Heyman also played for Bubas. For the young guys who didn't know Bubas took Duke to 3 Final Fours in 4 years. While Coach K deserves all the accolades he has received it was Bubas who first made Duke a national power.

[burnspbesq]

Seriously, how many times has this already been done?

Not enough, apparently.

OK, I'll bite.

Lindsey Harding
Alana Beard
Kira Orr
Elizabeth Williams
Michelle Van Gorp

Second team:
Chelsea Gray
Georgia Schweitzer
Tricia Liston
Mo Currie
Ali Bales

[JasonEvans]

Not enough, apparently.

Well, either that or the fact that it has been done enough failed to stop some folks from doing it again... sigh.

Lindsey Harding
Alana Beard
Kira Orr
Elizabeth Williams
Michelle Van Gorp

Ummm, Katie Meyer and especially Chris Moreland are scowling at you right now. There was a Duke women's program before G

-Jason "lets merge this with all the threads talking about big man minutes to make the circle complete " Evans

[burnspbesq]

Well, either that or the fact that it has been done enough failed to stop some folks from doing it again... sigh.



Ummm, Katie Meyer and especially Chris Moreland are scowling at you right now. There was a Duke women's program before G

-Jason "lets merge this with all the threads talking about big man minutes to make the circle complete " Evans

Gotta go with what ya know. If I tried to pick an all-time Duke men's lax team, the oldest guys would be Kevin Cassese and Aaron Fenton.

[-jk]

I think this is a pretty standard - almost inevitable - summer thread. It might be a bit more tiresome than usual after the $15 team thread we already hashed out, though.

-jk

[kAzE]

I don't know what environmentalism has to do with anything, and I don't think there weren't great players before K.

But IMO a lot of the posters on this board take things way too far in that direction by outsmarting themselves. 100% of Duke's national titles and 75% of Duke's Final Fours have come in the past 28 years, and while team and individual success aren't the same thing, that recent dominance absolutely deserves to be reflected in these sorts of lists. That doesn't mean you can't make an argument for anyone before K: Groat, Heyman, and Mullins deserve to be in the discussion, but no one else in the pre-K era does for the top 5, and it's not close. Our athletic department apparently agrees, based on the retired jersey list.

I read the thread - kaze's post was obviously a joke.

Yes . . . thank you for pointing that out, although I thought I had made it sufficiently obvious . . . I guess not.

My real list, in the entirely unlikely event that anybody actually cares:

C: Laettner
PF: Battier
SF: Hill
SG: Redick
PG: Williams

[gurufrisbee]

It's an interesting topic and not everyone around here has been here forever and/or has read every thread in here. Those of you "old timers" bashing it from the start should realize you come off as real self righteous, pompous jerks when you do. Even if you've done it before, why not open your mind to the possibility of changing you mind? Or that someone might suggest a take on it that makes you think of it differently? Maybe it's an opportunity to educate younger fans about the greatness of Heyman or Mullins or Verga. Maybe it's an opening to talk about whether these fictional teams should be about what they did at Duke versus pro potential. Heck, even just the jokes about the girls team or lacrosse team or whatever are funny when they don't accompany rudeness and unnecessary attacking of others. If you have to be mean and nasty, find one of those North Carolina pieces about letting ex players who were in "good academic standing" come back to finish their degrees. More deserved there.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Kyrie Irving is an excellent player and possibly the most talented player Duke has ever had but is he worth the discussion since he only played for Duke for 6 or so games because of injury.

As long as we are nit-picking you to death 6 games =/= 11 games. Might not be a huge difference, but it's nearly double. For instance, imagine if Luol Deng had played in 70 games instead of 37. Or if Laettner had played in 300 games instead of 148.

[OldPhiKap]

Not enough, apparently.

OK, I'll bite.

Lindsey Harding
Alana Beard
Kira Orr
Elizabeth Williams
Michelle Van Gorp

Second team:
Chelsea Gray
Georgia Schweitzer
Tricia Liston
Mo Currie
Ali Bales

FWIW I recall that the 1986 Yearbook had Chris Moreland, not Johnny Dawkins, as the athlete of the year.

[NashvilleDevil]

C: Martin Nessley
PF: John Smith
SF: Weldon Williams
SG: Kevin Strickland
PG: Jay Heaps

Bench: Clay Buckley
Bench: Carmen Wallace

[CDu]

Playing numbers? Bubas -10 years. 3 Final Fours and 5 NCAA appearances in an era when only a single ACC team got a dance card punched - and that based on three games in three days. K - 35 years. 11 Final Fours in an era when half the ACC went to the Tourney each year. I rather suspect Bubas' 5 appearances in 10 seasons was a more meaningful measure than anything K has done post-ACC-season short of actual championships. Bubas didn't have the same opportunities. I'd love to have seen Bubas coach until - oh -1980 or so, even with the one-team-per-conference limit.

Or, in other words, Duke was really good before K: 5th in all time NCAA wins when K joined. Now we're 4th. We have a tradition of winning since long before K joined Duke. And that's not an attempt to dis K. He's one of the all-timers! (Note: I plan to retire from this board when K retires from Duke, or I'll lose my mind. I hope we keep the tradition alive post-K. UCLA has struggled...)

-jk

This is a very important point. It's REALLY unfair to compare teams across eras. The ACC was perennially one of the two toughest conferences in basketball for decades. With just one team making it to the tournament, comparing Final Four runs is just not really fair. Yes, Coach K has had amazing success in his era (perhaps more than Bubas would have had given the chance). But Bubas wasn't really given that chance.

It's sort of like the greatest of all-time tennis debate. Folks jump to say Federer in large part because of his grand slam record, but they often forget that some important factors limited the number of titles by some of the earlier greats:
1. For a long time, the grand slams were not open to professionals. That meant that a guy like Laver (who won the grand slam in 1962, then went pro and was ineligible throughout much of his prime) didn't have nearly as many opportunities as the players of today. He undoubtedly would have won several more majors had he been eligible during his prime.
2. The Australian Open used to be the final major played in the year, played very late in the calendar year. As such, a lot of the best players skipped it (due to the brutal heat and excessive travel and timing during the holidays). Bjorn Borg, who won 40% of the grand slam singles events in which he competed and won 11 such titles before retiring at just 26, skipped the Australian open throughout his prime. He undoubtedly would have picked up a few more majors had he played in the Aussie Open from 1975-1981 when we racked up those 11 titles.

Ignoring those differences in these sorts of comparisons is often very unfair to those of previous eras.

[Duvall]

This is a very important point. It's REALLY unfair to compare teams across eras. The ACC was perennially one of the two toughest conferences in basketball for decades. With just one team making it to the tournament, comparing Final Four runs is just not really fair. Yes, Coach K has had amazing success in his era (perhaps more than Bubas would have had given the chance). But Bubas wasn't really given that chance.

Not that it's easy to compare across eras, but doesn't the single-bid factor cut both ways? Yes, a coach would lose chances to win tournament games in years when they didn't win their conference, but those coaches would also not have to face conference runners-up in the years that they *did* win their conference, making the fields weaker all around. Just looking at Duke, teams like Kansas 1988, Indiana 2002, Michigan State 2005, LSU 2006 and Villanova 2009 never would have been in the tournament to beat ACC-winning Duke teams.

[CDu]

Not that it's easy to compare across eras, but doesn't the single-bid factor cut both ways? Yes, a coach would lose chances to win tournament games in years when they didn't win their conference, but those coaches would also not have to face conference runners-up in the years that they *did* win their conference, making the fields weaker all around. Just looking at Duke, teams like Kansas 1988, Indiana 2002, Michigan State 2005, LSU 2006 and Villanova 2009 never would have been in the tournament to beat ACC-winning Duke teams.

It is certainly harder to win it once you're in it now. However, getting in it is unquestionably easier now than it was before. Essentially, you had to win 7 or 8 tournament games to win the title back then. I think that tradeoff still substantially favors the present in terms of ease of winning a title.

[sagegrouse]

Not that it's easy to compare across eras, but doesn't the single-bid factor cut both ways? Yes, a coach would lose chances to win tournament games in years when they didn't win their conference, but those coaches would also not have to face conference runners-up in the years that they *did* win their conference, making the fields weaker all around. Just looking at Duke, teams like Kansas 1988, Indiana 2002, Michigan State 2005, LSU 2006 and Villanova 2009 never would have been in the tournament to beat ACC-winning Duke teams.

It is certainly harder to win it once you're in it now. However, getting in it is unquestionably easier now than it was before. I think that tradeoff still substantially favors the present in terms of ease of winning a title.

College basketball is in a different universe now compared to the 1960's. Back then there were only about 30 major programs -- the Big Four in the ACC, a number of Big Ten schools, a number of schools in the East, Kentucky, three on the West Coast, etc. Let me give an example: I attended the East Regional finals in 1964 in Reynolds Coliseum -- Duke beat UConn by FORTY-SEVEN points,101-54! The only strong teams in the Eastern Regional were Duke and Villanova, although there were good teams that didn't make the tournament.

None of this makes Bubas's contributions less impressive -- after all, he put Duke at the forefront of college hoops.

[CDu]

College basketball is in a different universe now compared to the 1960's. Back then there were only about 30 major programs -- the Big Four in the ACC, a number of Big Ten schools, a number of schools in the East, Kentucky, three on the West Coast, etc. Let me give an example: I attended the East Regional finals in 1964 in Reynolds Coliseum -- Duke beat UConn by FORTY-SEVEN points,101-54! The only strong teams in the Eastern Regional were Duke and Villanova, although there were good teams that didn't make the tournament.

None of this makes Bubas's contributions less impressive -- after all, he put Duke at the forefront of college hoops.

Right. I'd argue that the ACC tournament was MUCH harder than the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament back then. But back then, an ACC team had to win at least two tough games (probably comparable to Final Four games) in the ACC tournament, then survive the regional (the "easy" part), then win two Final Four games to win the tournament. So for an ACC team to win it all, they had to win at least four games of Final Four quality, with the absence of your typical sweet-16 level matchups. The problem was that two of those four Final Four matchups occurred before the NCAA tournament even started. It was just a completely different tournament structure.

[Olympic Fan]

Playing numbers? Bubas -10 years. 3 Final Fours and 5 NCAA appearances in an era when only a single ACC team got a dance card punched - and that based on three games in three days.

Small correction -- Bubas had just four NCAA appearances in his 10 seasons:

1960 -- Elite Eight
1963 -- NCAA 3rd place
1964 -- NCAA 2nd place
1966 -- NCAA 3rd place

Bubas was 11-4 in NCAA play -- .733 percent (note: K is 82-26 .759)

Bubas was 22-6 in ACC Tournament play -- .786. That's the best ACC Tournament winning percentage of any ACC coach -- including Coach K, Dean Smith or Everett Case.

Now, you could argue that he coached at a time when the ACC was top-heavy and indeed the Big Four dominated the league (although he did have to beat some of Frank McGuire's best South Carolina teams in 1967, 1968, 1969). But he also coached at a time when you have to win the ACC Tournament to get an NCAA bid, so everybody went all out -- not like today, when some teams (cough, cough ... I'm looking at you Roy Williams) tank the tournament.

No question that K is the greatest coach in Duke history. But Bubas ain't chopped liver. He's a Hall of Fame coach who made Duke a top 10 program in the 1960s. His team finished top 10 in seven of his 10 seasons ... and 18th in another.

[Duvall]

Right. I'd argue that the ACC tournament was MUCH harder than the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament back then. But back then, an ACC team had to win at least two tough games (probably comparable to Final Four games) in the ACC tournament, then survive the regional (the "easy" part), then win two Final Four games to win the tournament. So for an ACC team to win it all, they had to win at least four games of Final Four quality, with the absence of your typical sweet-16 level matchups. The problem was that two of those four Final Four matchups occurred before the NCAA tournament even started. It was just a completely different tournament structure.

Hm. This seems like a knowable fact - how did the rankings of the top four teams in the ACC generally compare to the rankings of the four teams in the Final Four. Haven't looked yet, but I would be surprised if the latter group wasn't ranked substantially higher.