2015 Minutes/Rotation/NBA Prospects

[Richard Berg]

6-5 combo guard with high IQ, underrated at #20ish. I can think of a few comps based on that description alone, but obviously have not seen him play. What's his game like, subjectively? Does he have Scheyer (his recruiter)'s nose for the ball on both ends? Elliot Williams' quickness? Greivis Vasquez's knack for scoring in traffic?

[Indoor66]

6-5 combo guard with high IQ, underrated at #20ish. I can think of a few comps based on that description alone, but obviously have not seen him play. What's his game like, subjectively? Does he have Scheyer (his recruiter)'s nose for the ball on both ends? Elliot Williams' quickness? Greivis Vasquez's knack for scoring in traffic?

"Greivis Vasquez's knack for scoring in traffic" AND his love of and disdain for hostile crowds? If so, I love him already!

[Jeffrey]

Corey Maggette would be a better example, IMO. Double-figure scorer and mid-first-round draft pick in his only Duke season. Not easy to do.

Maybe, that's because he should have never been the 6th man on that team?

[Kedsy]

Maybe, that's because he should have never been the 6th man on that team?

Who should he have started ahead of?

[sagegrouse]

Corey Maggette would be a better example, IMO. Double-figure scorer and mid-first-round draft pick in his only Duke season. Not easy to do.

Maybe, that's because he should have never been the 6th man on that team?

Who should he have started ahead of?

Well, the choices are Carrawell and Langdon, both of whom started every game. I would have certainly had Maggette in for the last play against UConn (and I thought so in St. Pete). Let him pull a Grayson Allen -- drive through the lane and either go to the basket or dish to Elton for the dunk. No one on the UConn team could keep up with him. If UConn jams the middle, give it back to Trajan for the trey.

[Jeffrey]

Who should he have started ahead of?

As always, I think Jim gave a spot on description of the role & utilization of a 6th man. I think Chris and Shane fit the role better than Corey did. In the end of the key game (when Corey only played about 10 total mins.), IIRC, the assistants recommended Corey play, but the damage was done and the response showed it.

I think K now does a much better job utilizing one & done talent than he did in '99. I seriously doubt Chris or Shane would have had a problem being the 6th man.

[Edouble]

As always, I think Jim gave a spot on description of the role & utilization of a 6th man. I think Chris and Shane fit the role better than Corey did. In the end of the key game (when Corey only played about 10 total mins.), IIRC, the assistants recommended Corey play, but the damage was done and the response showed it.

I think K now does a much better job utilizing one & done talent than he did in '99. I seriously doubt Chris or Shane would have had a problem being the 6th man.

You'd have Maggette playing power forward though? I suppose Chris could have slid to to 4 and Maggette could have started at the 3. By Jim's original definition though, Maggette far and away fits the description of 6th man, an offensive spark off the bench to overpower fatigued opponents, better than Shane and Chris, two versatile defensive specialists.

At the time, Maggette wasn't technically one-and-done talent. The one year rule wasn't in effect at the time, and I am pretty sure the staff expected to have Maggette (and Avery) back the following season.

[kAzE]

From the "Role Call" article linked on the front page:



http://isportsweb.com/2015/08/23/duk...hooting-guard/

I'll buy Thorton at PG as a lock and Ingram based on his ranking but are Amile and Jeter really locks to start? Obligatory K doesn't have position not withstanding, is Amile a 5 and Jeter a 4? Nay nay nay said the horse of many colors ( also the media guide which lists Amile as a 4 and Jeter as 4/5 I think).

I would not be at all surprised to see Matt play more wing (3) than 2 guard anyway with Ingram at the 4. Didn't Jones normally start at the 3 spot once Justise moved to the 4? A better question is (assuming no major injuries) what 5 play the most minutes. I'll take a stab:

1. Thornton - only true PG, speed and rep as a defender
2. Ingram - ranking, size/ability
3. Jones - leader, defender, toughness
4. Allen - Scoring ablity, defense potential, high energy
5. Jefferson - Captain, Senior, Rotation player/starter last year, toughness
6. Jeter - Unknown
7. MP3 - Team captain, Senior and rotation player last year, energy, toughness
8. Kennard - backup PG, assumed scoring ability
9. Obi - mostly unknown. Size, toughness, might be odd man out if K goes only 8 deep

Outside the rotation/possible red-shirt

10. Vrank
11. Justin

I think Grayson, Jones and Kennard all play and have the opportunities to shine. Luke could fall out if he is less effective handling the ball than hoped and doesn't defend well. More interesting to me will be how the 4/5 minutes shake out because Obi's and Jeter's ability to compete at this level are unknown. Ive seen Jeter billed as potential OAD starter from day 1 to a 3-4 yr guy. We shall see.

Sorry guys, but I'm a bit late to the party in this thread, and I wanted to go back to this post, because I wanted to get in on this discussion.

I'm in the dutchdevil camp that ONLY Thornton and Ingram are locks to start. However, I believe that I am the strongest advocate of Ingram at the 4 on this message board, and my starting lineup/rotation looks much different than the typical ones listed here:

Starters
1: Thornton (32 mins/game average)
2: Allen (30 mins)
3: Jones (30 mins)
4: Ingram (30 mins)
5: Plumlee (20 mins)

Bench
6: Jefferson (24 mins)
7: Jeter (18 mins)
8: Kennard (10 mins)
9: Obi: (6 mins)

I'll note that this isn't what I expect to see right from game 1. I would expect Amile to begin the year at the 4 with one of the guards (Allen or Jones) coming off the bench. Yes, Ingram is a beanpole. Yes he will have some trouble against thicker bodied 4s on defense. But he's also UNGUARDABLE by opposing 4s. He will be able to do anything he wants on offense because he's so much quicker and so much more skilled than anyone else at that position. The only option that you'd have at that point would be to put a 3 on him, and then Ingram has a huge height advantage and can still shoot over them.

The reason I love that starting lineup is because it allows us to play our best 4 perimeter threats on the floor at once: Ingram, Thornton, Allen, and Jones. Kennard might actually be the best pure shooter on the team, but questions over his defense will probably keep him relegated to a bench role for now. Ingram is an absolute nightmare at either the 4 or the 3, so why not put him at the 4 and allow us to put another shooter on the floor, thus opening up space for Thornton, Allen, and Ingram to operate in the paint? It just makes sense from a floor spacing standpoint.

Essentially none of our big men are capable jump shooters. Jeter and Obi are unknowns, but I don't have extremely high expectations from a shooting standpoint for either of them. I know MP3 is a career 100% 3-point shooter, but he's not great from mid range, and we need him in the paint cleaning the glass. Having 2 non-shooters on the floor at once really helps the defense cheat towards your shooters and just clogs the lane from any penetration.

So with my lineup, it's essentially 4 capable shooters/slashers/cutters and a rim protector/rebounding guy. When you don't have a dominant offensive big man, in my opinion, this is really the best way to generate efficient offense, ESPECIALLY when you have a skilled guy like Ingram who is capable of playing a big man position. Coach K always plays to the strengths of his team, and has never been afraid to try unconventional lineups to maximize performance. Spacing the floor like this is the type of basketball that teams both pro and college are using more and more with the advent of advanced metrics and SportsVU. The San Antonio Spurs have been doing this for years, and now people are finally starting to catch on. I think we're going to shoot, and make a TON of 3s this year with this lineup.

Ingram will be fine on the boards. He was a career double digit rebounder in a tough North Carolina high school environment. And he's gained weight since then, so he'll only continue to get stronger. I have no worries about him being able to hold his own in that regard. His length and speed will allow him to be extremely disruptive on defense, and that ability will only be magnified with him closer to the basket instead of on the perimeter. It's not like we've never used a smaller guy at the 4, guys. Shane Battier played his whole Duke career at the 4, and Kyle Singler played regular minutes at the 4 and even the 5 that one year. Both those guys are 6'8".

I'm also in the (I believe) smaller camp who thinks that Thornton, not Allen, could be the 2nd best scorer on the team. I absolutely love the kid's ball control and craftiness. I've also recently seen tape from this summer that suggests he is a better outside shooter than I had been led to believe. I think he's an absolute monster and that people will be surprised at how good and talented he is. I'll just say that I've been more impressed by his game than I ever was of Quinn Cook before he got to Duke, and although I don't think he is quite on the level of Kyrie (obviously) or Tyus Jones, I believe that he is going to be a solid NBA player in his own right someday, and wouldn't be SHOCKED if played well enough to go 1-and-done. (In which case, Dennis Smith, come on down to Point Guard U)

[Jeffrey]

You'd have Maggette playing power forward though? I suppose Chris could have slid to to 4 and Maggette could have started at the 3. By Jim's original definition though, Maggette far and away fits the description of 6th man, an offensive spark off the bench to overpower fatigued opponents, better than Shane and Chris, two versatile defensive specialists.

At the time, Maggette wasn't technically one-and-done talent. The one year rule wasn't in effect at the time, and I am pretty sure the staff expected to have Maggette (and Avery) back the following season.

I'd have had Chris play 6th man. I was merely pointing out there were two better personality options for the role. A great leader matches players & roles, and this is one of the very few times I think K missed.

I disagree that the staff expected Corey back. When an agent can sell Corey he'll go around 13th in the NBA draft and will play as many minutes per game, as 6th man, next year, in the NBA, as he did the previous year, as 6th man, in college, then you should not expect Corey back. Add the tension between K & Corey to the mix and I'm pretty sure the staff expected Corey to declare.

[vick]

Sorry guys, but I'm a bit late to the party in this thread, and I wanted to go back to this post, because I wanted to get in on this discussion.

I'm in the dutchdevil camp that ONLY Thornton and Ingram are locks to start. However, I believe that I am the strongest advocate of Ingram at the 4 on this message board, and my starting lineup/rotation looks much different than the typical ones listed here:

Starters
1: Thornton (32 mins/game average)
2: Allen (30 mins)
3: Jones (30 mins)
4: Ingram (30 mins)
5: Plumlee (20 mins)

Bench
6: Jefferson (24 mins)
7: Jeter (18 mins)
8: Kennard (10 mins)
9: Obi: (6 mins)

I'll note that this isn't what I expect to see right from game 1. I would expect Amile to begin the year at the 4 with one of the guards (Allen or Jones) coming off the bench. Yes, Ingram is a beanpole. Yes he will have some trouble against thicker bodied 4s on defense. But he's also UNGUARDABLE by opposing 4s. He will be able to do anything he wants on offense because he's so much quicker and so much more skilled than anyone else at that position. The only option that you'd have at that point would be to put a 3 on him, and then Ingram has a huge height advantage and can still shoot over them.

The reason I love that starting lineup is because it allows us to play our best 4 perimeter threats on the floor at once: Ingram, Thornton, Allen, and Jones. Kennard might actually be the best pure shooter on the team, but questions over his defense will probably keep him relegated to a bench role for now. Ingram is an absolute nightmare at either the 4 or the 3, so why not put him at the 4 and allow us to put another shooter on the floor, thus opening up space for Thornton, Allen, and Ingram to operate in the paint? It just makes sense from a floor spacing standpoint.

Essentially none of our big men are capable jump shooters. Jeter and Obi are unknowns, but I don't have extremely high expectations from a shooting standpoint for either of them. I know MP3 is a career 100% 3-point shooter, but he's not great from mid range, and we need him in the paint cleaning the glass. Having 2 non-shooters on the floor at once really helps the defense cheat towards your shooters and just clogs the lane from any penetration.

So with my lineup, it's essentially 4 capable shooters/slashers/cutters and a rim protector/rebounding guy. When you don't have a dominant offensive big man, in my opinion, this is really the best way to generate efficient offense, ESPECIALLY when you have a skilled guy like Ingram who is capable of playing a big man position. Coach K always plays to the strengths of his team, and has never been afraid to try unconventional lineups to maximize performance. Spacing the floor like this is the type of basketball that teams both pro and college are using more and more with the advent of advanced metrics and SportsVU. The San Antonio Spurs have been doing this for years, and now people are finally starting to catch on. I think we're going to shoot, and make a TON of 3s this year with this lineup.

Ingram will be fine on the boards. He was a career double digit rebounder in a tough North Carolina high school environment. And he's gained weight since then, so he'll only continue to get stronger. I have no worries about him being able to hold his own in that regard. His length and speed will allow him to be extremely disruptive on defense, and that ability will only be magnified with him closer to the basket instead of on the perimeter. It's not like we've never used a smaller guy at the 4, guys. Shane Battier played his whole Duke career at the 4, and Kyle Singler played regular minutes at the 4 and even the 5 that one year. Both those guys are 6'8".

I'm also in the (I believe) smaller camp who thinks that Thornton, not Allen, could be the 2nd best scorer on the team. I absolutely love the kid's ball control and craftiness. I've also recently seen tape from this summer that suggests he is a better outside shooter than I had been led to believe. I think he's an absolute monster and that people will be surprised at how good and talented he is. I'll just say that I've been more impressed by his game than I ever was of Quinn Cook before he got to Duke, and although I don't think he is quite on the level of Kyrie (obviously) or Tyus Jones, I believe that he is going to be a solid NBA player in his own right someday, and wouldn't be SHOCKED if played well enough to go 1-and-done. (In which case, Dennis Smith, come on down to Point Guard U)

It's not clear to me why Plumlee would start over Amile at center, given we have three years of data showing that Amile is a better player, even at center (ask Frank Kaminsky!). I mean, maybe things will change this year, but I'd bet against it.

[Kedsy]

Ingram is an absolute nightmare at either the 4 or the 3, so why not put him at the 4 and allow us to put another shooter on the floor, thus opening up space for Thornton, Allen, and Ingram to operate in the paint? It just makes sense from a floor spacing standpoint.

I'll start by saying I have absolutely no idea which way Coach K will go with Ingram (SF or PF), and that our rotation will look VERY different, depending on which way he goes. And I will add that Coach K seems to be partial to playing a "small" lineup, with a combo-forward playing the 4.

But, to answer your question ("why not?") -- the answer is that with Brandon at SF, we have potentially the best defensive team we've had in years (possibly the best defensive team in the nation), while still having a fair amount of offensive firepower. But with Brandon at PF, our defense would seem to be a lot less imposing. So the question becomes which is more important -- to have a dominating defensive team while still having a very good offensive team, or having a strong, possibly dominating offensive team, with a hopefully decent defense that gives up size at two positions. Again, I have no idea which way Coach K will go, but personally I like the idea of having a dominating defensive team, with size advantages at potentially four (or sometimes five) positions, for the first time in a long while.

8: Kennard (10 mins)

Also, if you're right and Brandon plays PF, then I think Luke would play a lot more than 10 mpg. Almost the whole point of playing Brandon at PF would be to leave more minutes so all the guards can play. Luke will be 8th on the team in minutes *only* if Brandon is primarily a SF.

[Olympic Fan]

I'd have had Chris play 6th man. I was merely pointing out there were two better personality options for the role. A great leader matches players & roles, and this is one of the very few times I think K missed.

I disagree that the staff expected Corey back. When an agent can sell Corey he'll go around 13th in the NBA draft and will play as many minutes per game, as 6th man, next year, in the NBA, as he did the previous year, as 6th man, in college, then you should not expect Corey back. Add the tension between K & Corey to the mix and I'm pretty sure the staff expected Corey to declare.

I think you've got it exactly wrong ...

Maggette was much more suited to be the sixth man than Carrawell (or Battier).

He was an instant offensive spark, which is what you want from of a sixth man. But Carrawell was the team's most versatile player -- he didn't have a huge offensive role, but he was a great wing defender, a good rebounder and a great playmaker (if you ever get a chance to watch a tape of the St. John's win in the Garden that year, watch how Carrawell functions as the point guard). Battier was also a great defender, a good passer, but a secondary scorer (in 1999 ... that changed in 2000).

That team already had three consistent scorers in the starting lineup -- Brand, Langdon and Avery. Adding another pure scorer -- which is basically what Maggette was in '99 -- doesn't make that lineup better ... it makes it worse. I think the proof that K built the team correctly was in the 37 wins and the dominance of the ACC -- 19 wins, no losses and just one ACC game that wasn't a double digit win.

Maggette's greatest value was a sixth man ... Carrawell could not have brought the same offensive spark off the bench. and Maggette would not have complimented Brand, Langdon, Avery as well as a starter.

Now, if you want to argue that K should have had Maggette on the floor down the stretch against UConn, THAT second-guess I can support. I'll bet in hindsight, K would agree.

As for the expectation of Maggette going pro, I can tell you that nobody at Duke (or in the Maggette camp) thought about him being one-and-done (which was rare in that era ... kids were going pro straight out of high school, but the ones that entered college almost always stayed 2-3 years). That changed on Sunday, Mar. 21 -- the day Duke beat Temple in the East Regional finals. That morning, Sam Smith(the Bulls beat writer and the author of The Jordan Rules) had a column in the Chicago Tribune that claimed that if every player in college basketball were available in the draft, Maggette would be the first player taken. Smith also claimed that the Chicago Bulls (which had two first-round picks that year) would move heaven and earth to draft the hometown kid.

That column changed everything for Maggette. From that point on, all he could think about what becoming the star of his hometown team. He was gone as soon as Smith's column hit the street.

(Obviously, Smith was wrong -- Maggette did not go No. 1 -- and the Bulls did not use either of their picks on Maggette (actually, they won the lottery and used the first pick on Elton Brand ... Maggette was gone to Seattle before they picked against at No. 16. But the Bulls didn't move heaven and earth to get Maggette. They didn't do anything, even though Seattle was quick to dump him off to Orlando for some expiring contracts).

[CDu]

I would point out that the minutes distribution there gives 68 minutes to our traditional 4/5s. So that means only 12 mpg for Ingram at the 4. So in that regard, it is not all that different from the other predictions. It just has the starting guards playing a heavier load and Kennard playing less. It is not an unreasonable assumption, but it also doesn't serve the purpose of playing Ingram primarily at the 4, either.

Personally, I doubt that the minutes breakdown of the bigs will look like that. I think Jefferson will play a bit more and Obi will play quite a bit more. Conversely, I think Plumlee will play less. I do think though that Ingram will see 10-12 mpg at PF, though. I just think Jefferson will get the rest of those minutes.

[Saratoga2]

I'll start by saying I have absolutely no idea which way Coach K will go with Ingram (SF or PF), and that our rotation will look VERY different, depending on which way he goes. And I will add that Coach K seems to be partial to playing a "small" lineup, with a combo-forward playing the 4.

But, to answer your question ("why not?") -- the answer is that with Brandon at SF, we have potentially the best defensive team we've had in years (possibly the best defensive team in the nation), while still having a fair amount of offensive firepower. But with Brandon at PF, our defense would seem to be a lot less imposing. So the question becomes which is more important -- to have a dominating defensive team while still having a very good offensive team, or having a strong, possibly dominating offensive team, with a hopefully decent defense that gives up size at two positions. Again, I have no idea which way Coach K will go, but personally I like the idea of having a dominating defensive team, with size advantages at potentially four (or sometimes five) positions, for the first time in a long while.

I'm in the camp that thinks Brandon is better suited to the small forward position while I like Amile at the 4 not center. It may just be that Amile will take his offense up a notch for his last year and we know his defense is excellent. I think the possibilities at center are not all that Clear. Marshall has been a high energy guy but has not progressed much on offense and his defense is not all that impressive to me. Sean is a player with a year of division I ball and a year practicing against his excellent Duke team mates. He is massively strong and a good rebounder and may have enough offense to put him ahead of Marshall and newcomer Chase.

From what I have seen of Derryck, he is an excellent defender and we can't go wrong on defense with either Matt or Grayson so we could be one of the top defensive teams in the nation. Both Luke and Chase are unknowns in that regard but may prove to be quick learners so we could be really fierce, barring injuries.

[sagegrouse]

I'd have had Chris play 6th man. I was merely pointing out there were two better personality options for the role. A great leader matches players & roles, and this is one of the very few times I think K missed.

I disagree that the staff expected Corey back. When an agent can sell Corey he'll go around 13th in the NBA draft and will play as many minutes per game, as 6th man, next year, in the NBA, as he did the previous year, as 6th man, in college, then you should not expect Corey back. Add the tension between K & Corey to the mix and I'm pretty sure the staff expected Corey to declare.

Sorry, no need for post.

[Jeffrey]

I think you've got it exactly wrong ...

Cool, then we definitely should discuss this further. I'll respond as soon as time permits. I always enjoy your posts and appreciate your opinions. This should be fun.

[kAzE]

I would point out that the minutes distribution there gives 68 minutes to our traditional 4/5s. So that means only 12 mpg for Ingram at the 4. So in that regard, it is not all that different from the other predictions. It just has the starting guards playing a heavier load and Kennard playing less. It is not an unreasonable assumption, but it also doesn't serve the purpose of playing Ingram primarily at the 4, either.

Personally, I doubt that the minutes breakdown of the bigs will look like that. I think Jefferson will play a bit more and Obi will play quite a bit more. Conversely, I think Plumlee will play less. I do think though that Ingram will see 10-12 mpg at PF, though. I just think Jefferson will get the rest of those minutes.

Damn it, CDu . . . you and your fancy math and logic . . . destroying my hopes and dreams. You're right, it's just too crowded up front for him to play most of his minutes inside. Regardless, I think any minutes that Ingram plays at the 4, we will have the advantage on offense, and we could use that lineup in a situation in which we are way down and need points in a hurry. I guess I'm a fan of offense, and that lineup looks to me on paper like the highest scoring 5 that we can put on the floor.

In regards to Plumlee: I had him starting over Jefferson (even though I have him playing fewer minutes) because he's just a better fit with those 4 guys. Jefferson is more talented, but we've seen what he can do at the 5, and he's just not the best rim protector. I agree with Saratoga that he's just a natural 4. He absolutely played out of his mind against Frank Kaminsky, but we saw almost a whole year of him at the 5 two years ago, and I believe Plumlee's size and superior athleticism is a better fit when we're going small at the other 4 positions. I'm not saying that Plumlee has been a world destroyer at protecting the rim, I just think he is capable of doing it this year if he's improved as much as I hope he has. (So, mostly wild speculation there)

I think I'm on an island here, but I thought Plumlee played very well defensively last season. I think his offensive rebounding is a huge asset, and his ability to run the floor in transition and finish strong is valuable. He's also the best lob catcher and finisher on the team (his hands have gotten better!), and I anticipate more than a few highlight reel alley-oops from him this year. I dunno, I just have a gut feeling that he's going to be really good this year (as a poor man's DeAndre Jordan rebounding/defense/energy/dunk guy). I don't have a ton to back that up, I'm just going to make that call and then hopefully, if it happens, I'm gonna come back to this thread and say "see? I was totally on to something, guys!"

Obi is definitely an X-factor, but I think just about anybody who isn't at practice everyday has no real clue how much he'll play. I can't remember the last time a relatively good player came to Duke and was still such an unknown. Even Seth Curry and Rodney Hood had significant hype coming in and at practice the year they sat on the bench. News on Obi has been sparse to say the least. I actually hope you're right. If he does play a lot, then it means that a lot of people here underestimated him.

[Saratoga2]

Will be playing in the senior games softball tournament in Raleigh next week and plan to stop by Duke on the way and visit Cameron if that is possible. Would love to get a first hand look at the guys in practice if that is allowed. Anyone have a clue if I might get into Cameron and whether there are any open scrimmages?

Bill

[Jeffrey]

I am pretty sure the staff expected to have Maggette (and Avery) back the following season.

I disagree that the staff expected Corey back. When an agent can sell Corey he'll go around 13th in the NBA draft and will play as many minutes per game, as 6th man, next year, in the NBA, as he did the previous year, as 6th man, in college, then you should not expect Corey back. Add the tension between K & Corey to the mix and I'm pretty sure the staff expected Corey to declare.

As for the expectation of Maggette going pro, I can tell you that nobody at Duke (or in the Maggette camp) thought about him being one-and-done (which was rare in that era ... kids were going pro straight out of high school, but the ones that entered college almost always stayed 2-3 years). That changed on Sunday, Mar. 21 -- the day Duke beat Temple in the East Regional finals. That morning, Sam Smith(the Bulls beat writer and the author of The Jordan Rules) had a column in the Chicago Tribune that claimed that if every player in college basketball were available in the draft, Maggette would be the first player taken. Smith also claimed that the Chicago Bulls (which had two first-round picks that year) would move heaven and earth to draft the hometown kid.

That column changed everything for Maggette. From that point on, all he could think about what becoming the star of his hometown team. He was gone as soon as Smith's column hit the street.

Sounds like you & I are in agreement, the staff did not expect Corey back. Avery was the only surprise!

[Jeffrey]

I think you've got it exactly wrong ...

Maggette was much more suited to be the sixth man than Carrawell (or Battier).

He was an instant offensive spark, which is what you want from of a sixth man. But Carrawell was the team's most versatile player -- he didn't have a huge offensive role, but he was a great wing defender, a good rebounder and a great playmaker (if you ever get a chance to watch a tape of the St. John's win in the Garden that year, watch how Carrawell functions as the point guard). Battier was also a great defender, a good passer, but a secondary scorer (in 1999 ... that changed in 2000).

Maggette's greatest value was a sixth man ... Carrawell could not have brought the same offensive spark off the bench. and Maggette would not have complimented Brand, Langdon, Avery as well as a starter.

Here's where we disagree. Why don't we use Jim's post to measure the best 6th man?

More on the sixth man. It's more than just being the best reserve. Red Auerbach came up with the idea in the late 1950s for Frank Ramsey but it reached its apex with John Havlicek, who used to average 20 ppg coming off the bench. For Auerbach, the sixth man at its highest level was one of the team's five best players but was best utilized coming off the bench at a point when the opposing starters were getting tired. An instant shot of adrenalin.

Most effective sixth men are scorers, can play multiple positions and are often in at the end of close games. It helps if you can embrace the concept. I think we can spend too much time worrying about who starts instead of who plays the most minutes, who finishes close games. Not always the same thing.

Best scorer: IMO, this is much closer than most believe. Chris scored 1,455 points at Duke which is tied for 27th all-time at Duke.

Play multiple positions: Chris, by far. He could play/back-up the 1-4 positions. We could have substituted Chris for anyone but Elton.

Embrace the concept: Chris, by far. Corey did not embrace the concept and this became a real issue.

Instant shot of adrenalin: IMO, this is close. Unlike Corey, Chris could have sparked energy on both sides of the court.

That team already had three consistent scorers in the starting lineup -- Brand, Langdon and Avery. Adding another pure scorer -- which is basically what Maggette was in '99 -- doesn't make that lineup better ... it makes it worse. I think the proof that K built the team correctly was in the 37 wins and the dominance of the ACC -- 19 wins, no losses and just one ACC game that wasn't a double digit win.

Now, if you want to argue that K should have had Maggette on the floor down the stretch against UConn, THAT second-guess I can support. I'll bet in hindsight, K would agree.

I disagree that 37 wins and ACC dominance is the best measure. The goal, and best measure, was winning a National Championship. We had the best team, got the match-ups we needed (6th was the highest seed we faced before the Final Four) , and should have won.

Corey was the 2nd best player on our team and he needed and wanted to start. Only Brand had a higher win share per 40 minutes played. Per 40 minutes, Corey (24.0 pts.) provided as much offense as Brand (24.2 pts.) and more than Langdon (22.3 pts.) or Avery (19.2 pts.). I disagree that adding his scoring to that lineup makes it worse. We needed points in the Final Four when we only scored 68 and 74 total points. I also disagree that the sole issue was not playing Corey at the end UConn game. According to my calculator, all points are equal and the real issue was barely playing Corey in the UConn game (11 total minutes, while all starters played 31+ minutes and looked like it at the end) because of the tension (over the issues we're debating) which had developed between Coach K and Corey.