One and Done Results

[DukieInBrasil]

I don't understand. With those losses, didn't we get a 2 seed with an outside shot at a 1 seed?

I am in the camp that thinks sophomore Derryck Thornton would have been only marginally better (if at all) than freshman Frank Jackson, and if we'd had both on the team then one of them wouldn't have played so much. So I don't think losing Derryck had much of an effect on last year's team or record.

Agh!!! your relentless pursuit of facts is so annoying!!!! I meant to delete part of that and just write "we'd likely get a 1 seed". I'm not sure we were really an outside shot as a 1 seed last year, although we did get a technically favorable location as a #2, which actually ended up being an extremely unfavorable location, even if it didn't have any affect on the actual game (although maybe it did).
My comment made no reference to whether i think So. DT would have been better than Fr. FJ, and i don't think he would have been. I just think he would have brought something different to the table than Frank did, and that diversity would have been good for the team. As a Fr. DT's PG ability was somewhat better than FJ's, and history indicates that Fr. improve, so it's impossible not to believe that So. DT would have provided somewhat of an improvement at PG than what he gave as a Fr. I think that would have improved the team somewehat. So we'll have to disagree on that. But you're right, having them both would mean that their PT would have been impacted, but probably would have also reduced the need to play LK so much (dude played 38+ minutes in a game far too often), or Grayson when he was injured.

[Matches]

Such a strange and circular argument. Under the present system (which Duke did not design and does not control), recruiting the top players means recruiting guys who may only stay 1-2 years. Most of the best players are gone after 1-2 years. If you want to get the best talent that's what you have to deal with.

We're two seasons removed from winning a national championship with a team that relied heavily on three OAD players. Every point we scored in the 2nd half of the title game was scored by a freshman. If your analysis of our results in the OAD era includes the phrase "excluding the year we won the national championship", please just stop.

A handful of guys (e.g. Tatum, Okafor) are mortal locks to be OAD players. But most of the time it's not that certain. The coaching staff doesn't know exactly how long players will stay. The staff has to assume that any highly-rated recruit is a flight risk, and keep a steady pipeline of those players incoming. The notion of mixing in lower-rated recruits sounds great on paper (and K does this exact thing) except that most of those guys don't work out, and even when they do they rarely become guys who can be major contributors to elite teams. Don't let a timely shot against Kentucky fool you - Luke Maye is a role player and that's all he'll ever be. Valuable to his team? Sure, no doubt. But you don't go to Final Fours with a team full of Luke Mayes. You've got to have stars too, and since those guys turn over rapidly you've got to have a steady stream of them.

The 2017 NCAA Title isn't more meaningful or more indicative of the right path to success than the 2015 NCAA Title. They're equally meaningful.

[pfrduke]

Such a strange and circular argument. Under the present system (which Duke did not design and does not control), recruiting the top players means recruiting guys who may only stay 1-2 years. Most of the best players are gone after 1-2 years. If you want to get the best talent that's what you have to deal with.

Even over what has been defined as our one-and-done era, (2011-present) there has been a dramatic rise in the number of freshmen declaring for the draft. In 2011, when Kyrie came out, there were 9 (and only 7 of those played D-1 basketball*). It was also 9 in 2012, and 8 in 2013. Then things started to take an uptick, going from 11 in 2014 to 14 in 2015 and 16 in 2016. This year there are 25 (at least at the moment; a few could still come back, but 19 have signed with agents). It's really hard to avoid recruiting one-and-done talent when 1/4 of the top 100 declare for the draft.

Moreover, in addition to the 16 freshmen who declared in 2016, there are currently 34 sophomores with their names in the draft (again, some can pull out). So 50 kids - essentially half of the top 100 (recognizing that not all early entrants were top 100 HS recruits) - are at least testing the waters within two years of arriving on campus. How, in that environment, is a program supposed to reliably find the players who will be a) good enough to compete for national championships while b) not looking to leave for the NBA within 2 years?

Maybe there will be a course correction - after all, the NBA draft is not getting bigger, so there is at least a theoretical ceiling as to how many freshmen can declare - and future years will have draft pools that look more like 2011-2013 with single-digit freshman early entrants. But barring a course correction, there's a good bet that well regarded recruits are not going to be on campus for four years.

All of this is to say I agree with where your post started - I'm not sure our recent roster composition has reflected a shift in Duke's recruiting focus as much as it has reflected a shift in the path to professional basketball for post-HS players. We can't look at our recruiting efforts in a vacuum, but only in the context of the environment in which we are recruiting.

*Roscoe Davis played at Midland Junior College; Enes Kanter sat out a year at Kentucky.

[ChillinDuke]

<snip>
How, in that environment, is a program supposed to reliably find the players who will be a) good enough to compete for national championships while b) not looking to leave for the NBA within 2 years?

<snip>

Well, when you put it that way, it isn't.

Great context. Great post.

- Chillin

[lotusland]

It seems like K has shifted strategy this year, with the recruitment of Jordan Goldwire and Alex O'Connell, players that will likely be around for four years. Even Jordan Tucker projects as a multi-year player (although we would have taken would-be one-and-done Kevin Knox).

Seems like a rational reaction, and the higher turnover enables us to take five or six players a year and staying within the scholarship limit of 13.

I agree. I think the roster rounded out nicely in the end. I'd be happier if Jeter and/or Frank stayed but it's water under the bridge now. Now if we get to enjoy 2020/2021 with Senior captains Jordan, Jordan and Alex I'll be a happy guy. Injuries. Foul trouble and normal opportunities will hopefully allow Jack, Javin and Vrank some meaningful PT this year. If they improve enough over the summer, one of Jack or Javin will likely be in the rotation.

[niveklaen]

I think that criticizing a OAD heavy approach by pointing to years with just 1 OAD player does not make much sense. Getting only 1 OAD player a year does not have a good track record. Getting 3+ OAD players does. Since you can't 'know' who will be OAD in advance - and because you get a certain amount of reverse causation where more guys go OAD because they turned out good enough to win a title - it makes sense to look at it in terms of the player's recruit ranking.

From 07-16 there were 7 teams that had 3 top 16 recruits in a class - 5 UK, 1 Duke, 1 UNC. Two of those teams - UK 12 and Duke 15 - won titles their freshman years. A third team won a title when that freshman class became juniors - UNC. Not sure if they should count, so its either 3 of 7 3+ top 16 classes resulting in titles or its 2 of 6. The other 4 teams lost in the title game, final 4, elite 8, and NIT - UK's injury plagued 2013 squad. So top 16 superclasses go to the final 4 67% (or 71% if you count UNC) of the time and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the net to include top 20 players, there have been 9 teams that had 3+ top 20 recruits in a class (add 1 UK (final 4) and 1 Kansas(elite 8)) - with that bigger net the super classes are either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 in generating titles. So top 20 superclasses go to the final 4 62% (or 67% if you count UNC) and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the timeframe to include 2017, there are 2 more superclasses so we would be at either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 titles for top 16 classes and 3 of 11 or 2 of 10 for top 20 classes, again with only injury plagued teams failing to make the elite 8.

Bottom line: superclasses result in final 4 appearances more than half of the time.

Here is the data by year:

17: UK 4 top 15 - elite 8, Duke 4 top 16 - round of 32 - injury plagued team
16: Kansas 3 top 20, 2 top 16 - elite 8
15: Duke 3 top 16 - title, UK 4 top 20, 2 top 16 - final 4
14: UK 6 top 16 !?! - runner up
13: UK 3 top 16 - NIT - injury plagued team
12: UK 3 top 7 - title
11: UK 3 top 10 - final 4
10: UK 3 top 16 - elite 8
9: none
8: none
7: UNC 3 top 8 - title as juniors

(Note - Players ranked 17-20 go OAD less than 10% of the time and are 4 year players 45% of the time so they really should not be included in a OAD model either...)

[Hauerwas]

I realize there is more to all of this, but if you would have told any of us in 2010 that we would land Jabari Parker, Austin Rivers, Kyrie Irving, Rodney Hood, Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Luke Kennard, Brandon Ingrim, Chase Jeter, and Frank Jackson and STILL never advance beyond the Sweet 16 with all that talent, and have a total of what, 5 NCAA tourny wins would anyone think this was a successful strategy?

Can we at least be honest to say the One and Done era has been a mixed bag, that it seems even K has struggled to find the right balance in the recruiting and team cohesiveness? I am convinced that 2015 is a pure outlier simply because Jones, Okafor, and Winslow, were far ahead mentally and physically from any other class we've recruited. Those dudes were men as freshmen. Maybe we can duplicate that again in 2017-18 and beyond, it just seems we are not being honest with ourselves if we just give a pass to this strategy without questioning the long term implications on the program and it's short term results.

[OldPhiKap]

I realize there is more to all of this, but if you would have told any of us in 2010 that we would land Jabari Parker, Austin Rivers, Kyrie Irving, Rodney Hood, Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Luke Kennard, Brandon Ingrim, Chase Jeter, and Frank Jackson and STILL never advance beyond the Sweet 16 with all that talent, and have a total of what, 5 NCAA tourny wins would anyone think this was a successful strategy?

Can we at least be honest to say the One and Done era has been a mixed bag, that it seems even K has struggled to find the right balance in the recruiting and team cohesiveness? I am convinced that 2015 is a pure outlier simply because Jones, Okafor, and Winslow, were far ahead mentally and physically from any other class we've recruited. Those dudes were men as freshmen. Maybe we can duplicate that again in 2017-18 and beyond, it just seems we are not being honest with ourselves if we just give a pass to this strategy without questioning the long term implications on the program and it's short term results.

So now that your original premise was shown to be incorrect, you're switching to say that we should stop recruiting 5-stars? Including two players who were severely limited by injuries (Irving, Giles), and a transfer (Hood)?

Some would start to question the motives here. Just sayin'.

[DukieInBrasil]

So now that your original premise was shown to be incorrect, you're switching to say that we should stop recruiting 5-stars? Including two players who were severely limited by injuries (Irving, Giles), and a transfer (Hood)?

Some would start to question the motives here. Just sayin'.

To be fair, that's not what was said. Don't attack the idea that you've created for him/her.
Including Hood in the OP was a weird inclusion b/c he was a transfer. Changing the goalposts is also not a good argument strategy.
I think it's fine for hauerwas to question whether the strategy is a good one. I don't think they are doing a good job of justifying their position.

[ipatent]

So now that your original premise was shown to be incorrect, you're switching to say that we should stop recruiting 5-stars? Including two players who were severely limited by injuries (Irving, Giles), and a transfer (Hood)?

Some would start to question the motives here. Just sayin'.

How many players had to underperform relative to expectations when they were recruited for Jefferson to be the only reliable inside player last year? Not just Giles. Add Bolden, Jeter and of course Obi.

With competent point guard play Giles, etc. would have looked better (he can catch and dunk almost as well as a Plumlee), but winning the ACC Tourney and taking two of three from the eventual national champs wasn't a bad year given that perfect storm. Villanova fans have more to cry about for last year, IMO.

[OldPhiKap]

To be fair, that's not what was said.

I guess I came to that conclusion because the list conveniently excludes Grayson, Winslow, Jones, Okafor, Quinn, as well as all of the big recruits on the 2010 team. Seems like some serious cherry-picking to me. But if I misread the post, my bad.

We've won two national championships in the last eight years. A cherry-picked argument that our recruiting is faulty seems, well, trollish when added with comments to the effect that we "are not being honest with ourselves." No offense to anyone, of course.

[Hauerwas]

So now that your original premise was shown to be incorrect, you're switching to say that we should stop recruiting 5-stars? Including two players who were severely limited by injuries (Irving, Giles), and a transfer (Hood)?

Some would start to question the motives here. Just sayin'.

How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

[cato]

How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

Your premise is that Duke's recruiting strategy is "at fault" for producing only one NCAA title since 2010, with relative lack of success the other years. Your premise is incorrect, in that you have not identified which recruiting strategy would have yielded more than one NCAA title and greater tournament success in the other years.

[pfrduke]

How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

From 2003-2009 (7 years) we won 13 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES (capitalized for consistency). That was done with a recruiting methodology that generally eschewed one-and-done players (Deng was it) and focused on 3-4 year contributors. It's not clear why you draw such a strong line between our post-season outcomes and our recruiting philosophy.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I realize there is more to all of this, but if you would have told any of us in 2010 that we would land Jabari Parker, Austin Rivers, Kyrie Irving, Rodney Hood, Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Luke Kennard, Brandon Ingrim, Chase Jeter, and Frank Jackson and STILL never advance beyond the Sweet 16 with all that talent, and have a total of what, 5 NCAA tourny wins would anyone think this was a successful strategy?

I see no reasoning for excluding 2015 when we won 6 NCAA tournament games, other than that it weakens your argument.

[ipatent]

From 2003-2009 (7 years) we won 13 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES (capitalized for consistency). That was done with a recruiting methodology that generally eschewed one-and-done players (Deng was it) and focused on 3-4 year contributors. It's not clear why you draw such a strong line between our post-season outcomes and our recruiting philosophy.

We were spoiled from 1986-1994, no doubt. Think of all the early exits from the likes of KU, interspersed with the 2008??? title run.

[elvis14]

How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

You have the cause incorrect. You are saying that because of our recruiting strategy and specifically OAD players that we have underperformed. If you read through this thread you will notice that quite a few people have listed the correct cause: injuries. It's not the OAD players that have been the issue, it's the injuries. This last year is the most obvious example. In fact the last 2 years (Amile, both years) have been badly derailed by injuries.

Others have also pointed out that we only have a few years where we have more than 1 OAD and I'm willing to bet that if you look at those teams, it won't be the OAD player who was the weak link (unless they were injured like Kyrie).

[sagegrouse]

How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

In eight years we have won 20, including two national championships. Plus three ACC titles.

For nine years we feasted on the NCAA tournament (seven final fours from 1986 through 1994) and didn't do much in the ACC -- three championships. Then we had an incredible stretch in the ACC, winning 10 championships from 1999 through 2011, but "only" had four final fours. Success is not foreordained.

In recent years, I thought we "shoulda" made the Final Four in 2011, except that Arizona made two phenomenally lucky shots, perfectly guarded, at the end of the first half that made the margin six points instead of 12 and the Cats were pumped up and came out on a roll in the second half.

Against Louisville in 2013 in the Elite Eight -- that was the Kevin Ware game, where a key L'ville player suffered a compound fracture of the leg in front of the players, the crowd and the national TV audience. That game was unique in CBB history, and who knows how it affected the outcome (although Louisville won the NC).

This year we "coulda" advanced, except that South Carolina decided to play hoops in the physical manner of its bar-bouncer coach, and the refs, for whatever reason, let the Gamecocks get away with it, even though the rules had been changed to allow greater player movement. Then, an offensively challenged team got really hot, after bricking it up in the first half. We had a highly imperfect team this year, but there was hope.

One-and-done tournaments can be really cruel. Ask #1 seed Temple about Duke in 1988 or #1 seed Georgetown in 1989 or UConn in 1990 or #1 seed Purdue in 1994. And, then there was the other Laettner game.

[COYS]

I think that criticizing a OAD heavy approach by pointing to years with just 1 OAD player does not make much sense. Getting only 1 OAD player a year does not have a good track record. Getting 3+ OAD players does. Since you can't 'know' who will be OAD in advance - and because you get a certain amount of reverse causation where more guys go OAD because they turned out good enough to win a title - it makes sense to look at it in terms of the player's recruit ranking.

From 07-16 there were 7 teams that had 3 top 16 recruits in a class - 5 UK, 1 Duke, 1 UNC. Two of those teams - UK 12 and Duke 15 - won titles their freshman years. A third team won a title when that freshman class became juniors - UNC. Not sure if they should count, so its either 3 of 7 3+ top 16 classes resulting in titles or its 2 of 6. The other 4 teams lost in the title game, final 4, elite 8, and NIT - UK's injury plagued 2013 squad. So top 16 superclasses go to the final 4 67% (or 71% if you count UNC) of the time and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the net to include top 20 players, there have been 9 teams that had 3+ top 20 recruits in a class (add 1 UK (final 4) and 1 Kansas(elite 8)) - with that bigger net the super classes are either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 in generating titles. So top 20 superclasses go to the final 4 62% (or 67% if you count UNC) and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the timeframe to include 2017, there are 2 more superclasses so we would be at either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 titles for top 16 classes and 3 of 11 or 2 of 10 for top 20 classes, again with only injury plagued teams failing to make the elite 8.

Bottom line: superclasses result in final 4 appearances more than half of the time.

Here is the data by year:

17: UK 4 top 15 - elite 8, Duke 4 top 16 - round of 32 - injury plagued team
16: Kansas 3 top 20, 2 top 16 - elite 8
15: Duke 3 top 16 - title, UK 4 top 20, 2 top 16 - final 4
14: UK 6 top 16 !?! - runner up
13: UK 3 top 16 - NIT - injury plagued team
12: UK 3 top 7 - title
11: UK 3 top 10 - final 4
10: UK 3 top 16 - elite 8
9: none
8: none
7: UNC 3 top 8 - title as juniors

(Note - Players ranked 17-20 go OAD less than 10% of the time and are 4 year players 45% of the time so they really should not be included in a OAD model either...)

I'm quoting this post because it deserves a lot more attention. Super recruiting classes that include three or more top 16 players have excellent track records, barring injuries.

[Newton_14]

I realize there is more to all of this, but if you would have told any of us in 2010 that we would land Jabari Parker, Austin Rivers, Kyrie Irving, Rodney Hood, Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Luke Kennard, Brandon Ingrim, Chase Jeter, and Frank Jackson and STILL never advance beyond the Sweet 16 with all that talent, and have a total of what, 5 NCAA tourny wins would anyone think this was a successful strategy?

Can we at least be honest to say the One and Done era has been a mixed bag, that it seems even K has struggled to find the right balance in the recruiting and team cohesiveness? I am convinced that 2015 is a pure outlier simply because Jones, Okafor, and Winslow, were far ahead mentally and physically from any other class we've recruited. Those dudes were men as freshmen. Maybe we can duplicate that again in 2017-18 and beyond, it just seems we are not being honest with ourselves if we just give a pass to this strategy without questioning the long term implications on the program and it's short term results.

Can you at least be honest and stop ignoring/dismissing the role injuries played? Oly, PFRDuke, Nikaleen, have shown us the cold hard facts in real, non-cherry picked data, that your argument with cherry-picked data is incorrect.

We live in strange times with College Hoops. I hate the OAD Era and miss the era when all but the Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson's of the world stayed 4 years and most of the early entry star guys left only after their Junior year or in the case of Isiah Thomas & Magic at least stayed 2 years. Trust me no one hates this era more than me but it is the current landscape as we know it. Maybe it will implode at some point and change to something new but for now it is what it is. I am a staunch Duke supporter and will continue to be. I want Coach recruiting the best players who are Duke type kids period. If 1 or 4 of them become OAD so be it. And I'm not going to bad mouth or hate on the kids that leave, even when it's a case like Frank Jackson where I believe he is making a bad decision. It's his and his families decision to make. Not mine.


I personally don't believe a 19yr old kid is mentally ready or mature enough to manage that type money, and live the lifestyle NBA players live playing in 3 to 5 cities per week with a thousand down time hours where they have to find something to pass the time. I think it's a recipe for disaster. I also don't believe they are physically ready nor have the basketball savy and IQ needed yet for NBA hoops, but again, it is what it is. This is where we are at. I applaud our coaching staff for the recruiting accomplishments the past 7 years. It's been incredible. I hope they can sustain it.

My only gripe is the short player rotation that runs off the kids that want to stay 4 years but that's a whole nuther tree to climb...