Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hudson Valley
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    ESPN has an insider article up today that lists the top 25 players in college basketball this coming season. Duke did fairly well on the list:

    1. Marvin Bagley
    2. Grayson Allen
    15. Wendell Carter
    21. Trevon Duval

    I can't believe they didn't include Jack White!

    And only one of them (not counting Jack) has ever played an NCAA game.

    but typical of ESPN - and I guess also the state of college BB (sigh)

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I would need to search the internets to know for sure, but I pretty vividly recall that at this time last year ESPN said that Grayson Allen and Jayson Tatum were the number one and number three players in college basketball. I think Harry Giles was in the top 5 or so too. Of course, injuries and distractions took a pretty severe toll on those rankings, but it is worth noting as we approach another season where everyone says the Duke Blue Devils have far and away the most talent in college basketball.

    Jason "I was supremely confident we were going to win 35+ games a year ago...and am again this season" Evans
    I am not as certain about 35 wins as I was last year as I thought last year's team had better returning leadership and more depth, if healthy. I believe 30 wins is very doable for this group and wouldn't be surprised by 35, if healthy but I don't think this is the year for the 40-0 tattoo.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by NSDukeFan View Post
    I am not as certain about 35 wins as I was last year as I thought last year's team had better returning leadership and more depth, if healthy. I believe 30 wins is very doable for this group and wouldn't be surprised by 35, if healthy but I don't think this is the year for the 40-0 tattoo.
    I was totally one of the people who thought we were going to just destroy the world last year (who wasn't?), but our injury issues in 2016-17 are WELL documented. We have no health issues for this team to date (fingers crossed), and there's a chance Marvin Bagley might be the most talented player to EVER play at Duke.

    Let that sink in for a minute, and then consider that it's possible that a player as talented as Grayson Allen might never stay 4 years at Duke again.

    If this program is ever going to go 40-0, there is a non-zero possibility that this year might be our last, best chance. Coach K doesn't have that much time left. Our non-conference schedule early on is easy enough that even early season kinks/freshman mistakes might not cost us a game. It's within the realm of possibility.

    To be clear, I do not think we're going 40-0. We will almost certainly lose multiple ACC games. BUT . . . if Bagley is as good as advertised (and he's advertised as the next Anthony Davis), we're going to be ridiculous, and anything can happen.

    Look, 40-0 has never been done. Things would have to go PERFECTLY for it happen. But I refuse to believe it's impossible! I'm not getting a tattoo, but I'm firmly aboard the hype train!

    350.jpg
    Last edited by kAzE; 08-21-2017 at 07:54 PM.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I would need to search the internets to know for sure, but I pretty vividly recall that at this time last year ESPN said that Grayson Allen and Jayson Tatum were the number one and number three players in college basketball. I think Harry Giles was in the top 5 or so too. Of course, injuries and distractions took a pretty severe toll on those rankings, but it is worth noting as we approach another season where everyone says the Duke Blue Devils have far and away the most talent in college basketball.

    Jason "I was supremely confident we were going to win 35+ games a year ago...and am again this season" Evans
    Another important aspect to consider in this conversation is that college basketball has much less talent separation at the top than other sports due to the fact that college basketball's best talents only stay 1 year.

    What do I mean by talent separation (and I'm certain there's a better word / phrase to use but I'm operating without coffee this morning - someone help me - thanks!)? In most other sports (NBA, NFL, etc), the total talent in the sport is arranged like a triangle:


    So, there's only one Lebron James, and below him in the next tier are about 3-4 players who are great but not as great as Lebron, and below THEM in the next tier are about 10 players, etc. In a "triangle sport" like the NBA, the top player Lebron James is a much better player than the 10th best player in the sport.

    Likewise, in the NFL, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady are much better and much more valuable than the 10th best player in their sport.

    In college basketball, though? Our best talents don't stay more than one year and build the experience needed to dominate. College basketball's overall talent is arranged like a trapezoid:

    We are a "trapezoid sport." Marvin Bagley might be one of the top 2 talents (along with Michael Porter, imo), but there are going to be about 20 veterans of college basketball that are going to be roughly as good as Bagley this season, including Duke's own Grayson Allen.

    What I've been getting around to saying is that it's not all that amazing to have the alleged best player, third-best player, and fifth-best player in the sport on same team in a "trapezoid sport." Because there are about 20 other players out there who are roughly as good, and some of THEM are going to play together as well. In a "triangle sport," yes, it'd be utterly amazing to have three alleged top-10 players of the sport, and you could be expected to be head and shoulders better than the competition.

    Alternatively, if players still stayed 4 years, college basketball would look much more "trianglish." A team with senior Bagley, senior Carter, senior Duval, etc. would destroy the competition. A senior Bagley would have separation between him and the 10th-best player in the sport. But alas, that is not the case with college ball. We a trapezoid, not a triangle.

    And, so yes, cautious optimism is best.

    Hopefully my coffee-less post can be understood.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Another important aspect to consider in this conversation is that college basketball has much less talent separation at the top than other sports due to the fact that college basketball's best talents only stay 1 year.

    What do I mean by talent separation (and I'm certain there's a better word / phrase to use but I'm operating without coffee this morning - someone help me - thanks!)? In most other sports (NBA, NFL, etc), the total talent in the sport is arranged like a triangle:


    So, there's only one Lebron James, and below him in the next tier are about 3-4 players who are great but not as great as Lebron, and below THEM in the next tier are about 10 players, etc. In a "triangle sport" like the NBA, the top player Lebron James is a much better player than the 10th best player in the sport.

    Likewise, in the NFL, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady are much better and much more valuable than the 10th best player in their sport.

    In college basketball, though? Our best talents don't stay more than one year and build the experience needed to dominate. College basketball's overall talent is arranged like a trapezoid:

    We are a "trapezoid sport." Marvin Bagley might be one of the top 2 talents (along with Michael Porter, imo), but there are going to be about 20 veterans of college basketball that are going to be roughly as good as Bagley this season, including Duke's own Grayson Allen.

    What I've been getting around to saying is that it's not all that amazing to have the alleged best player, third-best player, and fifth-best player in the sport on same team in a "trapezoid sport." Because there are about 20 other players out there who are roughly as good, and some of THEM are going to play together as well. In a "triangle sport," yes, it'd be utterly amazing to have three alleged top-10 players of the sport, and you could be expected to be head and shoulders better than the competition.

    Alternatively, if players still stayed 4 years, college basketball would look much more "trianglish." A team with senior Bagley, senior Carter, senior Duval, etc. would destroy the competition. A senior Bagley would have separation between him and the 10th-best player in the sport. But alas, that is not the case with college ball. We a trapezoid, not a triangle.

    And, so yes, cautious optimism is best.

    Hopefully my coffee-less post can be understood.
    Nicely done. Not only are we in a trapezoid as it relates to talent and teams overall, but our end of year single elimination "playoff" format - the tournament - further levels the field at the top and makes it equally likely that any one of 10 or so teams can win it all.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    I read an "analysis" recently on Bleacher Report that suggested Tucker would start ahead of Trent because Allen, Duval and Trent were Duke's only guards and Duke would need Trent to come off the bench and spell Allen and Duval.

    The flaws with this reasoning are so apparent that I'll not even bother.
    I realize I'm setting myself up to get destroyed here, but that reasoning actually makes some sense to me. Duval, Allen and Trent are all ball-dominant guards. Bagley and Carter will want to get their shots. So starting five scorers could be problematic. With Tucker in that lineup instead of Trent, he could be used simply to space the floor and wouldn't require the ball. And yes, I'm aware that Trent is also a really good shooter, but I can see the value of bringing him off the bench so we don't have as much dropoff when the starters come out.

    It would be similar to how we had Grayson come off the bench at the end of this past season. The move was created by injury, but it worked well to have Jones start as the 3 and D guy along with four scorers, then when Allen came in he could dominate the ball.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    I realize I'm setting myself up to get destroyed here, but that reasoning actually makes some sense to me. Duval, Allen and Trent are all ball-dominant guards. Bagley and Carter will want to get their shots. So starting five scorers could be problematic. With Tucker in that lineup instead of Trent, he could be used simply to space the floor and wouldn't require the ball. And yes, I'm aware that Trent is also a really good shooter, but I can see the value of bringing him off the bench so we don't have as much dropoff when the starters come out.

    It would be similar to how we had Grayson come off the bench at the end of this past season. The move was created by injury, but it worked well to have Jones start as the 3 and D guy along with four scorers, then when Allen came in he could dominate the ball.
    That's a lot more nuanced than the BR article. The author of that seemed to feel that if Duke started Allen, Duval and Trent, Duke couldn't bring Tucker off the bench because Tucker is not a guard.

    But in our universe Tucker could sub for Allen by moving Trent to the 2. he could substitute for Duval by moving Allen to the 1 and Trent to the 2 or substitute for Trent at the 3. The author didn't seem to understand positional flexibility.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    That's a lot more nuanced than the BR article. The author of that seemed to feel that if Duke started Allen, Duval and Trent, Duke couldn't bring Tucker off the bench because Tucker is not a guard.

    But in our universe Tucker could sub for Allen by moving Trent to the 2. he could substitute for Duval by moving Allen to the 1 and Trent to the 2 or substitute for Trent at the 3. The author didn't seem to understand positional flexibility.
    There you go again! Rational analysis, sheesh!

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    That's a lot more nuanced than the BR article. The author of that seemed to feel that if Duke started Allen, Duval and Trent, Duke couldn't bring Tucker off the bench because Tucker is not a guard.

    But in our universe Tucker could sub for Allen by moving Trent to the 2. he could substitute for Duval by moving Allen to the 1 and Trent to the 2 or substitute for Trent at the 3. The author didn't seem to understand positional flexibility.
    We don't have positions at Duke!

Similar Threads

  1. MBB: Pre-season 2014-15 Thread
    By kAzE in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 282
    Last Post: 10-22-2014, 01:48 PM
  2. Braves 2011 season thread
    By Duvall in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2010, 01:33 PM
  3. Braves 2010 season thread
    By Olympic Fan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 378
    Last Post: 10-04-2010, 10:19 PM

Posting Permissions

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