Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1

    Pomeroy on the Devils

    Ken Pomeroy has an article up debating who the number 4 team in the country is (behind Memphis, Kansas and UCLA). His two choices are Duke and Carolina, and most of his article involves a discussion of his methodology and philosophies. Here is the link:

    http://www.basketballprospectus.com/...p?articleid=92

    For me the most interesting aspect of the article was this paragraph, particularly the part in bold:

    "There's no question Duke is more imperfect than UNC. They're small, they don't rebound well, they're too dependent on three-pointers, and they're playing a style that is completely new to the program. They also lack big game experience, for whatever that's worth. However, on paper, this team seems to be hiding their weaknesses very well. Before dismissing them, one thing to consider is their youth. They're the 41st-youngest team in college basketball (at least in terms of college basketball experience, not by age). Of the teams mentioned here, Duke is likely to improve the most for the remainder of the season."

    People talk about youth a lot and I thought it would be a limitation for this particular team. However, I have never seen it quantified as such, and found his numbers to be interesting.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hotlanta
    "...and they're playing a style that is completely new to the program."

    That's totally idiotic. Last year was the aberration. The Cornell announcers pointed out that this team's style wasn't all that different from before JJ and the Landlord.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Karl Beem View Post
    "...and they're playing a style that is completely new to the program."

    That's totally idiotic. Last year was the aberration. The Cornell announcers pointed out that this team's style wasn't all that different from before JJ and the Landlord.
    So, from the days when most of Duke's current team was in junior high, then?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    I know what you're saying but it's not really idiotic. Duke has run before but K has added some tweaks borrowed from the Phoenix system. And in practical terms, keep in mind that only Nelson, McClure, and Paulus even played with Redick and Shel in 2005 and 2006. So, running at the college level is new to pretty much everybody on the team. Even the '06 team didn't run that much compared to the early '00s teams.

    The youth thing can go both ways. This time last year I was delighted because I assumed the youngest team in modern Duke history would just get better and better and better. Obviously, that wasn't the case. Injuries hurt but the team was just TOO young. Nelson and Paulus need to keep an upperclass watch on this team and provide the kind of leadership that an even younger Duke team lacked a bit last year. Then I think Pomeroy will be correct.

  5. #5
    However, on paper, this team seems to be hiding their weaknesses very well.
    This is typical of most Duke teams post-1995, at least through the middle of February or so.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    "This is typical of most Duke teams post-1995, at least through the middle of February or so."

    Given that from 1998 through 2006 Duke won seven ACC Tournament titles, advanced the Sweet Sixteen nine times, the Final Four three times, and won an NCAA title, it seems that Duke has been able to hide its weaknesses well past the middle of February.

  7. #7
    I stand by what I wrote. Most years recently we've had one or more late regular season losses that foreshadowed NCAA faceplants for anyone willing to connect the dots. This was especially true in 97, 2000, 02, 03, 04 (happened in the ACC Tournament), 05 and 06. You can throw in 98 (all-around not as talented as unc) and 07 (general season-long inability to finish games leading to first-round bounceout) in there too. The one standout exception was the national championship year.

    Go ahead and write your 800-word missive refuting me, but there's a reason we lose a lot of Sweet 16 games to lower seeds.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by hurleyfor3 View Post
    I stand by what I wrote. Most years recently we've had one or more late regular season losses that foreshadowed NCAA faceplants for anyone willing to connect the dots. This was especially true in 97, 2000, 02, 03, 04 (happened in the ACC Tournament), 05 and 06. You can throw in 98 (all-around not as talented as unc) and 07 (general season-long inability to finish games leading to first-round bounceout) in there too. The one standout exception was the national championship year.

    Go ahead and write your 800-word missive refuting me, but there's a reason we lose a lot of Sweet 16 games to lower seeds.
    I don't think you need 800 words to show why Duke's NCAA tournament losses in 1998, 2003, 2004 and 2005 weren't "faceplants."

    Hint: there are 63 losers in the NCAA tournament every year and only one winner.

  9. #9
    I'm not going to argue here about our recent postseason record. We do that enough in other threads, and nobody's mind is going to be changed. My original, on-topic stance I was trying to get across is:

    1. Most Duke teams do, in fact, have significant, exploitable weaknesses;
    2. These weaknesses are almost always exposed in the postseason;
    3. K does a very good job of hiding these weaknesses during the regular season; and
    4. #3 is a trait you WANT to have, assuming your team isn't perfect in the first place. Coaching a team so it can play to its strengths, and away from its weaknesses, for even part of the year, is a rare, desirable talent.
    5. I agree with Pomeroy's statement, but it can be broadened to beyond this year.

    Seriously, our postseason record is not the topic, and I will not argue it here.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    A question

    Quote Originally Posted by hurleyfor3 View Post
    I stand by what I wrote. Most years recently we've had one or more late regular season losses that foreshadowed NCAA faceplants for anyone willing to connect the dots. This was especially true in 97, 2000, 02, 03, 04 (happened in the ACC Tournament), 05 and 06. You can throw in 98 (all-around not as talented as unc) and 07 (general season-long inability to finish games leading to first-round bounceout) in there too. The one standout exception was the national championship year.

    Go ahead and write your 800-word missive refuting me, but there's a reason we lose a lot of Sweet 16 games to lower seeds.
    What is the reason? Could you state it succinctly? I'm not trying to challenge you, just want to understand your point.

    Never mind -- our posts crossed.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by hurleyfor3 View Post
    I'm not going to argue here about our recent postseason record. We do that enough in other threads, and nobody's mind is going to be changed. My original, on-topic stance I was trying to get across is:

    1. Most Duke teams do, in fact, have significant, exploitable weaknesses;
    2. These weaknesses are almost always exposed in the postseason;
    3. K does a very good job of hiding these weaknesses during the regular season; and
    4. #3 is a trait you WANT to have, assuming your team isn't perfect in the first place. Coaching a team so it can play to its strengths, and away from its weaknesses, for even part of the year, is a rare, desirable talent.
    5. I agree with Pomeroy's statement, but it can be broadened to beyond this year.

    Seriously, our postseason record is not the topic, and I will not argue it here.
    Of course we have weaknesses. The pro teams have weaknesses. What school typically fields teams with no exploitable weaknesses? It's been a long time since UCLA dominated the field...

    I don't get why you think this is such a revelation.

Similar Threads

  1. Ken Pomeroy Help - stats help
    By gofurman in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 07:13 PM
  2. Pomeroy question
    By SlimSlowSlider in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 12:56 PM
  3. Dork polls: #1 Sagarin, #3 Pomeroy
    By hurleyfor3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 08:49 AM
  4. Pomeroy Stuff
    By MChambers in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-05-2007, 01:34 PM
  5. Pomeroy on the ACC tournament
    By MChambers in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-07-2007, 09:26 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
  •