Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1. #1

    A troubling trend

    Based on kenpom numbers, Duke is an incredibly weak #2 seed. In the kenpom era (2003-), these are the three #2 seeds whose kenpom numbers were in the same ballpark as the 2012 Duke Blue Devils: 2003 Wake Forest, 2006 Tennessee and 2010 Villanova. Let's look at how they did in the tournament (or just look away now if you are a Duke fan and have a weak stomach) -

    2003 Wake: Beat #15 East Tenn. St. by 3 and lost to #10 Auburn by 6
    2006 Tennessee: Beat #15 Winthrop by 2 and lost to #7 Wichita St by 7
    2010 Villanova: Beat #15 Robert Morris by 3 and lost to #10 St Mary's by 7

    I swear I did not pick these three teams knowing that they performed similarly in the tournament. I just looked back to find teams that were similar in ranking to Duke and also placed on the #2 line and then found their results which are strikingly consistent (and deeply troubling if you are a Duke fan).

    Only 2003 Wake (0.8928) and 2006 Tennessee (0.8897) are behind Duke (0.8971) in kenpom ranking but their numbers include their putrid performance in the NCAA tournament [2010 Nova ended up at 0.9011]. I would guess that at the time of seeding, Duke is the lowest rated #2 seed of the kenpom era.
    Last edited by forbiddendonut; 03-12-2012 at 10:26 AM. Reason: spelling error

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    man, all this wailing and bemoaning and gnashing of teeth....sheesh....we're gonna play who we play and see what happens....I think all the negative AND positive aspects of this year's team have be gone over and over and over, but, it is what it is...

    matchups may or may NOT favor us, we're gonna find out friday night just what our "game face" looks like for this big dance...

    i'm not saying just put your blue glasses on and let it slide, i'm just saying this is where we are....it's almost like we're just setting up all the excuses for if or when we lose....

    we're gonna find out who's gonna walk the walk this weekend...
    "One POSSIBLE future. From your point of view... I don't know tech stuff.".... Kyle Reese

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by forbiddendonut View Post
    Based on kenpom numbers, Duke is an incredibly weak #2 seed. In the kenpom era (2003-), these are the three #2 seeds whose kenpom numbers were in the same ballpark as the 2012 Duke Blue Devils: 2003 Wake Forest, 2006 Tennessee and 2010 Villanova. Let's look at how they did in the tournament (or just look away now if you are a Duke fan and have a weak stomach) -

    2003 Wake: Beat #15 East Tenn. St. by 3 and lost to #10 Auburn by 6
    2006 Tennessee: Beat #15 Winthrop by 2 and lost to #7 Wichita St by 7
    2010 Villanova: Beat #15 Robert Morris by 3 and lost to #10 St Mary's by 7

    I swear I did not pick these three teams knowing that they performed similarly in the tournament. I just looked back to find teams that were similar in ranking to Duke and also placed on the #2 line and then found their results which are strikingly consistent (and deeply troubling if you are a Duke fan).

    Only 2003 Wake (0.8928) and 2006 Tennessee (0.8897) are behind Duke (0.8971) in kenpom ranking but their numbers include their putrid performance in the NCAA tournament [2010 Nova ended up at 0.9011]. I would guess that at the time of seeding, Duke is the lowest rated #2 seed of the kenpom era.
    I guess we can dispell this by beating Lehigh by 10+ points. GoDuke!

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by jv001 View Post
    I guess we can dispell this by beating Lehigh by 10+ points. GoDuke!
    Well, even Michigan State, a #1 seed, didn't beat Lehigh by 10+ points this season. Lehigh is a decent team and shouldn't be taken lightly.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    We'll probably play both games closer than we should. But I think we'll win both games, because we're the far better team in each case. Lehigh creates matchup problems, but we're just far better talentwise overall. Notre Dame is a great matchup for us, and Xavier creates some matchup problems but not enough to beat us without help from us.

    We're the type of team that you don't want to face if you're a top seed because we can defend inside and shoot the 3. But we're not a team that I'd feel very comfortable picking to win it all, or even make the Elite 8. But I am pretty confident that we'll get out of the first weekend.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Duke's an interesting team, however, in that we've managed to defy the KenPom odds for a large part of the season. I think that to achieve something big in the NCAAT this season, we've got to get our offense clicking. When it's on, it's been ranked as high as number 1 in Pomeroy. The the two ACCT games really ate into our offensive ranking. However, I still think the potential is there. I wonder if it will be an advantage for us to play opponents that are unfamiliar with us. If Ryan is back and healthy, opposing teams will have to remember to guard as many as 4 players tight on the perimeter, even in transition. VaTech and FSU did a good job staying at home on our shooters, but they also had the benefit of playing us multiple times this season. However, our NCAAT opponents will have to fight their instincts to help on drives and guard the paint in transition, which will hopefully leave our shooters open on the perimeter.

  7. #7
    Well then I guess it's good news we didn't get a #1 seed. Would hate to be the first #1 seed to lose in the first round. And second...haven't we already beat quite a few #1 seeds this year?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    Well then I guess it's good news we didn't get a #1 seed. Would hate to be the first #1 seed to lose in the first round. And second...haven't we already beat quite a few #1 seeds this year?
    yes, half of them. To be fair, though, we caught Michigan State early, and they are playing much better now than they were then.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    I think a possible difference between this Duke team and the ones you mention is tournament experience (both players and coaches). The juniors and seniors have been on a team that went all the way and know how to deal with the hubbub. K certainly does as well, obviously. Not sure how that compares to the three examples. Also, not sure if they played about an hour from their campus or not.


    While I think we have a very challenging game Friday, with two good teams battling to play the winner on Sunday, I think we generally do a good job of getting into tournament mode. Maui may have been a long time ago, but this team has experience winning a tournament under its belt.

    Should be fun, Lehigh is good. Game on.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by forbiddendonut View Post
    Based on kenpom numbers, Duke is an incredibly weak #2 seed. In the kenpom era (2003-), these are the three #2 seeds whose kenpom numbers were in the same ballpark as the 2012 Duke Blue Devils: 2003 Wake Forest, 2006 Tennessee and 2010 Villanova. Let's look at how they did in the tournament (or just look away now if you are a Duke fan and have a weak stomach) -

    2003 Wake: Beat #15 East Tenn. St. by 3 and lost to #10 Auburn by 6
    2006 Tennessee: Beat #15 Winthrop by 2 and lost to #7 Wichita St by 7
    2010 Villanova: Beat #15 Robert Morris by 3 and lost to #10 St Mary's by 7

    I swear I did not pick these three teams knowing that they performed similarly in the tournament. I just looked back to find teams that were similar in ranking to Duke and also placed on the #2 line and then found their results which are strikingly consistent (and deeply troubling if you are a Duke fan).

    Only 2003 Wake (0.8928) and 2006 Tennessee (0.8897) are behind Duke (0.8971) in kenpom ranking but their numbers include their putrid performance in the NCAA tournament [2010 Nova ended up at 0.9011]. I would guess that at the time of seeding, Duke is the lowest rated #2 seed of the kenpom era.
    It's worth recalling here that you are comparing apples to oranges somewhat. The rankings you cite are year-end numbers. The thing is, the tournament itself causes a great deal of movement at the top of the rankings, where the teams that advance also tend to rise. If those three #2 seeds went out early, they were going to fall compared to the teams that survived. Similarly, if Duke makes the Final Four, I guarantee its kenpom ranking will be top ten. As the numbers people would say, those kenpom rankings are descriptive, not predictive.

    On the other hand, looking at pre-tourney kenpom numbers would be interesting, but I don't think we have general access to those. Although Kedsy has made an annual habit of saving those pages, I think.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Sample size

    I wouldn't worry about it. It's a very small sample size. In the pre-KenPom era, lots of weak #2s did pretty well. The 1990 Duke team was really struggling going into the NCAA tournament and reached the final. (Don't ask what happened then.)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    I wouldn't worry about it. It's a very small sample size. In the pre-KenPom era, lots of weak #2s did pretty well. The 1990 Duke team was really struggling going into the NCAA tournament and reached the final. (Don't ask what happened then.)
    True. And we were in a worse position when we played Temple in '88 with Mark Macon. No way Duke can win that game. . . .

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    I wouldn't worry about it. It's a very small sample size. In the pre-KenPom era, lots of weak #2s did pretty well. The 1990 Duke team was really struggling going into the NCAA tournament and reached the final. (Don't ask what happened then.)
    I'm pretty sure that game was never played. They held the whole tournament up to the final and then just... stopped.

    That's how I remember it, at least.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    I wouldn't worry about it. It's a very small sample size. In the pre-KenPom era, lots of weak #2s did pretty well. The 1990 Duke team was really struggling going into the NCAA tournament and reached the final. (Don't ask what happened then.)
    Yeah, it's hard to really call this a "trend." More like a few scattered, possibly related events -- hardly enough to guarantee doom and gloom. I actually think it is somewhat promising, seeing as, when it comes to the NCAA tournament, past events seem to be a perfect predictor of what isn't going to happen the second time around.

  15. #15
    The similarity in score margins was most striking to me. I should not have used the word trend. I thought it was interesting.

    I don't have the pre-NCAAT numbers (as referenced above) but other #2 seeds in the 0.88-0.91 range pre-NCAAT may include: 2006 Ohio St, 2009 Oklahoma, 2009 Michigan St, 2011 UNC and 2011 Florida.

    If anyone has the pre-NCAAT rankings saved, that would eliminate the guessing.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by forbiddendonut View Post
    2006 Ohio St, 2009 Oklahoma, 2009 Michigan St, 2011 UNC and 2011 Florida
    Results in order:
    R32 - lost to #7 Georgetown
    E8 - lost to #1 UNC
    Runner-up - lost to #1 UNC
    E8 - lost to #4 Kentucky
    E8 - lost to #8 Butler
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by pfrduke View Post
    Results in order:
    R32 - lost to #7 Georgetown
    E8 - lost to #1 UNC
    Runner-up - lost to #1 UNC
    E8 - lost to #4 Kentucky
    E8 - lost to #8 Butler
    Past performance does not predict future results.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    Past performance does not predict future results.
    Agree 100% (particularly when the results are so disparate). Just providing information.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  19. #19

    Dukeballboy88POM

    We should beat Lehigh and Xavier or Notre Dame in Greensboro regardless of what Ken Pom says. Now Baylor may pose a problem if they get passed South Dakota St. South Dakota St is my upset special and if that happens, Duke should play Kentucky in the elite 8. Take that KenPom.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    Past performance does not predict future results.
    Who are you, my broker?

Similar Threads

  1. Hope It Is Not a trend
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 12:11 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
  •