Page 32 of 48 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 640 of 951
  1. #621
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    Does this make sense? Is it badly flawed? Help.
    With 3 and a half minutes left, Duke and Baylor were tied. With 29 seconds left, Kentucky was 4 behind West Virginia. Duke won. Kentucky lost.

    But what if Kentucky had hit a three, fouled, and tied the game with a few seconds left, then won in OT? What if Duke had lost in the last few minutes instead of won? There is *no* analysis of either Duke or Kentucky that should be different if those somewhat random events had come out differently.

    In 2006, Duke shouldn't have even been playing LSU. They shouldn't have lost to LSU, but the key is they shouldn't even have been playing them. In the game before they played Duke, LSU won on a half court shot at the buzzer against a #12 seed. If that hadn't happened, Duke is almost certainly in the Final Four in 2006 and we wouldn't have had to listen to five years of how that team was "fatally flawed."

    My point is how good is a team and how good is a coach is in the vast majority of cases NOT related to how well a team/coach does in a particular NCAA tournament. There are zero conclusions you can draw from Kentucky "only" making the Final 8 in 2010, just as there are zero conclusions you can draw from Duke winning the championship -- other than the obvious one that Duke won the championship and Kentucky didn't.

    Anyone who thinks the past dictates the future is wrong. If Calipari keeps Kentucky at or near the level they were last year, he has as much chance as anyone of winning. Duke has a great chance to win again, but if they don't it doesn't mean something's wrong with K's coaching or his recruiting. It just means the best teams don't always win.

    I don't understand why people can't understand that.

  2. #622
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    But the real reason I shifted away from the other thread [which we had taken off-track anyhow] is to think more about your other point: that because "Duke was such a matchup team that any number of outcomes could have resulted."

    Here's my disagreement. It goes back, sort of, to my post #598 in this thread, re "just how good Duke actually was." It was only toward the end of last season that I began to wonder about whether Duke's NCAAT chances were matchup-dependent. It does seem to make sense, and I guess even more where UK is concerned.

    But I resist the full implications of this, as you explained it on that other thread: foul trouble, different styles of play, etc. I can't deny that it's possible that UK might have gotten things going so well, with Duke's bigs in foul trouble, with Wall at super-speed, etc.

    But not at all probable. Because.... well, I can't seem to explain it, other than to say Duke was much more likely - by late season, certainly not at the Georgetown-moment - to force opponents to play at Duke's pace. That means a half-court game, ball-possession efficiency, defensively intense, rebounding a/the key. By these 4 criteria, Duke was "better" than UK in 3 of the 4. I grant, perhaps too easily, a slight edge to UK in rebounding.
    I think you may have mistook my "matchups" comment (or perhaps I didn't articulate it well). And I don't really care to get into a debate about whether or not it was probable that either Duke or UK would exert their style. It's not really pertinent to my point, and there are too many possibilities in the hypothetical.

    My entire point the whole time that in any one game there are so many possible outcomes that it means luck/fortune plays into a 6-game tournament. As such, any number of them could have occurred with a reasonable likelihood. We'd never know which is the most likely, even if they did play (in that scenario, we'd just know which one happened).

    We were very good at playing our pace, especially late in the year. But remember, we didn't face too many teams late in the year that really wanted to push tempo. We faced Maryland at Maryland, and lost (and failed to control tempo). And we faced a vastly undersized Cal team, and controlled tempo. Other than that, our opponents largely played a slower tempo anyway. So it's hard to say what we would have done against a team with UK's talent, size, and willingness to push tempo. Maybe we would have maintained our tempo and controlled the game. Maybe UK would have pushed tempo and or dominated the boards after fouling out our bigs. Who knows?

    And aside from that, I'll just defer to Kedsy's post above, which pretty much summarizes my point in the other thread.

  3. #623
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    In 2006, Duke shouldn't have even been playing LSU... In the game before they played Duke, LSU won on a half court shot at the buzzer against a #12 seed. If that hadn't happened, Duke is almost certainly in the Final Four in 2006 and we wouldn't have had to listen to five years of how that team was "fatally flawed."
    That #12 seed was Texas A&M, my wife's alma mater. Fast-forward to 2010 and Duke again has a potential matchup with TAMU, now a 5-seed. Only they lose another heartbreaker, when Purdue gets a layup with 4 seconds left in overtime.

    So I agree with what I think is your overall point... any number of small, quasi-random events can have an enormous impact on the tournament outcome.

  4. #624
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    If that hadn't happened, Duke is almost certainly in the Final Four in 2006 and we wouldn't have had to listen to five years of how that team was "fatally flawed."
    Unless we then lost to UCLA, that is. We also, of course, would have been treated to 48 weeks of "cakewalk" talk about only playing one 7-seed or better on the way to the Final Four.

  5. #625
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Connersville, IN
    watched the game again today

    my heart still skips a beat when Hayward's shot hits the backboard

  6. #626
    Yes, the BOY from CALIFORNIA is back, after a 6+ month sabbatical ... no better place to start up than on this thread:

    Whereas ... "Purdue is too physically strong for Duke" ... and

    Whereas ... "Baylor's length and athleticism will give Duke trouble" ... and

    Whereas ... "Duke is in for a long night against the Mountaineers" ...

    OUR BOYS surprised all the experts (see above), then played before 70,000 in the Title Game (with about 67,000 behind Butler in its backyard, cheering every Duke
    mistake), and beat an outstanding team that hit the floor that nite with a 25-game winning streak.

    Great Job GUYS ... Superior Coaching Job, Coach K ... can't wait for this SEASON

    It is GREAT to be BACK ... GO DUKE !

  7. #627
    http://sports.chronicleblogs.com/201...vely-speaking/

    Interesting article about which game was last years best (ie most exciting) using a Ken Pom system.

  8. #628
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lewisville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    My point is how good is a team and how good is a coach is in the vast majority of cases NOT related to how well a team/coach does in a particular NCAA tournament. There are zero conclusions you can draw from Kentucky "only" making the Final 8 in 2010, just as there are zero conclusions you can draw from Duke winning the championship -- other than the obvious one that Duke won the championship and Kentucky didn't.

    Anyone who thinks the past dictates the future is wrong. If Calipari keeps Kentucky at or near the level they were last year, he has as much chance as anyone of winning. Duke has a great chance to win again, but if they don't it doesn't mean something's wrong with K's coaching or his recruiting. It just means the best teams don't always win.

    I don't understand why people can't understand that.
    I generally agree with your point.

    Something that does run counter to this is the importance of experience in the tournament. Many eventual champions have older lineups with juniors and seniors in key roles. Some have a core group which returns to the tournament after a tough loss (UNC in 2009 after 2008 loss to Kansas).

    I watched Kentucky play West Virginia, and IMO their youth and inexperience was a factor in the loss. They went 0-20 on 3-pt attempts and kept jacking up shots, which seemed to be a failure in strategy, execution, or both.

    It certainly wouldn't be surprising to see Kentucky 2010-11 or 2011-12 get to the Final Four and win the tournament, at least based on a projection of their talent and Calipari's ability as a coach. But if they are playing a mainly 1st and 2nd year lineup, their experience level can be an issue.

  9. #629
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by jimrowe0 View Post
    http://sports.chronicleblogs.com/201...vely-speaking/

    Interesting article about which game was last years best (ie most exciting) using a Ken Pom system.
    From the article:

    "Also, in case you were wondering whether Duke’s 82-50 win over North Carolina was ever in question: Duke began the game with a 94 percent WP. It moved to the 98-99 percent range by the time there was nine minutes left in the first half, and it was at 100 percent by halftime. Can you say blowout?"

    I approve of this paragraph.

  10. #630
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    My entire point the whole time that in any one game there are so many possible outcomes that it means luck/fortune plays into a 6-game tournament. As such, any number of them could have occurred with a reasonable likelihood. We'd never know which is the most likely, even if they did play (in that scenario, we'd just know which one happened).

    And aside from that, I'll just defer to Kedsy's post above, which pretty much summarizes my point in the other thread.
    Because of the difficulty of keeping on track when switching from one thread to another, I think by now we're close to talking past each other. But it's not a major misunderstanding, at least not as seems implied in Kedsy's last, exasperated [and to me exasperating] line.

    I don't disagree with anything Kedsy said in his reply to me. My distinction between possible and probable was intended only to be a further comment on my original [other thread] disagreement with your speculation re "Who's to say UK wouldn't have blown Duke away...."

    Yes, I do understand and agree that in any NCAAT there are many, many possibilities. Any slight variation - a key made shot here, a different call there - and the whole tourney shifts, maybe a lot.

    I don't concede that all possibilities are equally probable, but beyond that single, hardheaded [mine] refusal, I think I'm agreeing with every [other?] word you and Kedsy have written [in posts 621 and 622].

  11. #631
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    ...My distinction between possible and probable was intended only to be a further comment on my original [other thread] disagreement with your speculation re "Who's to say UK wouldn't have blown Duke away...."

    Yes, I do understand and agree that in any NCAAT there are many, many possibilities. Any slight variation - a key made shot here, a different call there - and the whole tourney shifts, maybe a lot.
    I think perhaps you're reading more into my comment than I intended. I wasn't making any claims as to the probability of a Duke (or UK) win in such a matchup, nor was I making any statements as to the predicted margin of victory. I'm pretty sure I never stated that I think UK would have probably beaten us (or vice versa). Honestly, I don't know what is most likely to have happened in such a game (that would take a lot of work, and ultimately any single scenario has a VERY low probability of occurrence). I think your disagreement is with an assertion that I didn't really make.

    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    I don't concede that all possibilities are equally probable, but beyond that single, hardheaded [mine] refusal, I think I'm agreeing with every [other?] word you and Kedsy have written [in posts 621 and 622].
    I most certainly didn't say that all possibilities are equally probable. I may or may not have said that there are so many possible outcomes that the probability of any one outcome is exceedingly unlikely (that statement I will defend to my dying day, as there are an infinite number of possible outcomes). Thus, accurately determining which team would be more likely to win (which is different than accurately predicting the winner) is pretty difficult stuff. So again, I think any disagreement you have with my post is based on a slight misinterpretation of that post.

  12. #632
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    I beg to differ

    Quote Originally Posted by Jderf View Post
    From the article:

    "Also, in case you were wondering whether Duke’s 82-50 win over North Carolina was ever in question: Duke began the game with a 94 percent WP. It moved to the 98-99 percent range by the time there was nine minutes left in the first half, and it was at 100 percent by halftime. Can you say blowout?"

    I approve of this paragraph.
    I do, too, but I still think it was exciting. Even Jordan Davidson stripping Henson as he tried to dunk in the final minute was exciting.

  13. #633
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I think perhaps you're reading more into my comment than I intended. I wasn't making any claims as to the probability of a Duke (or UK) win in such a matchup, nor was I making any statements as to the predicted margin of victory. I'm pretty sure I never stated that I think UK would have probably beaten us (or vice versa).... So again, I think any disagreement you have with my post is based on a slight misinterpretation of that post.
    I think you're right that I was reading too much into your original [other thread] phrase, "Who's to say they [UK] don't turn around and blow us... away?" To try to be clear about my misinterpretation, I hope I did not imply that you said who would win, nor that UK would probably have won, nor that UK would have won big. I agree that you neither said nor implied any of those things.

    Rather, I intended in my original response to comment only on the possibility you raised [not at all a prediction, merely one of numerous possibilities - "Who's to say" -] re a UK blow-out over Duke. I meant only to demur to that as much of a real possibility. That then led me to switch threads, and perhaps things got lost in the transition, as I intended to transit from what I thought was a slight disagreement back to my obsession [!!] with trying to make a case for why Duke was actually the "best team" in March-April'10. I was not attempting to claim that the "best team" always [or even usually] wins the NCAAT. [But see final paragraph.]

    Admittedly, even on the only disagreement I had, and even if a likely misreading of your phrase ["who's to say... blow us away"], other posters [not you], and certainly many fans across the land, would insist that such a blow-out was actually highly possible [= probable]. On this point, I repeat [not to you, but to thousands of avid readers] that, having been converted to the religion of KenPom by several wise posters last season, I call KenPom as my witness that, while certainly - like many, many other outcomes - possible, it would hardly have been a probability.

    Finally, I am delighted [definite thread relevance] to assert that a reasonable, but, alas, not definitive, claim can be made that in 2010, the actual best team actually won the NC.

  14. #634
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    But it's not a major misunderstanding, at least not as seems implied in Kedsy's last, exasperated [and to me exasperating] line.
    I apologize if I exasperated you. My last exasperated/exasperating line was certainly not directed at your post that I quoted, but rather at previous posts in the other thread, many (if not all) of which were made by people other than you.

    In other words, that line was not responding to your idea about what would have been the likely outcome of a Duke/Kentucky Final Four game (which was the gist of the post I quoted), but rather the oft-stated idea that Kentucky losing in the 2010 Final Eight proves that Calipari will never win with his "one and done strategy." Or another commonly held opinion that how far you got in the NCAAT is the definitive answer to how good or worthy your team was (or even how likely you were to win the tourney before it started).

    If that's not your view, I apologize for quoting you in a post where I railed against that view.

  15. #635
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC

    Please keep this thread on topic

    Duke Won!!!
    2010 Nat'l Champs!!!


    I still think that last shot is going to bank into the basket.
    I'm so glad it didn't.
    I was there and was hysterical when we won!

    Woo Hoo!!

    Duke Won!!!

    Please take other discussions to a different thread.
    Thank You.

  16. #636
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Starting with the loss to UConn in 04, things - for our ridiculously high expectations - did not go well. Livingston never shows up and Deng departs. Carolina wins. Redick and Shelden come up short in 06. 07 had all kinds of tough losses. 08 was better, but back to back losses on the first weekend - and WVU's trash talking - hurt. Carolina wins again. Then there's Wright, Patterson, Monroe, Wall, and Barnes.

    To some this was evidence we had fallen off. To the more loyal amongst us, it was still very humbling. To win it with this team, and these seniors especially, is in my mind the best it will ever get.

    Thank God we live in the youtube era. I can watch the Duke Blue Planet videos for the rest of my life and smile.

  17. #637
    some of my thoughts... When I re-watch the last few seconds of the game, I continue to be worried with 13 seconds left, and Haywood gets the ball... drives on Kyle, then puts up a short jumper. Even with Zoobs in his face, we've seen Vasquez put in a couple of those. I really expected that one to go in. If that went in, only 3+ seconds left, down 1... I thought that could have been the game. So when Haywood had that last gasp chance, I think I was rather calm until it missed

    Zoobs made the couple of plays at the end. Forcing the timeout, bothering Haywood's shot, making the 1st free throw. Zoobs was money... all with 4 fouls. After the game, on the court, Coach K literally jumped up to Zoobs with "that's the way to play defense" or something like that.

  18. #638
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    With 3 and a half minutes left, Duke and Baylor were tied. With 29 seconds left, Kentucky was 4 behind West Virginia. Duke won. Kentucky lost.

    But what if Kentucky had hit a three, fouled, and tied the game with a few seconds left, then won in OT? What if Duke had lost in the last few minutes instead of won? There is *no* analysis of either Duke or Kentucky that should be different if those somewhat random events had come out differently.

    In 2006, Duke shouldn't have even been playing LSU. They shouldn't have lost to LSU, but the key is they shouldn't even have been playing them. In the game before they played Duke, LSU won on a half court shot at the buzzer against a #12 seed. If that hadn't happened, Duke is almost certainly in the Final Four in 2006 and we wouldn't have had to listen to five years of how that team was "fatally flawed."

    My point is how good is a team and how good is a coach is in the vast majority of cases NOT related to how well a team/coach does in a particular NCAA tournament. There are zero conclusions you can draw from Kentucky "only" making the Final 8 in 2010, just as there are zero conclusions you can draw from Duke winning the championship -- other than the obvious one that Duke won the championship and Kentucky didn't.

    Anyone who thinks the past dictates the future is wrong. If Calipari keeps Kentucky at or near the level they were last year, he has as much chance as anyone of winning. Duke has a great chance to win again, but if they don't it doesn't mean something's wrong with K's coaching or his recruiting. It just means the best teams don't always win.

    I don't understand why people can't understand that.
    Well, I won't speak for anyone else but my problem with this kind of thinking is, at what point do players, coaches and teams become responsible for their own successes and failures? Coach K has a long history of tournament success but by the logic of your post none of that should be admitted in making a case that he is a great coach because, well, he could've lost those games if this, that and the other and his opponents could've lost in the previous round(s) to a team that could've beat Duke if only it had had the chance.

    Your record is your record. You should be given credit or blame for every part of it. The best team is the one that wins, not the one everyone thought ahead of time should've won, or the one that lost early that people thought surely would've beaten that one that won or ... well, you get the picture.

  19. #639
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    Well, I won't speak for anyone else but my problem with this kind of thinking is, at what point do players, coaches and teams become responsible for their own successes and failures? Coach K has a long history of tournament success but by the logic of your post none of that should be admitted in making a case that he is a great coach because, well, he could've lost those games if this, that and the other and his opponents could've lost in the previous round(s) to a team that could've beat Duke if only it had had the chance.

    Your record is your record. You should be given credit or blame for every part of it. The best team is the one that wins, not the one everyone thought ahead of time should've won, or the one that lost early that people thought surely would've beaten that one that won or ... well, you get the picture.
    So was Villanova the best team in 1985? Despite the fact that they were unranked, and had already lost to Georgetown twice that season? Were they really better than Georgetown? No. They just happened to play better that day. In that tournament (as in many other years), the best team didn't win.

    The 1985 Villanova championship is the best example of why the argument that the best team is the team that wins doesn't hold. The better team doesn't win every game. Sometimes, a lesser team simply has a better day. And in a six-game, single-elimination format, there are lots of chances for the best team to have an off day.

    I'm not saying Duke wasn't the best team. I'm just saying that winning a championship isn't proof of it, though I agree that it is supporting evidence. The best team doesn't always win. I'm with Kedsy - I don't understand why people don't get this.

  20. #640
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Richmond, Va
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    So was Villanova the best team in 1985? Despite the fact that they were unranked, and had already lost to Georgetown twice that season? Were they really better than Georgetown? No. They just happened to play better that day. In that tournament (as in many other years), the best team didn't win.

    The 1985 Villanova championship is the best example of why the argument that the best team is the team that wins doesn't hold. The better team doesn't win every game. Sometimes, a lesser team simply has a better day. And in a six-game, single-elimination format, there are lots of chances for the best team to have an off day.

    I'm not saying Duke wasn't the best team. I'm just saying that winning a championship isn't proof of it, though I agree that it is supporting evidence. The best team doesn't always win. I'm with Kedsy - I don't understand why people don't get this.
    Good argument, had that Hayward shot gone in, was Butler the best team in the 2009-2010 season?

Similar Threads

  1. Butler 2010 and Duke 1978
    By Spam Filter in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-25-2010, 05:00 PM
  2. Charting Duke vs. Butler (NCAA Tournament)
    By Jumbo in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2010, 01:24 AM
  3. NCAA Champs gear
    By Daniel tosh in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 09:06 AM
  4. MOTM: Duke vs. Butler, NCAA Championship Finals
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-06-2010, 10:19 AM
  5. MBB: Duke vs. Butler for the NCAA Championship
    By Welcome2DaSlopes in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 675
    Last Post: 04-05-2010, 11:39 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
  •