Does Duke have the traits of a Champion?

[CoBlueDevil]

http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091989

Interesting article on rivals. The writer doesnt seem to think that Duke has the traits to win the title next year. His logic for not including Duke in the last trait is true, but he seems to forget we have two potential AA's returning.

[Johnboy]

http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091989

Interesting article on rivals. The writer doesnt seem to think that Duke has the traits to win the title next year. His logic for not including Duke in the last trait is true, but he seems to forget we have two potential AA's returning.

Actually, he doesn't include Duke in the last trait because it's a trait Duke doesn't fit. These traits may be cherry-picked from among many that past champions share, but they are factual - Duke doesn't return its two top players in those three statistical categories. Of course, he goes on to say that Duke was an exception in that trait this past season.

Interesting article.

[billyj]

How important is returning your leading scorer? Well, three of the past four national champions returned their go-to guy from the previous season.

The exception? Duke this past season.
:cool:

[sagegrouse]

This article has the scientific relevance of "pick-up sticks." There are a huge number of potential criteria for predicting success of a team in the NCAAs. You throw them all out on the floow and pick a few. Then you write an article.

Geez!

sagegrouse

[Bob Green]

I don't put a lot of stock into articles such as the one linked from Rivals. It is a fine example of an author starting with their desired conclusion and cherry picking facts to support their position.

We will field an experienced team next season and experience is key to success. We will not be as experienced as the 2009-10 team which started three seniors and two juniors down the stretch, however, we will start two seniors (Singler and Smith) and a junior (Miles Plumlee) and that is a lot of experience in today's college basketball landscape. Throw in four solid sophomores (Mason Plumlee, Dawkins, Kelly, and Curry), a Blue Chip freshman point guard (Irving), and two other freshmen (Hairston and Thornton), and I conclude we have the horses to compete to repeat.

[Johnboy]

This article has the scientific relevance of "pick-up sticks." There are a huge number of potential criteria for predicting success of a team in the NCAAs. You throw them all out on the floow and pick a few. Then you write an article.


Sure, they're cherry-picked criteria, but they're traits that people talk about when trying to assess teams during the preseason: returning/lost players as a statistical percentage; overall experience; overall tournament experience; winning percentage last season; strength of schedule/conference.

What traits do you think he left out that are relevant?

[Duvall]

Throw in four solid sophomores (Mason Plumlee, Dawkins, Kelly, and Curry)

We hope they are solid. We do not yet know.


a Blue Chip freshman point guard (Irving).

Never a sure thing.

[sagegrouse]

Sure, they're cherry-picked criteria, but they're traits that people talk about when trying to assess teams during the preseason: returning/lost players as a statistical percentage; overall experience; overall tournament experience; winning percentage last season; strength of schedule/conference.

What traits do you think he left out that are relevant?

This is like regression analysis with 100 variables and 26 observations (1985-2010). If you try all the potential combinations of variables you are guaranteed a really good fit. Is this science? Uh, no! It's curve-fitting. And his approach is even worse, since so many of his criteria are essentially the same.

Here's a rather Grouse-y analysis of his method:

1. Win at least 19 games the previous year. Actually, he looked at every single number of wins and came up with 19 as including all but one team. Curve fitting. Hunh?

2. He was unimpressed with the record of one-win leagues. Another throwaway.

3. Be a regular participant (i.e. the prior year in the NCAAs). This means being one of the top 40 or so teams the previous year. This is another three-inch hurdle, but of course, both Kentucky and UNC have tripped over it. Not terribly meaningful.

4 Be at least a fifth seed the previous year. This is a lesser included subset of the previous category. Anyone have an Occam's Razor?

5. Have won one game in the NCAA-T the previous year. Ditto. How many 5th seeds or better fail to win at least one tournament game? So we have three of his six criteria being very closely -- uh -- related. Moreover, pretty much all #5 seeds have won 19 games the previous year. Moreover and furthermore, how many teams from one-bid leagues get a #5 seed or win an NCAA tournament game? I would have been roasted by my colleagues doing statistical analysis with this kind of logic.

6. Return two of the team #1's in scoring, assists, and rebounding. You may disagree, but I say this is hokum. What about % of points returned? Percent of rebounds? Or minutes, denoting experience? Or, two of the top three in each of these categories. The fact that he sorted through 26 data points and found a fit with two of the team leaders in three categories doesn't impress me. And, of course, Duke doesn't qualify for 2011 because Scheyer very slightly out-scored Kyle and Nolan.


Anyway, you asked. Pardon the dyspeptic response.

sagegrouse

[CoBlueDevil]

I think he was is just searching for a reason to not have us as a potential champion.

[chadlee989]

Well for what its worth we return 63% of our points, 52% of our assist, and 50% of our rebounds(i took out Peters, Johnson, Davidson, and Olek) from the season. 60% of our points, 52% of our assist, and 49% of our rebounds from the ncaa tourny. Plus we return two possible AA's. So I would say that we have a good shot. No sure thing but we are the team to beat in my eyes.

[Bob Green]

We hope they are solid. We do not yet know.

I'll concede the point that I tend to take the optimistic viewpoint when it comes to Duke and off season player development.


Never a sure thing.

Agreed, of course the optimistic viewpoint says....

[Newton_14]

We hope they are solid. We do not yet know.



Never a sure thing.

I think the evidence in hand is enough to predict that at least 3 of the 4 will be solid or better (Seth, Mason, Andre) but I truly think all 4 will be. Ryan Kelly is going to surprise in a good way.

As for Kyrie, a talent like that only comes around so often, and I don't think there is any chance this kid does not wow people from day 1.

No guarantee's as you state, so I understand the caution. I just feel the percentages favor Mr Green being spot on with his original post.

I wish the season started tomorrow, but in the interim there is a National Title to continue celebrating, as well as some butt-kicking on the gridiron to enjoy!

:D

[ACCBBallFan]

Agree with sagehouse. Need a better measure of % returning than just the #1 scorer, rebounder and assist guy. A team who returns #1 in those three categories but loses the next several is worse than the team who returns all but the #1, if there was no huge disparity between #1 and #2, 3, 4 etc.

The author gives equal weight to returning or to not returning #1 regardless of what happens with numbers 2 to 8.

I can't recall all the criteria but having a number of upperclassmen is a definite plus and having a quality PG does not hurt either even if in Duke's case it was a virtual one with one guy on Offense and a different guy on Defense.

[Newton_14]

Agree with sagehouse. Need a better measure of % returning than just the #1 scorer, rebounder and assist guy. A team who returns #1 in those three categories but loses the next several is worse than the team who returns all but the #1, if there was no huge disparity between #1 and #2, 3, 4 etc.

The author gives equal weight to returning or to not returning #1 regardless of what happens with numbers 2 to 8.

I can't recall all the criteria but having a number of upperclassmen is a definite plus and having a quality PG does not hurt either even if in Duke's case it was a virtual one with one guy on Offense and a different guy on Defense.

In the modern era, only 1 team has won the National Championship with a freshman starting at PG. (Syracuse)

I agree with you and Sagegrouse, the criteria the author used does not mean much compared to how much experience, scoring, and rebounding is returning from the previous year.

I also agree with Kedsy that Enemy Number 1 is the one and done format of the tourney. That and matchups carry more weight than most anything else.

[77devil]

Sure, they're cherry-picked criteria, but they're traits that people talk about when trying to assess teams during the preseason: returning/lost players as a statistical percentage; overall experience; overall tournament experience; winning percentage last season; strength of schedule/conference.

What traits do you think he left out that are relevant?


This is like regression analysis with 100 variables and 26 observations (1985-2010). If you try all the potential combinations of variables you are guaranteed a really good fit. Is this science? Uh, no! It's curve-fitting. And his approach is even worse, since so many of his criteria are essentially the same.

Here's a rather Grouse-y analysis of his method:

1. Win at least 19 games the previous year. Actually, he looked at every single number of wins and came up with 19 as including all but one team. Curve fitting. Hunh?

2. He was unimpressed with the record of one-win leagues. Another throwaway.

3. Be a regular participant (i.e. the prior year in the NCAAs). This means being one of the top 40 or so teams the previous year. This is another three-inch hurdle, but of course, both Kentucky and UNC have tripped over it. Not terribly meaningful.

4 Be at least a fifth seed the previous year. This is a lesser included subset of the previous category. Anyone have an Occam's Razor?

5. Have won one game in the NCAA-T the previous year. Ditto. How many 5th seeds or better fail to win at least one tournament game? So we have three of his six criteria being very closely -- uh -- related. Moreover, pretty much all #5 seeds have won 19 games the previous year. Moreover and furthermore, how many teams from one-bid leagues get a #5 seed or win an NCAA tournament game? I would have been roasted by my colleagues doing statistical analysis with this kind of logic.

6. Return two of the team #1's in scoring, assists, and rebounding. You may disagree, but I say this is hokum. What about % of points returned? Percent of rebounds? Or minutes, denoting experience? Or, two of the top three in each of these categories. The fact that he sorted through 26 data points and found a fit with two of the team leaders in three categories doesn't impress me. And, of course, Duke doesn't qualify for 2011 because Scheyer very slightly out-scored Kyle and Nolan.


Anyway, you asked. Pardon the dyspeptic response.

sagegrouse

Never ruffle the Grouse. ;)

[Johnboy]

Never ruffle the Grouse. ;)

On the contrary - that's the kind of response I was looking for. Thanks, 'grouse!

[oldnavy]

This is like regression analysis with 100 variables and 26 observations (1985-2010). If you try all the potential combinations of variables you are guaranteed a really good fit. Is this science? Uh, no! It's curve-fitting. And his approach is even worse, since so many of his criteria are essentially the same.

Here's a rather Grouse-y analysis of his method:

1. Win at least 19 games the previous year. Actually, he looked at every single number of wins and came up with 19 as including all but one team. Curve fitting. Hunh?

2. He was unimpressed with the record of one-win leagues. Another throwaway.

3. Be a regular participant (i.e. the prior year in the NCAAs). This means being one of the top 40 or so teams the previous year. This is another three-inch hurdle, but of course, both Kentucky and UNC have tripped over it. Not terribly meaningful.

4 Be at least a fifth seed the previous year. This is a lesser included subset of the previous category. Anyone have an Occam's Razor?

5. Have won one game in the NCAA-T the previous year. Ditto. How many 5th seeds or better fail to win at least one tournament game? So we have three of his six criteria being very closely -- uh -- related. Moreover, pretty much all #5 seeds have won 19 games the previous year. Moreover and furthermore, how many teams from one-bid leagues get a #5 seed or win an NCAA tournament game? I would have been roasted by my colleagues doing statistical analysis with this kind of logic.

6. Return two of the team #1's in scoring, assists, and rebounding. You may disagree, but I say this is hokum. What about % of points returned? Percent of rebounds? Or minutes, denoting experience? Or, two of the top three in each of these categories. The fact that he sorted through 26 data points and found a fit with two of the team leaders in three categories doesn't impress me. And, of course, Duke doesn't qualify for 2011 because Scheyer very slightly out-scored Kyle and Nolan.


Anyway, you asked. Pardon the dyspeptic response.

sagegrouse

Lies, damned lies, and statistics... I agree with every point you made. There is no way this type of analysis measures up and the conclusions/methods would fail any Statistics 101 class. How can you factor in the human element, the chemistry of the players, the effect of the coaching staff making changes to fit personnel, the hundreds of other, non-quantifiable measures?? I agree with the poster that says he was looking for a way to support his desire that we not repeat. More anti-Duke bias IMO.

[CDu]

In the modern era, only 1 team has won the National Championship with a freshman starting at PG. (Syracuse)

I agree with you and Sagegrouse, the criteria the author used does not mean much compared to how much experience, scoring, and rebounding is returning from the previous year.

I also agree with Kedsy that Enemy Number 1 is the one and done format of the tourney. That and matchups carry more weight than most anything else.

Exactly. I think the article for this thread is bunk, but I do think there are plenty of questions for us for next year. I think the two biggest threats to a repeat are:

1. The field is always the favorite versus a single team - especially as of the prior June.
2. We have a freshman PG.

After that, I'd say inexperience/inconsistency in our post players (counting Singler on the wing) is concern #3.

I'd say that we're as good as anybody (and probably better than anybody) at the wing spots. We may be as good as anybody at PG, though that remains to be seen. And we may be very effective in the post, though that again remains to be seen. So I'd say that we should definitely be on the short list of favorites.

Depending upon how good Irving is and how much the bigs develop, we may see that questions 2 and 3 go away. But even if they do, question 1 remains. And it still remains to be seen whether or not questions 2 and 3 are not an issue.

[BlueThru&Thru]

I don't put a lot of stock into articles such as the one linked from Rivals. It is a fine example of an author starting with their desired conclusion and cherry picking facts to support their position.

I agree totally.

[killerleft]

Sure, they're cherry-picked criteria, but they're traits that people talk about when trying to assess teams during the preseason: returning/lost players as a statistical percentage; overall experience; overall tournament experience; winning percentage last season; strength of schedule/conference.

What traits do you think he left out that are relevant?

The ability to pick Duke as your college choice (and be coached by K and the staff) seems to be a glaring omission!

[BoozerWasFouled]

The fact that he sorted through 26 data points and found a fit with two of the team leaders in three categories doesn't impress me.

sagegrouse

These kinds of articles look like an exercise in statistics, but they are actually a form of pseudo-science, as sagegrouse points out.

If a statistician submitted an article to a peer-reviewed journal using this kind of approach, it would get destroyed by reviewers.

[gwlaw99]

He makes a good argument especially considering we have no one who can score coming in to replace Scheyer :)