Kyrie better with Cal and Why we won't win the ACC.. Bleacher Report

[Selover]

Hello everyone, I've been reading EK forum for almost two years now without weighing in on any discussions. I just couldn't help it anymore.. I was over on Bleacher Report and saw an article titled, "6 Reasons The Blue Devils Aren't Favorites In The ACC." As with anything I see about Duke, negative or positive, I read it and I couldn't have disagreed more with the author, so here I am ranting. Here is the link:

Click Me! (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/798887-duke-basketball-6-reasons-the-blue-devils-arent-the-favorites-in-the-acc)

I thought the closest thing to an argument he had was that the Plumlee's have not produced as expected and then basically everything else was pretty off base. I thought that our offense before Kyrie was injured was awesome! Mason was playing better when Kyrie was running the show if I remember correctly. I think it's laughable how he talks about Ryan Kelly, but I think the author will eat his words on this once the season starts.. After all the bashing he did of Duke players for not performing how they were expected, he goes on to glorify Barnes. I guess Barnes lived up to his hype moreso than our guys. ;)

Thoughts?

Sorry in advance if this could have fallen under another thread, feel free to move it!

[VaDukie]

Dude, it was on the Bleacher Report. I'm just impressed the author used complete sentences.

[dukebluelemur]

Thoughts?

Bleacher Report is not journalism. It's a glorified message board for airing whatever random opinion you feel like airing. Honestly, if you've been reading EK for two years, you've probably seen that articles posted from there are generally ridiculed and dismissed.

Seriously, it is not even worth the discussion and I and most others aren't going to bother clicking your link to justify it with a hit or our time.

[Selover]

Alrighty then.. Perhaps I'll just stick to reading lol.

[Lord Ash]

BR isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

[OldPhiKap]

Haven't read the article, but will say that we are probably the second-most talented team in the conference. With the best coach. So I'll take whatever we get.

GO DEVILS!!!

[sporthenry]

While I agree that bleacher report is very unreliable, normally they at least have some credibility but this article is humorous at best. I think most would say UNC is the favorite as they won the ACC regular season and Duke loses KI, Nolan, and Kyle. I'm sure some on here would disagree but he makes it seems like Duke is the clear cut favorite in the ACC and he is arguing against the popular pick.

Then he talks of Ryan Kelly being a 'featured' role but comments that he doesn't expect much from Dawkins. So he doesn't even take the time to check out something like KenPom which lists both guys as 'limited roles'. So my guess is that he watched a few Duke games, probably the UNC game where Ryan went 0-6 from 3 and made his judgment solely off that game. Or else he missed that ridiculous stretch where Kelly didn't miss a shot in 2 games in the middle of a 20-26 shooting streak. But regardless, Kelly wasn't in a featured role on a team that had Kyle Singler and Nolan Smith and on occasion the #1 pick in the draft. Then, he says Dawkins will be a non-factor but even mentions in the article that K relies on more experienced players. So he seems to contradict himself b/c Dawkins will be a junior but somehow won't be a contributor.

Then he says Cook will start over Curry absolutely. Again, dismissing the whole experience aspect. This is not even mentioning the recent news of Quinn Cook being injured so it appears he isn't a fan of current events. And he says Seth is 1-D while Steph was more than 1-D? Steph wasn't exactly a defensive juggernaut while Seth actually has a high steal rate. Seth doesn't need to force shots in our system like Steph did and when you have the weapons Duke did, it allowed for Seth to spot up but in games like the UNC game, you got flashes of what he can be. So to write Seth off as a 1-D player when he was playing a supporting role is again humorous.

Then he talks that KI and Rivers would be better off going to KY. How would Calipari have used KI any differently. We can argue about how KI was brought back but prior to the injury, Duke looked pretty unbeatable. Again, it appeared he watched the NCAA tournament and failed to watch KI in the first few games which was a thing of beauty. But K was able to showcase KI even with Kyle and Nolan continuing to get their touches. So while I agree that Rivers will struggle like any freshman, it isn't like Calipari is known for winning titles with freshman, might as well just put Boeheim in the article.

And then he mentions inside scoring and while the inside scoring wasn't what we wanted last year, they also weren't featured much b/c of Nolan and Kyle. They will get plenty more touches this year especially if they can handle it. The biggest problem with Duke is that they have question marks at each position while UNC has it a bit more figured out. Can everyone handle the increased roles they will see and can someone not named Seth, Dre, or AR become consistent scorers? But that article seems to be wrong in just about every assertion and isn't even thought provoking.

[UrinalCake]

This is a little beside the point but I'm pretty sure UK doesn't have the medical staff or resources that Duke does. If Kyrie had gone there he would have never returned to the court after the injury. Probably would have been the first pick in the draft anyways, but who knows.

[dukeballboy88]

Could Cal ben able to get Kyrie drafted in a higher spot? Something like +1. And the +1 pick of the 2011 NBA draft....

I think K did ok by Kyrie.

[epoulsen]

Alrighty then.. Perhaps I'll just stick to reading lol.

Don't make an early retirement to the sidelines just because BR has zero standing here. Besides, it's not like you said anything stupid, quite the opposite, you read something stupid and pointed out why it was stupid and opened it up for discussion. I found it most amusing...

[oldnavy]

That comment about KI reminds me of the story that Jimmy V told about Norm Sloan. If I remember it correctly, Jimmy V had just taken over as head coach at NCSU and was getting a hair cut. The barber asked him what he did, and Coach told him. That prompted a discussion about Norm Sloan and the '74 team came up. Of course that team won the national championship, but the barber made a comment along the lines of "just think what Dean Smith could have done with that team"....

[ncexnyc]

While I agree that bleacher report is very unreliable, normally they at least have some credibility but this article is humorous at best. I think most would say UNC is the favorite as they won the ACC regular season and Duke loses KI, Nolan, and Kyle. I'm sure some on here would disagree but he makes it seems like Duke is the clear cut favorite in the ACC and he is arguing against the popular pick.

Then he talks of Ryan Kelly being a 'featured' role but comments that he doesn't expect much from Dawkins. So he doesn't even take the time to check out something like KenPom which lists both guys as 'limited roles'. So my guess is that he watched a few Duke games, probably the UNC game where Ryan went 0-6 from 3 and made his judgment solely off that game. Or else he missed that ridiculous stretch where Kelly didn't miss a shot in 2 games in the middle of a 20-26 shooting streak. But regardless, Kelly wasn't in a featured role on a team that had Kyle Singler and Nolan Smith and on occasion the #1 pick in the draft. Then, he says Dawkins will be a non-factor but even mentions in the article that K relies on more experienced players. So he seems to contradict himself b/c Dawkins will be a junior but somehow won't be a contributor.

Then he says Cook will start over Curry absolutely. Again, dismissing the whole experience aspect. This is not even mentioning the recent news of Quinn Cook being injured so it appears he isn't a fan of current events. And he says Seth is 1-D while Steph was more than 1-D? Steph wasn't exactly a defensive juggernaut while Seth actually has a high steal rate. Seth doesn't need to force shots in our system like Steph did and when you have the weapons Duke did, it allowed for Seth to spot up but in games like the UNC game, you got flashes of what he can be. So to write Seth off as a 1-D player when he was playing a supporting role is again humorous.

Then he talks that KI and Rivers would be better off going to KY. How would Calipari have used KI any differently. We can argue about how KI was brought back but prior to the injury, Duke looked pretty unbeatable. Again, it appeared he watched the NCAA tournament and failed to watch KI in the first few games which was a thing of beauty. But K was able to showcase KI even with Kyle and Nolan continuing to get their touches. So while I agree that Rivers will struggle like any freshman, it isn't like Calipari is known for winning titles with freshman, might as well just put Boeheim in the article.

And then he mentions inside scoring and while the inside scoring wasn't what we wanted last year, they also weren't featured much b/c of Nolan and Kyle. They will get plenty more touches this year especially if they can handle it. The biggest problem with Duke is that they have question marks at each position while UNC has it a bit more figured out. Can everyone handle the increased roles they will see and can someone not named Seth, Dre, or AR become consistent scorers? But that article seems to be wrong in just about every assertion and isn't even thought provoking.

I'm not sure how you could say this article wasn't thought provoking. You did take the time to write five paragraphs rebuffing what was said.:)

[meloveduke]

I find it funny, after page 8 he starts praising the same incomeing freshmen that he forgot about here. I think our team will be just fine this year, do I think we are the best in the ncaa, well no not yet. I do think we have what it takes to be the best, and I really dont see a team we shouldn't be able to beat this year. I get tired of seeing "Oh you lost 3 of your top players". Guys KI only played 11 games, everything the team did last year was dont without him. We lost 2 really solid guys last year, I really dont think we lose many games cause of that. I really think our incoming guys can pick up the slack.

[CDu]

I find it funny, after page 8 he starts praising the same incomeing freshmen that he forgot about here. I think our team will be just fine this year, do I think we are the best in the ncaa, well no not yet. I do think we have what it takes to be the best, and I really dont see a team we shouldn't be able to beat this year. I get tired of seeing "Oh you lost 3 of your top players". Guys KI only played 11 games, everything the team did last year was dont without him. We lost 2 really solid guys last year, I really dont think we lose many games cause of that. I really think our incoming guys can pick up the slack.

I don't think it's fair to expect this team to be as good as last year's team. There's the potential for it to happen, but I think you're underselling the impact of losing two first-team All-ACC seniors (one first-team All-American) who played prominant roles on a championship team and are/were at least in the discussion regarding having their jerseys retired.

This team has a lot of talented players and could develop into something great. But to expect them to be as good as last year's team is asking a LOT.

Will we lose "many" games because of Singler/Smith's graduation? Probably not too many (given how bad the ACC is probably going to be this year). But I think it will definitely result in more losses (perhaps 3-5 more?). We'll still be really good, but I don't think we should be expected to be quite in that same category.

I hope they surprise and gel really quickly. But I expect a few more bumps along the way than last year.

[meloveduke]

I don't think it's fair to expect this team to be as good as last year's team. There's the potential for it to happen, but I think you're underselling the impact of losing two first-team All-ACC seniors (one first-team All-American) who played prominant roles on a championship team and are/were at least in the discussion regarding having their jerseys retired.

This team has a lot of talented players and could develop into something great. But to expect them to be as good as last year's team is asking a LOT.

Will we lose "many" games because of Singler/Smith's graduation? Probably not too many (given how bad the ACC is probably going to be this year). But I think it will definitely result in more losses (perhaps 3-5 more?). We'll still be really good, but I don't think we should be expected to be quite in that same category.

I hope they surprise and gel really quickly. But I expect a few more bumps along the way than last year.

I am not saying this IS as good as last years team was, although without KI last years team was not that much better in my eyes. Lets think about it alittle.

Smith left and Rivers came in. I really think thats a fair trade. One might say Smith is a little better or a little worse, but I dont think it would be by much. Most we could miss here is Smiths D, I just hope someone on this team steps up and takes on the stopper role he played last year.

Kyle left and we got Alex. I think this is where we miss one of the two. I do think Alex can be good, but it may take some time to be at the level of Sr Kyle. I see Alex as a Fr Kyle, and thats ok by me. Between him and silent g I dont think we miss a lot above leadership.

Like I said, this team may not be that great to start, but we what it takes to be really good. Baring injury I think this team can be better then last years KIless team. I dont think it WILL 100% come to pass, but it can and wouldnt be too shocking to me. I like this team and cant wait to see them play.

[Kedsy]

But I think it will definitely result in more losses (perhaps 3-5 more?).

You really expect 8 to 10 losses this season?

Duke has had 7 or fewer losses every season but one since 1997 (we had 11 losses in 2006-07 and 9 losses in 1996-97; in fact in that timeframe, other than 2006-07, we've only had as many as 7 losses twice, in 2002-03 and 2008-09; if you don't count 2006-07, we've averaged 5 losses for the past 14 seasons).

I'd be surprised if this year's edition has more than 6 losses (i.e., 1 more than last year). Frankly, if we lose 8 to 10 games next year, I suspect this board would explode.

[CDu]

Smith left and Rivers came in. I really think thats a fair trade. One might say Smith is a little better or a little worse, but I dont think it would be by much. Most we could miss here is Smiths D, I just hope someone on this team steps up and takes on the stopper role he played last year.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect Rivers to be ACC player of the year and first-team all-american like Smith was. So I don't think it's a fair trade (at least not this year). I expect Rivers to be very good, but I think you're understating just how amazing Smith was last year. If Rivers were to stay another year or two, I'd agree. But I think that expectation for a freshman is silly (see Harrison Barnes, 2010-2011).

I think the hope is that the combination of Curry and Rivers can be as good as Smith and last year's version of Curry. That's possible, but it's still asking for a lot to go right.


Kyle left and we got Alex. I think this is where we miss one of the two. I do think Alex can be good, but it may take some time to be at the level of Sr Kyle. I see Alex as a Fr Kyle, and thats ok by me. Between him and silent g I dont think we miss a lot above leadership.

I disagree here as well. I think we lose quite a bit here. I Singler's leadership, defense, offense, and versatility are things that the freshmen wings aren't going to be nearly ready to duplicate this year. I wouldn't expect them to ever duplicate it actually. Singler was a rare talent. They can each be great Duke players and fall well short of Singler's value.

This is where I think we'll have the hardest time. We just have to hope that the freshmen and Dawkins are solid enough and that the bigs are able to make enough improvement.


Like I said, this team may not be that great to start, but we what it takes to be really good. Baring injury I think this team can be better then last years KIless team. I dont think it WILL 100% come to pass, but it can and wouldnt be too shocking to me. I like this team and cant wait to see them play.

For the reasons above, I don't expect this team to be better than last year's Irving-less team. They could wind up better, but a lot will have to go right. As I said, I expect this year's team to lose a few more games than last year's team. Still really good, but not quite as good. There's a chance we could do as well or better. It wouldn't be shocking, but I'd not make that the expectation.

[CDu]

You really expect 8 to 10 losses this season?

Duke has had 7 or fewer losses every season but one since 1997 (we had 11 losses in 2006-07 and 9 losses in 1996-97; in fact in that timeframe, other than 2006-07, we've only had as many as 7 losses twice, in 2002-03 and 2008-09; the average number of losses for the past 13 non-2007 seasons is 5).

I'd be surprised if this edition has more than 6 losses (i.e., 1 more than last year).

More like 6-8, so revise my statement to 1-3 more losses (I forgot we lost 5 last year - was thinking 3-4 for some reason). I expect us to lose 4-6 ACC/ACC Tourney games (2 of 3 to UNC), 1 NCAA tournament game, and one non-conference game.

[Kedsy]

I think the hope is that the combination of Curry and Rivers can be as good as Smith and last year's version of Curry. That's possible, but it's still asking for a lot to go right.


I think we lose quite a bit here. I Singler's leadership, defense, offense, and versatility are things that the freshmen wings aren't going to be nearly ready to duplicate this year. I wouldn't expect them to ever duplicate it actually. Singler was a rare talent. They can each be great Duke players and fall well short of Singler's value.

I think it's a fallacy to predict a team's success based on what it lost. While new players may take departed players' minutes, they almost never "replace" them. Having said that, there are often qualities a departed player possessed that the team now lacks without that player, as you point out with Kyle. Am I walking a fine line? Perhaps. But I think it's an important distinction.

I fully expect this year's model to score as much or more than last year's. The question (as it almost always is at this time of year) is how well will we play defense? I personally think both Nolan and Kyle were outstanding defenders last year. Assuming Austin, Andre, and Alex take up the bulk of their minutes, our perimeter defense would seem to take a hit. On the other hand, it's possible that our big men will improve on defense sufficiently to make up for our more porous perimeter. If so, and if I'm right that our scoring won't suffer, our team could be as good or better than last year's team. On the other hand, if our D is significantly worse than last year our team will be as well. We won't know for awhile.

[CDu]

I think it's a fallacy to predict a team's success based on what it lost. While new players may take departed players' minutes, they almost never "replace" them. Having said that, there are often qualities a departed player possessed that the team now lacks without that player, as you point out with Kyle. Am I walking a fine line? Perhaps. But I think it's an important distinction.

I fully expect this year's model to score as much or more than last year's. The question (as it almost always is at this time of year) is how well will we play defense? I personally think both Nolan and Kyle were outstanding defenders last year. Assuming Austin, Andre, and Alex take up the bulk of their minutes, our perimeter defense would seem to take a hit. On the other hand, it's possible that our big men will improve on defense sufficiently to make up for our more porous perimeter. If so, and if I'm right that our scoring won't suffer, our team could be as good or better than last year's team. On the other hand, if our D is significantly worse than last year our team will be as well. We won't know for awhile.

I agree with this. I was just responding to statements I felt were incorrect. As I tried to say, the hope would be that the team as a whole steps up and makes up for those losses in whatever ways necessary. I think we could be better offensively (though I think that's still asking a lot), but I definitely think we take a hit defensively as we lost our two best and most versatile defenders. Thus, I expect us to be a little worse. There's obviously a confidence interval around that expectation, which last year's result falls within.

It's also tricky to guesstimate how the team will do relative to it's competition. The ACC should probably be worse this year than last year overall. But overall I'd expect a team with this many new roles to lose 6-8 games this year. We could lose fewer, and we could lose more.

[meloveduke]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect Rivers to be ACC player of the year and first-team all-american like Smith was. So I don't think it's a fair trade (at least not this year). I expect Rivers to be very good, but I think you're understating just how amazing Smith was last year. If Rivers were to stay another year or two, I'd agree. But I think that expectation for a freshman is silly (see Harrison Barnes, 2010-2011).

I think the hope is that the combination of Curry and Rivers can be as good as Smith and last year's version of Curry. That's possible, but it's still asking for a lot to go right.

I really think you are cutting Rivers short, and oversellig Smith. Smith was good last year dont get me wrong. Riverrs is taller, has a better handle, can shot as good or better, and is quicker. Smith is better on D, but we just dont know how much better yet. I see Rivers and Curry being better on O then last years Smith and Curry, I dont really think it will be close if what K says about Curry is true. I do think we miss Smith on D if what I hear about Rivers D is true, but that is something we will just have to wait and see. I never said Rivers is going to ACC player of the year, I dont think he has to be it to be as good or better then Smith. I do think he will snag the ACC freshmen of the year. I also think he will be first team ACC and maybe first team all NCAA.




I disagree here as well. I think we lose quite a bit here. I Singler's leadership, defense, offense, and versatility are things that the freshmen wings aren't going to be nearly ready to duplicate this year. I wouldn't expect them to ever duplicate it actually. Singler was a rare talent. They can each be great Duke players and fall well short of Singler's value.

This is where I think we'll have the hardest time. We just have to hope that the freshmen and Dawkins are solid enough and that the bigs are able to make enough improvement.

I didnt say Alex for Kyle was a fair trade. I said Alex is like a freshmen Kyle, but with a slightly better handle and more athletic. I do think we miss Kyles leadership, as I said before. With Kelly, Alxe, silent g, and Dawkins I dont think we miss Kyle as much as you seem to think. This we will just have to agree to dissagree and wait and see.




For the reasons above, I don't expect this team to be better than last year's Irving-less team. They could wind up better, but a lot will have to go right. As I said, I expect this year's team to lose a few more games than last year's team. Still really good, but not quite as good. There's a chance we could do as well or better. It wouldn't be shocking, but I'd not make that the expectation.

I think this years team is more athetic, has better ball handling, better depth, more shooters, and more midrange. This years Rivers, Dawkins, and Curry may not be as good as last years Smith, Curry, and Kyle, but I think when you add in the players like Alex, silent g, and Cock we miss those 2 less then you think. Now add to that the fact that they are getting to start practicing and playing with each other in July, as opposed to Oct..

We may miss them more then I think, but I dont see us missing them as much as you. Either way this team is going to be a good one.


I guess we need to agree to dissagree till the season starts.

[CDu]

I didnt say Alex for Kyle was a fair trade. I said Alex is like a freshmen Kyle, but with a slightly better handle and more athletic. I do think we miss Kyles leadership, as I said before. With Kelly, Alxe, silent g, and Dawkins I dont think we miss Kyle as much as you seem to think. This we will just have to agree to dissagree and wait and see.

I didn't say you did say Murphy for Singler was a fair trade. I said the combination would still fall short of what Singler provided. I also don't think I agree that Murphy is "a freshman Singler." I think you're understating just how good Singler was (All-ACC) right out of the gate. And I think you're underselling just how good Singler was last year. I think we'll miss him more than you think.


I think this years team is more athetic, has better ball handling, better depth, more shooters, and more midrange. This years Rivers, Dawkins, and Curry may not be as good as last years Smith, Curry, and Kyle, but I think when you add in the players like Alex, silent g, and Cock we miss those 2 less then you think. Now add to that the fact that they are getting to start practicing and playing with each other in July, as opposed to Oct..

I don't think this team has better ballhandling. We traded one good ballhandler (Smith) for another (Rivers), but took a step back from Singler with Murphy/Dawkins/Gbinije. The extra practice will help, but that alone won't make up for the loss of two superstars. I'd say we're a tad more athletic, but much less experienced.


We may miss them more then I think, but I dont see us missing them as much as you. Either way this team is going to be a good one.

I agree that the team is going to be good. I think we'll be very good. Maybe even 30-win good. Never said otherwise. I just don't expect us to be quite as good as last year's team. The two thoughts are not mutually exclusive.


I guess we need to agree to dissagree till the season starts.

I am happy to agree to disagree.

[nocilla]

IMHO, this year's team may not be quite as good, but can still accomplish just as much, if not more. Curry, Dawkins, Kelly, and the elder Plumlees should all be better than they were last year. Plus we have better depth than we did last year. There is also a luck factor that can't be predicted.

[sporthenry]

I'm not sure how you could say this article wasn't thought provoking. You did take the time to write five paragraphs rebuffing what was said.:)

The thing was, I think I was just reiterating something everyone believes here. I didn't read it in print, so I figured I would put it out there. Now if he mentioned something along the lines of Duke will slow it down next year and consequently struggle b/c of being built more for a transition game but not having the engine or Mason's inability to stay out of foul trouble or Duke's inability to cover the 3 w/ Dre if G or Murphy can't hack it, then it would be thought provoking. The article was just irritating b/c it was flat out wrong on many of its assertions.

[sporthenry]

IMHO, this year's team may not be quite as good, but can still accomplish just as much, if not more. Curry, Dawkins, Kelly, and the elder Plumlees should all be better than they were last year. Plus we have better depth than we did last year. There is also a luck factor that can't be predicted.

I would have to agree that in some sense, the team last year underachieved probably more having to do with KI being injured and having a target on their back. The whole Rivers taking over for Smith and Murphy taking over for Singler is very premature but the one aspect that you bring up is the additional roles that will be undertaken by the role players last year. Can Dre and Seth take those next roles in development? Can Kelly continue to get better on defense while also adding an offensive move? Can the Plumlees take the next step forward? Then all the questions surrounding the freshmen. Is Rivers the next Melo/KI, Barnes, or Selby/Avery Bradley? And the list goes on.

Personally, the Rivers and Plumlee questions will be most important but I think Duke needs 1 big man to develop a move whether its Mason with his hook shot, Kelly with a fade away, or even Miles with a drop step and one of the guards ability to attack of the dribble. That role will originally fall on Rivers and hopefully he can get to the rim at will but if Curry or even Murphy or G can create the mismatch Duke's offense should be rather potent. And that isn't taking into account Seth or Dre's ability to take someone off the dribble for a pull up which would just add more to the offense. But this will be a fun year to be a Duke fan, very similar to 2010 where Duke comes in with mild expectations and an eye to the future but with plenty of opportunity to surprise us.

[Duvall]

More like 6-8, so revise my statement to 1-3 more losses (I forgot we lost 5 last year - was thinking 3-4 for some reason). I expect us to lose 4-6 ACC/ACC Tourney games.

That's a bit high. I will be very surprised if there are enough good teams in the ACC to hand Duke five regular season losses.

[oldnavy]

This year's team has the talent to be as good or better than last year's team (the team without KI). Who knows how they will turn out?? That is why it is so much fun to watch!!

Having said that, it is hard to put a value on senior leadership like we had last year, so I think the key will be who steps up to be the MAN... could be any of a handful; Rivers (hard for freshmen usually), Miles (never has really shown this, but to be fair hasn't needed to), Curry (has the skills for sure), Dawkins (doubtful, love him, but has shown tendancies to be immature), Mason (I would love it! because if he does then the sky is the limit IMO)...

Let's watch them play in Maui and then we will have a much better idea. They will get Tennessee right out of the gate, and then have a match up with either Memphis or Michigan and hopefully Kansas in the finals... should learn a lot in a short period of time.

[gumbomoop]

Overall I'd expect a team with this many new roles to lose 6-8 games this year. We could lose fewer, and we could lose more.

I'm always surprised when Duke loses a game. But I know we'll lose a few, some.

I don't want to think about, say, 7 or more losses in '11-'12, but shoot, loony optimists don't get absolutely everything we want. So, gritting my teeth, I'll accept CDu's offer of 7-8 losses.

33-7, 32-8.

What the hell, 30-10. Even Duke has to have a lousy season every once in a while.......

[CDu]

That's a bit high. I will be very surprised if there are enough good teams in the ACC to hand Duke five regular season losses.

If you'll notice, 5 regular season losses was the high end of my expectation (with one ACC tourney loss). I think 13-3 is as likely as 12-4. I think we're substantially better than 10 of the other ACC teams. But young teams with lots of players in new roles tend to drop games here and there. Even really really good ACC teams usually drop a few in conference.

I certainly hope we only drop 1-3 ACC games, but I think 3-5 ACC losses is more likely. I'm hoping the team exceeds my expectations.

[Kimist]

That comment about KI reminds me of the story that Jimmy V told about Norm Sloan. If I remember it correctly, Jimmy V had just taken over as head coach at NCSU and was getting a hair cut. The barber asked him what he did, and Coach told him. That prompted a discussion about Norm Sloan and the '74 team came up. Of course that team won the national championship, but the barber made a comment along the lines of "just think what Dean Smith could have done with that team"....

A proper response might have been something along the lines of "....having to watch David Thompson spend most of his time dribbling the ball at mid-court and playing an occasional game of catch with Tom Burleson..."

k

[hq2]

.....and then probably losing the NC because they stalled down the stretch and lost their momentum.
(See Carolina-Marquette '77).

[kylecpalmer]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect Rivers to be ACC player of the year and first-team all-american like Smith was. So I don't think it's a fair trade (at least not this year). I expect Rivers to be very good, but I think you're understating just how amazing Smith was last year. If Rivers were to stay another year or two, I'd agree. But I think that expectation for a freshman is silly (see Harrison Barnes, 2010-2011).

I think the hope is that the combination of Curry and Rivers can be as good as Smith and last year's version of Curry. That's possible, but it's still asking for a lot to go right.



I disagree here as well. I think we lose quite a bit here. I Singler's leadership, defense, offense, and versatility are things that the freshmen wings aren't going to be nearly ready to duplicate this year. I wouldn't expect them to ever duplicate it actually. Singler was a rare talent. They can each be great Duke players and fall well short of Singler's value.

This is where I think we'll have the hardest time. We just have to hope that the freshmen and Dawkins are solid enough and that the bigs are able to make enough improvement.



For the reasons above, I don't expect this team to be better than last year's Irving-less team. They could wind up better, but a lot will have to go right. As I said, I expect this year's team to lose a few more games than last year's team. Still really good, but not quite as good. There's a chance we could do as well or better. It wouldn't be shocking, but I'd not make that the expectation.

I think this team has the potential to be way better than last years team. We are loaded and very deep, more deep than any Duke team the past few years. I think Rivers is going to be amazing..you said see Barnes?? did you see when he scored 40 in the acc tourney??? more than any freshman ever. He struggled in the begining but then he was unreal. Duke is going to be awesome, the trip is going to make them a better team and by november they are going to be ready to go. I dont expect anything less then the best when we have Coach K..everyone will be ready to play.

[Wander]

Interesting discussion on the most likely number of losses. I could see something akin to UNC's season last year; disappointing close losses in the nonconference schedule (say, Memphis, Ohio State, Temple?) before coming together for a really strong conference season and a nice run to the Elite 8 or so. I think CDu's guess of 6-8 losses is a good one. Remember, our national championship team had five regular season losses. So for a realistic good scenario, take that and then add one for a postseason loss.

[CDu]

I think this team has the potential to be way better than last years team. We are loaded and very deep, more deep than any Duke team the past few years. I think Rivers is going to be amazing..you said see Barnes?? did you see when he scored 40 in the acc tourney??? more than any freshman ever. He struggled in the begining but then he was unreal. Duke is going to be awesome, the trip is going to make them a better team and by november they are going to be ready to go. I dont expect anything less then the best when we have Coach K..everyone will be ready to play.

I think people are being too sensitive and missing my point. Someone was setting the expectation that Rivers will match what Nolan Smith did last year. I think that's both unfair to Rivers and insulting to Smith. Smith was the ACC player of the year and 1st Team All-American. My reference to Barnes was that people were calling him 1st Team All-ACC and 1st Team All-American in the preseason. He played very well last year, but he wasn't the ACC player of the year or 1st Team All-American. I think Rivers will be very good this year. But you can be very good and still not be as good as what Nolan Smith was as a senior last year.

I also completely agree that we have the POTENTIAL to be as good or better than last year. I just said that I don't believe that should be the expectation. I think we'll be slightly worse than last year (which is still very good). We could absolutely be better if things go right. But apparently some people lock in on anything that isn't completely optimistic.

[CDu]

Interesting discussion on the most likely number of losses. I could see something akin to UNC's season last year; disappointing close losses in the nonconference schedule (say, Memphis, Ohio State, Temple?) before coming together for a really strong conference season and a nice run to the Elite 8 or so. I think CDu's guess of 6-8 losses is a good one. Remember, our national championship team had five regular season losses. So for a realistic good scenario, take that and then add one for a postseason loss.

Thanks Wander. This is exactly what I was getting at. We're a young team, and as such we'll likely lose a few close ones throughout the year. Losing 6-8 games for the season is still very good - just slightly less good than last year's team. VERY few major-conference teams go through a season with fewer than 5 losses.

Expecting this team with this many new players/roles to lose 5 or fewer games over the course of a season isn't a fair expectation. That was my point. If basically all goes right, we might only lose 3-5 games. But VERY few teams go through a season with that I just think 6-8 is more reasonable.

[ncexnyc]

I'm not sure why so many people are willing to discount what Nolan, Kyle, and to a lessor degree Kyrie meant to last year's team. I recall during the Paulus/McRoberts era, Coach K. always talking about the inexperience of that team and how it effected their play. I also remember how in 2010, we always talked about how our team was loaded with upperclassmen. Experience counts and in K's system it counts for a lot, especially on the defensive end.

So many people use the word talent when talking about the current team, but to me the better word is potential. Until the kids start performing up to what so many on this board feel they are capable of night after night, it's just that potential and once they do bring it in the games then we can say talent.

I believe we will struggle early, but by the end of the season everyone will have a clear picture of what is expected of them and where they fit into the team. I look for a solid season and wouldn't be surprised if we make a deep tourney run. I will say that a lot of my prediction is based on my belief that several players will make big improvements this season. I believe Kelly will finally arrive as will Dawkins. I also believe Curry will show significant strides in becoming a true all around player.

[gumbomoop]

I'm not sure why so many people are willing to discount what Nolan, Kyle, and to a lessor degree Kyrie meant to last year's team.... Experience counts and in K's system it counts for a lot, especially on the defensive end.

So many people use the word talent when talking about the current team, but to me the better word is potential.

I believe we will struggle early.... I look for a solid season and wouldn't be surprised if we make a deep tourney run.

Let's flesh out some of ncexnyc's observations here. To be clear, I'm responding to ncexnyc because I think the points above are nicely stated, plausible [with maybe one exception], fair-minded.

Discounting Nolan, Kyle, Kyrie - I deny that I and other optimists are doing this. They were wonderful, and no player this year is likely to duplicate their exact strengths. This year's team will depend on a new combination of strengths, because K will coach to highlight new strengths, and coach to limit weaknesses. Boy, it's definitely true that Nolan and Kyle will be missed big-time on D. I look for Gbinije to get a chance real early to play some D. Because Austin is so court-smart, will he surprise as solid on D right away? Or will he look lost on D?

Experience - This is the single best caution against optimism. But we are not without experience. Further, the 3 frosh likely to play meaningful minutes will have real experience by March.

Talent and potential - On this or some other thread I've said all 5 of the frosh - yes, including Marshall - pass my own eye-test as possessing talent. Austin's is way-high-level, not Kyrie-wow, but still wow. Cook, Gbinije, and Murphy would start on many top-20 teams. It's accurate to say that they have to prove they can play, so they're not merely potentially good contributors.

Struggle early - My knee-jerk response is to disagree, but it's clear there are real tests well before the ACC begins. Although I don't believe Duke will lose 3 or 4 by first ACC game, I must say that:

Belmont will be absolutely ready to pull a shocker to begin the season.
Mich St.is down a bit, but could pull a minor upset.
Maui is loaded with good teams.
tOSU - My mantra is, "I'm always surprised when Duke loses. Always." I will have to remind myself of this mantra when the Devils travel to Columbus, because the Buckeyes have perhaps the preseason POY pick, plus Buford on the wing, plus the best defensive guard - absolutely a game-changing defender- I have seen in a long time [Aaron Craft].
Wash Huskies in MSG no pushover.
Nor is Temple in Philly.

Deep tourney run - This point does surprise me some. Here's my logic: Does any poster deny that Duke will be preseason consensus #5-8? If we acknowledge this as a certainty, then that means Duke should be among the favorites to reach the Elite 8, clearly a deep run, if not necessarily deep enough to satisfy our real goal [however "entitled"].

Now, one could say that Duke shouldn't be preseason consensus #5-8, that, I don't know, we should be more like #15. But if, looking out over the bball landscape, one says, well, we look like about 15th, that doesn't strike me as defensible. So to me, the logical view is pretty straightforward: there's no guarantee Duke will make a deep run next spring, but not only shouldn't we be surprised if it happens, we should expect it to happen.

Right at this moment - and absent injury this will not change between now and November - the obvious consensus top 3 are UNC, UK, tOSU, probably in that order. After that, there are 5-6 teams that will duke it out for recognition as preseason #4-6. Every one of those "other" teams [Duke, 'Cuse, UL, Vandy, Fla, Pitt....] will, if they are confident but not overconfident, "expect" to make a deep run.

[tele]

Perhaps the BR article is more thought provoking than it appeared. Many good points in the previous comments and assessments of the upcoming team and season. I'll point to just three. First the experience level may be less but also somewhat offset by the increased depth. Hard to measure the toll that Singlers defensive and rebounding efforts took on him over the course of the season, but no denying the consistent effort and, in my opinion, overall excellence of the contribution. Adding two players like Murphy and new G to the mix will ameliorate this loss somewhat, just as having Cook and Rivers to add to the backcourt mix will the loss of a star like Nolan.

On the big side of the ledger, good to see Marshall getting mention in this discussion, he may have less immediate need to step in to a dominant role, in comparison to other frosh, but his contribution may be more significant in the long run. This if he does play mostly in the more traditional low post back to the basket center role, and if it turns out that Mason, and maybe Miles too, then are more able to play along the baseline or facing the basket, which may, again in my opinion, increase their contributions to the team. And Kelly, may see more time in the post with Marshall, and not on the perimeter shooting threes. This is in no way a prediction, more of a personal preference I guess. (The jump hook is like a layup, really should be able to shoot one but you don't want it to be your whole game.)

Lastly, young teams have their ups and downs so the predictions for wins, and tourney results are all valid at this point. But this team's experience level will be less of an exception than the experienced team of two years ago, or even of the still relatively experienced team of last year. That's where coaching comes in and also getting to play tough competition, both preseason, like OSU, and inconference, like oh I don't know, that potentially distracted team. There may be some losses along the way, but they're going to be getting better, probably with an emphasis on defense and on finding roles to fit in to play winning team ball. Many unknowns but much to generate interest and enthusiasm for this season and this very talented team. That's my reasonably optimistic expectation. Go Duke.

[Kedsy]

As many have pointed out, experience is key in the Duke system under K. So I went back and analyzed all our Final Four teams under Coach K to see how experienced they were, looking at the team's top 7 minute-getters (I realize 7 is arbitrary, but I wanted apples to apples). I include a "total" column, counting the number of years of experience, i.e., 4 for Senior, 3 for Junior, 2 for Sophomore, 1 for Freshman (assuming we're counting at the end of the season, hence freshman have played a season, etc.).

Here's the data:



Year Srs Jrs Sos Frs "Total" Losses
---- --- --- --- --- ------ ------
1986 4 1 1 1 22 3
1988 2 3 2 0 21 7
1989 3 2 1 1 21 8
1990 3 1 2 1 20 9
1991 1 2 3 1 17 7
1992 2 2 2 1 19 2
1994 3 2 1 1 21 6
1999 1 1 4 1 16 2
2001 2 0 4 1 17 4
2004 1 1 4 1 16 6
2010 3 2 1 1 21 5


As always in these types of exercises, the sample size is too small to make any definitive statements. Also, an argument could be made that the value of experience is not linear, and that seniors are "worth" more than 4x freshmen. Without any legitimate basis for making that valuation, however, I stuck with simplicity.

After all those caveats, it seems to me when the team was a "surprise" team that many people didn't expect to make the Final Four (e.g., '88, '89, '90, '94, '10), we had a lot of experience. But when the team was extremely talented (e.g., '91, '92, '99, '01, '04), the experience total was actually fairly low. 1986 was one of those rare teams that had both a lot of talent and a lot of experience (and of course all these teams had a ton of talent; you have to look at these things in the relative sense).

Of course, we also had experienced teams that didn't make the Final Four (e.g., 2005-06 had four seniors and 20 "total" points). And we had extremely talented teams that didn't make the Final Four (e.g., 2001-02 had zero seniors and 17 "total" points). But I'm too lazy to profile 31 years of this data.

This coming season, if you assume our top 7 minute-getters will be Austin, Seth, Andre, Mason, Miles, Ryan, and Tyler, our "total" number will be 19, which coincidentally is the mean number for our 11 Final Four teams. Talentwise, I think we're also around the middle, maybe a tad below the middle.

Last season, our non-Kyrie "total" was also 19 (if you counted Kyrie as one of the top 7, our total would have been 17). So while we were more top-heavy last season compared to this one when it comes to experience, using my simple formula we weren't more experienced overall.

What does this mean? Probably nothing. Just wanted to share.

[CDu]

As many have pointed out, experience is key in the Duke system under K. So I went back and analyzed all our Final Four teams under Coach K to see how experienced they were, looking at the team's top 7 minute-getters (I realize 7 is arbitrary, but I wanted apples to apples). I include a "total" column, counting the number of years of experience, i.e., 4 for Senior, 3 for Junior, 2 for Sophomore, 1 for Freshman (assuming we're counting at the end of the season, hence freshman have played a season, etc.).

Here's the data:



Year Srs Jrs Sos Frs "Total" Losses
---- --- --- --- --- ------ ------
1986 4 1 1 1 22 3
1988 2 3 2 0 21 7
1989 3 2 1 1 21 8
1990 3 1 2 1 20 9
1991 1 2 3 1 17 7
1992 2 2 2 1 19 2
1994 3 2 1 1 21 6
1999 1 1 4 1 16 2
2001 2 0 4 1 17 4
2004 1 1 4 1 16 6
2010 3 2 1 1 21 5


As always in these types of exercises, the sample size is too small to make any definitive statements. Also, an argument could be made that the value of experience is not linear, and that seniors are "worth" more than 4x freshmen. Without any legitimate basis for making that valuation, however, I stuck with simplicity.

After all those caveats, it seems to me when the team was a "surprise" team that many people didn't expect to make the Final Four (e.g., '88, '89, '90, '94, '10), we had a lot of experience. But when the team was extremely talented (e.g., '91, '92, '99, '01, '04), the experience total was actually fairly low. 1986 was one of those rare teams that had both a lot of talent and a lot of experience (and of course all these teams had a ton of talent; you have to look at these things in the relative sense).

Of course, we also had experienced teams that didn't make the Final Four (e.g., 2005-06 had four seniors and 20 "total" points). And we had extremely talented teams that didn't make the Final Four (e.g., 2001-02 had zero seniors and 17 "total" points). But I'm too lazy to profile 31 years of this data.

This coming season, if you assume our top 7 minute-getters will be Austin, Seth, Andre, Mason, Miles, Ryan, and Tyler, our "total" number will be 19, which coincidentally is the mean number for our 11 Final Four teams. Talentwise, I think we're also around the middle, maybe a tad below the middle.

Last season, our non-Kyrie "total" was also 19 (if you counted Kyrie as one of the top 7, our total would have been 17). So while we were more top-heavy last season compared to this one when it comes to experience, using my simple formula we weren't more experienced overall.

What does this mean? Probably nothing. Just wanted to share.

As you acknowledge, your formula for experience is a pretty crude one. Of course, any simple formula for experience is going to be crude. Last year we had two senior leaders who had played huge roles in a championship game returning to fairly similar roles of leadership, with the rest of the guys on the team taking on expanded roles. This year, everyone is taking on expanded roles and we don't have those great seniors to steady/guide the ship. We have more quality depth and plenty of talented players. And we may have more years in school for our expected top-7. But I definitely wouldn't say we have more effective experience this year.

I'd say there are just too many variables (some of which are crudely measured as discussed above and some of which have a huge random variation component to them) with too few data points to address the measurement error and random variation to glean anything meaningful.

[ncexnyc]

So it appears we've come to the point many Jeter/anti-Jeter people reach when they discuss Captain Clutch. Exactly how do you measure things like leadership and that factor called intangibles if indeed it actually exists.:)

[sporthenry]

The whole experience argument just gets way too hard to try and quantify. I would just leave it at K seems to have a much better team with seniors and juniors b/c he seems hesitant to waste timeouts early in a game and lets his players play through the bad times. How many times did we see K just use one of his TO's at the end of the first half b/c he couldn't carry it over. My bet is we won't see that too often this year but he will let the guys figure things out and won't bail them out too much.

The problem with using the whole team to analyze experience is that it really only takes 1-2 seniors to lead everyone else if handled correctly. These leaders can set the tone defensively and will go get the ball when the shot clock is winding down or Duke is on one of its cold stretches. You look at the 2001 team, you had Shane and James leading 3 sophomores. But I feel like Shane set the tone defensively and while Williams and Dunleavy hit some critical shots, Battier was Battier. The problem with this team is that we don't have a perimeter leader who can set that tone defensively like Nolan or Kyle did last year. Perhaps Austin can be the shut down defender but I expect playing defense for 30 minutes will be new to him. So we won't have that floor slapper to set the tone. Then we also don't know if we will have a guard who can score to stop a 9-0 run or hit a shot with 2 on the shot clock. So it does appear Rivers will decide the fate of this team.

And while I'm not discounting G or Murphy, I think many are overrating them a bit. I think they can contribute a bit, but I often find that fans seem to overrate players we have never seen play while we underrate the players we have seen play. It is just natural to look to potential and I have often found myself guilty of it but relying on these guys to contribute a lot would be a mistake. As I was corrected by Kedsy, guys outside the top 10 or so recruiting wise often don't find instant success at Duke so while those guys make have some Ewill type moments, I would be very surprised to see these guys consistently in there at crunch time.

[wk2109]

As you acknowledge, your formula for experience is a pretty crude one. Of course, any simple formula for experience is going to be crude.

I agree -- all years of experience are not equal. Kyle Singler or JJ Redick as a 4-pointer is not equal to Miles Plumlee as a 4-pointer. But I think the observation that the 'surprise' teams who made the FF all had a lot of experience is an interesting one and could come into play next year if none of the juniors leave.

For me, one of the main questions going into the season is who is going to be a professional-level shot-maker. I mean this in two respects: first, in terms of a player being able to muscle in a shot when he works his way close to the basket by posting, grabbing an offensive rebound, or driving. Kyle always seemed to be able to contort his body, angle the ball off the glass, or just power his way to a lay-up whenever he had the ball near the hoop. Nolan showed the same ability on his drives last year and parts of his junior year, as did a healthy Kyrie last year. Not everyone has this skill -- I remember Lance Thomas routinely getting blocked near the hoop or just simply missing on many put-back/lay-up attempts and even Daniel Ewing and DeMarcus Nelson struggling once they got amongst the trees. Can Austin manufacture an automatic deuce once he gets near the hoop? Or can Alex/Ryan/Michael show Kyle's uncanny ability to just force the ball into the basket? (I'm not sure if Mason or Miles has displayed the touch to be able to do this.)

The second respect is in terms of players just making huge shots that make the difference between winning and losing. I think of Jon's end-of-game threes in 2010 against GTech in the ACC Championship Game and against UNC in Chapel Hill, Nolan's huge buckets against Baylor in the Elite Eight and against UNC at Cameron last year, and Kyle's huge shots against Butler in the 2010 title game. Seth showed this in flashes against UNC and everyone remembers Andre's threes against Baylor, but there will always be those games (like the Baylor game) where an absolutely heroic effort like Nolan's is necessary to win.

Coach K said that this year's team has lots of scoring ability, but when I think about Jon, Nolan, and Kyle, I don't just think of them as good scorers, but I remember them as guys who were willing to take and able to make the shots that are ultimately the difference between losing in the S16/E8 and winning the national title. I hope this year's team as at least a few guys who are able to show the same professional shot-making ability.

[Wander]

As many have pointed out, experience is key in the Duke system under K. So I went back and analyzed all our Final Four teams under Coach K to see how experienced they were, looking at the team's top 7 minute-getters (I realize 7 is arbitrary, but I wanted apples to apples). I include a "total" column, counting the number of years of experience, i.e., 4 for Senior, 3 for Junior, 2 for Sophomore, 1 for Freshman (assuming we're counting at the end of the season, hence freshman have played a season, etc.).


You probably already know this, but kenpom has kept quantitative estimates the past five years of every team's level of experience. It's like what you've done in that it tracks the number of years experience per player, but weights it for minutes played (so if a player with 3 years of experience plays 40 minutes and a player with 1 year of experience plays 20 minutes, that averages out to 2.3 years experience, not 2). Might be worth looking at, though it's a small sample size.

[Wander]

Losing 6-8 games for the season is still very good - just slightly less good than last year's team. VERY few major-conference teams go through a season with fewer than 5 losses.

Yeah, for reference, I think only three major conference teams ended the season with five or fewer losses last year (Ohio State, Kansas, us). Having 6-8 losses at the end of the season translates realistically to, at worst, a 3 seed in the NCAAs. So still pretty damn good.

[Kedsy]

As you acknowledge, your formula for experience is a pretty crude one.

Another table, slightly less crude. This one shows "returning minutes" among Duke's 8-man rotation at the start of each season going back to 1984:



Season Minutes Losses NCAAT games played
------ ------- ------ ------------------
1985-86 13,290 3 6
2008-09 10,454 7 3
1992-93 10,255 8 2
1984-85 10,215 8 2
1991-92 9,974 2 6*
2009-10 9,522 5 6*
2005-06 9,313 4 3
1988-89 9,251 8 5
2004-05 8,839 6 3
2003-04 8,375 6 5
2010-11 8,187 5 3
1993-94 8,018 6 6
2000-01 7,899 4 6*
1996-97 7,864 9 2
2001-02 7,810 4 3
2007-08 7,527 6 2
1987-88 7,417 7 5
1998-99 6,618 2 6
1989-90 6,562 9 6
1994-95 6,487 18 0
2011-12 6,362** ? ?
1990-91 6,210 7 6*
1986-87 6,222 9 3
1997-98 5,608 4 4
1995-96 5,396 13 1
2002-03 5,291 7 3
1999-00 4,925 5 3
1983-84 4,676 10 1
2006-07 3,381 11 1


* - champs
** - assumes Tyler and a freshman will be the 7th and 8th men.

Again, probably doesn't tell us very much. Splitting the past 29 years into three groups (top 9, bottom 9, middle 10), the top nine include four Final Four teams including two champions. The bottom nine has one champion, one Elite Eight team, plus all four of our double-digit loss seasons (which coincide with all four of our gone-after-the-first-round seasons). Middle ten includes six Final Four teams including one champion. But of course those are arbitrary lines. If you split the seasons into four groups of 7 seasons each, highest group has three Final Four teams (2 champs), second and third groups each have four Final Four teams (1 champ each), and the lowest group has no Final Fours. So, really no difference until you get to the bottom quarter. In that scenario, next year's team sneaks into the third group, where more than half of the teams made the Final Four.

Despite the lack of a clear picture, the above-table does paint a different picture of next year's experience than my previous table. In this one, we'll be in the bottom third in "returning minutes," just below the disaster year of 1994-95 and just above the national championship season of 1990-91.

And of course, this doesn't measure "effective experience," either. But it probably comes closer.

[JMarley50]

I don't think it's fair to expect this team to be as good as last year's team. There's the potential for it to happen, but I think you're underselling the impact of losing two first-team All-ACC seniors (one first-team All-American) who played prominant roles on a championship team and are/were at least in the discussion regarding having their jerseys retired.

This team has a lot of talented players and could develop into something great. But to expect them to be as good as last year's team is asking a LOT.

Will we lose "many" games because of Singler/Smith's graduation? Probably not too many (given how bad the ACC is probably going to be this year). But I think it will definitely result in more losses (perhaps 3-5 more?). We'll still be really good, but I don't think we should be expected to be quite in that same category.

I hope they surprise and gel really quickly. But I expect a few more bumps along the way than last year.

I know its the off-season and we have to discuss or debate something, but I don't agree with placing expectations on this team especially not lower ones. Maybe I'm just taking a page out of Ozzie's book of optimism here, but I think this team can be really really good! Final Four good! I know it is possible that it might not be as good as last year's team as well, but I'm not going to expect it. Yes we lost two incredible senior leaders... but we have several extremely talented players who have plenty of experience. We might be surprised at what they are capable of now that they are out of Kyle and Nolan's shadow, not that it was bad or anything but it was there.

Yes the team will be a lot younger, but with it comes a lot of talent, versatility and depth. I think this team will be very exciting to watch and will be much better than people think or "expect". Considering we still have the x-factor, or should I say the K-factor and extra time for him to mold the guys into a tight knit team, the sky
is the limit as far as potential goes. Why put a ceiling on their potential with lowered expectations?

Kyle and Nolan are gone now...so what?? I'm positive that Coach K and this team will not use that as an excuse to expect anything less than excellence and a national championship. Why should we?

[Kedsy]

Despite the lack of a clear picture, the above-table does paint a different picture of next year's experience than my previous table. In this one, we'll be in the bottom third in "returning minutes," just below the disaster year of 1994-95 and just above the national championship season of 1990-91.

Just occurred to me I only counted Seth's Duke minutes, and entirely discounted his Liberty minutes. This makes sense in that he didn't spend that year learning the Duke system; on the other hand, he did spend a year learning the Duke system in 2009-10, but played zero minutes. If we give him 50 cents on the dollar for his Liberty minutes, it pushes this year's team up to 7000 "returning minutes." Squarely in the middle tier.

Of course, similar logic would give the 2002 and 1997 teams a boost as well, and that added experience didn't really help us in the NCAAT in those seasons. Then again, a sample size of two doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence, so maybe I should stop observing things now. Ultimately, my table shows really no observable difference between 6,000 returning minutes and 10,000 returning minutes. Which seems crazy, but it's hard to read the data any other way.

[Kedsy]

I agree -- all years of experience are not equal. Kyle Singler or JJ Redick as a 4-pointer is not equal to Miles Plumlee as a 4-pointer.

This is an interesting observation, but I guess my question is why? Is it because Kyle and JJ played more than Miles during their respective freshmen years? Because Kyle and JJ were relied on more during their sophomore and junior campaigns? Or just because they're better players? I mean, Austin Rivers as a 1-pointer is not equal to Greg Paulus as a 1-pointer, either (I used Greg in this example because he was a freshman on JJ's senior year team). But if it's just because Kyle and JJ were better than Miles, wouldn't that be irrelevant to the experience debate?

And if it's about minutes, Miles Plumlee has logged over 500 minutes more than Brian Zoubek did his first three years, and most seem to think Brian's experience was critical to the 2010 team's championship run.

Which only leaves the idea that Kyle and JJ were "the man" prior to their senior seasons. In other words, their experience was qualitatively different from Miles's and that makes the experiences unequal. Naturally, that sort of thing is the hardest to quantify. Like "leadership" and "toughness" and "clutch play." Also, this idea of qualitative differences would presumably discount Z's and Lance's experience in 2010, which most seem to value pretty highly.

In the end, it seems clear that a team that lacks any experience (e.g., 2006-07) can be counted on as more likely to stumble. But having more experience involves a lot of nuance. The more I think about it, the more I just don't see an adequate answer to the experience question.

[wk2109]

This is an interesting observation, but I guess my question is why? Is it because Kyle and JJ played more than Miles during their respective freshmen years? Because Kyle and JJ were relied on more during their sophomore and junior campaigns? Or just because they're better players?

Yeah in my mind it's all of those factors. When you thought of Kyle and JJ coming back as seniors, you thought of them as returning senior All-Americans and all-ACC players and as awesome foundations upon which to build the team, but with Miles, you think of him as a guy who's started a decent amount of games (without looking at the stats I'd estimate that he has around 40 starts in his career) and gotten decent run during the past two years, but not as a senior anchor like Kyle or JJ.

I think if Kyrie were back, the players might defer to him as a leader more than they would to Miles. (Or maybe that's just my thinking as an outside fan.)

[Kedsy]

Yeah in my mind it's all of those factors. When you thought of Kyle and JJ coming back as seniors, you thought of them as returning senior All-Americans and all-ACC players and as awesome foundations upon which to build the team, but with Miles, you think of him as a guy who's started a decent amount of games (without looking at the stats I'd estimate that he has around 40 starts in his career) and gotten decent run during the past two years, but not as a senior anchor like Kyle or JJ.

I think if Kyrie were back, the players might defer to him as a leader more than they would to Miles. (Or maybe that's just my thinking as an outside fan.)

So, the worry is the team doesn't have a leader? Because Austin is a freshman and none of the upperclassmen (Miles, Mason, Ryan, Andre, Seth) have exhibited leadership qualities thus far?

That could be right. Thing is, the current upperclassmen never had the opportunity to do it, because the past two years we've been flush with senior leadership. Also, for all we know, Austin could emerge as a leader, even though he's a freshman. Stranger things have happened.

[Wander]

Why are you guys so certain that a year of experience for Kyle Singler is more valuable than a year of experience for Miles Plumlee?

Put another way: are you sure you'd rather have a senior Kyle Singler and a freshman Miles Plumlee instead of a freshman Kyle Singler and a senior Miles Plumlee?

[Kedsy]

Why are you guys so certain that a year of experience for Kyle Singler is more valuable than a year of experience for Miles Plumlee?

Put another way: are you sure you'd rather have a senior Kyle Singler and a freshman Miles Plumlee instead of a freshman Kyle Singler and a senior Miles Plumlee?

Well, I for one am not certain of this. It depends on what is the actual value of experience. For example, none of us (including me) have spoken at all about the experience value of Casey Peters. Presumably because he didn't play in the games and thus the other players couldn't "follow" him on the court. But I'm sure there was value to his years in the program. I just don't know how to measure it. Similarly, I don't know if having a senior superstar and a freshman scrub is better or worse than a freshman superstar and a senior scrub (and, no, I'm not calling Miles a scrub; I'm just trying to make a point).

I do know the least experienced team in Coach K's time (2006-07) had problems on the court. The most experienced team (1985-86) went to the championship game. Yet the third-least experienced team (1999-2000) finished #1 in the country (regular season) and our third- and fourth-most experienced teams (1992-93 and 1984-85) each lost 8 games and got bounced in the 2nd round of the NCAAT. As I said in an earlier post, I don't think there's an easy answer to this question.

[Wander]

I do know the least experienced team in Coach K's time (2006-07) had problems on the court. The most experienced team (1985-86) went to the championship game. Yet the third-least experienced team (1999-2000) finished #1 in the country (regular season) and our third- and fourth-most experienced teams (1992-93 and 1984-85) each lost 8 games and got bounced in the 2nd round of the NCAAT. As I said in an earlier post, I don't think there's an easy answer to this question.

Gotcha. I've given this answer before, but I think "experience" is one of the most misunderstood elements of sports. Experience is a reason that players develop positive traits - it's not a positive all by itself. So noting that experience is a good thing is fine, but I think it can be easy to accidentally "double count" strengths that way. For example, saying that two of the strengths of our recent national title team are "Nolan Smith was experienced" and "Nolan Smith didn't turn the ball over very much" is a bit redundant in my view - one caused the other.

I've gone off track here, but I guess the way this applies to the original discussion is that I think experience is a bit overrated as a predictive factor, and we shouldn't automatically assume that our team next year will be "bad" (by Duke standards) because it's young. As you say, there's not an easy experience-to-goodness relationship.

[CDu]

I know its the off-season and we have to discuss or debate something, but I don't agree with placing expectations on this team especially not lower ones. Maybe I'm just taking a page out of Ozzie's book of optimism here, but I think this team can be really really good! Final Four good!

I agree. This team can be really really good. Last year's team was really really good too. I'm just saying that I expect this team to be slightly less really really good than last year. That doesn't mean they don't have the potential to be even more really really good than last year.


I know it is possible that it might not be as good as last year's team as well, but I'm not going to expect it.

And I would say I know it's possible that we could make the Final Four, but I'm not going to expect it.


Why put a ceiling on their potential with lowered expectations?

When did I ever put a ceiling on their potential? I didn't say it was impossible for this team to win the championship or make the Final Four. I just don't think it's the likely outcome. Expectations don't in any way restrict ceiling/potential.


Kyle and Nolan are gone now...so what?? I'm positive that Coach K and this team will not use that as an excuse to expect anything less than excellence and a national championship. Why should we?

I disagree here as well. Coach may set a national championship as a goal, but not an expectation. You can expect excellence (which I do) but not set expectations of national championships. Those are goals, but I'm sure Coach would be the first to tell you how hard those are to achieve. If he set the expectation of national championships every year, we'd have a lot of seasons in which we failed to meet expectations.

[SupaDave]

I've been catching up on this thread and I find it shocking that seem to think that we will lack experience. There have been points made but I'd like to point out that we have 5 players who have won a National Championship still on the team. This team will know what it takes to win. And Austin will throw some serious swagger into the mix.

There's not much need to continue to try and plug in Nolan and Kyle b/c quite frankly this team will see teams different from the ones they played (and potentially a more competitive but still young ACC).

Most importantly and while it's been touched on, it hasn't been fleshed out properly and that's the team DEFENSE. Honestly, I expect us to be a MUCH better defensive team and here's why...

Dawkins - he's my lynchpin and this is HIS year. He's probably our most athletic player and he will be counted on as a lockdown/help defender. I had a chance to kick it with Gerald (G) before his junior year and noticed how much his outside shot had improved but in reality his whole game had just taken a leap. He was finally healthy. He understood the system and what was required of him. And he was ready to lead. Same happened with Nolan in year 3. And it's definitely Dawk's time.

Mason and Miles - they play well together and this year should be an improvement. We are solid and experienced on the inside with Hairston and Kelly (don't even know why you guys bring Murph into this equation). Mason will be altering lots of shots. Ryan has proven he can get up there on the perimeter and help. Hairston will be bigger and bring energy and a jump shot that must be defended.

At guard - IF we are having trouble with a defender, there is no doubt in my mind that Thornton will be able to come in and lock that man down. Additionally, Thornton will nearly be the equivalent of like having a senior point guard on the bench. He's intense, plugged in to Coach K, and spent a year learning from Nolan and Kyrie. So no worries here.

This team will be a very good team and it will start with their defense. If they can get their COMMUNICATION down then they could be EXCELLENT. Will they rotate at the right time? Will they know when to switch? When they know when to go high or low on the screens? Can they spot the pick and roll? (b/c that play has killed us in the past) Will they let teams sprint out after missed shots? Will we get the rebound and kick it out? Will Mason recognize Seth on the break? These things will define this year's team.

If Austin gambles and misses the steal - will Seth/Dre/Mason/Ryan/Quinn/Josh/Marshall/Alex/"G"/ or Tyler be there to help? And that my friends is the question of the day...

[CDu]

I've been catching up on this thread and I find it shocking that seem to think that we will lack experience. There have been points made but I'd like to point out that we have 5 players who have won a National Championship still on the team. This team will know what it takes to win. And Austin will throw some serious swagger into the mix.

Well, you shouldn't be shocked, because we do have a lack of effective experience. We lost our senior leaders. Our current senior is likely to be a reserve and has never played than 17mpg. We have two returning starters who averaged 25mpg last year and two returning regulars who averaged 20mpg, but each of those guys is about to have to take a big jump in terms of their role (because of how universally important Singler and Smith were to the team the last two years). Arguably the only two guys returning to a similar role as last year are Mason and Kelly, and even they will have more asked of them. Everyone else is stepping into a completely new role at the college level. That's why people are saying this group is inexperienced.

Now, we could absolutely make up for that lack of effective experience with talent. Rivers is a prime example of this. But Rivers is a freshman, so in the discussion of experience he has zero.


Most importantly and while it's been touched on, it hasn't been fleshed out properly and that's the team DEFENSE. Honestly, I expect us to be a MUCH better defensive team and here's why...

I don't expect us to be quite as good defensively as we were last year. We just lost (by far) our two best and most versatile defenders. The interior defense should get better as the Plumlees, Kelly, and Hairston have had another year of experience. But I think our backcourt and wing defense takes a huge hit with the losses of Singler and Smith. It's possible that guys like Dawkins, Rivers, et al will fill the void defensively, but I wouldn't expect them to do so. Those guys that left were pretty good, and the guys who are replacing them are either freshmen or guys who played very inconsistent minutes (Dawkins).

I also think you're overstating the defensive exploits of Thornton. He wasn't a lock-down defender last year, and he wasn't guarding the other team's best perimeter player (Smith and Singler were). And despite that, he had the highest foul rate of any of our guards. It may be that he's made worlds of improvement in the offseason, but his results from last year didn't suggest lock-down defense to me.

All that said, I do still think we'll be a very good team this year, and can't wait to see us play.