Strange "regressions" this year

[Lord Ash]

Couldn't help but notice that a number of players seemed to regress a bit this year, or at least did not improve as expected as players tend to between seasons and even over seasons.

By the end of the year Seth and Dre had become very hot and cold, which I don't think anyone predicted given their increased load this year. Mason was strangely hot and cold, sometimes dominating inside with the ball, sometimes hanging around 15 feet out and not even holding the ball much (although his free throw improvements were impressive!) Silent G ended up not playing at all, which seems strange given the struggles of the guards and the lack of a longer defender, not to mention K's high regard for his basketball IQ. Ryan started the year so strong, using his good hands and basketball IQ to block shots and take charges and varying up his attack, sometimes driving sometimes posting, sometimes shooting three... but he seemed to stall a bit before his injury. Once healthy Quinn looked good early, but struggled more as the year went on. Murph went from being discussed as a starter to (with help from an injury) not playing at all. Tyler stayed pretty steady, Austin showed a lot of growth (although even he plateaued by the end) and Miles definitely improved, but I am surprised how many players never really performed as we hoped they would.

I also felt like our offensive sets really became stagnant by the end, even though I know Ryan went down... The guys would dribble around the three point line, but even when picks came against Lehigh nothing came of them.

Of the disappointments of this year, the lack of growth is one of the bigger ones for me. I hope the staff addresses it for next year, as this is a group for whom growth, both in terms of skills as well as attitudes, is very important as far as success for next year.

[DukeGirl4ever]

Couldn't help but notice that a number of players seemed to regress a bit this year, or at least did not improve as expected as players tend to between seasons and even over seasons.

Earlier in the year, I made a comment that I had hoped Duke had not peaked in Maui and a few people weren't really thrilled with that line of thinking. But.....

Now I will say it again, I think Duke peaked in Maui. They were playing phenomenal basketball and boy was it fun to watch. I know many posters have stated that we had the trip to China which helped this team develop ahead of schedule in comparison to other teams.

Without sounding negative, I love this team and boy were they fun to watch at times (minus the last 3 weeks). That NC state comeback had me so fired up and thinking this was a team that would not go down without a fight. So why did they go down without a fight? Sure, they fought last night, but almost when it was too late.

I am interested to hear others' thoughts on the possible regression, if that's how were going to view it. Why did it occur? Team chemistry? Other teams caught up to us after having that amazing opportunity in August?

I'm looking forward to any insights and discussion since in this house, Duke basketball is life. I need a new hobby, but these discussions will help for now. :confused:

[Duke76]

In my opinion it started with running that top of key pick and roll with guys on the wings....it worked so well last yr and 2010 championship yr...but this year, IMO opinion the guys with ball in their hands more than not did not hit the big man on the roll our the open guys on the wings...seems to me that was the predominant play this yr and it just resulted in a lot of forced shots and guys standing around and then when they did get the ball they again forced up shots and the dribble....We just did not execute that play properly down the stretch or the defense learned how to defend it.

[ncexnyc]

Couldn't help but notice that a number of players seemed to regress a bit this year, or at least did not improve as expected as players tend to between seasons and even over seasons.

By the end of the year Seth and Dre had become very hot and cold, which I don't think anyone predicted given their increased load this year. Mason was strangely hot and cold, sometimes dominating inside with the ball, sometimes hanging around 15 feet out and not even holding the ball much. Silent G ended up not playing at all, which seems strange given the struggles of the guards and the lack of a longer defender. Ryan started the year so strong, using his good hands and basketball IQ to block shots and take charges and varying up his attack, but seemed to stall a bit before his injury. Once healthy Quinn looked good early, but struggled more as the year went on. Murph went from being discussed as a starter to (with help from an injury) not playing at all. Tyler stayed pretty steady, Austin showed a lot of growth (although even he plateaued by the end) and Miles definitely improved, but I am surprised how many players never really performed as we hoped they would.

I also felt like our offensive sets really became stagnant by the end, even though I know Ryan went down... The guys would dribble around the three point line, but even when picks came against Lehigh nothing came of them.

Of the disappointments of this year, the lack of growth is one of the bigger ones for me. I hope the staff addresses it for next year, as this is a group for whom growth, both in terms of skills as well as attitudes, is very important as far as success for next year.

Maybe we the fans had unrealistic expectations for this group. Yes, this group has been around awhile, but nearly everyone was in a new role. Seth started the year in a position he really isn't suited for. Austin had to figure out how to fit into playing as a member of a team instead of being the team as he was in high school. Dre just never seemed to feel comfortable with his role on the team. He seemed to come around once he was moved to the bench, but even that didn't last long. Ryan teased us with flashes of solid aggressive play, but often faded into the woodwork. Mason had moments of brillance, but for whatever reason seemed to get lost in the shuffle and went from being someone we made a concerted effort to get the ball to an afterthought. I think we need to give major props to Mason for his freethrow shooting at the end of the season, he really made some drastic improvement. Miles had a very solid senior year, but I'm not sure we ever viewed him as more than a role player. Tyler is the true heart and soul of this team, but honestly not the most gifted. Quinn has a lot of potential, but he needs to figure out is he a PG or a SG. He's way to fond of his shot for his shooting %. Josh did indeed progress and he showed he could tone down the hyperenergy he displayed at times. Silent G. had the body type this team screamed for but never got much play. We can certainly debate would Duke have been better served to have force fed Mike some time at the expense of wins during the season, but then that question seems to always pop-up at Duke from time to time.

Back in December I said this team reminded me of the, "Island of Misfit Toys" and I still stand by the judgement. Lots of nice parts, but they just don't seem to match. Will another year of experience and the addition of Sheed, Alex, Marshall, and Silent G make thing different next year? Only time will tell.

[Kewlswim]

Hi,

China and Dubai really stretched out the Duke season. I think that trip may pay dividends next year.

GO DUKE!

[uh_no]

Hi,

China and Dubai really stretched out the Duke season. I think that trip may pay dividends next year.

GO DUKE!

I think that's a bit of a reach. There were 2 months or so between the china trip and the start of the season. I think, though, it allowed us to play near our maximum near the beginning of the year, so we appeared better than a lot of other teams, who eventually caught up and surpassed duke as the year went on.

[Lord Ash]

Expectations definitely play a part. However, I don't think we had very unrealistic expectations, and I think that both fans and athletes themselves often have expectations of themselves.

Obviously everyone had high individual expectations this year.

I remember Jay Bilas making a comment about Mason being the most talented player on the team back when we had Kyle Singler and Nolan Smith.

Seth was the leading scorer in the NCAAs as a freshman, and people frequently said he was as good as anyone on the team in practice during his redshirt years.

Dre is very athletic and talented, and everyone was waiting to see how he would perform now that he had all the playing time he needed.

Ryan was a McDonalds AA whose basketball IQ is paired up with size and shooting ability, and seemed primed for a great year.

Quinn and Marshall were both McDonalds AAs, and Mike G was touted as having the highest basketball IQ of any player K had ever recruited. Austin was... well, Austin:) The #1 recruit in the nation for a long, long time.

Tyler and Josh are both very talented players.

Given the growth players often show, especially in the second half of their careers and especially when they finally get a chance to be the "go to" guys on their respective teams, and the growth our players have shown in the past (remember freshman Nolan Smith, or freshman EWill, or freshman Cwell, or freshman Nate, or freshman Gerald, or freshman ZOUB!!!) I think it was actually "fair" to expect some similar growth among the players this year. Outside of Miles and Josh, I don't think we really saw it, especially from the start of the season to the end.

I think having expectations is not a BAD thing for a group of talented players like this. And I think expectations weren't actually that high; I think a lot of people would have been okay with more losses than the "typical" Duke team if it included watching a bunch of young players grow into themselves and their roles, growing into what we have come to expect of Duke players.

But I am not sure that growth happened. I know it left me a bit disappointed.

[Dukehky]

Know who didn't regress? That Shaka Smart character. Enough VCU, go away.

[uh_no]

Know who didn't regress? That Shaka Smart character. Enough VCU, go away.

yeah...after USF and Temple let me down last night, i'd be very unhappy if indiana did the same....

[Wander]

But I am not sure that growth happened. I know it left me a bit disappointed.

It's more difficult to have growth when you've got an awkward roster make-up that forces players into artificial positions. I don't know that it's possible to build a team where Rivers, Curry, and Dawkins are all consistent scorers who play major minutes when you have no forwards. Next year we'll actually have a small forward in Alex Murphy, a presumably improved Gbinije, and maybe Shabazz. My guess is we'll have a much improved "true" point guard in Quinn Cook, which will lead to decent entry passes for whatever Plumlee is around. It'll all get better with a more balanced roster.

[Steven43]

Expectations definitely play a part. However, I don't think we had very unrealistic expectations, and I think that both fans and athletes themselves often have expectations of themselves.

Obviously everyone had high individual expectations this year.

I remember Jay Bilas making a comment about Mason being the most talented player on the team back when we had Kyle Singler and Nolan Smith.

Seth was the leading scorer in the NCAAs as a freshman, and people frequently said he was as good as anyone on the team in practice during his redshirt years.

Dre is very athletic and talented, and everyone was waiting to see how he would perform now that he had all the playing time he needed.

Ryan was a McDonalds AA whose basketball IQ is paired up with size and shooting ability, and seemed primed for a great year.

Quinn and Marshall were both McDonalds AAs, and Mike G was touted as having the highest basketball IQ of any player K had ever recruited. Austin was... well, Austin:) The #1 recruit in the nation for a long, long time.

Tyler and Josh are both very talented players.

Given the growth players often show, especially in the second half of their careers and especially when they finally get a chance to be the "go to" guys on their respective teams, and the growth our players have shown in the past (remember freshman Nolan Smith, or freshman EWill, or freshman Cwell, or freshman Nate, or freshman Gerald, or freshman ZOUB!!!) I think it was actually "fair" to expect some similar growth among the players this year. Outside of Miles and Josh, I don't think we really saw it, especially from the start of the season to the end.

I think having expectations is not a BAD thing for a group of talented players like this. And I think expectations weren't actually that high; I think a lot of people would have been okay with more losses than the "typical" Duke team if it included watching a bunch of young players grow into themselves and their roles, growing into what we have come to expect of Duke players.

But I am not sure that growth happened. I know it left me a bit disappointed.

I agree with what you wrote, other than Andre being very athletic. I think he is only marginally so. I also think Ryan's shot is too flat to be consistent and he doesn't seem to thrive in the big moments or games. I was loving the way he was playing at times early in the season, though. It looked like he was really on his way to becoming a player.

Mike might have a high basketball IQ, but he didn't get much playing time, so who knows? Tyler is a nice backup, but might not have the ability to be an elite-level PG. Love his toughness, however. Feel the same about Josh.

Seth is hit or miss. I really see him as mostly a situational spot-up shooter. However, that is the way I see Andre, also. Not sure there is a need for two players of that nature. I could see Rasheed take over the starting role from Seth next year if he shows he can do it. Kind of like what happened to Greg during his senior year.

I don't have an opinion of Alex or Marshall because I have not seen them play at the college level.

I think Quinn can be a very good college PG if he stays healthy. Mason has the potential to be dominant next year. If Austin can figure out his shooting form he could be very very good. I really like his feistiness and desire to win.

[gep]

I don't know about "regression", but for me, the most perplexing was the performances in Cameron... win or lose :confused:

[Kedsy]

I think a lot of people would have been okay with more losses than the "typical" Duke team if it included watching a bunch of young players grow into themselves and their roles, growing into what we have come to expect of Duke players.

Well, I don't know which people you're referring to, but on these boards I don't think this statement is anywhere close to true. Every time this year's team even lost a half people on the boards were all over the players, the coaches, our recruiting, etc., etc. Playing Michael and/or not redshirting Alex and/or Marshall would have been completely attacked if it had led to more losses. Not only that, your comments here, at least to me, sound like the definition of unrealistic expectations, assuming (as I do) that you are implying the players didn't measure up:


I remember Jay Bilas making a comment about Mason being the most talented player on the team back when we had Kyle Singler and Nolan Smith.

Other than Austin, Mason was our most talented player this year. He had a monster year, averaging almost a double-double. What more do you want from him?


Seth was the leading scorer in the NCAAs as a freshman, and people frequently said he was as good as anyone on the team in practice during his redshirt years.

Seth was our second leading scorer, and did a little bit of everything.


Dre is very athletic and talented, and everyone was waiting to see how he would perform now that he had all the playing time he needed.

Admittedly Andre was inconsistent this year, but in games where he got "the playing time he needed" (let's say, more than 20 minutes a game), he averaged 12.0 ppg and the team was 18-2.


Ryan was a McDonalds AA whose basketball IQ is paired up with size and shooting ability, and seemed primed for a great year.

Ryan did have a great year. The following is his progression from freshman through junior year:



year ppg rpg apg
---- --- --- ---
Frosh 1.2 1.1 0.4
Soph 6.6 3.7 0.8
Jr 11.8 5.4 1.1


Not only that, but we saw in the last few games (when Ryan was hurt) how important he was to the team.


Quinn and Marshall were both McDonalds AAs

Quinn was coming off an injury, and as a freshman he started four games, which is more than most guys rated #31 out of high school start for Duke. Marshall redshirted, so I'm not sure how you can say he regressed.


, and Mike G was touted as having the highest basketball IQ of any player K had ever recruited.

I never heard this, and it surprises me, but it's possible I just missed it. More importantly, Michael had a very typical season, minutewise, for a player at Duke with his high school recruiting ranking (#28). We can always hope, but it was unrealistic to expect more.


Austin was... well, Austin The #1 recruit in the nation for a long, long time.

He was our best player, showed amazing improvement in decision making and defense from the beginning of the season to the end, and made first team All-ACC. What more could you want?


Tyler and Josh are both very talented players.

And they both showed a lot of improvement over the course of the season. Tyler was outside the top 100 as a high school senior, and started 18 games as a sophomore. Again, what more could you reasonably want? Josh started two games and, again, had a pretty typical progression for a guy ranked #32 coming out of high school.


Given the growth players often show, especially in the second half of their careers and especially when they finally get a chance to be the "go to" guys on their respective teams, and the growth our players have shown in the past (remember freshman Nolan Smith, or freshman EWill, or freshman Cwell, or freshman Nate, or freshman Gerald, or freshman ZOUB!!!) I think it was actually "fair" to expect some similar growth among the players this year. Outside of Miles and Josh, I don't think we really saw it, especially from the start of the season to the end.

Other than freshman EWill, I don't remember any of those players having great progression as freshmen. But if you're talking about progression from freshman to junior or senior, I think we have seen it. Compare the stats for Miles, Mason, and Ryan in their freshman year vs. this year. HUGE improvement. Even with his inconsistency, Andre doubled his scoring average between his freshman and junior season. Honestly, I don't think you and I have been seeing the same things.

[Greg_Newton]

I think this is a telling quote:

"Coach does everything in his power to get us going and get us out there playing as one," reserve forward Josh Hairston said. "But for some reason we struggle to do that. We struggle to connect, we struggle to be together out there on the floor. To win a national championship, you can't have five individuals on the floor. You have to have five playing as one and we didn't have that."

[dcar1985]

I don't think anyone but Andre really regressed at all....at some point its not about how many minutes he needs or whether he hits his first shot or not. You have to have that focus and desire to be the man out there...he doesn't have it.

I agree with (can't remember who said it) that we would have benefited from playing Quinn and Mike playing more minutes even if it meant a loss and seeing exactly what they had. Ratings are great but they're not the end all be all...most teams don't have top 25 recruits and they more than make do, being ranked outside the top 25 doesn't automatically mean your not ready to contribute. I guess there was always the threat of him getting hot and dropping some shots but I honestly don't think Mike G couldn't have saw some of Dre's minutes and played at least equal if not better and gained some game time experience at the same time.

[Lord Ash]

A few thoughts...

The regression I was *primarily* thinking about wasn't from year to year; it was more from the start of this year until the end. I did talk about previous years when I mentioned expectations for this year, but I think the feeling of regression was more how the year started versus how it ended for some of the players that left me scratching my head.

Keds, I don't know how to do the fancy multiple quotes within a quote, so I'll just tackle your post here:)

About wins/losses versus watching the team grow... the thing is, I don't think most people were upset over losses because they were losses. It seemed to be more *how* we were losing. Our losses seemed to come as the team played progressively worse basketball, and I think people were frustrated by the losses more because it seemed that the team was losing its way (not passing in to the bigs, not balancing three point shooting with driving, losing focus on D, etc).

As for expectations... I don't think my expectations were totally unrealistic.

Mason had a good season by all accounts, yes. But he seemed inconsistent... scoring 6 pts in one big game against FSU, 7 in another, and 1 point in another. He had other games where he scored single digits. And I couldn't help but feel that he made mistakes that I would have thought a junior would be beyond. When you look at how much potential he has, I just feel like Mason "should" bring more than 11 points a game to the table, with some games where he disappears. Maybe my expectations are too high.

Seth feels sort of the same way. Yes, he was our second leading scorer (which by itself doesn't necessarily mean much; EVERY team has a second leading scorer...) But Seth again felt a touch out-of-sorts this year... having seen how so many uber-talented Duke guards have stepped up in the past, and thinking that I saw that capability in Seth, I still have this feeling like 13 points a game and possibly questionable D just wasn't enough. When you add in that in a third of the games this year he scored in single digits, and that in the last four games of the year he shot 23, 33, 31, and 11 percent... well, again, expected a bit more, and I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation.

Dre was very inconsistent. He may not have gotten a lot of time every game, but that was Coach Ks call, and I am sure he made it for a reason. Having four scoreless games in the last six is surprising... you hope players turn it up at the end. Dre has all the physical tools... I am not quite sure why he didn't quite get them together this year.

Ryan did have a good year. But again, he seems to have faded a bit down the stretch... with games of 2, 6, 6, 5, 8 and 8 points in his last 9 games. That is surprising for a junior with his skills in such an important stretch of games. And he seemed to have lost a touch on D, maybe spending too much time working on taking charges and not enough time using those surprisingly quick and capable hands to alter and block shots... he went 5 games out of 8 at the end without a block. For a near seven footer with such good IQ and hands, and who had been an effective shot blocker, that was unexpected.

I understand Quinn was coming off an injury, but in his first few games at Duke when he actually got a chance to play he did well. Starting with OSU, he had a stretch of good PG games, including ones with 8 and 9 assists. He seemed able to penetrate and dish, as well as hitting a few circus shots. But near the end it didn't seem like Quinn was penetrating nearly as much, and he starting missing the circus shots. He also started taking shots when maybe they were not the best shots we could have gotten, and missing them... Quinn taking that 3 near the end of the Lehigh game while Austin was next to him calling for the ball left me shaking my head.

Marshall did redshirt... I am sorry we didn't get to see him play:) He didn't regress, obviously... he didn't play.

Silent G got a few minutes earlier in the season, but by the end never got off the bench. I suppose I do hope that the #28 overall recruit will at least play, especially as he seems to offer some attributes no other player on our roster does. The guys on either side of him in the rankings on Scout averaged 6 points/7 rebounds/2 assists and 9 points/3 rebounds/2 assists this year. I know they are all in different positions as far as depth and all of that, but 9 minutes in the last 16 games is just not much.

Austin was excellent; he learned and grew for most of the year. Don't want anything else; he improved this year, and hit his stride about midyear.

I was basically happy with Josh and Tyler (although I do wonder if Tyler is what we need at starting PG, but that is another story).

Ked, I think the thing is that this regression cannot easily be measured by stats (at least not without a lot of averaging over stretches of games). I know there are times when stats don't match up with what one sees in sports, and I feel like a lot of the stats this year belie what one could actually see... and while I do think stats are very important I feel like they don't quite tell the tale this year.

I suppose it might just be different expectations... but I don't think mine were unfair... and I was sad that our play seemed to get worse in the last third of the year, when you really hope it will sharpen.

[Des Esseintes]

I suppose it might just be different expectations... but I don't think mine were unfair... and I was sad that our play seemed to get worse in the last third of the year, when you really hope it will sharpen.

Except we didn't get worse in the last third of the year. Duke played 34 games this year. Over our final 11 games, Duke went 8-3. Over our middle 11 games, Duke went... 8-3. The finishing third saw us win at Carolina and at Florida State. It's true UNC blitzed us at home, but a similarly talented Ohio State team pummeled Duke even worse earlier in the season. The other two late losses were in the ACC and NCAA tournaments. For my part, a hard-fought close defeat to FSU sans Kelly is nothing to be ashamed of. Lehigh is a different matter, but I don't think that loss should define the season. Losing Kelly hurt. It just did.

[bob blue devil]

Dre was very inconsistent. He may not have gotten a lot of time every game, but that was Coach Ks call, and I am sure he made it for a reason. Having four scoreless games in the last six is surprising... you hope players turn it up at the end. Dre has all the physical tools... I am not quite sure why he didn't quite get them together this year.


I hate to say this, but I've given up on my 3 years of expecting Dawkins to become the player I want him to be rather than the one he is. I have no reason to believe he isn't a great kid, and he's so much fun to watch when his shots are falling, but I resolve not to be frustrated going forward when his defense would be generously described as spotty, when he can't get open against a committed defender, and when he can't be effective if he puts the ball on the floor. Andre is probably trying quite hard, but for whatever reasons his shortcomings are harder to correct than it seems on the surface. So with the coming season, I will not enter with expectations of a new Andre. Hopefully he will give us some great moments, but also hopefully we will see sufficient quality of play from others that Andre will need to compete harder for his minutes.

[ArkieDukie]

I think this is a telling quote:

"Coach does everything in his power to get us going and get us out there playing as one," reserve forward Josh Hairston said. "But for some reason we struggle to do that. We struggle to connect, we struggle to be together out there on the floor. To win a national championship, you can't have five individuals on the floor. You have to have five playing as one and we didn't have that."

You're right; that is a very telling quote. More than our team's alleged shortcomings at any particular position, I suspect the stated lack of team cohesiveness was the root of the problem. This team has some superb parts, and the whole was only rarely greater than the sum of the parts. I've been frustrated with the team this season because of this. It seemed like we were there early in the season, but things seem to change after the Ohio State game. We did see occasional flashes of the team reappearing, and it always gave me hope. Team first basketball with this group (or any group) is a thing of beauty. I think there were players on the team who truly did try to be team players (Miles, Tyler, Josh especially) and some of our fans ranted and railed that they weren't good enough to be on the court. That would be my number two source of frustration in this and several past seasons. We've had some excellent players whose presence on the floor made their teammates better. Lance Thomas is an excellent example of such a player, and I think TT is as well. The coaches recognize this, but many of our fans don't. Instead, we get entire threads devoted to the reasons that Player X should be playing more because Player Y isn't talented enough to be on the floor.

Maybe the real problem is that we as fans are feeding the notion that team players aren't as valuable to our team as the glue guys.

[NM Duke Fan]

In day to day life all of us have met individuals to whom we were very attracted physically, maybe we were even blown away by their appearance. But after spending a bit of time together there simply wasn't any Chemistry beyond the surface appearance, and no real synergy either You never know for sure how people are going to interact.

Many of us have played pickup basketball on the blacktops, where things can get pretty rough. But sometimes a few players get thrown together, and there is quickly a natural sensing of inherent skills, and the pieces fit together surprisingly well. The individuals quickly become part of a TEAM with ample and natural chemistry and organic leadership, and the sum is far greater than the parts would indicate. Some of the teams that pull off major upsets in the NCAA are not overwhelming in talent, but they have team dynamics that are beautiful to observe.

With this years team I rarely saw that Synergy. Players didn't fit well together at times, some of them seemed emotionally out of it too often, there wasn't a frequent natural flow and easy anticipation of where the other guy would be, etc. Only occasionally was there beautiful music and joy on the faces of some of the players. Some games it looked like the corner had been turned, but then the fist would slowly unfold back into the fingers . . .

[MCFinARL]

You're right; that is a very telling quote. More than our team's alleged shortcomings at any particular position, I suspect the stated lack of team cohesiveness was the root of the problem. This team has some superb parts, and the whole was only rarely greater than the sum of the parts.

Maybe the real problem is that we as fans are feeding the notion that team players aren't as valuable to our team as the glue guys.

I agree that many of us have been quick to question a lot of the players, and perhaps especially the ones you (correctly as far as I can tell) identify as the team players, and I agree that this has been unfair and probably wrongheaded. But maybe I don't understand the term "glue guys"--because when I think of glue guys I think of players like Lance Thomas or Kyle Singler--ones who did whatever needed to be done, be it hardnosed defense, going up against someone bigger for a rebound, scrambling for loose balls, sensing when to look for the open man and when to try to make something happen on their own, giving every last bit of energy while also being a team leader on the court (in Lance's case, more vocally; in Kyle's more by example). So on this team I guess I'd say the closest thing we have had to glue guys are also the team players--Miles, Tyler, Josh--who have brought energy and hustle always, even if they couldn't always avoid errors or make the biggest plays.

But maybe it doesn't work to be both unless you are also among the most talented players on the floor, or among the most complete players on the floor (which Kyle was generally and Lance was defensively). Austin has the skills and spirit to be both a team leader and a glue guy, and if he comes back maybe he will be, but after spending all of high school carrying a team on his back, he lacked the experience to bring a team together around his leadership as a freshman (which is always a challenge anyway).



With this years team I rarely saw that Synergy. Players didn't fit well together at times, some of them seemed emotionally out of it too often, there wasn't a frequent natural flow and easy anticipation of where the other guy would be, etc. Only occasionally was there beautiful music and joy on the faces of some of the players. Some games it looked like the corner had been turned, but then the fist would slowly unfold back into the fingers . . .

In the end, maybe it really is chemistry--you can't will the pheromones to be there for the person you "ought to" love, and you can't will getting to that place as a team where you just understand each other and feel great playing together, no matter how hard you work at it. Granted, you have to do all the hard work to give the chemistry a chance to happen, but doing the work doesn't guarantee it will. Often this season it seemed the players were thinking on the court rather than naturally responding to the flow of the game. If you have to think about what to do next, the moment will be gone before you can seize it.

[Kedsy]

Except we didn't get worse in the last third of the year. Duke played 34 games this year. Over our final 11 games, Duke went 8-3. Over our middle 11 games, Duke went... 8-3. The finishing third saw us win at Carolina and at Florida State. It's true UNC blitzed us at home, but a similarly talented Ohio State team pummeled Duke even worse earlier in the season. The other two late losses were in the ACC and NCAA tournaments. For my part, a hard-fought close defeat to FSU sans Kelly is nothing to be ashamed of. Lehigh is a different matter, but I don't think that loss should define the season. Losing Kelly hurt. It just did.

I agree with everything you say here. Going into our last home game, I doubt anybody thought our team or our players had regressed. Then we lost to a team everyone said pre-season was near-unbeatable, went 1-1 in the ACC tournament without Ryan, and got upset in the NCAAT, also without Ryan. It wasn't a fun four game stretch to end the season, but I just don't think you can fairly characterize it as a "regression."


About wins/losses versus watching the team grow... the thing is, I don't think most people were upset over losses because they were losses. It seemed to be more *how* we were losing. Our losses seemed to come as the team played progressively worse basketball, and I think people were frustrated by the losses more because it seemed that the team was losing its way (not passing in to the bigs, not balancing three point shooting with driving, losing focus on D, etc).

Well, obviously I'm not inside other people's heads, but this has not been my impression. Especially since the losses didn't in any way seem to come as the team played progressively worse basketball. The Ohio State loss came immediately after we played great in Maui. The Temple loss came out of the blue. The FSU and Miami losses (along with the lackluster home win against St. John's) all came in our typical doldrums period of late January and early February -- and the board was pretty close to meltdown mode, despite the fact that the two losses in that period came on a last second shot and in OT. Add in some more losses before, in, or after that period, and DBR would have had to shut down a couple times more.

Then we won 7 games in a row until the final four game stretch. If we'd gone 5-2 or 4-3 in that time (hypothetically due to letting the end of our bench see more time), and finished third, or maybe even tied for fourth in the ACC, you think everyone would have been OK with that? Moreover, you think we would have been more prepared to win our first game (with a more seasoned Michael and Quinn) as a 5 seed than as a 2 seed?


Mason had a good season by all accounts, yes. But he seemed inconsistent... scoring 6 pts in one big game against FSU, 7 in another, and 1 point in another. He had other games where he scored single digits. And I couldn't help but feel that he made mistakes that I would have thought a junior would be beyond. When you look at how much potential he has, I just feel like Mason "should" bring more than 11 points a game to the table, with some games where he disappears. Maybe my expectations are too high.

Well, Mason scored in single digits in three of our first six games, so the fact that he also occasionally did so late in the season, to me, doesn't seem like a regression. Perhaps it was a sign of a lack of progression, but I don't think that's the same thing. Plus, he did progress in some areas, especially free throw shooting.


Seth feels sort of the same way. Yes, he was our second leading scorer (which by itself doesn't necessarily mean much; EVERY team has a second leading scorer...) But Seth again felt a touch out-of-sorts this year... having seen how so many uber-talented Duke guards have stepped up in the past, and thinking that I saw that capability in Seth, I still have this feeling like 13 points a game and possibly questionable D just wasn't enough. When you add in that in a third of the games this year he scored in single digits, and that in the last four games of the year he shot 23, 33, 31, and 11 percent... well, again, expected a bit more, and I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation.

Seth has a problem when he's being guarded by a bigger player. He's had that problem all season. So, again IMO, this is not a function of regressing so much as it is an issue with our personnel. With Tyler and/or Quinn playing PG, we forced Seth to be guarded in general with a much bigger SG, at least after we got into the conference schedule.


Dre was very inconsistent. He may not have gotten a lot of time every game, but that was Coach Ks call, and I am sure he made it for a reason. Having four scoreless games in the last six is surprising... you hope players turn it up at the end. Dre has all the physical tools... I am not quite sure why he didn't quite get them together this year.

I agree he was inconsistent, and in the last several games he seemed to have lost confidence. On the other hand, I watched him as much as I could against Lehigh and he was trying really hard to get open. And he did get open, many times, for a split second, which is about all you can ask for in high level Division I. If his teammates had been looking for Andre and had given him the ball at the right moment (and he had the confidence to shoot it) he would have taken and made a lot more shots. That's what happened in the games like Michigan State and the 2nd Florida State game; his teammates were watching for him to get open and hit him the moment he did, and he delivered. A couple times against Lehigh, his teammates noticed him a second too late. Sometimes they even gave him the ball, but by that time the defender had closed on him. The fact that he doesn't have as much blow-by ability as we would like isn't really regression, though, is it?


Ryan did have a good year. But again, he seems to have faded a bit down the stretch... with games of 2, 6, 6, 5, 8 and 8 points in his last 9 games. That is surprising for a junior with his skills in such an important stretch of games. And he seemed to have lost a touch on D, maybe spending too much time working on taking charges and not enough time using those surprisingly quick and capable hands to alter and block shots... he went 5 games out of 8 at the end without a block. For a near seven footer with such good IQ and hands, and who had been an effective shot blocker, that was unexpected.

He still averaged 0.75 blocks per game in that last eight game stretch. And he went 4 of his first 8 games of the season without a block, averaging 0.86 blocks per game in that stretch. So, again, I don't see this as regression. Also, our team defense was much stronger in Ryan's last eight games (2nd UNC game aside) than it had been before, so maybe whatever Ryan was doing to help the D necessitated fewer block opportunities?


I understand Quinn was coming off an injury, but in his first few games at Duke when he actually got a chance to play he did well. Starting with OSU, he had a stretch of good PG games, including ones with 8 and 9 assists. He seemed able to penetrate and dish, as well as hitting a few circus shots. But near the end it didn't seem like Quinn was penetrating nearly as much, and he starting missing the circus shots. He also started taking shots when maybe they were not the best shots we could have gotten, and missing them... Quinn taking that 3 near the end of the Lehigh game while Austin was next to him calling for the ball left me shaking my head.

Quinn's big early season performances came against Western Michigan and Penn (although he also did have decent games against Ohio State and Georgia Tech). He had always been taking shots that were not the best shots, but he made more of them early against lesser competition. He's a freshman who makes freshman mistakes (like the three against Lehigh). That's generally not something you grow out of by playing a few more minutes a game.


Silent G got a few minutes earlier in the season, but by the end never got off the bench. I suppose I do hope that the #28 overall recruit will at least play, especially as he seems to offer some attributes no other player on our roster does. The guys on either side of him in the rankings on Scout averaged 6 points/7 rebounds/2 assists and 9 points/3 rebounds/2 assists this year. I know they are all in different positions as far as depth and all of that, but 9 minutes in the last 16 games is just not much.

This happens a lot at Duke. Ryan Kelly hardly played once the ACC season began in his freshman year. Same with Miles Plumlee and Josh Hairston, and lots of Duke players over the years. What someone did at Mississippi State and Alabama isn't really very comparable. This is what Coach K does.


Ked, I think the thing is that this regression cannot easily be measured by stats (at least not without a lot of averaging over stretches of games). I know there are times when stats don't match up with what one sees in sports, and I feel like a lot of the stats this year belie what one could actually see... and while I do think stats are very important I feel like they don't quite tell the tale this year.

I suppose it might just be different expectations... but I don't think mine were unfair... and I was sad that our play seemed to get worse in the last third of the year, when you really hope it will sharpen.

I'm not trying to just be contrary here. But as I said in the beginning of this post, I don't think we regressed in the last third of the year. I think we got our butts handed to us in the last four games, three of which were played without one of our most important players. I apologize if I said or implied your expectations were unfair, but I do think perhaps your perceptions of the whole season are colored by how it ended.

[ArkieDukie]

I agree that many of us have been quick to question a lot of the players, and perhaps especially the ones you (correctly as far as I can tell) identify as the team players, and I agree that this has been unfair and probably wrongheaded. But maybe I don't understand the term "glue guys"--because when I think of glue guys I think of players like Lance Thomas or Kyle Singler--ones who did whatever needed to be done, be it hardnosed defense, going up against someone bigger for a rebound, scrambling for loose balls, sensing when to look for the open man and when to try to make something happen on their own, giving every last bit of energy while also being a team leader on the court (in Lance's case, more vocally; in Kyle's more by example). So on this team I guess I'd say the closest thing we have had to glue guys are also the team players--Miles, Tyler, Josh--who have brought energy and hustle always, even if they couldn't always avoid errors or make the biggest plays.

But maybe it doesn't work to be both unless you are also among the most talented players on the floor, or among the most complete players on the floor (which Kyle was generally and Lance was defensively). Austin has the skills and spirit to be both a team leader and a glue guy, and if he comes back maybe he will be, but after spending all of high school carrying a team on his back, he lacked the experience to bring a team together around his leadership as a freshman (which is always a challenge anyway).



In the end, maybe it really is chemistry--you can't will the pheromones to be there for the person you "ought to" love, and you can't will getting to that place as a team where you just understand each other and feel great playing together, no matter how hard you work at it. Granted, you have to do all the hard work to give the chemistry a chance to happen, but doing the work doesn't guarantee it will. Often this season it seemed the players were thinking on the court rather than naturally responding to the flow of the game. If you have to think about what to do next, the moment will be gone before you can seize it.
Excellent post! I realized in reading it that I said the wrong thing. I meant to say that we seem to value star power, measured in offense, over guys whose mere presence on the floor makes their teammates better. Both are important. When they're one and the same, times are golden. On the flip side, the road to the NCAA championship is littered with teams that have a roster full of stars who can't play together as a team.

[Kedsy]

Ked, I think the thing is that this regression cannot easily be measured by stats (at least not without a lot of averaging over stretches of games). I know there are times when stats don't match up with what one sees in sports, and I feel like a lot of the stats this year belie what one could actually see... and while I do think stats are very important I feel like they don't quite tell the tale this year.

I want to add that I agree stats don't always tell the whole story. But in this case, if you block our last four games from your memory our team actually progressed quite nicely in February. Starting with the 2nd half against Miami on February 5, where we had a wonderful comeback that put the game into OT, our team defense began to gel -- over the next 7 games we advanced 40 or 50 spots in Pomeroy's defensive rankings. Our offense kept clicking too; at one point in the last week of the regular season we actually rose all the way up to the top offensive efficiency ranking in the nation. These stats don't say everything, of course, but they certainly don't paint a picture of a team in regression, do they?

Of course, then the end happened. We got clobbered by UNC and Ryan got hurt and the rest is now history. A sad tale, perhaps, but to me it wasn't a story of regression.

[MCFinARL]

Excellent post! I realized in reading it that I said the wrong thing. I meant to say that we seem to value star power, measured in offense, over guys whose mere presence on the floor makes their teammates better. Both are important. When they're one and the same, times are golden. On the flip side, the road to the NCAA championship is littered with teams that have a roster full of stars who can't play together as a team.

Thanks! And I agree completely with your point the way you state it here.

[Greg_Newton]

Seth was our second leading scorer, and did a little bit of everything.

I think it's hard to argue that Seth wasn't a disappointment relative to expectations this year, or that he really even improved at all. Consider:

-His FG% and FT rate decreased slightly.
-His 3P% decreased by 5%.
-His AST/minute remained identical while his TOs/minute increased by 76%.
-His steals per minute decreased by 25%.

He did increase his rebounding and FT% slightly, and blocked 7 shots rather than 5, but other that, I think he pretty clearly regressed, in terms of effectiveness. Plus, even aside from the offensive numbers, I think it's pretty clear from the eye test that he was a liability when it came to preventing penetration or rotation/rebounding down low for his position, with a few exceptions when he really came to play.

Basically, we increased his usage from 2011 to 2012, but I think you could argue that wasn't a positive development for our team.

[Acymetric]

I agree with everything you say here. Going into our last home game, I doubt anybody thought our team or our players had regressed. Then we lost to a team everyone said pre-season was near-unbeatable, went 1-1 in the ACC tournament without Ryan, and got upset in the NCAAT, also without Ryan. It wasn't a fun four game stretch to end the season, but I just don't think you can fairly characterize it as a "regression."



Really? I had that very conversation with several friends and my dad in the weeks leading up to the ACCT, and I doubt we were the only ones talking about it. Regression isn't measured in wins and losses alone, you can see it in the play on the court when you watch a game whether the team pulls out the win or not.

[Kedsy]

Really? I had that very conversation with several friends and my dad in the weeks leading up to the ACCT, and I doubt we were the only ones talking about it. Regression isn't measured in wins and losses alone, you can see it in the play on the court when you watch a game whether the team pulls out the win or not.

In the weeks leading up to the ACCT our Pomeroy defensive efficiency got better by 40 or so spots and our Pomeroy offensive efficiency shot up to first in the nation, in addition to winning 7 games in a row. I don't know that what you see watching the game with your friends and your dad is an effective way to measure regression.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

In the end, maybe it really is chemistry--you can't will the pheromones to be there for the person you "ought to" love, and you can't will getting to that place as a team where you just understand each other and feel great playing together, no matter how hard you work at it. Granted, you have to do all the hard work to give the chemistry a chance to happen, but doing the work doesn't guarantee it will. Often this season it seemed the players were thinking on the court rather than naturally responding to the flow of the game. If you have to think about what to do next, the moment will be gone before you can seize it.


What about the role of the coaching staff? Isn't the greatness of Coach K based on his proven ability to recruit, shape and prepare a winning team?

[MCFinARL]

What about the role of the coaching staff? Isn't the greatness of Coach K based on his proven ability to recruit, shape and prepare a winning team?

Sure, that is part of it. I didn't consider recruiting because I was focused on why this particular team didn't perform as well at the end of the season as people might have hoped or expected, so existing personnel seemed most relevant. Obviously, though, the coaching staff bears some responsibility if the various parts of the team don't work together that well.

In the end, though, I expect coaches can't create chemistry, and can't always perfectly predict it when recruiting. What they can do is choose players they think will fit into the system, which I think the Duke staff clearly does; create the conditions to permit chemistry to happen through well-designed training and practices, which the Duke staff clearly has often done, and I think it's likely they did this year, though I have no direct knowledge and can't say for sure; and find the right ways to motivate players individually and as a group, which, again, the Duke staff clearly has usually done--though some of Coach K's comments after tough games this year suggest even he is not sure this aspect of things was a complete success this year, as he couldn't always explain why the team played inconsistently.

Bottom line, I'd say in most cases both coaches and players bear some responsibility when a team describes itself as feeling "disjointed" in an important win-or-go-home game, and that is probably true here, given that we aren't talking about any players who are obviously uncoachable or are likely locker room cancers, nor are we talking about untalented or uncaring coaches. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise by talking about chemistry.

[Duke76]

In the weeks leading up to the ACCT our Pomeroy defensive efficiency got better by 40 or so spots and our Pomeroy offensive efficiency shot up to first in the nation, in addition to winning 7 games in a row. I don't know that what you see watching the game with your friends and your dad is an effective way to measure regression.



I'd say this article from the Durham Morning Sun today, in the players own words pretty much ends the argument about regression and team chemistry.

http://www.herald-sun.com/view/full_story/17922107/article-Out-of-sync-Blue-Devils-end-promising-season-with-a-thud?

[Kedsy]

I'd say this article from the Durham Morning Sun today, in the players own words pretty much ends the argument about regression and team chemistry.

http://www.herald-sun.com/view/full_story/17922107/article-Out-of-sync-Blue-Devils-end-promising-season-with-a-thud?

I'd say that article doesn't say anything at all about the argument. All the quotes were talking about the last three games. We've been talking about the last third of the season. In my opinion, going into a three (really four) game funk, especially when you lose one of your top players for three of the four games, can hardly be described as "regression." This article doesn't address that issue at all.

[Duke76]

I'd say that article doesn't say anything at all about the argument. All the quotes were talking about the last three games. We've been talking about the last third of the season. In my opinion, going into a three (really four) game funk, especially when you lose one of your top players for three of the four games, can hardly be described as "regression." This article doesn't address that issue at all.

excuse me,

But Duke didn’t end well, a fact that won’t sit well with Krzyzewski.

After winning 74-66 at Florida State on Feb. 23, the Blue Devils didn’t put together a great effort the rest of the season.

There was a 75-70 overtime win over a Virginia Tech team that failed to make the postseason. The Blue Devils rolled to a big lead at sub-.500 Wake Forest but, despite posting a 79-71 win, let the struggling Demon Deacons outplay them in the second half.

Read more: The Herald-Sun - Out of sync Blue Devils end promising season with a thud

“We’re not this, we’re not, we’re not a juggernaut or anything like that,” Krzyzewski said. “We have known that throughout the whole season. You have to do it pretty precise, and we just didn’t play well offensively the last few weeks of the season. Actually we got better defensively, but offensively we just weren’t there.”

team chemistry?

In the post-game locker room, some Duke players mentioned that the team didn’t have the proper unity on offense.

“We needed to use each other on offense and not be so individual,” junior guard Andre Dawkins said.

Junior center Mason Plumlee regretted that the team didn’t handle things better, and paid a big price for not doing so.

“We should have addressed it,” Mason Plumlee said. “We should have gotten on one another. But for whatever reason, we couldn’t get in sync offensively in particular. It’s just not good when you aren’t working together and you aren’t in sync.”

How did the rank assist wise in the nation?
In relation to past Duke teams?

[Kfanarmy]

I'd say that article doesn't say anything at all about the argument. All the quotes were talking about the last three games. We've been talking about the last third of the season. In my opinion, going into a three (really four) game funk, especially when you lose one of your top players for three of the four games, can hardly be described as "regression." This article doesn't address that issue at all.
The team hadn't played well for the last month of the season. They started it seemed slowly in every game in the second half of the season. Cameron scared the collective crap out of them...something was off and...goodness everyone knew it. Duke's last good game of the season was the 1st game against Carolina, and that win took some really fortunate bounces for Duke to win, still the players didn't pull together...I really don't think they played well for a full game since then. Why argue that they didn't regress. Even in the wins, there was something missing and the players all knew it.

[Des Esseintes]

The team hadn't played well for the last month of the season. They started it seemed slowly in every game in the second half of the season. Cameron scared the collective crap out of them...something was off and...goodness everyone knew it. Duke's last good game of the season was the 1st game against Carolina, and that win took some really fortunate bounces for Duke to win, still the players didn't pull together...I really don't think they played well for a full game since then. Why argue that they didn't regress. Even in the wins, there was something missing and the players all knew it.

What about the second Florida State game? I don't know how you judge wins, but beating the ACC champion on its home court counts for me. Moreover, it isn't as if Duke was straight-up murdering people early in the season. We won some big games, but they were all pretty close affairs. That didn't change as the season wore on. We also had a seven game win streak between Carolina Glory and Carolina Debacle. Then Kelly got hurt. "Goodness."

[cspan37421]

How did the rank assist wise in the nation?
In relation to past Duke teams?

EOY National rank in assists per game (season record, NCAA tournament result)

2001: #005 (35-4, National Champs)
2002: #006 (31-4, Sweet 16)
2003: #170 (26-7, Sweet 16)
2004: #105 (31-6, Final 4)
2005: #214 (27-6, Sweet 16)
2006: #073 (32-4, Sweet 16)
2007: #199 (22-11, Round of 64)
2008: #087 (28-6, Round of 32)
2009: #136 (30-7, Sweet 16)
2010: #100 (35-5, National Champs)
2011: #071 (32-5, Sweet 16)
2012: #206 (27-7, Round of 64)

per statsheet.com (and wikipedia)

If my overtired-past-midnight analysis is right, there was a -0.77 correlation between apg ranking and win% for us, last 12 yrs (i.e., bigger number in the ranking, lower win%). Correl with our tournament wins was -0.53.

Bottom line shocker: assists matter, and this was our 2nd worst year (relative to the competition) of the last 12. And it may not be any accident that our worst such ranking in the last 12 years led to a very similar season record as this year, and the next worst led to a round of 64 exit.

Granted, apg does not take into account tempo ... but I do think it's a start in terms of understanding what went awry for us this year.

[trinity79]

um, I don't have any statistics to back it up or anything, but that which does not attract tends to repel. So if there's a "chemistry" problem with this team, I believe you will find out about it very shortly. I ain't sayin'; I'm just sayin'. Stay tuned. :confused:

[uh_no]

EOY National rank in assists per game (season record, NCAA tournament result)

2001: #005 (35-4, National Champs)
2002: #006 (31-4, Sweet 16)
2003: #170 (26-7, Sweet 16)
2004: #105 (31-6, Final 4)
2005: #214 (27-6, Sweet 16)
2006: #073 (32-4, Sweet 16)
2007: #199 (22-11, Round of 64)
2008: #087 (28-6, Round of 32)
2009: #136 (30-7, Sweet 16)
2010: #100 (35-5, National Champs)
2011: #071 (32-5, Sweet 16)
2012: #206 (27-7, Round of 64)

per statsheet.com (and wikipedia)

If my overtired-past-midnight analysis is right, there was a -0.77 correlation between apg ranking and win% for us, last 12 yrs (i.e., bigger number in the ranking, lower win%). Correl with our tournament wins was -0.53.

Bottom line shocker: assists matter, and this was our 2nd worst year (relative to the competition) of the last 12. And it may not be any accident that our worst such ranking in the last 12 years led to a very similar season record as this year, and the next worst led to a round of 64 exit.

Granted, apg does not take into account tempo ... but I do think it's a start in terms of understanding what went awry for us this year.

Unfortunately those statistics are largely meaningless unless they're tempo based. The 2010 team likely would have a much better ranking since they had so few possesions relative to some of our other teams. Furthermore, using the ranking is not a good idea. It would be much better to use the actual number of assists, as the ranking may not actually be comparable year to year, and a tiny change in assists may have resulted in a huge change in ranking, which is not the result we want.

So the best way to do this would again be total assists/(possesions/game) then correlating it with win percentage, or whatever metric you want to use for success in a given year.

[UrinalCake]

Lots of issues this year and most of them have already been discussed, but I think one of the most important ones is that we never really established a point guard. Coming into the season Coach K talked up Seth as being the leader at point, and even though he played great at the start of the season it seemed like the OSU blowout, combined with some other wins in which we didn't play that well, led Coach K to think he had made a mistake. So he experimented with Tyler and Quin platooning at point, but that didn't really work either. Plus Quin reaggravated his injury, the extent to which we still don't really fully know. For the last third of the season we mostly went with Tyler and Seth starting along with Austin, but you'd be hard-pressed to say who was really in control of the team.

Every successful Duke team has had a point guard who was a natural leader and extension of Coach K on the court. This year didn't. There was a real leadership void and I think all of these other problems we've been discussing have been reflective of that.

[Kedsy]

The team hadn't played well for the last month of the season. They started it seemed slowly in every game in the second half of the season. Cameron scared the collective crap out of them...something was off and...goodness everyone knew it. Duke's last good game of the season was the 1st game against Carolina, and that win took some really fortunate bounces for Duke to win, still the players didn't pull together...I really don't think they played well for a full game since then. Why argue that they didn't regress. Even in the wins, there was something missing and the players all knew it.

Some people need to open a dictionary and re-familiarize themselves with what the word "regress" means. In our first game we beat Belmont by 1 at home. Davidson was beating us at halftime. Unranked Washington scored 54 points against us in the 2nd half. In what way were those performances better than our winning handily in Tallahassee, or coming back from 20 down to beat NC State? You can argue our defense was substandard (for Duke) all year; you can argue we found it difficult to play our best for 40 minutes in any game this season. But nobody in this thread has made anywhere close to a convincing argument that we regressed over the last part of the season. And that's because it's simply not the case.

[pfrduke]

Unfortunately those statistics are largely meaningless unless they're tempo based. The 2010 team likely would have a much better ranking since they had so few possesions relative to some of our other teams. Furthermore, using the ranking is not a good idea. It would be much better to use the actual number of assists, as the ranking may not actually be comparable year to year, and a tiny change in assists may have resulted in a huge change in ranking, which is not the result we want.

So the best way to do this would again be total assists/(possesions/game) then correlating it with win percentage, or whatever metric you want to use for success in a given year.

Assists as a percentage of made field goals is, I think, the best measure. We've been relatively consistent in this number over the past 10 years, and never posted particularly stellar numbers:

2003 - assists on 49.4% of our field goals (276th nationally)
2004 - 52.8% (219th)
2005 - 49.4% (286th)
2006 - 55.8% (169th - by far our best finish in this period)
2007 - 52.7% (231st)
2008 - 51.5% (244th)
2009 - 50.5% (247th)
2010 - 52.8% (189th)
2011 - 50.9% (233rd)
2012 - 48.4% (295th)

This was a low year, even by our standards. We've averaged 51.4% over the last 10 years - to get there this year we would have needed another 26 assists, or 3 every 4 games.

Broadly speaking, though, I'm not sure this is the best measure of our success.

[cspan37421]

Thanks. I figured someone would know a better tempo-based stat. Even then, might (assists/made fg) still fail to capture some relevant ball-sharing info, such as the impact of a player going 1 on 1 (AR comes to mind), driving the lane, getting fouled, and getting to the line?

Another poster pointed out correctly that ranking may mean little when the numbers are packed close together. I agree that there are a lot of teams within the neighborhood of +/- 1 assist when you're ranked #206 or #199 etc., but it's still a long way to the top, esp. if you're talking season averages, not just a game here and there.

Similarly, you don't really need tempo-based stats to know that we weren't exactly the most larcenous of on-ball defenders this year. There are a lot of telling stats that warned of our 1st round exit.

Finally, I appreciate the poster who questioned whether what we saw was indeed regression ... given our early year squeaker vs. Belmont and our matador 2nd half defense vs. Washington. I think we tended to remember our big wins (Kansas, Mich St, UNC) and forgot that we were the same team that produced a bunch of nailbiters against thought-to-be lesser teams. If Pomeroy is to be believed, our defense did not regress in the last few weeks (it improved from its nadir after our win @ UNC, but still was #67) but our offense did drop off (again, rankings - down to 10). So I think our offense may have regressed a bit, but Kedsy is right that the defense was probably never great, so regression isn't the right term for our defense.

[Duke76]

Some people need to open a dictionary and re-familiarize themselves with what the word "regress" means. In our first game we beat Belmont by 1 at home. Davidson was beating us at halftime. Unranked Washington scored 54 points against us in the 2nd half. In what way were those performances better than our winning handily in Tallahassee, or coming back from 20 down to beat NC State? You can argue our defense was substandard (for Duke) all year; you can argue we found it difficult to play our best for 40 minutes in any game this season. But nobody in this thread has made anywhere close to a convincing argument that we regressed over the last part of the season. And that's because it's simply not the case.

Did most of our players individually regress over the last 3 or 4 games and did we regress collectively over the last 3 or 4 games, in your opinion?

When would you say we lost our team chemistry? Or do you contend there was no problem with that even in the last 3 or 4 games?

[Kedsy]

If Pomeroy is to be believed, our defense did not regress in the last few weeks (it improved from its nadir after our win @ UNC, but still was #67) but our offense did drop off (again, rankings - down to 10). So I think our offense may have regressed a bit, but Kedsy is right that the defense was probably never great, so regression isn't the right term for our defense.

Our offense was ranked #4 before Ryan got hurt.


Did most of our players individually regress over the last 3 or 4 games and did we regress collectively over the last 3 or 4 games, in your opinion?

First of all, my opinion is you can "slump" over 3 or 4 games, but it's hard to say anybody "regresses" over such a short period.

Especially when that period is marred by an injury to a key player. I would agree that we didn't adjust very well to Ryan's absence, and we went into a shooting slump that may or may not have been related to Ryan's absence, but that's a far different thing from saying our players or our team regressed.

And if we're looking at the entire season, and not just the last 3 or 4 games, I personally believe our best performance of the season was on February 23, so if we progressed from November to February 23, it's hard to say we regressed over the course of the season just because we played poorly over the last few games while playing without one of our most important players.

[dyedwab]

In baseball, hitters will talk about pitchers whose fastballs "rise" as they reach the plate. Physics has basically proven that this is false, but that certain pitchers appear to have a rising fastball because it doesn't drop as far as the batter typically expects.

I think that's what's going on here. Folks have shown that we didn't "regress" as we understand the word, and we did actually get better, particularly on defense. But it seems that we as a team and many of our players plateaued at some point before the end of the season, and we had a very high profile slump by Andre at the end of the season.

So, our "regression" appears to me to be an illusion created by the fact that we didn't progress as much as many of us expected.

[Li_Duke]

In baseball, hitters will talk about pitchers whose fastballs "rise" as they reach the plate. Physics has basically proven that this is false, but that certain pitchers appear to have a rising fastball because it doesn't drop as far as the batter typically expects.

I think that's what's going on here. Folks have shown that we didn't "regress" as we understand the word, and we did actually get better, particularly on defense. But it seems that we as a team and many of our players plateaued at some point before the end of the season, and we had a very high profile slump by Andre at the end of the season.

So, our "regression" appears to me to be an illusion created by the fact that we didn't progress as much as many of us expected.

I agree with this. Both players and the team progressed over the course of the season - just maybe not as much as many of us expected. Plateaus and slumps are to be expected, but there has definitely been an increase in skill and experience.

Austin definitely progressed over the season. He had a slump in the middle of the season and perhaps, plateaued at the end, but he definitely improved.
Mason progressed offensively in the first third of the season. Opposing teams countered with putting him at the free throw line. He responded in the latter third of the season by improving his free throw shooting dramatically.
Curry started off the season hot. Then he struggled with his shot, but he responded by driving into the lane more in the latter third of the season. He's improved in that area, even though his offensive output may appear to have regressed due to his cooling down.
Thornton progressed to become a very good role player in the beginning of the season, enough to earn him a starting position. Opposing teams responded by leaving him open. He's responded by shooting and those reps will eventually lead to improvement in that area.
Hairston has started earning playing time this season. That experience will pay dividend down the road.
Miles had a stretch where he was a dominant rebounder, but that stretch came during Mason's slump. When Mason improved, there were less rebounds available for the taking. But that's not regression on Miles part.
Kelly has become a lot more consistent compared to last year. Remember how he always seemed be very hot or very cold last season?
Cook dominated against a stretch of bad teams. He'll improve as he continues to learn how to defend and run a team.
Dawkins is the only one that regressed. But even he has been doing less standing around and more running around to get open.

There's a lot here to be proud of. I think we'll be very good next year.

[superdave]

Assists as a percentage of made field goals is, I think, the best measure. We've been relatively consistent in this number over the past 10 years, and never posted particularly stellar numbers:

2003 - assists on 49.4% of our field goals (276th nationally)
2004 - 52.8% (219th)
2005 - 49.4% (286th)
2006 - 55.8% (169th - by far our best finish in this period)
2007 - 52.7% (231st)
2008 - 51.5% (244th)
2009 - 50.5% (247th)
2010 - 52.8% (189th)
2011 - 50.9% (233rd)
2012 - 48.4% (295th)

This was a low year, even by our standards. We've averaged 51.4% over the last 10 years - to get there this year we would have needed another 26 assists, or 3 every 4 games.

Broadly speaking, though, I'm not sure this is the best measure of our success.

58.9% (653 assists to 1108 fg's) in 1992 when we had a nice roster and a great point guard.

Doesnt this perspective leave out passes that lead to free throws though?

[CDu]

58.9% (653 assists to 1108 fg's) in 1992 when we had a nice roster and a great point guard.

Doesnt this perspective leave out passes that lead to free throws though?

Sure, but I can't think of a systematic reason why the relative percentages would be systematically different as a result of factoring in these types of plays. If you're more likely to have a pass that leads directly to a bucket, you're probably also more likely to have a pass that leads directly to a shooting foul but not a bucket.

[superdave]

Sure, but I can't think of a systematic reason why the relative percentages would be systematically different as a result of factoring in these types of plays. If you're more likely to have a pass that leads directly to a bucket, you're probably also more likely to have a pass that leads directly to a shooting foul but not a bucket.

This is why Unc keeps the "Coach's Assists" stat, right? Good plays that are not technically assists, but lead to free throws or a muffed layup.

[Duke76]

Our offense was ranked #4 before Ryan got hurt.



First of all, my opinion is you can "slump" over 3 or 4 games, but it's hard to say anybody "regresses" over such a short period.

Especially when that period is marred by an injury to a key player. I would agree that we didn't adjust very well to Ryan's absence, and we went into a shooting slump that may or may not have been related to Ryan's absence, but that's a far different thing from saying our players or our team regressed.

And if we're looking at the entire season, and not just the last 3 or 4 games, I personally believe our best performance of the season was on February 23, so if we progressed from November to February 23, it's hard to say we regressed over the course of the season just because we played poorly over the last few games while playing without one of our most important players.

What a real cop out...you didn't answer my question on team chemistry?

[Kedsy]

What a real cop out...you didn't answer my question on team chemistry?

First of all, we were talking about whether the team regressed or not, so I didn't (and still don't) see why team chemistry was relevant to the discussion. I also don't see why not bothering to answer an irrelevant question could be considered a "cop out."

Secondly, "[w]hen would you say we lost our team chemistry" is a loaded, leading question and I rarely feel the need to answer loaded, leading questions.

Third, "team chemistry" is such an overused, underdefined term that your question is really impossible to answer because everyone has a different understanding of the term.

Fourth, since I was never in the locker room and never on the court with the team, I don't know see how I (or anybody else who was not in the locker room or on the court with the team) could speculate whether or not the team lost its chemistry, or when.

Finally, as far as I saw, the team never "lost" its team chemistry. We merely lost a couple of games while playing without one of our top players.

[Duke76]

First of all, we were talking about whether the team regressed or not, so I didn't (and still don't) see why team chemistry was relevant to the discussion. I also don't see why not bothering to answer an irrelevant question could be considered a "cop out."

Secondly, "[w]hen would you say we lost our team chemistry" is a loaded, leading question and I rarely feel the need to answer loaded, leading questions.

Third, "team chemistry" is such an overused, underdefined term that your question is really impossible to answer because everyone has a different understanding of the term.

Fourth, since I was never in the locker room and never on the court with the team, I don't know see how I (or anybody else who was not in the locker room or on the court with the team) could speculate whether or not the team lost its chemistry, or when.

Finally, as far as I saw, the team never "lost" its team chemistry. We merely lost a couple of games while playing without one of our top players.

Obviously you aren't gonna change your opinion and neither am I, but as evidence by that article from the Durham Morning Sun...I think the players and coach k were saying they didn't play up to their potential and assuming they did prior in the yr, that would constitute regression and I think in that article they were implying they did not play "team basketball" an indication of lack of trust and team chemistry....by the way I believe most basketball followers know what is meant by team chemistry.

Bottomline, I bet if you asked them, both Coach K and the team they would indeed say they regressed over the season and that their team chemistry was not what it should be.

Your opinion would be different, no problem

[Kedsy]

I think the players and coach k were saying they didn't play up to their potential and assuming they did prior in the yr, that would constitute regression...

Why would you make that assumption? I think earlier in the year the team (and others) thought and hoped they might reach their potential by the end of the season. I doubt they thought they'd already reached it.


and I think in that article they were implying they did not play "team basketball" an indication of lack of trust and team chemistry....

That's quite a leap from the fairly innocuous statements in the article. It may not be justified.


by the way I believe most basketball followers know what is meant by team chemistry.

I have heard many knowledgeable followers of the game describe it in different ways. It is subjective and thus by definition is hard to measure or describe.


Bottomline, I bet if you asked them, both Coach K and the team they would indeed say they regressed over the season and that their team chemistry was not what it should be.

I doubt it, but since I haven't asked them and don't intend to, I can't say for certain.


Your opinion would be different, no problem

Agreed.

[Duke76]

Guess we will just have to wait and see if any of them publicly address further their disappointment, if any to aspects of the season, the reasons why and ways they might improve.

[Billy Dat]

Here are some of the more interesting quotes from the Herald-Sun:
http://www.herald-sun.com/view/full_story/17922107/article-Out-of-sync-Blue-Devils-end-promising-season-with-a-thud?

Sophomore guard Tyler Thornton said Lehigh simply outplayed and outhustled the more heralded Blue Devils.
“In a game like that, it’s going to be possession-by-possession,” Thornton said. “If you don’t leave it all on the floor, what happened is what’s going to happen to you. That’s pretty much how you put it. They played hard for 40 minutes and we didn’t.”

In the post-game locker room, some Duke players mentioned that the team didn’t have the proper unity on offense.
“We needed to use each other on offense and not be so individual,” junior guard Andre Dawkins said.

Junior center Mason Plumlee regretted that the team didn’t handle things better, and paid a big price for not doing so.
“We should have addressed it,” Mason Plumlee said. “We should have gotten on one another. But for whatever reason, we couldn’t get in sync offensively in particular. It’s just not good when you aren’t working together and you aren’t in sync.”
------------------------
This is where you'd love to know who they each had in mind. Did Tyler include himself among those who didn't play hard? Who did Andre think was so "individual" on offense? Who did Mason think needed to be "gotten on". As Kedsy mentioned, it's pretty pointless to try and guess, and it could just be the ventings of 20 year old after a historically bad loss for the program. But, it smells of some discord. Then again, it came out years later that JJ Redick and Shelden Williams really had no relationship at Duke or after Duke. I don't remember any talk about it at the time. Do we think that lack of chemistry kept the 2006 team from advancing past the Sweet 16? Or do we think it had more to do with Tyrus Thomas, Big Baby and Tasmin Mitchell?

[Kfanarmy]

Some people need to open a dictionary and re-familiarize themselves with what the word "regress" means. In our first game we beat Belmont by 1 at home. Davidson was beating us at halftime. Unranked Washington scored 54 points against us in the 2nd half. In what way were those performances better than our winning handily in Tallahassee, or coming back from 20 down to beat NC State? You can argue our defense was substandard (for Duke) all year; you can argue we found it difficult to play our best for 40 minutes in any game this season. But nobody in this thread has made anywhere close to a convincing argument that we regressed over the last part of the season. And that's because it's simply not the case. I'll meet you halfway...the team didn't progress the way one might expect...individuals may have, clearly, but as a team they did not. In fact I think the individual progress, helped hide regression as a team. More and more individual effort it seemed as the season went on. Thats what my eyes told me. But if you believe the "team" was working as well on Friday as it was in January, so be it. Again, I think some individual performances were hiding some chemistry and lack of teamwork issues....but hey, you may know more than what the players seem to think.

[Des Esseintes]

I'll meet you halfway...the team didn't progress the way one might expect...individuals may have, clearly, but as a team they did not. In fact I think the individual progress, helped hide regression as a team. More and more individual effort it seemed as the season went on. Thats what my eyes told me. But if you believe the "team" was working as well on Friday as it was in January, so be it. Again, I think some individual performances were hiding some chemistry and lack of teamwork issues....but hey, you may know more than what the players seem to think.

A lot of people have been mentioning the players' postgame quotes and using them as evidence the team had chemistry problems. I guess I have a hard time seeing that. I mean, it's incredibly routine for a player to say after any loss that "the other team wanted it more" or "we needed to play harder, and we didn't." This is run-of-the-mill athletespeak. This is especially true after an upset. Part of it is the players don't want to make excuses for themselves, certainly not in public. They aren't going to say that missing Kelly was a massive blow to the offense. Instead, you'll hear Mason say that if he knew what was wrong they would have fixed it. Again, that doesn't mean he's speaking of a creeping cancer on the team; far more likely, he's frustrated with losing two games in a row to end the season.

[Kfanarmy]

A lot of people have been mentioning the players' postgame quotes and using them as evidence the team had chemistry problems. I guess I have a hard time seeing that. I mean, it's incredibly routine for a player to say after any loss that "the other team wanted it more" or "we needed to play harder, and we didn't." This is run-of-the-mill athletespeak. This is especially true after an upset. Part of it is the players don't want to make excuses for themselves, certainly not in public. They aren't going to say that missing Kelly was a massive blow to the offense. Instead, you'll hear Mason say that if he knew what was wrong they would have fixed it. Again, that doesn't mean he's speaking of a creeping cancer on the team; far more likely, he's frustrated with losing two games in a row to end the season. its not that often that Duke players talk of not playing as a team or of too much individual play.

[Duke76]

A lot of people have been mentioning the players' postgame quotes and using them as evidence the team had chemistry problems. I guess I have a hard time seeing that. I mean, it's incredibly routine for a player to say after any loss that "the other team wanted it more" or "we needed to play harder, and we didn't." This is run-of-the-mill athletespeak. This is especially true after an upset. Part of it is the players don't want to make excuses for themselves, certainly not in public. They aren't going to say that missing Kelly was a massive blow to the offense. Instead, you'll hear Mason say that if he knew what was wrong they would have fixed it. Again, that doesn't mean he's speaking of a creeping cancer on the team; far more likely, he's frustrated with losing two games in a row to end the season.

This is what they actually said, in that article after the game:

In the post-game locker room, some Duke players mentioned that the team didn’t have the proper unity on offense.

“We needed to use each other on offense and not be so individual,” junior guard Andre Dawkins said.

Junior center Mason Plumlee regretted that the team didn’t handle things better, and paid a big price for not doing so.

“We should have addressed it,” Mason Plumlee said. “We should have gotten on one another. But for whatever reason, we couldn’t get in sync offensively in particular. It’s just not good when you aren’t working together and you aren’t in sync.”

[duke09hms]

Watching the Dawkins-led Stanford play Illinois St. in the NIT 2nd round.

It's strange to see another team play Duke defense. Pesky harassing D that forces turnovers with bigs that hedge out on the perimeter AND get back in time. #25 KenPom D.

[throatybeard]

I don't know about "regression", but for me, the most perplexing was the performances in Cameron... win or lose :confused:

We lost three games. Two were basically one-possession deals. Yes, UNC, a more talented team, hurt us powerfully two weeks ago. But it's not like 1995, where we went 8-6 at home. 8-0 road and 5-3 at home with two of the three at the margin is not some sort of disaster.

[Hkhawkins]

I wouldn't say this was necessarily a regression. This is basically what has happened to us in nine of the last eleven seasons.

These are our seeds in the NCAA Tournament the last eleven years:

2002 1
2003 3
2004 1
2005 1
2006 1
2007 6
2008 2
2009 2
2010 1
2011 1
2012 2

In that time we have made it past the sweet sixteen exactly two times. That means that, based on our seeding, we have badly underperformed in eight of the last eleven tournaments.

It has been incredibly frustrating for the last decade plus to be knocked out of the tournament almost every year long before a handful of teams that we beat during the regular season were. What we have been doing for the last decade plus just does not win championships. We are year and and year out one of the most consistent and competitive programs in the NCAA all season long and through the ACC Tournament only to fall flat on our faces come NCAA Tournament time.

Almost every year it seems like we can vastly outplay top teams from November to February and then we collapse. My personal theory is that it has been years since we had a legitimate bruiser of a big man on the inside. For years we had guys like Boozer, Brand, and Sheldon and they allowed us to spread the court and shoot threes because they could single handedly battle for boards and get us second chances. In my opinion, Brian Zoubek's emergence as a dominant Center is what won us the title in 2010. I don't know, I just think that Coach K is always able to get his teams to overachieve during the regular season but come tournament time they just are not set up for success. You cannot argue that our performances over the last decade in the Tourney have been pretty pathetic compared to the way we have played in the regular season.

[gep]

I readily admit that I don't have the resources (knowledge) nor time to research this... but how does this compare to other "really top tier" programs... like unc, MiSt, UK, KU, SU, ucon. Are we just expecting too much? At least, I know unc and ucon have been in the NIT during that time frame:cool:

Yeah, you can't be bounced from the NCAAT in the 1st or 2nd round if you're not even in it. You rather not be in the NCAAT, or be in the NCAAT and "under-perform" by not reaching your seed? For me, I think I still think getting into the NCAAT is better... FWIW

[Des Esseintes]

I wouldn't say this was necessarily a regression. This is basically what has happened to us in nine of the last eleven seasons.

These are our seeds in the NCAA Tournament the last eleven years:

2002 1
2003 3
2004 1
2005 1
2006 1
2007 6
2008 2
2009 2
2010 1
2011 1
2012 2

In that time we have made it past the sweet sixteen exactly two times. That means that, based on our seeding, we have badly underperformed in eight of the last eleven tournaments.

It has been incredibly frustrating for the last decade plus to be knocked out of the tournament almost every year long before a handful of teams that we beat during the regular season were. What we have been doing for the last decade plus just does not win championships. We are year and and year out one of the most consistent and competitive programs in the NCAA all season long and through the ACC Tournament only to fall flat on our faces come NCAA Tournament time.

Almost every year it seems like we can vastly outplay top teams from November to February and then we collapse. My personal theory is that it has been years since we had a legitimate bruiser of a big man on the inside. For years we had guys like Boozer, Brand, and Sheldon and they allowed us to spread the court and shoot threes because they could single handedly battle for boards and get us second chances. In my opinion, Brian Zoubek's emergence as a dominant Center is what won us the title in 2010. I don't know, I just think that Coach K is always able to get his teams to overachieve during the regular season but come tournament time they just are not set up for success. You cannot argue that our performances over the last decade in the Tourney have been pretty pathetic compared to the way we have played in the regular season.

I don't know why you would pick 11 years as your term except to cherrypick the data to make it look as bad as possible. Because if you extend it one more year, we're going to three Final Fours in 12 years and winning two titles. No one else in college basketball has been better over that period. Carolina, UCONN, and Florida have also won two championships, but Carolina has completely missed the tournament twice in that time, Connecticut has missed it at least once, and Florida has not really been a contender aside from its back-to-back glory. No other program has been to more than three Final Fours. (I think. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) So, again, if literally no one else has been better over the past dozen years, what do we have to complain about?

And as for the team not "living up" to its seeding, maybe Duke is overachieving in the regular season. That would be bad why? Regular season overachieving has delivered us multiple titles and multiple Final Fours, a tournament performance bettered by no one in college basketball. The truth is that the tournament is incredibly randomized, incredibly hard to advance in, and the best teams lose all the time. Ask Bill Self. Be glad we have all those one seeds. Someday they'll run out, and we will be very, very wistful.

[gep]

And as for the team not "living up" to its seeding, maybe Duke is overachieving in the regular season. That would be bad why? Regular season overachieving has delivered us multiple titles and multiple Final Fours, a tournament performance bettered by no one in college basketball. The truth is that the tournament is incredibly randomized, incredibly hard to advance in, and the best teams lose all the time. Ask Bill Self. Be glad we have all those one seeds. Someday they'll run out, and we will be very, very wistful.

I don't know if the Duke 2010 NC team "overachieved" in the regular season... but so what... gives Duke a better seed :cool: But, boy, did the "overachieve" in the NCAAT. One of my fondest memories, esepcially for Zoubs, Jon, and Lance. GO DUKE!!!!

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Finally, as far as I saw, the team never "lost" its team chemistry. We merely lost a couple of games while playing without one of our top players.

That's quite an understatement. One of those games that we "merely lost" was in the NCAA tourney to a far less talented 15 seed team (which then lost to a 10 seed), possibly the most shocking & disappointing loss in the Coach K era at Duke.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I think there's an important element missing from this conversation. I'm not sure this is really about 'regression' or 'lack of progress' across the season or whatever you want to call it. I'm not even sure it's about 'chemistry' per se. What I saw (what many of us saw) missing from the start was consistency of leadership. I'm not talking about coaching. I'm talking about what appears to be a lack of emergence of a true leader(s) amongst the players themselves. All we can really do is speculate since none of us were there... but there wasn't a Kyle, a Nolan, a Jon carrying forward the tradition of Duke basketball excellence and leading by example for the younger and less experienced players. Who amongst the players was leading on the floor, during practices, in the weight room, etc. To me the most telling comment was Mason's comment about having not gotten in each others' grills more. I sense the players kept looking to each other for the emergence of a true leader and it never really happened. Maybe for brief moments but never with any consistency for this team. Certain guys likely tried to lead - TT with his energy, AR on the court, who knows. Anyway, I suspect in the end we came up short because there was no one among the players waking up every day and owning the situation, showing the rest how to be champions. And I think this manifested itself as what we saw on the floor during games... constant energy letdowns, miscommunication, standing around, etc.

Still, I have to remind myself, as we all should, that if a 27-7 record is any kind of 'regression' then we are lucky as heck.

[Kedsy]

It has been incredibly frustrating for the last decade plus to be knocked out of the tournament almost every year long before a handful of teams that we beat during the regular season were.

Teams in multiple final fours since 2000:



Team Final Fours Championships
----- ---------- --------------
Mich St. 5 1
UNC 4 2
Duke 3 2
Florida 3 2
UConn 3 2
Kansas 3 1
UCLA 3 0
Butler 2 0


I guess one person's "frustrating" is another person's "pretty darn good."

[Des Esseintes]

Teams in multiple final fours since 2000:



Team Final Fours Championships
----- ---------- --------------
Mich St. 5 1
UNC 4 2
Duke 3 2
Florida 3 2
UConn 3 2
Kansas 3 1
UCLA 3 0
Butler 2 0


I guess one person's "frustrating" is another person's "pretty darn good."

Thanks for this table. I'd (stupidly) forgotten in my earlier post about Michigan State. They've been to 4 Final Fours since 2001, more than us, though they have no titles over that span.

[Kedsy]

Thanks for this table. I'd (stupidly) forgotten in my earlier post about Michigan State. They're been to 4 Final Fours since 2001, more than us, though they have no titles over that span.

Yes, if you go from 2001, Michigan State is 4 and 0; and UNC is 3 and 2, same as us. But I thought doing that would be just as much cherry picking as the guy who started in 2002. Starting at the turn of the century seemed more "natural," although of course it's arbitrary as well.

If you go back to 1999, we're 4 and 2 (same as UNC), but Michigan State goes to 6 and 1, UConn goes to 4 and 3, and Ohio State (2 and 0) appears in the table. If you go back a few more years, Kentucky starts to move up the table and UNC's resume beefs up. A few more years, and Duke dominates.

Having said all that, the original guy who said we've underperformed to our seed since 2002 is right, of course. But we WAY overperformed to our seed in the late 80s and early 90s. Perhaps it's just a matter of it all evening out?

[freshmanjs]

Yes, if you go from 2001, Michigan State is 4 and 0; and UNC is 3 and 2, same as us. But I thought doing that would be just as much cherry picking as the guy who started in 2002. Starting at the turn of the century seemed more "natural," although of course it's arbitrary as well.

If you go back to 1999, we're 4 and 2 (same as UNC), but Michigan State goes to 6 and 1, UConn goes to 4 and 3, and Ohio State (2 and 0) appears in the table. If you go back a few more years, Kentucky starts to move up the table and UNC's resume beefs up. A few more years, and Duke dominates.

Having said all that, the original guy who said we've underperformed to our seed since 2002 is right, of course. But we WAY overperformed to our seed in the late 80s and early 90s. Perhaps it's just a matter of it all evening out?

I think the way to look at underperforming vs. our seed is to look at how the seeds typically do (not whether we lost to a lower seeded team). #1 seeds make the final four about 45% of the time, from the data I could find.

We have made it to the final four 2 out of 6 times as a #1 seed in the cherry picked time period since 2002. If you go back one more year to include 2001, we'd be 3 out of 7, which is pretty much right on target. add another year, 2000 and we're 3 of 8. one more (1999) and we are 4 of 9, which is almost exactly equal to typical #1 seed performance. I think all we're seeing is the effects of very small sample size on the numbers rather than any structural underperformance by Duke.

[Des Esseintes]

Yes, if you go from 2001, Michigan State is 4 and 0; and UNC is 3 and 2, same as us. But I thought doing that would be just as much cherry picking as the guy who started in 2002. Starting at the turn of the century seemed more "natural," although of course it's arbitrary as well.

If you go back to 1999, we're 4 and 2 (same as UNC), but Michigan State goes to 6 and 1, UConn goes to 4 and 3, and Ohio State (2 and 0) appears in the table. If you go back a few more years, Kentucky starts to move up the table and UNC's resume beefs up. A few more years, and Duke dominates.

Having said all that, the original guy who said we've underperformed to our seed since 2002 is right, of course. But we WAY overperformed to our seed in the late 80s and early 90s. Perhaps it's just a matter of it all evening out?

That late 80s, early 90s run is just such a massive statistical anomaly, and yeah, in the tournament casino things regress(!) to the mean over time. You can see it in the NFL, where Brady had a ridiculous playoff record to start his career. It remains excellent today, but you hear people talk about the magic having left him because the Patriots have suffered some upset losses. He remains the same dude, one of the best ever to play and plenty clutch. In fact, he's probably a better quarterback now than during any of his title seasons. Certainly he's more prolific. As the Romans said, Jupiter keeps a pot of good luck on one side of his door and a pot of bad luck on the other. The fortunate people of the world receive dust from both pots.

[Jderf]

This is basically what has happened to us in nine of the last eleven seasons.
(...)
That means that, based on our seeding, we have badly underperformed in eight of the last eleven tournaments.
(...)
We are year and and year out one of the most consistent and competitive programs in the NCAA all season long and through the ACC Tournament only to fall flat on our faces come NCAA Tournament time.
(...)
You cannot argue that our performances over the last decade in the Tourney have not been pretty pathetic compared to the way we have played in the regular season.

That won't stop us from trying. "Pathetic" seems an incredibly harsh categorization of our post-season play, especially when you consider that over the same period, out of all 300+ NCAA teams, exactly one coach has outperformed Coach K. And not by all that much. Unfortuantely, that one coach happens to work at a University 8 miles down the road, making it all-the-more salient, but still -- no one else is on the same level as these two.


NCAA Tournament Records since the start of the millenium, including this year

Roy Williams: 37-8, 2 championships, one miss. (26-5 at Carolina)

Coach K: 29-10, 2 championships, no misses.

Calhoun: 25-7, 2 championships, three misses.
Billy Donovan: 20-7, two championships, two misses.
Izzo: 24-11, no championships, no misses. (30-11 with a championship, if you go back one more season)
Bill Self: 26-10, one championship, no misses.
Boeheim: 16-7, one championship, three misses.
Calipari: 23-8, no championships, three misses.


If Coach K's (and Duke's) post-season performance over this period has been pathetic, then this must just be a pathetic sport, because only one other coach can boast a better record over that period. And even in that span, Roy had at least one year (NIT) that was much, much worse than the any of the worst years Coach K put forward.

The craziest thing is, this is how the numbers look during the period that we have cherrypicked to make Coach K look bad. If we stretch our period back to the early 90s or over K's entire career, the rest of the pack just can't keep up.


Having said all that, the original guy who said we've underperformed to our seed since 2002 is right, of course. But we WAY overperformed to our seed in the late 80s and early 90s. Perhaps it's just a matter of it all evening out?

Another possibility is that Duke is traditionally seeded such that it is virtually impossible not to underperform our seeding. Most of the highest seeds get "upset" at some point, simply because most of the teams they play have a lower seed than they do.

Think about it. Over the period in question, Duke's tournament seeds have been 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, and 1. So if you actually, seriously, legitimately believe that a team should perform relative to its seed -- that the seed line is what ultimately determines how far a team should go in the tournament -- then over this span you believe that Duke's post-season record should at least be this: Final Four, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet Sixteen, Final Four, Final Four, Final Four, Round of 32, Elite Eight, Elite Eight, Final Four, Final Four, and an Elite Eight. So we should expect no more than one exit before the Sweet Sixteen, and 8 Final Fours. Anything short of that is pathetic?

Man... I said this in a post last week, but I'll say it again: Glad you guys aren't my boss.

[Kedsy]

NCAA Tournament Records since the start of the millenium, including this year

Izzo: 24-11, no championships, no misses. (30-11 with a championship, if you go back one more season)

Izzo won in 2000. Are you not counting that as "since the start of the millennium"?


Man... I said this in a post last week, but I'll say it again: Glad you guys aren't my boss.

Well, to be fair, only one guy used the word "pathetic." Other than that, I completely agree with you.

[Jderf]

Tha So if you actually, seriously, legitimately believe that a team should perform relative to its seed -- that the seed line is what ultimately determines how far a team should go in the tournament -- then over this span you believe that Duke's post-season record should at least be this: Final Four, Final Four, Final Four, Sweet Sixteen, Final Four, Final Four, Final Four, Round of 32, Elite Eight, Elite Eight, Final Four, Final Four, and an Elite Eight. So we should expect no more than one exit before the Sweet Sixteen, and 8 Final Fours. Anything short of that is pathetic?

The funniest thing is, even if K had posted this record -- which in this day and age would be utterly, astonishingly impossible -- most fans would probably be disappointed. I can hear the hypothetical wailing already: "Why can't K win the Big One anymore?" "Sure, he stacks up lots of tournament wins, but anyone can do that." "We need a coach that can take us all the way to the Promised Land, not ditch us at Mt. Nebo!"

Ridiculous.

[Jderf]

Izzo won in 2000. Are you not counting that as "since the start of the millennium"?

Well, to be fair, only one guy used the word "pathetic." Other than that, I completely agree with you.

Of course, you did not use the word pathetic. That was someone else. Sorry if I implied otherwise, because I think we are firmly in the same camp on this one. I mostly used the tag of "pathetic" as a jumping point for my post because it was so laughably off-base.

And you are right that Izzo's championship was technically in this millenium, but I was only trying to track the seasons that started since 2000. Either way it is arbitrary, and our point holds no matter what years we choose, so I don't think it is all that important.

[throatybeard]

That late 80s, early 90s run is just such a massive statistical anomaly, and yeah, in the tournament casino things regress(!) to the mean over time. You can see it in the NFL, where Brady had a ridiculous playoff record to start his career. It remains excellent today, but you hear people talk about the magic having left him because the Patriots have suffered some upset losses. He remains the same dude, one of the best ever to play and plenty clutch. In fact, he's probably a better quarterback now than during any of his title seasons. Certainly he's more prolific. As the Romans said, Jupiter keeps a pot of good luck on one side of his door and a pot of bad luck on the other. The fortunate people of the world receive dust from both pots.

"There are two urns that stand on the door-sill of Zeus. They are unlike
for the gifts they bestow: an urn of evils, and urn of blessings.
If Zeus who delights in thunder mingles these and bestows them
on man, he shifts, and moves now in evil, again in good fortune.
But when Zeus bestows from the urn of sorrows, he makes a failure
of man, and the evil hunger drives him over the shining
earth, and he wanders respected neither of gods nor of mortals."
--Iliad XXIV.527-33 (trans. Lattimore)

[Wander]

So, our "regression" appears to me to be an illusion created by the fact that we didn't progress as much as many of us expected.

I think this is sort of right. More to the point, I don't think we regressed in an absolute sense, but we regressed relative to the other 344 teams in Division 1. More a case of overachieving at the beginning of the year compared to underachieving at the end of it.



Another possibility is that Duke is traditionally seeded such that it is virtually impossible not to underperform our seeding. Most of the highest seeds get "upset" at some point, simply because most of the teams they play have a lower seed than they do.


Actually, even when you correct for this factor, Duke has still underperformed its seeding since 2002.

[Jderf]

Actually, even when you correct for this factor, Duke has still underperformed its seeding since 2002.

Hmm. You've sparked my curiosity. In what way do you "correct for this factor?"

I would not be surprised to see a solid analysis showing, by one meaure or another, that we have underperformed in some sense of the term. But I strongly doubt that such underperformance could by qualified as "pathetic." (Still caught up on that...)

[Wander]

Hmm. You've sparked my curiosity. In what way do you "correct for this factor?"

Basically, instead of assuming that a 1 seed "should" make the Final Four (which I agree with you is silly), you just look at how 1 seeds have actually done over the time period in question. You mentioned our seeds have been 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, and 1. So, if 1 seeds on average win W games in the tournament, 2 seeds on average win X games in the tournament, 3 seeds on average win Y games in the tournament, and 6 seeds on average win Z games, then the number of games you expect Duke to have won in this time period is 8W + 3X + Y + Z. I did this once a long time ago while bored. I don't remember how the numbers worked out*, but I remember finding out that Duke won less games than expected. I'd still argue we're the best program in the country over that time period based on getting those seeds in the first place, having won the most tournament games in an absolute sense in that time period**, and having zero truly bad years, but I don't think there's any question we've underperformed relative to seeding.

*I do remember that the number of games a 1 seed wins on average is very close to 3, i.e. making the Elite 8.
**Though I think Michigan State or Kansas may pass us if they make the Final Four

[hq2]

For years we had guys like Boozer, Brand, and Sheldon and they allowed us to spread the court and shoot threes because they could single handedly battle for boards and get us second chances.

Yes, but if you examine the years 1998-2006 when one of the above was there, Duke made the final four in only three of those years.
That's a little better than recently, but it's not the only reason why they haven't done that well lately.

Also, people do forget that the '88-'94 run was also an anomaly, with matchups or plays that favored Duke in the regional finals.

In '88 they came up against an incredibly stupid coaching job by John Chaney, who let Mark Macon shoot for 6 for 27 when both Ramon
Rivas and Tim Perry (NBA player) could score under the basket. In '89, they beat a Georgetown team with Dikembe and Alonzo that couldn't
throw the ball in the ocean; in '90, they got in on Laettner's first miracle shot, and in '92 on his second. So basically, assuming that in '86
'91 and '94 there was no doubt about making the final four, they actually should have gone maybe four or five times, but not seven.
So, over time, the breaks have evened out a bit.