PDA

View Full Version : Recruiting ranking, experience, and playing time at Duke



Kedsy
06-02-2014, 11:29 AM
Every year, debate rages here at DBR over who will find playing time at Duke. The high level of talent we enjoy on an annual basis combined with Coach K's propensity for a short rotation makes it natural message board fodder. Those who believe the Michael Gbinijes of the world will set college basketball on fire point to players like Jon Scheyer (#28 in the RSCI in 2006), who started and played big minutes as a freshman. Those who feel the hotshot newcomers will have to wait their turn point to players like Michael Gbinije himself, who despite being a highly regarded recruit played just 3.3 mpg as a freshman and only 0.9 mpg once ACC play began.

So who's right? Is there even an answer to this question? I say there is, that we can with reasonable accuracy predict who will be in Duke's rotation based on a relatively simple formula.

First, here are my assumptions:

(1) Coach K generally plays a 7-man rotation, consisting of four perimeter players and three bigs (C/PF). Thus, he will play the "best" four perimeter players and the "best" three bigs.

(2) Who is "best" is determined by a blend of talent and experience. While Coach K clearly does not make decisions based on recruiting rankings, such rankings are the best evaluation of "talent" that we fans possess.

(3) Experience is based on how many years a player has been in college, including redshirt years since a player does mature both physically and basketball-wise during a redshirt year.

(4) Coach K will occasionally go to an 8-man rotation if we have five outstanding perimeter options. It is also possible to see an 8-man rotation if two of the top three interior options more or less can only play center (since the RSCI was invented in 1998, this has only happened once, in 2010, but it looks like it may happen again next season, so I'm mentioning it here).

(5) The recruiting rankings aren't perfect. It would be silly to argue that the #21 recruit is significantly better than the #23 recruit. But we have to group them somehow, and on a quantum level we can make some broad statements, e.g., in general a top 10 recruit is a better player than a guy rated 11 to 20 (even while admitting that a #10 recruit may or may not be better than a #11 recruit, we have to draw lines somewhere).

(6) It's easier to predict who will be in the rotation as opposed to who will start or the exact order of who will get the most-to-least minutes (e.g., who will gain the 3rd-most minutes vs. the 6th-most minutes). Because the "best" players will probably make the rotation, but who starts, etc., is partially governed by ability to blend with teammates' skillsets, factors like conditioning, and actual on-court performance, none of which is necessarily susceptible to prediction without actually seeing practice, etc. In other words, we should be able to predict with reasonable accuracy whether Grayson Allen will get rotation minutes, but it will be almost impossible to say with any certainty whether Justise Winslow starts or is the 6th or 7th man (at least until Coach K speaks on the subject, and maybe not even then).


OK, here's the formula:

Freshmen players are assigned a number from 1 to 4 (lower being better), based on their RSCI recruting ranking, as follows:

1 to 10: 1
11 to 20: 2
21 to 35: 3
36+: 4

Non-freshmen players take their freshman number and subtract half a point (0.5) for each year they've been in college. Redshirt years count as a year in college, although if the player is away from the team (like Andre Dawkins in 2013), this could be debatable. A redshirt year due to a transfer counts an extra half point, because if the player hadn't exceeded the expectations of his recruiting ranking, Coach K probably wouldn't have accepted him as a transfer.

So, for example, Amile Jefferson was #21 in the RSCI in his senior year of high school (2012), so he started as a 3.0. In 2014-15, his junior year of college, he'll be a 2.0, because two half points will be deducted for his two years spent in college.

Assuming a 7-man rotation, the theory is that the seven guys who play the most minutes will be the perimeter players with the four lowest numbers and the interior players with the three lowest numbers. If we have five perimeter guys with numbers of 2.5 or lower, the rotation should be 8 guys (5 perimeter, 3 interior). This has happened four times in the past 15 years (2008, 2009, 2011, 2014).

In cases of ties, I generally go with the player who has more experience. If two players from the same class are tied for the last spot in the rotation, it's impossible to predict in advance which will be chosen, but if history is our guide, whoever wins the competition will play rotation minutes and the other won't play very much.



Let's see how this theory has worked in the past, going back to the 1999-2000 season:

1999-2000:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (1.0), Nate James* (1.5), Chris Carrawell* (2.5), Mike Dunleavy (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Shane Battier* (0.0), Carlos Boozer (1.0), Casey Sanders (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Andre Buckner** (5.0)
Other interior players: Matt Christensen* (3.5), Nick Horvath (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: J Williams (1157 minutes for season), N James (970), C Carrawell (1212), M Dunleavy (724)
Actual interior rotation: S Battier (1206), C Boozer (807), M Christensen (295)

Others: N Horvath (269), C Sanders (144), A Buckner (68)

* - since RSCI didn't exist before the 1998 high school seniors, I had to estimate Battier, Carrawell, James, and Christensen
** - since Andre Buckner was basically a walk-on with a scholarship, I counted him as a "5," rather than a "4."

OK, in the first year we look at, the formula failed for the 8th man, as both Matt Christensen and Nick Horvath beat out Casey Sanders. It's arguable, since Christensen didn't even play as much as 10 mpg, that we only had a 6-man rotation, with the six players the formula predicted, but instead I'm going to say this season gives us an exception to the rule.


2000-01:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (0.5), Nate James* (1.0), Chris Duhon (1.0), Mike Dunleavy (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Shane Battier* (-0.5), Carlos Boozer (0.5), Casey Sanders (1.5)

Other perimeter players: Andre Buckner** (4.5)
Other interior players: Matt Christensen* (3.0), Reggie Love (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (1246 minutes for season), Nate James (1085), Chris Duhon (1085), Mike Dunleavy (1137)
Actual interior rotation: Shane Battier (1363), Carlos Boozer (820), Casey Sanders (373)

Others: Matt Christensen (253), Reggie Love (130), Andre Buckner (83)

Exactly as predicted


2001-02:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (0.0), Chris Duhon (0.5), Dahntay Jones (2.0), Daniel Ewing (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Carlos Boozer (0.0), Casey Sanders (1.0), Mike Dunleavy (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Andre Buckner** (4.0)
Other interior players: Matt Christensen* (2.5), Nick Horvath (3.0), Reggie Love (3.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (1175), Chris Duhon (1229), Dahntay Jones (1012), Daniel Ewing (636)
Actual interior rotation: Carlos Boozer (993), Mike Dunleavy (1134), Nick Horvath (247)

Others: Casey Sanders (242), Matt Christensen (133), Reggie Love (59)

Again Casey Sanders got beat out for 7th man, although again, the guy who beat him out played fewer than 10 mpg, and this time if Casey had received six (6) more minutes of playing time the rotation would have been properly predicted. Still, he didn't get six more minutes, so here's another exception.


2002-03:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Chris Duhon (0.0), JJ Redick (2.0), Daniel Ewing (2.5), Sean Dockery (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Casey Sanders (0.5), Shelden Williams (1.0), Dahntay Jones (1.5)

Other perimeter players: Andre Buckner (3.5), Lee Melchionni (4.0)
Other interior players: Shavlik Randolph (2.0), Nick Horvath (3.0), Michael Thompson (3.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: Chris Duhon (1188), JJ Redick (1013), Daniel Ewing (920), Sean Dockery (345)
Actual interior rotation: Casey Sanders (589), Shelden Williams (633), Dahntay Jones (1014)

Others: Nick Horvath (405), Shavlik Randolph (351), Lee Melchionni (71), Mike Thompson (59), Andre Buckner (37)

It's not entirely clear whether Dahntay Jones was a perimeter or an interior player in 2002-03. However, since none of the obvious big men on the team earned more than 633 minutes, I think we'll have to call Dahntay an interior player for rotation purposes.

That said, this was a very odd year for a Coach K Duke team, in which 9 players earned more than 10 mpg for the season. Note that despite nine players averaging more than 10 mpg, we didn't actually have a 9-man rotation. We played 23 games that season after January 1 in which the score was within 20 points; nine guys got 10 or more minutes in only one of those games and eight guys got 10 or more minutes in only two other games. In three games only six guys played 10 or minutes, and in the remaining 17 games we had seven guys playing 10 or more minutes. So really, due to Dahntay's ability to play both the perimeter and interior, what really happened was Coach K tried lots of different 7-man combinations, and so it's hard to say which of Dockery or Randolph or Horvath was the 7th man.


2003-04:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Chris Duhon (-0.5), JJ Redick (1.5), Daniel Ewing (2.0), Sean Dockery (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Shelden Williams (0.5), Luol Deng (1.0), Shavlik Randolph (1.5)

Other perimeter players: Lee Melchionni (3.5)
Other interior players: Nick Horvath (2.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Chris Duhon (1311), JJ Redick (1152), Daniel Ewing (1131), Sean Dockery (571)
Actual interior rotation: Shelden Williams (963), Luol Deng (1149), Shavlik Randolph (709)

Others: Nick Horvath (218), Lee Melchionni (145)

Exactly as predicted.


2004-05:

Predicted perimeter rotation: JJ Redick (1.0), Daniel Ewing (1.5), Sean Dockery (2.0), DeMarcus Nelson (2.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Shelden Williams (0.0), Shavlik Randolph (1.0), Lee Melchionni (3.0)

Other perimeter players: none
Other interior players: Reggie Love (3.0???), Dave McClure (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: JJ Redick (1231), Daniel Ewing (1138), Sean Dockery (720), DeMarcus Nelson (634)
Actual interior rotation: Shelden Williams (1109), Shavlik Randolph (548), Lee Melchionni (716)

Others: Reggie Love (215), Dave McClure (184)

Reggie Love hadn't played organized basketball in three years, so I wasn't sure how to grade him. He wasn't really recruited for basketball anyway, so since they were tied I wouldn't have expected him to beat out a junior Melchionni.


2005-06:

Predicted perimeter rotation: JJ Redick (0.5), Sean Dockery (1.5), DeMarcus Nelson (1.5), Greg Paulus (2.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Shelden Williams (-0.5), Josh McRoberts (1.0), Lee Melchionni (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Martynas Pocius (4.0)
Other interior players: Eric Boateng (4.0), Jamal Boykin (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: JJ Redick (1336), Sean Dockery (1069), DeMarcus Nelson (517), Greg Paulus (1163)
Actual interior rotation: Shelden Williams (1198), Josh McRoberts (883), Lee Melchionni (717)

Others: Martynas Pocius (172), Eric Boateng (50), Jamal Boykin (70)

Exactly as predicted, despite three intriguing freshmen (rated #39, #53, and #60). Here's an example of an upperclassman (Lee Melchionni) beating out three freshmen who had higher recruiting rankings than he did, due to his experience. If we'd had a 6'7 freshman rated #18 (and thus earning a 2.0), such a player very well could have beaten out Lee for the 3rd big slot, but guys with a 4.0 score weren't able to do it.


2006-07:

Predicted perimeter rotation: DeMarcus Nelson (1.0), Gerald Henderson (1.0), Greg Paulus (1.5), Jon Scheyer (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Josh McRoberts (0.5), Lance Thomas (2.0), Dave McClure (3.0)

Other perimeter players: Marty Pocius (3.5)
Other interior players: Brian Zoubek (3.0, less experience than Dave McClure)

Actual perimeter rotation: DeMarcus Nelson (1052), Gerald Henderson (618), Greg Paulus (1068), Jon Scheyer (1112)
Actual interior rotation: Josh McRoberts (1164), Lance Thomas (463), Dave McClure (716)

Others: Brian Zoubek (235), Marty Pocius (193)

Exactly as predicted. Jon Scheyer's #28 RSCI rank probably wouldn't have gotten him a rotation spot in most years, but in 2006-07, his 3.0 was the 4th best perimeter score. Brian Zoubek had a solid #25 RSCI rank, but it only earned him a tie with Dave McClure (in his 3rd year in the program) and McClure had more experience.


2007-08:

Predicted perimeter rotation: DeMarcus Nelson (0.5), Gerald Henderson (0.5), Greg Paulus (1.0), Nolan Smith (2.0), Jon Scheyer (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Kyle Singler (1.0), Lance Thomas (1.5), Dave McClure (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Taylor King (3.0)
Other interior players: Brian Zoubek (2.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: DeMarcus Nelson (1051), Gerald Henderson (891), Greg Paulus (943), Nolan Smith (500), Jon Scheyer (963)
Actual interior rotation: Kyle Singler (972), Lance Thomas (593), Dave McClure (268)

Others: Taylor King (330), Brian Zoubek (262)

Exactly as predicted. This was a year that we had five outstanding (2.5 or better) perimeter options, so it's one of the few years we played an 8-man rotation. Again, McClure and Zoubek were tied (and McClure still had more experience), but the gap between them narrowed.


2008-09:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Gerald Henderson (0.0), Greg Paulus (0.5), Nolan Smith (1.5), Jon Scheyer (2.0), Elliot Williams (2.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Kyle Singler (0.5), Lance Thomas (1.0), Dave McClure (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Marty Pocius (2.5)
Other interior players: Brian Zoubek (2.0), Miles Plumlee (4.0), Olek Czyz (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: Gerald Henderson (1098), Greg Paulus (578), Nolan Smith (734), Jon Scheyer (1214), Elliot Williams (563)
Actual interior rotation: Kyle Singler (1193), Lance Thomas (689), Dave McClure (568)

Others: Brian Zoubek (427), Miles Plumlee (165), Marty Pocius (135), Olek Czyz (51)

As predicted. Again, we had five outstanding perimeter options, although in reality we never had an 8-man rotation (rather Elliot Williams, 5th on the perimeter totem pole, displaced Greg Paulus for the fourth perimeter slot, although for the season Paulus still had more minutes). Zoubek and McClure were still tied and once again experience prevailed, though Zoubek's minutes continued on the way up. Marty Pocius was down to a 2.5, but that still made him the sixth perimeter option.


2009-10:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Kyle Singler (0.0), Nolan Smith (1.0), Jon Scheyer (1.5), Andre Dawkins (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Lance Thomas (0.5), Brian Zoubek (1.5), Mason Plumlee (2.0) OR Ryan Kelly (2.0) (but not both)

Other perimeter players: none
Other interior players: Miles Plumlee (3.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Kyle Singler (1436), Nolan Smith (1349), Jon Scheyer (1470), Andre Dawkins (477)
Actual interior rotation: Lance Thomas (1013), Brian Zoubek (746), Miles Plumlee (654)

Others: Mason Plumlee (480), Ryan Kelly (227)

You could argue that we played a 4-big rotation this season (8-man overall), with Mason Plumlee beating Ryan Kelly out of the tie for the 4th big spot, but that doesn't change the fact that Miles Plumlee leapfrogged both freshmen for the 7th spot, thus this season contains an exception to the rule. That said, I suspect the reason for this exception is Mason Plumlee's early season broken hand. It cost him the first six games of the season, and then he had to play catchup as a freshman. Considering how the staff was touting him in the pre-season, my guess is had he not gotten injured he would have won the third spot in the big rotation and this season would have gone exactly as predicted.


2010-11:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Kyle Singler (-0.5), Nolan Smith (0.5), Kyrie Irving (1.0), Andre Dawkins (2.5), Seth Curry (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (1.5), Ryan Kelly (1.5), Miles Plumlee (3.0)

Other perimeter players: Tyler Thornton (4.0)
Other interior players: Josh Hairston (3.0, less experience than Miles Plumlee)

Actual perimeter rotation: Kyle Singler (1286), Nolan Smith (1259), Kyrie Irving*** (303), Andre Dawkins (778), Seth Curry (924)
Actual interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (949), Ryan Kelly (743), Miles Plumlee (628)

Others: Tyler Thornton (337), Josh Hairston (165)

*** Kyrie obviously was a big part of the rotation while healthy.

Another season skewed by an injury. Again we see five outstanding perimeter options and a five man (counting Kyrie) perimeter rotation. So this season went as predicted as possible considering Kyrie's injury.


2011-12:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Austin Rivers (1.0), Seth Curry (2.0), Andre Dawkins (2.0), Quinn Cook (3.0) OR Michael Gbinije (3.0) (but not both)
Predicted interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (1.0), Ryan Kelly (1.0), Miles Plumlee (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Tyler Thornton (3.5)
Other interior players: Josh Hairston (2.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Austin Rivers (1129), Seth Curry (1026), Andre Dawkins (760), Tyler Thornton (717)
Actual interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (964), Ryan Kelly (803), Miles Plumlee (697)

Others: Quinn Cook (387), Josh Hairston (246), Michael Gbinije (111)

Gbinije and Cook were tied and Cook beat Silent G out, and for awhile we played an 8-man (5-perimeter) rotation, despite Quinn's number being not quite as good as we usually needed for that. But in the end, Tyler Thornton leapfrogged them both and thus this season includes an exception. Again Miles's experience advantage broke his tie with Josh.


2012-13:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Seth Curry (1.5), Rasheed Sulaimon (2.0), Quinn Cook (2.5), Tyler Thornton (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (0.5), Ryan Kelly (0.5), Josh Hairston (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Alex Murphy (3.5)
Other interior players: Amile Jefferson (3.0), Marshall Plumlee (3.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Seth Curry (1130), Rasheed Sulaimon (1050), Quinn Cook (1208), Tyler Thornton (791)
Actual interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (1248), Ryan Kelly (664), Josh Hairston (444)

Others: Amile Jefferson (405), Alex Murphy (194), Marshall Plumlee (50)

Exactly as predicted. Ryan Kelly's injury thrust the next guy in the pecking order (Amile) into the rotation for 13 games, which is why his minutes almost reached Josh's. Despite DBR clamoring for Alex and Marshall to get minutes, they clearly were the lowest rated.


2013-14:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Rasheed Sulaimon (1.5), Rodney Hood (1.5), Andre Dawkins (1.5), Quinn Cook (2.0), Tyler Thornton (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Jabari Parker (1.0), Josh Hairston (1.5), Amile Jefferson (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Matt Jones (3.0), Semi Ojeleye (3.0)
Other interior players: Marshall Plumlee (3.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: Rasheed Sulaimon (871), Rodney Hood (1150), Andre Dawkins (453), Quinn Cook (1042), Tyler Thornton (745)
Actual interior rotation: Jabari Parker (1073), Josh Hairston (284), Amile Jefferson (796)

Others: Marshall Plumlee (254), Matt Jones (235), Semi Ojeleye (80)

As predicted. I didn't move Andre up a half point for the year he spent away from the program, but he was still among five outstanding perimeter options and Coach K once again played all five in the rotation. Marshall almost but didn't quite catch Josh for the 8th most minutes. Despite DBR clamoring for Semi, Matt, and Alex (also 3.0) they were all tied for 7th among perimeter options and/or 4th among interior options.


Fifteen (15) seasons, 109 rotation spots, and only four (4) exceptions to the rule. And two of those four exceptions were due to Casey Sanders probably being overrated as a high school senior, while a third was likely due to injury. No system is perfect, but this one seems to cover most of the angles, explaining why some guys in the high 20s (e.g., Scheyer, Dunleavy, Ewing) played solid rotation minutes while others with similar or even better ratings (e.g., Gbinije, T King, Zoubek, Randolph, Kelly) didn't.



The new final RSCI (https://sites.google.com/site/rscihoops/home/2014-final) just came out, so we can apply this theory to our upcoming 2014 rotation. Looks like Jahlil Okafor retained his #1 ranking, Tyus Jones came in at #7, Justise Winslow at #13, and Grayson Allen at #24. So what does our theory predict for the 2014-15 season? Let's take a look:

2014-15:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Rasheed Sulaimon (1.0), Tyus Jones (1.0), Quinn Cook (1.5), Justise Winslow (2.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Jahlil Okafor (1.0), Amile Jefferson (2.0), Marshall Plumlee (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Matt Jones (2.5), Grayson Allen (3.0)
Other interior players: Semi Ojeleye (2.5, less experience than Marshall Plumlee)

If we apply the "five outstanding perimeter player" rule, then Matt Jones (2.5) would appear in the predicted perimeter rotation (or if Semi Ojeleye is considered a perimeter player, since he's also 2.5 with the same experience as Matt, then possibly he could beat Matt out for that spot).

The only reason I didn't include the fifth perimeter guy is the fact that Marshall and Jahlil are both "pure" centers who are unlikely to be on the court together for more than a few minutes (if at all). Since Amile isn't going to play 40 minutes, presumably either Justise or Semi will have to fill the positional need of backup PF and, depending on which one it is, we may see a quirk. If it's Justise, then Matt (or possibly Semi) can fill in as the fifth outstanding perimeter option in an 8-man rotation. I guess it's also possible that Semi beats Marshall out for the third big man spot (they both rated at 2.5 but Marshall has been at Duke a year longer), in which case Matt could be the fifth outstanding perimeter guy and Marshall could be outside the rotation, looking in.

But if we have four bigs in the rotation, and the fourth big is Semi, then the "five outstanding perimeter option" rule will probably have to be ignored (meaning Matt Jones will not make the rotation), because it's very unlikely Coach K would go to a 9-man rotation. That said, we had a similar situation in 2003, so we might have a season like that in which Coach K tries a lot of different 7- or 8-man rotations before finally settling on one of them.

In the end, if the theory holds then we should be fairly confident that Rasheed, Tyus, Quinn, Justise, Jahlil, Amile and probably Marshall will be in the rotation. But Grayson Allen, despite earning a very respectable #24 in the RSCI, is very unlikely to be. There is likely to be an 8th guy earning around 10 mpg, and the only real question is whether that 8th man will be Matt or Semi.

Unless Coach K decides to completely abandon the substitution pattern he's used for at least the past 15 years. And while of course that's possible, I wouldn't bet on it.

gumbomoop
06-02-2014, 12:10 PM
First-rate research, and not for the first time. Very valuable. Thank you.

Your conclusion re 2014-15 in general matches my intuitive sense. One's intuition -- mine and others -- surely does loosely incorporate the ratings and experience criteria that you detail.

I infer an unstated assumption: that 10 mpg is the floor for being "in the rotation." If so, I'd guess that, yes, there will be a battle for the eighth spot between Semi, Matt, and Grayson. Semi would win [I]if Justise cannot give any backup minutes at the 4. Although I'd like to see a little experimenting with twin towers [Jahlil & Marshall] in pre-conference, I've no idea whether there will be any experimenting with that, and even if so, couldn't confidently predict the experiment would be so successful as to continue into ACC play. But absent some twin towers, someone has to back up Amile; and if Justise is no go there, Semi would surely play 10+ mpg and be in rotation.

But if Justise plays both some perimeter [wing/3] and some interior [stretch 4], that would move Matt into role of favorite to be 8th man.

I do assume Marshall is 7th man.

As to the definition of rotation, if we expand it to 5-7 mpg rather than 10+, then I'd guess we'd see a 9-man rotation, with both Semi and Matt each getting 5+. Even if the 8th guy gets, say, a mere 7 mpg, with the 9-10 guys DNP after ACC begins, we'd probably consider 8th guy in rotation, yes?

Finally, I infer another unstated assumption: your 2014-15 prediction is mostly about 2015, i.e., once ACC play begins.

Kedsy
06-02-2014, 12:25 PM
As to the definition of rotation, if we expand it to 5-7 mpg rather than 10+, then I'd guess we'd see a 9-man rotation, with both Semi and Matt each getting 5+. Even if the 8th guy gets, say, a mere 7 mpg, with the 9-10 guys DNP after ACC begins, we'd probably consider 8th guy in rotation, yes?

I would agree with your 8th guy/7mpg statement if we only count relatively close games (within 20 points) after January 1. My post above lists minutes for the season, and with a few exceptions the rotation guys all played 10 mpg in that context. It's possible the 7th guy (or 8th guy in the few years we played an 8-man rotation) sometimes dipped to 7 or so in ACC and tournament play.

But I would also note that while I didn't explicitly research this, if we only count close games after January 1, I don't think Coach K has ever used a 9-man rotation even if you go down to 5 to 7 mpg. After January 1, the 9th and 10th guys (and usually the 8th guy) have only played meaningful minutes in cases of injury and garbage time.


Finally, I infer another unstated assumption: your 2014-15 prediction is mostly about 2015, i.e., once ACC play begins.

For the most part, yes. Although if you look at pre-ACC games against top 25 opponents the pattern looks pretty similar to what it becomes in ACC play. Sometimes Coach K uses November/December for experimentation, but in large part the reason we see more guys getting bigger minutes is due to the quality of the opponent and the (actual or expected) margin of victory. And even then, the same basic rotation can be discerned early in the game while the score remains relatively close.

gumbomoop
06-02-2014, 12:48 PM
.... while I didn't explicitly research this, if we only count close games after January 1, I don't think Coach K has ever used a 9-man rotation even if you go down to 5 to 7 mpg. After January 1, the 9th and 10th guys (and usually the 8th guy) have only played meaningful minutes in cases of injury and garbage time.

.... if you look at pre-ACC games against top 25 opponents the pattern looks pretty similar to what it becomes in ACC play. Sometimes Coach K uses November/December for experimentation, but in large part the reason we see more guys getting bigger minutes is due to the quality of the opponent and the (actual or expected) margin of victory. And even then, the same basic rotation can be discerned early in the game while the score remains relatively close.

Thanks for these further clarifications, which temporarily persuade me that my attempts [on behalf of countless numbers of EK posters] to "force" K into employing a longer rotation -- by re-defining "rotation" -- may be fruitless.

Let me ask you, and anyone else, to respond to my guess that the likely battle between Semi and Matt for 8th guy will depend on whether Justise plays exclusively at wing/3 or also plays some at stretch 4.

This "Semi v. Matt battle for 8th" assumes, of course, that Justise and Marshall are in the 7-rotation. And it assumes that, as talented as he is, Grayson may not fit the particular need for the 8th slot: strong D.

The only "Grayson-as-8th" scenario would seem to necessitate (1) Justise getting backup minutes at 4, (2) a greater need for 3-bombs than for D on perimeter, and (3) Grayson as superior 3-bomber to both Matt and Semi. Yes?

sagegrouse
06-02-2014, 01:04 PM
Outstanding work, Kedsy!

I believe there will be at least five perimeter players in 2014-15 that have ten minutes or more. I have two reasons:

First, I started with your assumptions and may have ended up at a different place: Jahlil and Marshall will very rarely play at the same time; therefore, their combined minutes will be less than 40 (don't ever misunderestimate the ability of Coach K to go small). Then, there will be 160+ minutes left to be shared. If it is primarily shared by five (Amile and four perimeter players), these five will average close to 30 MPG. It is much more likely that six players will get at least 10-15+ minutes per game.

Second, I believe Matt Jones is gonna play a lot. He averaged 7.3 mins. with four starts this year. Plus, he looks like he's 30 years old, which bespeaks a certain physical maturity and which will be a factor in getting on the court for defense. The last freshman who looked 30 years old was Carlos Boozer (who was only 17 when he enrolled). Also, I expect his shooting will improve substantially with an off-season of work.

Third, we have again a team with a big guy in the middle -- really big -- and eight other mobile players to choose from. I wouldn't be surprised at the end of the season to see that nine players will have averaged ten minutes per game, as the coaching staff tries lots of different combinations before settling on an eight player rotation by February.

Great work again, Kedsy.

Kedsy
06-02-2014, 01:28 PM
Let me ask you, and anyone else, to respond to my guess that the likely battle between Semi and Matt for 8th guy will depend on whether Justise plays exclusively at wing/3 or also plays some at stretch 4.

I'd agree it depends largely on this. If Justise can't play PF, then the 8th man will be a big and Semi's the only big left so he'd win the competition by default.

That said, even if Justise turns out to be the backup PF, then Matt and Semi have the same "rating" (2.5) and it should really be a tossup. The only reason I'd assume Matt would win this competition is the fact that Matt played 3x as many minutes as Semi did in 2013-14, so he'd appear to have a big edge.

You never know how much improvement happens in the off-season, though. So while I expect Matt to beat out Semi for the 8th spot, my "system" doesn't give us any insight into this particular position battle.

One last thing on this, though. In 2009-10, Mason Plumlee and Ryan Kelly were "tied" with a 2.0 rating. Mason won the competition and played around 14 mpg. Ryan played only 6.5 mpg and hardly played at all after ACC play began. This was not an isolated instance, either. The player who loses the tie for the last rotation spot generally ends up all the way out.


This "Semi v. Matt battle for 8th" assumes, of course, that Justise and Marshall are in the 7-rotation. And it assumes that, as talented as he is, Grayson may not fit the particular need for the 8th slot: strong D.

If the theory espoused in this thread has validity, then Justise will be in the rotation. The only freshman ranked in Justise's ballpark that didn't make the rotation was Casey Sanders, and I'd be shocked if Justise had issues similar to Casey. Well, also Ryan Kelly, but the system predicted Ryan would only play if he could beat out Mason for 3rd big. This coming year the system predicts Justise safely as the 4th perimeter guy.

As for Marshall, the predictive system I've employed has he and Semi tied, so I guess it could be up in the air. But every tie over the past 15 years has gone to the player with more experience in the Duke system (with the possible exception of Reggie Love/Lee Melchionni, but Reggie hadn't played organized basketball in a couple years so that was a special case), and that would suggest Marshall has the upper hand over Semi (due to Marshall's redshirt year). That plus the fact that Marshall is more appropriately sized for the position. So it seems a reasonably safe assumption.


The only "Grayson-as-8th" scenario would seem to necessitate (1) Justise getting backup minutes at 4, (2) a greater need for 3-bombs than for D on perimeter, and (3) Grayson as superior 3-bomber to both Matt and Semi. Yes?

I honestly don't think there's any realistic scenario in which Grayson earns 8th man in the rotation. If you count Semi as a perimeter player (and if the theory in this thread has any merit), then Grayson is 7th in the perimeter rotation. Unless he comes out in October playing like a potential All ACC player (as a freshman), there are simply too many people ahead of him for him to get meaningful, non-garbage time minutes.

It's interesting to note that (counting Semi as a potential perimeter player) this will be only the 2nd season we've had six perimeter players rated 2.5 or better. The first one was 2008-09, and Marty Pocius (the 6th best perimeter guy at 2.5) only played 135 minutes for the season. I'd imagine a 7th perimeter option (like Grayson) will not even play that much. Even if Semi doesn't count as a perimeter player, meaning Grayson is the 6th perimeter option, it would make sense to look at Pocius-in-2009 as the guiding precedent.

Mike Corey
06-02-2014, 01:37 PM
Just a tremendous post. The interest the content surely has for us as readers aside, I consider us lucky to have you committing the time and the thought into a product like this. Thanks, Kedsy.

Kedsy
06-02-2014, 01:38 PM
I believe there will be at least five perimeter players in 2014-15 that have ten minutes or more.

I agree we should have five perimeter players with 10+ mpg. The system predicts that we will. The only wrench would be if Justise isn't capable of playing PF, and as you say Coach K loves to go small if he can so the odds of Justise-as-backup-PF seem reasonably good.

But if Justise can't or doesn't play backup PF, then I think the 8-man rotation will include four bigs (including Semi) like it did in 2010.

I also agree with you that we may have nine guys who average 10+ mpg (like we did in 2002-03), while really only playing a 7- or 8-man rotation.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-02-2014, 01:51 PM
Just a tremendous post. The interest the content surely has for us as readers aside, I consider us lucky to have you committing the time and the thought into a product like this. Thanks, Kedsy.

Agreed. Post of the year.

And, now that Kedsy has cracked the code, I can save hours this off-season by not reading threads about line ups and minutes!

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. See you in November!

Billy Dat
06-02-2014, 02:18 PM
Great work.

I also supports the "Duke is a meritocracy" story that will continue to support the recent recruiting bonanza - if you are good enough, you will be in the rotation no matter your level of experience.

I wonder if any of K's talk about "doing things differently" will have consequences for one of his sacred cows....his 7-8 man rotation?

Li_Duke
06-02-2014, 03:33 PM
Great analysis, and thanks for putting in all the time on this. Now I can start projecting this to the 2015-2016 season and beyond! (Only partially kidding.)

Reilly
06-02-2014, 03:45 PM
What is the correlation between recruiting ranking, ultimate minutes played, and the decision to transfer?

I'm guessing there's the age-old correlation between minutes played and transferring ... wonder how expectations (the player's own, based on recruiting rankings) might play into it.

Kedsy
06-02-2014, 04:01 PM
What is the correlation between recruiting ranking, ultimate minutes played, and the decision to transfer?

I'm guessing there's the age-old correlation between minutes played and transferring ... wonder how expectations (the player's own, based on recruiting rankings) might play into it.

An interesting question. If you'd equate the above analysis with reasonable expectations, then none of the players who transferred from Duke in the period should have reasonably expected to play more than they did, with the possible exception of Michael Gbinije, IF he realistically thought he was more deserving of playing time than *both* Quinn Cook and Tyler Thornton.

On the other hand, if the analysis is accurate and a player understood the pecking order, it's possible that player might choose to go elsewhere because he could read the writing on the wall. For example, if Alex Murphy had stayed he'd have been a 2.5, tied with Marshall and Semi for 3rd interior player and tied with Matt and Semi for 5th perimeter player. Under that scenario, the best he could hope for would be around 10 mpg, and it could have been less. His decision to transfer could have been less about unrealistic expectations ("I should be playing more") and more about entirely realistic expectations ("I'm not going to play so much and I'd like to"), although which of those views is consistent with his transferring to Florida (where he might not play so much anyway) is admittedly up for debate.

COYS
06-02-2014, 04:18 PM
Just incredible work, Kedsy.

This should become a sticky that anyone who wants to post about minutes/playing time must read, first.

What's really impressive is that even the seasons that contain exceptions aren't all that extreme and only involve the last guy in the rotation. It also shows what an interesting case Tyler Thornton was, especially since he was rated outside of the RSCI 100. I know you haven't awarded an extra point for an unranked recruit, but if you throw an extra point onto Tyler's ranking, he becomes an even bigger exception, which might more accurately portray his time at Duke. I'd be willing to bet that we are never going to see another unranked recruit get as much time in the rotation over four seasons as Tyler Thornton.

The other really interesting point is that there aren't really that many outliers. The big recruits were stars, instantly. The lowest recruits needed to wait their time to crack the rotation. Similarly, very few of the recruits significantly underperformed. Casey Sanders was the notable one you already mentioned. Andre and Josh were probably close to falling in that category, too, but they never fell all the way out of the rotation.

I guess the question is, does this mean the staff does a really good job evaluating players before they enroll at Duke or does it mean that Duke has either been unlucky or unable to find a diamond in the rough? I'd wager that the staff must do a truly incredible job evaluating the talent level of recruits in high school. Casey Sanders was one notable miss, at least based on rankings. However, the top 10 guys all became stars. The top 20 guys all became either stars or major contributors, eventually, and the rest of the group fit in as role players if they stuck around for a few years (or happened to be freshman in a year when they were needed on the perimeter).

Jon Scheyer looks like a bit of an exception to that, since he became a star and held his own even in seasons when Gerald and Nolan looked to gain a bigger share of the minutes. I would argue, however, that this was due to Rivals inexplicably ranking him #76 in the nation while everyone else had him 18-22. His RSCI would probably have been top 20, eliminating a point in your system and ending up predicting his emergence as a star.

COYS
06-02-2014, 04:28 PM
An interesting question. If you'd equate the above analysis with reasonable expectations, then none of the players who transferred from Duke in the period should have reasonably expected to play more than they did, with the possible exception of Michael Gbinije, IF he realistically thought he was more deserving of playing time than *both* Quinn Cook and Tyler Thornton.

On the other hand, if the analysis is accurate and a player understood the pecking order, it's possible that player might choose to go elsewhere because he could read the writing on the wall. For example, if Alex Murphy had stayed he'd have been a 2.5, tied with Marshall and Semi for 3rd interior player and tied with Matt and Semi for 5th perimeter player. Under that scenario, the best he could hope for would be around 10 mpg, and it could have been less. His decision to transfer could have been less about unrealistic expectations ("I should be playing more") and more about entirely realistic expectations ("I'm not going to play so much and I'd like to"), although which of those views is consistent with his transferring to Florida (where he might not play so much anyway) is admittedly up for debate.

As much as fans like to see the lower ranked guys excel and demand playing time, I think your analysis on transfers is spot on. Unless they leapfrog people early in their career (Tyler Thornton) or there are a lot of minutes at their position to go around either immediately or in the very next season, Duke recruits at such a high level that a lower-rated recruit's position is likely to be filled by someone in the 1.0 or 2.0 point range at some point in their career OR the recruits ahead of them stick around and stay ahead of the lower rated guys.

Alex Murphy would have been a 2.5 this coming season had he stuck around, but that doesn't do him much good in terms of getting playing time, as he'd still be behind Justise on the perimeter based on these predictions (It didn't seem as if Alex were ever really considered among the post players, even though he had the size to play the four at Duke). I don't blame the guy for transferring.

Kedsy
06-02-2014, 04:37 PM
...or does it mean that Duke has either been unlucky or unable to find a diamond in the rough?

Well, interestingly (and predictably, since why otherwise would we accept a transfer?), all of our incoming transfers in the period would (in my opinion) qualify as diamonds in the rough (which is why I added an extra half point for incoming transfer's redshirt year):

Dahntay Jones, #98
Seth Curry, unranked
Rodney Hood, #27
Sean Obi, unranked

So, maybe we're just using the rest of college basketball as our farm team. :p Or, more seriously, it's probably a lot easier to find "proven" diamonds in the rough through the transfer process than it is to find them in high school.

Li_Duke
06-02-2014, 04:49 PM
Duke has either been unlucky or unable to find a diamond in the rough?

I'd argue that we just don't have many opportunities to find "diamonds in the rough". We don't recruit many players outside the top 35, and those we do target almost always shoot up the ranking shortly after.

COYS
06-02-2014, 05:07 PM
I'd argue that we just don't have many opportunities to find "diamonds in the rough". We don't recruit many players outside the top 35, and those we do target almost always shoot up the ranking shortly after.

This is a good point. Without going into an analysis comparable to what Kedsy did, Duke recruits do seem to jump up the list, although that often happens before they even commit. I remember being disappointed back in 2009 when it looked like interest had cooled a bit with number 1 point guard Brandon Knight (remember when getting a point guard was the ONLY THING THAT MATTERED on the board? See: John Wall Recruiting thread), but that's because Duke had zeroed in on , at the time, top 20 point guard Kyrie Irving. One could make the argument that there are some instances where Duke does find a diamond in the rough, it's just that the staff finds them in high school before everyone else does.

tommy
06-03-2014, 12:54 AM
Fantastic work, as usual, Kedsy. Major kudos.

One thing it made me think about is that maybe the recruiting analysts deserve a little more credit than they receive in some places. Coach K (and others) of course aren't making playing time decisions based on where a kid is ranked in his class. He's doing it based on how the kid performs on the practice floor (and in games) once he's at Duke and competing at that level. But if the apportioning of playing time is able to be correlated, with some of the variables you identify, in some way to high school ranking, well then it stands to reason that those rankings usually have a fairly high degree of legitimacy. Casey Sanders appears to be the most glaring example of a Duke guy who was way overrated by all or almost all the analysts, but most of the rest seem to have had their PT at Duke roughly correlated with their high school ranking, when experience of the given player and the roster as a whole are considered. Yes, there is the fact that kids who get recruited, especially successfully recruited, by Duke (and other elite programs) often see their class rankings rise, but still, I think your analysis, in the main, says some good things about the recruiting analysts whose ratings have gone into the RSCI over the years.

Des Esseintes
06-03-2014, 01:25 AM
Fantastic work, as usual, Kedsy. Major kudos.

One thing it made me think about is that maybe the recruiting analysts deserve a little more credit than they receive in some places. Coach K (and others) of course aren't making playing time decisions based on where a kid is ranked in his class. He's doing it based on how the kid performs on the practice floor (and in games) once he's at Duke and competing at that level. But if the apportioning of playing time is able to be correlated, with some of the variables you identify, in some way to high school ranking, well then it stands to reason that those rankings usually have a fairly high degree of legitimacy. Casey Sanders appears to be the most glaring example of a Duke guy who was way overrated by all or almost all the analysts, but most of the rest seem to have had their PT at Duke roughly correlated with their high school ranking, when experience of the given player and the roster as a whole are considered. Yes, there is the fact that kids who get recruited, especially successfully recruited, by Duke (and other elite programs) often see their class rankings rise, but still, I think your analysis, in the main, says some good things about the recruiting analysts whose ratings have gone into the RSCI over the years.

Great point. Everyone rags on the rankings. We remember the busts, and we remember the guys who came from nowhere, while conveniently forgetting the vast majority who were rated pretty accurately. As you say, it's not the be-all end-all, but of course no recruiting expert would ever claim otherwise. It's merely the very best starting point we have for team evaluation.

nocilla
06-03-2014, 08:23 AM
First of all, great work Kedsy.

The only caveat is the changes that Coach K alluded to recently which Billy Dat referenced as well. Will the changes be grand enough to throw off this formula? I doubt there would be drastic enough changes to effect minutes of the top level players. I think the changes are more geared toward defense and playing style than minutes but I could see some changes to depth. Although we see reasons for playing deeper almost every year it seems and they haven't played out yet. Is this the year?

Billy Dat
06-03-2014, 09:20 AM
The fact that Kedsy's work has been featured on the front page of DBR is another inspiration for posters everywhere! I know he writes official stuff for other Duke sites, so he's an experienced internet journalist, but it is still a day for all of us to be proud of one of our own!

I wonder if this formula holds true for other schools, or is it unique to Duke? That would provide interesting insights into different coaching styles and philosophies, and also substantiate tommy's points about the quality of the recruiting ranking services.

lotusland
06-03-2014, 09:23 AM
First of all, great work Kedsy.

The only caveat is the changes that Coach K alluded to recently which Billy Dat referenced as well. Will the changes be grand enough to throw off this formula? I doubt there would be drastic enough changes to effect minutes of the top level players. I think the changes are more geared toward defense and playing style than minutes but I could see some changes to depth. Although we see reasons for playing deeper almost every year it seems and they haven't played out yet. Is this the year?

Maybe K's undefined proposed changes should be separate thread but I can't help but wonder if, considering the rule changes and OAD dynamic, K wants to simplify the D with perhaps less rotation, showing and hedging or, heaven forbid, more zone.

Class of '94
06-03-2014, 09:43 AM
This is tremendous work Kedsy! Thank-you for taking the time to write this post and do the research to derive this formula. I think the rotation for 2014-15 season is right on point although personally I would love to see Matt Jones and Semi consistently get meaningful minutes on the floor (but I'm not sure that it will happen).

For me, it raises the age-old question of whether or not going with a 7-8 man rotation over the course of an entire season is more advantageous from a recruiting and success during the season compared to a longer rotation where a 9-10+ rotation is used (like Roy tries to do). As others have noted, it will be interesting to see what kinds of changes Coach K will bring to next season's team and if lengthening the rotation is a part of those changes (I highly doubt it but again will be interesting to see).

dukenilnil
06-03-2014, 10:28 AM
Thought I'd extend the ranking, minutes prediction system and see if it added any insight to predictions of team success.
For a rough calculation, I added the rankings of the top 7 players even in years with 5 perimeter players (4 perimeter and 3 bigs) and compared it to season success. A more exacting calculation would weight the rankings of each player based on minutes/total team minutes.

99-00: 11* Sweet 16

00-01: 6.5** NATIONAL CHAMPIONS

01-02: 8.5 Sweet 16

02-03: 10.5 Sweet 16

03-04: 8.5 Final 4

04-05: 10.5 Sweet 16

05-06: 8.5 Sweet 16

06-07: 12 1st Round

07-08: 9 2nd Round

08-09: 7.5 Sweet 16

09-10: 9.5 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS (a year where weighting minutes might explain results as Dawkins 3.0 weighs down rating and he played less than 500 minutes)

10-11: 9.5*** Sweet 16

11-12: 12.5 1st round

12-13: 12 Elite 8

13-14: 11.5 1st Round

14-15: 11

* (99-00) Final number may be off as Kedsy had to estimate some player numbers
** (00-01) Really only played 6 men this year with Casey getting most of his 373 minutes while Boozer was hurt making the team have a crazy low 5 rating)
*** (10-11) Actual healthy top 7 roster equals 11 due to Kyrie injury)


Will need someone smarter than me to extrapolate useful trends from this (or with more time to do proper weighting). My 2 takeaways are that (1) our talent + experience on paper these last 4 years is significantly down from other 4 year periods which helps explain the 1st round exits better than seeding/ranking/w-l heading into tournament and (2) it looks like a Sweet 16 would be just slightly exceeding expectations

Li_Duke
06-03-2014, 11:28 AM
Thought I'd extend the ranking, minutes prediction system and see if it added any insight to predictions of team success.
For a rough calculation, I added the rankings of the top 7 players even in years with 5 perimeter players (4 perimeter and 3 bigs) and compared it to season success. A more exacting calculation would weight the rankings of each player based on minutes/total team minutes.

99-00: 11* Sweet 16

00-01: 6.5** NATIONAL CHAMPIONS

01-02: 8.5 Sweet 16

02-03: 10.5 Sweet 16

03-04: 8.5 Final 4

04-05: 10.5 Sweet 16

05-06: 8.5 Sweet 16

06-07: 12 1st Round

07-08: 9 2nd Round

08-09: 7.5 Sweet 16

09-10: 9.5 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS (a year where weighting minutes might explain results as Dawkins 3.0 weighs down rating and he played less than 500 minutes)

10-11: 9.5*** Sweet 16

11-12: 12.5 1st round

12-13: 12 Elite 8

13-14: 11.5 1st Round

14-15: 11

* (99-00) Final number may be off as Kedsy had to estimate some player numbers
** (00-01) Really only played 6 men this year with Casey getting most of his 373 minutes while Boozer was hurt making the team have a crazy low 5 rating)
*** (10-11) Actual healthy top 7 roster equals 11 due to Kyrie injury)


Will need someone smarter than me to extrapolate useful trends from this (or with more time to do proper weighting). My 2 takeaways are that (1) our talent + experience on paper these last 4 years is significantly down from other 4 year periods which helps explain the 1st round exits better than seeding/ranking/w-l heading into tournament and (2) it looks like a Sweet 16 would be just slightly exceeding expectations

Talented players rarely stay to be seniors anymore, so there may be an overall trend of top-7 rankings increasing over tournament bound teams. Any extrapolation of USEFUL trends, would have to account for that, making it very difficult (unless someone on the board decides to spend his time calculating top-7 rankings for tournament bound teams the past decade and a half.

Des Esseintes
06-03-2014, 11:35 AM
Talented players rarely stay to be seniors anymore, so there may be an overall trend of top-7 rankings increasing over tournament bound teams. Any extrapolation of USEFUL trends, would have to account for that, making it very difficult (unless someone on the board decides to spend his time calculating top-7 rankings for tournament bound teams the past decade and a half.

Yeah, nilnil's data doesn't tell us much unless we know whether Duke's talent/experience has slipped compared to the nation as a whole. (I strongly doubt it has.) That Duke teams have less elite experience these days is already commonly understood.

sagegrouse
06-03-2014, 12:14 PM
Will need someone smarter than me to extrapolate useful trends from this (or with more time to do proper weighting). My 2 takeaways are that (1) our talent + experience on paper these last 4 years is significantly down from other 4 year periods which helps explain the 1st round exits better than seeding/ranking/w-l heading into tournament and (2) it looks like a Sweet 16 would be just slightly exceeding expectations

I did a simple regression analysis, which produced the following formula:

No of NCAA wins = 8.3 - 0.61*Index

It says that every reduction in Kedsy's index by one point reduces the expected no. of tournament wins by 0.6.

This is not surprising: least squares analysis is frequently dominated by extreme values. The 2001 team had an index of 6.5, by far the lowest, and won the national championship. At the other end, the three teams with 0 wins had indices of 12.5, 12.0, and 11.5 -- three of the worst four years. Our team with the other NC was 2010 and had a score of 9.5, just slightly better than the mean value of the sample.

I would tell you the statistics, but I am having trouble getting Excel to display them.

MarkD83
06-03-2014, 12:31 PM
I did a simple regression analysis, which produced the following formula:

No of NCAA wins = 8.3 - 0.61*Index



So Duke needs an index of less than 3.8 to be assured of a Nat'l championship (6 wins). This means with a 7 man rotation the average player in the rotation has to be a 0.54 or less. You can't get this with a team of all top 10 freshman. Their average index would be 1. However, players that are ranked in the 11-20 range that stay around for 3 years would have an index per player of 0.5.

See I knew I was right in the other thread when I said we should be more excited about recruits that are ranked in the 11-20 range that stay for 3 years :). Numbers do not lie. (Just don't perform an error analysis on my calculations.)

budwom
06-03-2014, 12:35 PM
Fine job by Kedsy. Interesting how most of us ignore the occasional claims by K that "THIS years we're going to play a lot of guys."
Seeing is believing.

Unless I see differently this year (and I do not expect to, "big changes" or no big changes) the Kedsy formula seems to hold.

So I guess it kind of comes down to whether Semi or Jones joins the rotation. Jones obviously needs to find his shot...

COYS
06-03-2014, 05:43 PM
I did a simple regression analysis, which produced the following formula:

No of NCAA wins = 8.3 - 0.61*Index

It says that every reduction in Kedsy's index by one point reduces the expected no. of tournament wins by 0.6.

This is not surprising: least squares analysis is frequently dominated by extreme values. The 2001 team had an index of 6.5, by far the lowest, and won the national championship. At the other end, the three teams with 0 wins had indices of 12.5, 12.0, and 11.5 -- three of the worst four years. Our team with the other NC was 2010 and had a score of 9.5, just slightly better than the mean value of the sample.

I would tell you the statistics, but I am having trouble getting Excel to display them.


And, as I mentioned earlier, if Rivals had not been completely off the mark by ranking Scheyer in the 70's and thus messing up his RSCI, I think 2010 would have had an 8.5 as its value, thus making your regression even more accurate (although perhaps skewing the results for previous years). Add in the fact that Dawkins' 3.0 at fewer than 500 minutes is also deceptive and that team looks even better. I know it's not fair to pick and choose which recruiting rankings we actually include, but Rivals ranking of Scheyer was so terribly off base and out of sync with every other recruiting service, it's worth at least keeping in mind.

MarkD83
06-03-2014, 07:27 PM
R-sq 0.34
The real outlier is the Elite 8 in 2012-13.


Or maybe this is why I love the 2010 team even more than I did before. They really exceeded expectations.

Kedsy
06-04-2014, 12:21 PM
I've been wondering how likely it is that Tyus Jones and Justise Winslow are one-and-done. So I looked over the RSCI since the one-and-done rule has been in place, and this is what I saw:

Tyus Jones, #7

Guys in the #7 to #11 range from 2006 to 2013: 40
One-and-dones in the #7 to #10 range from 2006 to 2013: 10 (Noah Vonleh #8, James Young #9, Archie Goodwin #10, Marquis Teague #7, Enes Kanter #7, Lance Stephenson #8, Tiny Gallon #10, BJ Mullens #8, Jerryd Bayless #7, JJ Hickson #8)

Justise Winslow, #13

Guys in the #12 to #16 range from 2006 to 2013: 40
One-and-dones in the #12 to #16 range from 2006 to 2013: 9 (Joel Embiid #16, Ricardo Ledo #13, Cory Joseph #13, Fab Melo #14, Kosto Koufos #12, DeAndre Jordan #13, Anthony Randolph #15, Javaris Crittenton #12, Daequan Cook #13)

Just for completeness sake:

Guys in the #17 to #25 range from 2006 to 2013: 72
One-and-dones in the #17 to #21 range from 2006 to 2013: 4 (Tyler Ennis #23, Tony Wroten #18, Daniel Orton #19, Mike Conley #21)

It's possible I missed one or two, but for the moment let's assume I didn't.


So, based on history it looks like there's around a 1 in 4 chance (25%) that each of Tyus and Justise might leave school after one season. The chance of one of the two going pro after one season would appear to be almost 42%. The chance of both coming out would be around 5.6%, and the chance of both staying in school for their sophomore year would be about 58%.

Looking at it a bit closer, four of the ten in the first group went to Kentucky, a program that encourages one-and-dones, and five of the nine in the second group were big men. Since our two guys are neither going to Kentucky nor big men, I think that improves the odds at least a little bit in Duke fans' favor.

We can hope, anyway.

rocketeli
06-04-2014, 12:26 PM
Great post by Kedsy. Does anyone have the time/inclination to do the analysis for UNC or similar teams and see if it holds true for them too? That would be interesting.

I'd almost forgotten about Casey S. , darn it. Watching him play I would think of an extremely talented dancer in a Broadway show involving a lot of simulated basketball action (perhaps to be written by Andrew Lloyd Webber?) It was as if he had learned to imitate basketball moves, but his actions didn't seem to produce any tangible results on the court.

Kedsy
06-04-2014, 12:36 PM
I've been wondering how likely it is that Tyus Jones and Justise Winslow are one-and-done. So I looked over the RSCI since the one-and-done rule has been in place, and this is what I saw:

Tyus Jones, #7

Guys in the #7 to #11 range from 2006 to 2013: 40
One-and-dones in the #7 to #10 range from 2006 to 2013: 10 (Noah Vonleh #8, James Young #9, Archie Goodwin #10, Marquis Teague #7, Enes Kanter #7, Lance Stephenson #8, Tiny Gallon #10, BJ Mullens #8, Jerryd Bayless #7, JJ Hickson #8)

Well, I decided to check #5 and #6:

Guys in #5 to #6 range from 2006 to 2013: 16
One-and-dones in the #5 to #6 range from 2006 to 2013: 9 (Steven Adams #5, Anthony Bennett #6, Quincy Miller #5, Tobias Harris #5, Josh Selby #6, Xavier Henry #6, DeMar DeRozan #5, Derrick Rose #5, Thaddeus Young #6)

So if you look at the #5 to #8 range (instead of #7 to #11), the odds for Tyus would look like 50% (16 of 32) instead of 25% (10 of 40). I guess the question is whether #7 is more like #5 than #9. And I have no idea what the answer is to that question. I guess it's probably somewhere in between.

But even 50% isn't a sure thing, right? Right?

flyingdutchdevil
06-04-2014, 12:48 PM
Well, I decided to check #5 and #6:

Guys in #5 to #6 range from 2006 to 2013: 16
One-and-dones in the #5 to #6 range from 2006 to 2013: 9 (Steven Adams #5, Anthony Bennett #6, Quincy Miller #5, Tobias Harris #5, Josh Selby #6, Xavier Henry #6, DeMar DeRozan #5, Derrick Rose #5, Thaddeus Young #6)

So if you look at the #5 to #8 range (instead of #7 to #11), the odds for Tyus would look like 50% (16 of 32) instead of 25% (10 of 40). I guess the question is whether #7 is more like #5 than #9. And I have no idea what the answer is to that question. I guess it's probably somewhere in between.

But even 50% isn't a sure thing, right? Right?

Firstly, great stuff Kedsy. Really, really nice job overall.

Stepping away from stats for a while, I would be be surprised if Tyus is a one-and-done. I give the following reasons:

1) Physically not mature (especially compared to one-and-done PGs like Kyrie and Ennis)
2) Defensive is a huge question mark. Kyrie, Ennis, MCW and other one-and-dones didn't have as big question marks about defense (scouts got that wrong about Kyrie, huh?)
3) Tyus has the reputation of being the best play maker in his class and potentially in the whole NCAA. But he isn't known as a scorer. If he doesn't look to score this year (and with Cook, Sulaimon, Okafor, and Jefferson on board, he may not seek his own shot as much), he may not impress scouts on that facet of the game. They may see Tyus as a smaller version of Kendall Marshall, which isn't not true nor fair to Tyus.

Thus, I really don't see Tyus as a one-and-done. Two-and-done? Absolutely.

Kedsy
06-04-2014, 01:10 PM
Tyus has the reputation of being the best play maker in his class and potentially in the whole NCAA. But he isn't known as a scorer.

I hope you're right about Tyus not being one-and-done, and I know high school scoring stats aren't worth all that much, but from what I can gather, Tyus averaged 28 ppg for his high school team as a sophomore, 20+ as a junior and 30+ as a senior. So, he at least scores a little. Maybe when he has better options (like in AAU or national team) he doesn't look to score so much, but he certainly seems to be able to do it.

flyingdutchdevil
06-04-2014, 02:18 PM
I hope you're right about Tyus not being one-and-done, and I know high school scoring stats aren't worth all that much, but from what I can gather, Tyus averaged 28 ppg for his high school team as a sophomore, 20+ as a junior and 30+ as a senior. So, he at least scores a little. Maybe when he has better options (like in AAU or national team) he doesn't look to score so much, but he certainly seems to be able to do it.

Impressive stats. But I would take high school numbers with a grain of salt. Sean Dockery averaged 28 ppg as a senior in high school. Mason Plumlee? Only 16. Even if Tyus can score, I'm not sure he's expected to be a first, second, or third option this year. And that isn't to say he can't score but rather he'd be better as a distributor who scores opportunistically (like Cook, only with much better distribution and no hero ball).

Once Cook and Okafor leave (and potentially Sulaimon), Tyus quickly becomes a top option to score (along with distribute). I think that's why he stays at least two years: year 1 - facilitate. Year 2 - score.

SupaDave
06-04-2014, 02:22 PM
Once Cook and Okafor leave (and potentially Sulaimon), Tyus quickly becomes a top option to score (along with distribute). I think that's why he stays at least two years: year 1 - facilitate. Year 2 - score.

He may not have a choice but to stay two years...

Kedsy
06-04-2014, 02:24 PM
He may not have a choice but to stay two years...

You think that rule will come in that quickly and bind 2014-15 freshmen?

SupaDave
06-04-2014, 02:37 PM
You think that rule will come in that quickly and bind 2014-15 freshmen?

It's big on Silver's to do list. Before this Sterling mess - it was already on the table for immediate attention.

http://www.nba.com/2014/news/03/24/adam-silver-college-nba-players.ap/

NSDukeFan
06-04-2014, 07:04 PM
It's big on Silver's to do list. Before this Sterling mess - it was already on the table for immediate attention.

http://www.nba.com/2014/news/03/24/adam-silver-college-nba-players.ap/
wouldn't be the worst year to have the top Recruiting class.

ice-9
06-05-2014, 03:43 AM
I've been wondering how likely it is that Tyus Jones and Justise Winslow are one-and-done. So I looked over the RSCI since the one-and-done rule has been in place, and this is what I saw:

Tyus Jones, #7

Guys in the #7 to #11 range from 2006 to 2013: 40
One-and-dones in the #7 to #10 range from 2006 to 2013: 10 (Noah Vonleh #8, James Young #9, Archie Goodwin #10, Marquis Teague #7, Enes Kanter #7, Lance Stephenson #8, Tiny Gallon #10, BJ Mullens #8, Jerryd Bayless #7, JJ Hickson #8)

Justise Winslow, #13

Guys in the #12 to #16 range from 2006 to 2013: 40
One-and-dones in the #12 to #16 range from 2006 to 2013: 9 (Joel Embiid #16, Ricardo Ledo #13, Cory Joseph #13, Fab Melo #14, Kosto Koufos #12, DeAndre Jordan #13, Anthony Randolph #15, Javaris Crittenton #12, Daequan Cook #13)

Just for completeness sake:

Guys in the #17 to #25 range from 2006 to 2013: 72
One-and-dones in the #17 to #21 range from 2006 to 2013: 4 (Tyler Ennis #23, Tony Wroten #18, Daniel Orton #19, Mike Conley #21)

It's possible I missed one or two, but for the moment let's assume I didn't.


So, based on history it looks like there's around a 1 in 4 chance (25%) that each of Tyus and Justise might leave school after one season. The chance of one of the two going pro after one season would appear to be almost 42%. The chance of both coming out would be around 5.6%, and the chance of both staying in school for their sophomore year would be about 58%.

Looking at it a bit closer, four of the ten in the first group went to Kentucky, a program that encourages one-and-dones, and five of the nine in the second group were big men. Since our two guys are neither going to Kentucky nor big men, I think that improves the odds at least a little bit in Duke fans' favor.

We can hope, anyway.

Interesting analysis Kedsy. Wouldn't the numbers depend on position? I'd guess for example that there fewer point guards become OADs, versus say centers.

lotusland
06-05-2014, 07:25 AM
Interesting analysis Kedsy. Wouldn't the numbers depend on position? I'd guess for example that there fewer point guards become OADs, versus say centers.

Maybe so but it's probably because great PGs with NBA size and speed are rare. I imagine PG is the second most coveted position. Off hand I I think about Wall and Kyrie. Those guys just don't come round that often. Talented SGs and wing players are ubiquitous in comparison.

Saratoga2
06-05-2014, 08:08 AM
This analysis deserves to be entered along with the top three under decorum. A classic.

Kedsy
06-05-2014, 10:35 AM
Interesting analysis Kedsy. Wouldn't the numbers depend on position? I'd guess for example that there fewer point guards become OADs, versus say centers.


Maybe so but it's probably because great PGs with NBA size and speed are rare. I imagine PG is the second most coveted position. Off hand I I think about Wall and Kyrie. Those guys just don't come round that often. Talented SGs and wing players are ubiquitous in comparison.

Well, clearly big men are the most numerous on the #12 to #16 list. And top-top shelf PGs (like Wall and Kyrie) are generally rated top 5 coming out of high school.

Here's a list of all players in the #5 to #11 range (from 2006 to 2013) and listed by RSCI as PGs:

One-and-dones: D Rose #5, J Selby #6, M Teague #7
Non-OADs: T Lawson #5, N Calathes #11, A Gaddy #11, A Harrison #5, K Hill #11

That's 3 out of 8 OADs, or 37.5%, which is a little higher than the percentage of all #5 to #11 who were OADs (33.9%), but in the same ballpark.

On the other hand, if you look at the OADs in this group, Selby probably made a mistake and if Teague had been anywhere other than Kentucky he would probably have stayed an extra year. No matter how you examine the data, I think the odds of Tyus Jones being one-and-done should be pegged somewhere between 25% and 50%.

Newton_14
06-05-2014, 09:17 PM
Really great post Kedsy. Post of the year by a large margin.

One small thing to take away from this, is if you are a marginal talent, no matter how highly overranked, you better be 1. Tough and 2. A darn good defender. One of the consistent patterns with kids over the years who everyone (myself included) wanted to see them get more PT to show what they can do, but they never really got the PT we wanted to see is this: They were either not tough, too meek, too laid back, etc, or not good enough on the defensive end.

I think a few of them maybe could have developed into rotation worthy players at different schools, but I do think the vast majority were what they were, aka, just not quite good enough to be a mainstay rotation player at a BCS Level school.

Your formula works really well and is a great predictor. It for sure showed that Casey was overrated, which was not his fault, and say what you will, but the kid helped us win a title by being a great "dance partner" for Who's Your Daddy Battier! One of my fondest memories ever will be the day they smoked UNC in Chapel Hill in the first game after losing Boozer to the broken foot. Casey played the role he was asked to play beautifully during that 10 game winning streak that led to the ACC Tourney and National Title's, starting at center in all 10 games.

But again, really great research and work. Something we can use for years to come I think. No matter what "big changes" K has in store, I would bet a lot of money it will not change which kids he decides to play a lot and which kids he doesn't.

Kedsy
06-28-2015, 09:11 PM
Well, the final 2015 RSCI (https://sites.google.com/site/rscihoops/2015-final) is out, and thus we can attempt to apply the "system" I proposed last season that seems to have heavy predictive power for Duke's rotation.

This coming season would seem to be an interesting test of the system. Based on the combination of RSCI and experience that I laid out in the first post of this thread, the predicted rotation will be:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Brandon Ingram (1.0), Derryck Thornton (2.0), Matt Jones (2.0), Grayson Allen (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Amile Jefferson (1.5), Chase Jeter (2.0), Marshall Plumlee (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Luke Kennard (3.0), Justin Robinson (4.0)
Other interior players: Sean Obi (3.0), Antonio Vrankovic (4.0)


I say this could be a big test because the consensus opinion around here seems to have Luke Kennard in the rotation playing somewhat heavy minutes, seems to feel Sean Obi will play solid rotation minutes, and seems to think Chase Jeter probably isn't ready. In fact, if I was forced to stand by a personal opinion, I'd probably suggest an 8-man rotation, with Luke and Sean in and Chase out. I might also suggest that Coach K has appeared to diverge from some of his norms in recent seasons (e.g., line changes for a time in 2014, zone defense in 2015), so maybe this is the season he diverges from the 7 or 8 man rotation and plays all nine guys?

That said, my personal opinions have been wrong a lot more than this system has. I'll be quite intrigued to see how the rotation plays out in 2015-16.

FireOgilvie
06-28-2015, 09:42 PM
Well, the final 2015 RSCI (https://sites.google.com/site/rscihoops/2015-final) is out, and thus we can attempt to apply the "system" I proposed last season that seems to have heavy predictive power for Duke's rotation.

This coming season would seem to be an interesting test of the system. Based on the combination of RSCI and experience that I laid out in the first post of this thread, the predicted rotation will be:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Brandon Ingram (1.0), Derryck Thornton (2.0), Matt Jones (2.0), Grayson Allen (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Amile Jefferson (1.5), Chase Jeter (2.0), Marshall Plumlee (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Luke Kennard (3.0), Justin Robinson (4.0)
Other interior players: Sean Obi (3.0), Antonio Vrankovic (4.0)


I say this could be a big test because the consensus opinion around here seems to have Luke Kennard in the rotation playing somewhat heavy minutes, seems to feel Sean Obi will play solid rotation minutes, and seems to think Chase Jeter probably isn't ready. In fact, if I was forced to stand by a personal opinion, I'd probably suggest an 8-man rotation, with Luke and Sean in and Chase out. I might also suggest that Coach K has appeared to diverge from some of his norms in recent seasons (e.g., line changes for a time in 2014, zone defense in 2015), so maybe this is the season he diverges from the 7 or 8 man rotation and plays all nine guys?

That said, my personal opinions have been wrong a lot more than this system has. I'll be quite intrigued to see how the rotation plays out in 2015-16.

Looks good. Would Marshall be a 2.0 because of his redshirt year?

Kedsy
06-28-2015, 09:46 PM
Looks good. Would Marshall be a 2.0 because of his redshirt year?

Exactly.

Kedsy
06-29-2015, 12:44 AM
Looks good. Would Marshall be a 2.0 because of his redshirt year?

Sorry, I just realized you were telling me I made a mistake. Yes, Marshall should be 2.0, as you've suggested. I meant to type 2.0 for him and messed up.

So, if the theory holds any water, his place in the rotation should be relatively safe.

Skitzle
06-29-2015, 04:48 AM
Did we retroactively look at how the system held up last year?

DukieInBrasil
06-29-2015, 06:42 AM
Well, the final 2015 RSCI (https://sites.google.com/site/rscihoops/2015-final) is out, and thus we can attempt to apply the "system" I proposed last season that seems to have heavy predictive power for Duke's rotation.

This coming season would seem to be an interesting test of the system. Based on the combination of RSCI and experience that I laid out in the first post of this thread, the predicted rotation will be:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Brandon Ingram (1.0), Derryck Thornton (2.0), Matt Jones (2.0), Grayson Allen (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Amile Jefferson (1.5), Chase Jeter (2.0), Marshall Plumlee (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Luke Kennard (3.0), Justin Robinson (4.0)
Other interior players: Sean Obi (3.0), Antonio Vrankovic (4.0)


I say this could be a big test because the consensus opinion around here seems to have Luke Kennard in the rotation playing somewhat heavy minutes, seems to feel Sean Obi will play solid rotation minutes, and seems to think Chase Jeter probably isn't ready. In fact, if I was forced to stand by a personal opinion, I'd probably suggest an 8-man rotation, with Luke and Sean in and Chase out. I might also suggest that Coach K has appeared to diverge from some of his norms in recent seasons (e.g., line changes for a time in 2014, zone defense in 2015), so maybe this is the season he diverges from the 7 or 8 man rotation and plays all nine guys?

That said, my personal opinions have been wrong a lot more than this system has. I'll be quite intrigued to see how the rotation plays out in 2015-16.

I'm kinda hoping that both Robinson and Vrankovic redshirt this year, it's always nice to see guys that come in under the radar have a fine Sr. season, and i believe a redshirt season would help both of them in that regard. For that to happen it would require that the other 9 players not get injured and play pretty damn well. In addition to having 9 highly recruited and/or experienced players "ahead" of them in the rotation, Robinson is playing behind 5 other guys at the G/Wing positions and Vrankovic is behind 4 other guys in the post.
The redshirt year helped MP3, although we haven't seen what he'll do in his Sr season yet, had last year been his Sr. season it would have been a fine way to finish his career at Duke as a National Champion, but perhaps he'll A) get to double up!!! and B) get opportunities to contribute even more to the team.
Both JR and AV came in ranked at a similar level as MP3, who was not able to contribute all that much even his first 2 years after the redshirt. Using the formula, it appears that both of them would have to wait a while to play all that much. Best of luck to both of them!

Indoor66
06-29-2015, 07:48 AM
I'm kinda hoping that both Robinson and Vrankovic redshirt this year, it's always nice to see guys that come in under the radar have a fine Sr. season, and i believe a redshirt season would help both of them in that regard. For that to happen it would require that the other 9 players not get injured and play pretty damn well. In addition to having 9 highly recruited and/or experienced players "ahead" of them in the rotation, Robinson is playing behind 5 other guys at the G/Wing positions and Vrankovic is behind 4 other guys in the post.
The redshirt year helped MP3, although we haven't seen what he'll do in his Sr season yet, had last year been his Sr. season it would have been a fine way to finish his career at Duke as a National Champion, but perhaps he'll A) get to double up!!! and B) get opportunities to contribute even more to the team.
Both JR and AV came in ranked at a similar level as MP3, who was not able to contribute all that much even his first 2 years after the redshirt. Using the formula, it appears that both of them would have to wait a while to play all that much. Best of luck to both of them!

RE MP3: let us not forget that he took several bites of the injury apple and was very hindered in his development.

CDu
06-29-2015, 07:53 AM
I'm kinda hoping that both Robinson and Vrankovic redshirt this year, it's always nice to see guys that come in under the radar have a fine Sr. season, and i believe a redshirt season would help both of them in that regard. For that to happen it would require that the other 9 players not get injured and play pretty damn well. In addition to having 9 highly recruited and/or experienced players "ahead" of them in the rotation, Robinson is playing behind 5 other guys at the G/Wing positions and Vrankovic is behind 4 other guys in the post.
The redshirt year helped MP3, although we haven't seen what he'll do in his Sr season yet, had last year been his Sr. season it would have been a fine way to finish his career at Duke as a National Champion, but perhaps he'll A) get to double up!!! and B) get opportunities to contribute even more to the team.
Both JR and AV came in ranked at a similar level as MP3, who was not able to contribute all that much even his first 2 years after the redshirt. Using the formula, it appears that both of them would have to wait a while to play all that much. Best of luck to both of them!

Actually, Vrankovic and Robinson ranked substantially lower than Plumlee. Plumlee ranked somewhere around 60 in RSCI, whereas Vrankovic was presumably just outside of the top-100 and (our) Robinson was nowhere close to the top-100. Even more reason they should redshirt.

Kedsy
06-29-2015, 11:42 AM
Did we retroactively look at how the system held up last year?

Last year, we weren't sure back in June whether Justise Winslow would be able to play/defend PF (if he couldn't, then we wouldn't have had a backup PF, and Semi would presumably have had to play instead of the fifth perimeter player).

But assuming he could, the system predicted:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Rasheed Sulaimon (1.0), Tyus Jones (1.0), Quinn Cook (1.5), Justise Winslow (2.0), Matt Jones (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Jahlil Okafor (1.0), Amile Jefferson (2.0), Marshall Plumlee (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Grayson Allen (3.0)
Other interior players: Semi Ojeleye (2.5, less experience than Marshall Plumlee, less previous playing time than Matt Jones)


Obviously Justise was able to thrive at PF. So the above is pretty much what happened.

Also, the system could not possibly have predicted Rasheed leaving the team in mid-season. After he left, Grayson began getting minutes as the fifth perimeter player, but even with only eight on the roster, his minutes weren't consistent. Still, despite undoubtedly being the 8th man, Grayson averaged 12+ mpg after Rasheed departed, more than the system would have guessed for a guy of his rating if we'd started the season with only 8 players. Considering the weirdness and the timing and the fact that Grayson only averaged 8.3 mpg for the season, I wouldn't call this a failure of the system. But it might signal that Coach K possibly could be open to broadening from a default 7-man rotation to a default 8-man, giving us hope that Luke Kennard could sneak in this season as the 5th perimeter option.

CDu
06-29-2015, 04:26 PM
Last year, we weren't sure back in June whether Justise Winslow would be able to play/defend PF (if he couldn't, then we wouldn't have had a backup PF, and Semi would presumably have had to play instead of the fifth perimeter player).

But assuming he could, the system predicted:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Rasheed Sulaimon (1.0), Tyus Jones (1.0), Quinn Cook (1.5), Justise Winslow (2.0), Matt Jones (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Jahlil Okafor (1.0), Amile Jefferson (2.0), Marshall Plumlee (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Grayson Allen (3.0)
Other interior players: Semi Ojeleye (2.5, less experience than Marshall Plumlee, less previous playing time than Matt Jones)


Obviously Justise was able to thrive at PF. So the above is pretty much what happened.

Also, the system could not possibly have predicted Rasheed leaving the team in mid-season. After he left, Grayson began getting minutes as the fifth perimeter player, but even with only eight on the roster, his minutes weren't consistent. Still, despite undoubtedly being the 8th man, Grayson averaged 12+ mpg after Rasheed departed, more than the system would have guessed for a guy of his rating if we'd started the season with only 8 players. Considering the weirdness and the timing and the fact that Grayson only averaged 8.3 mpg for the season, I wouldn't call this a failure of the system. But it might signal that Coach K possibly could be open to broadening from a default 7-man rotation to a default 8-man, giving us hope that Luke Kennard could sneak in this season as the 5th perimeter option.

Worth noting that even before Sulaimon's exit he was playing only about as much as Matt Jones, despite being seemingly a must-start based on rating and experience. So we were already seeing some deviation from the system, no? Again, that may all tie back to an anomalous personality though.

sagegrouse
06-29-2015, 04:34 PM
Worth noting that even before Sulaimon's exit he was playing only about as much as Matt Jones, despite being seemingly a must-start based on rating and experience. So we were already seeing some deviation from the system, no? Again, that may all tie back to an anomalous personality though.

Kudos to Kedsy (hey, that could be a song title) for going to the trouble to put this together.. But this exercise is curve-fitting -- no one is expecting the RSCI to be flawless and for college experience to benefit each player to the same degree. I expect K and staff were impressed with Matt Jones's tough-as-nails defense, a skill unlikely to be properly addressed in recruiting rankings.

CDu
06-29-2015, 04:45 PM
Kudos to Kedsy (hey, that could be a song title) for going to the trouble to put this together.. But this exercise is curve-fitting -- no one is expecting the RSCI to be flawless and for college experience to benefit each player to the same degree. I expect K and staff were impressed with Matt Jones's tough-as-nails defense, a skill unlikely to be properly addressed in recruiting rankings.

Agreed. My point is just that there can be anomalous situations that break the rules a bit. Like, perhaps, Kennard this year.

Duvall
06-29-2015, 04:45 PM
Kudos to Kedsy (hey, that could be a song title) for going to the trouble to put this together.. But this exercise is curve-fitting -- no one is expecting the RSCI to be flawless and for college experience to benefit each player to the same degree. I expect K and staff were impressed with Matt Jones's tough-as-nails defense, a skill unlikely to be properly addressed in recruiting rankings.

I mean, is it unlikely? The people putting together the rankings are watching the same games and practices as the Duke staff, and often take into account a player's defensive potential in evaluating players.

sagegrouse
06-29-2015, 05:09 PM
I mean, is it unlikely? The people putting together the rankings are watching the same games and practices as the Duke staff, and often take into account a player's defensive potential in evaluating players.

Do you think that the HS recruit evaluators are as experienced and perceptive as the Duke coaching staff? Moreover, these under-resourced organizations have to cover thousands of basketball players, a situation that has improved a bit with national teams and national all-star tournaments.

flyingdutchdevil
06-29-2015, 05:16 PM
Do you think that the HS recruit evaluators are as experienced and perceptive as the Duke coaching staff? Moreover, these under-resourced organizations have to cover thousands of basketball players, a situation that has improved a bit with national teams and national all-star tournaments.

But it's their only job. Duke coaches have their current players - and not just future players - to consider.

It's a depth versus breadth argument. The Duke coaching staff can give us a much better breakdown of their targets, but their targets only include 10-15% of the top 100. A recruiting organization can give us a snapshot of all players. For comparison sake, I actually think the recruiting organizations are more reliable.

superdave
06-29-2015, 05:59 PM
Last year, Coach K seemed to have the attitude that his roster was a title contender. He loved the freshman, loved the upperclassman leadership and was talking pretty confidently from the start.

I believe that Coach K was willing to throw some past rules out the window - zone defense was the big one - in order to get the team into a position to make that title run. Part of that switch to the zone was meant to play the three freshmen as many minutes as they could handle without foul trouble, Okafor especially. The prior year, he went to the platoon system briefly to give the team a jumpstart when they had confidence issues. But he also seemed to know that team would be a little short of making a title run.

I wonder if we can read the tea leaves in Coach K's comments a few weeks into practice this upcoming season to see what he thinks of the team's title chances. I would bet he is bullish now. Could bullishness mean he would be more willing to let a freshman (Kennard) take some minutes from a more experienced player (Matt Jones)? That might explain some of what Kedsy mentioned as personal opinion skewing what the RSCI theory would otherwise suggest. I am sure there are more examples within the lineup than Kennard-Jones, but if Coach K sees something that makes him really bullish (likes the three freshmen last season) we may see him maximize that lineup at the expense of what we would expect.

The biggest possibility for skewing Kedsy's system projections would be playing Ingram at the 4 and maybe even Amile at the 5. That would be an ultra-small but ultra-fast lineup that would be tough to match up against late in games. Coach K always seems to tilt minutes towards those matchup nightmares. It will be interesting to see what that may be this year and what rules he breaks in order to maximize those minutes.

sagegrouse
06-29-2015, 06:07 PM
But it's their only job. Duke coaches have their current players - and not just future players - to consider.

It's a depth versus breadth argument. The Duke coaching staff can give us a much better breakdown of their targets, but their targets only include 10-15% of the top 100. A recruiting organization can give us a snapshot of all players. For comparison sake, I actually think the recruiting organizations are more reliable.

We had this debate a few years ago, when I argued it was rational for recruiting rating organizations to use all information, such as whether Duke or Kansas (or UNC or Ky.) had offered specific recruits or such as the scores given by their competitors. Their job is to put out the best ratings possible, and, of course, they will and should use all available information. Some people disagreed with me, as a matter of business ethics, I guess. But I am an economist that also spent decades in consulting and professional services; I think I have a feel for operating in the services industry with relative few resources.

Nevertheless, WRT to your point about the greater reach of the recruiting services, do you really think these organizations have sufficient resources to adequately coverage HS hoops on their own? For example, if they are using numerous regional stringers to grade the recruits, how the heck are they leveling the scores across different raters?

Kindly,
Sage

What's seemingly changed has been the growth of venues that bring together the best players into one arena. The U.S. national teams are a good example. That really helps in comparing the very best players from across the country.

Des Esseintes
06-29-2015, 06:08 PM
But it's their only job. Duke coaches have their current players - and not just future players - to consider.

It's a depth versus breadth argument. The Duke coaching staff can give us a much better breakdown of their targets, but their targets only include 10-15% of the top 100. A recruiting organization can give us a snapshot of all players. For comparison sake, I actually think the recruiting organizations are more reliable.

Agreed. It comes to the same thing usually anyway. Very few Duke recruits come from outside the Top 30. Some of that is a unanimity among recruiting evaluators and the Duke staff of a recruit's ability, and some of it is the natural rankings rise accorded to players recruited by blue blood programs. To say evaluators don't pay attention to defense seems presumptuous. There are intelligent, capable people in this life, and some of them were never even *once* employed by Duke University.

Duvall
06-29-2015, 06:09 PM
Do you think that the HS recruit evaluators are as experienced and perceptive as the Duke coaching staff? Moreover, these under-resourced organizations have to cover thousands of basketball players, a situation that has improved a bit with national teams and national all-star tournaments.

Thousands? I guess if you count all classes. But if there was that much divergence between the evaluations of coaching staffs and the evaluations of the recruitniks, then why do both groups agree so often, and converge on the same top players?

kAzE
06-29-2015, 06:26 PM
Last year, Coach K seemed to have the attitude that his roster was a title contender. He loved the freshman, loved the upperclassman leadership and was talking pretty confidently from the start.

I believe that Coach K was willing to throw some past rules out the window - zone defense was the big one - in order to get the team into a position to make that title run. Part of that switch to the zone was meant to play the three freshmen as many minutes as they could handle without foul trouble, Okafor especially. The prior year, he went to the platoon system briefly to give the team a jumpstart when they had confidence issues. But he also seemed to know that team would be a little short of making a title run.

I wonder if we can read the tea leaves in Coach K's comments a few weeks into practice this upcoming season to see what he thinks of the team's title chances. I would bet he is bullish now. Could bullishness mean he would be more willing to let a freshman (Kennard) take some minutes from a more experienced player (Matt Jones)? That might explain some of what Kedsy mentioned as personal opinion skewing what the RSCI theory would otherwise suggest. I am sure there are more examples within the lineup than Kennard-Jones, but if Coach K sees something that makes him really bullish (likes the three freshmen last season) we may see him maximize that lineup at the expense of what we would expect.

The biggest possibility for skewing Kedsy's system projections would be playing Ingram at the 4 and maybe even Amile at the 5. That would be an ultra-small but ultra-fast lineup that would be tough to match up against late in games. Coach K always seems to tilt minutes towards those matchup nightmares. It will be interesting to see what that may be this year and what rules he breaks in order to maximize those minutes.

I love the idea of playing Ingram at the 4. I'm not going to go all-out with the media hyperbole on "small ball is the new meta," but both teams that won the NCAA and NBA championships in 2015 played undersized guys at the 4 who were skilled and could make plays for themselves and others. I'm talking, of course, about Justise Winslow and Draymond Green.

Before you flame me, yes . . . I know Ingram is not even remotely the same type of player as either of those guys physically, but he does have similar skills: he's a better shooter than either of those guys, he is a decent rebounder, and is potentially a good to great defender. I love his potential as an undersized 4 in college. This guy averaged 10.4 rebounds and 3.0 blocks per game in high school. Rebounding and shot blocking translate to any level of basketball. As long as he can hold his own on the glass, he can play the 4 in college. I know I might have made some folks roll their eyes when I likened his physical measurements to Kevin Durant in another thread, so how about this: Brice Johnson was just 6-9 190 in his freshman year at UNC, and managed to average 10.9 boards per 36 minutes. Ingram weighs in at 200 and has longer arms. I think he'll be more than fine . . in fact, I'd be absolutely shocked if he didn't become the starter at the 4 and play most of his minutes there next season.

Having a guy who can handle, pass and shoot like Ingram at the 4 provides the team with such a huge advantage, I just don't see the logic of putting him at the 3, where he may not be able to take full advantage of his quickness and shooting ability, and drawing opposing big men out of the paint. I don't think he'll have any issues on defense, either. With his length and athleticism, he'll be a terror in passing lanes and protecting the rim from the weak side.

We've got a glut of perimeter talent on next year's team, so why wouldn't Coach K maximize the offensive firepower on the floor by shifting Ingram up to the 4? We could then start a lineup with Thornton, Allen, Jones, Ingram, and Plumlee. I think that's the optimal lineup based on the strengths of our star players.

superdave
06-29-2015, 07:16 PM
I love the idea of playing Ingram at the 4. I'm not going to go all-out with the media hyperbole on "small ball is the new meta," but both teams that won the NCAA and NBA championships in 2015 played undersized guys at the 4 who were skilled and could make plays for themselves and others. I'm talking, of course, about Justise Winslow and Draymond Green.

Before you flame me, yes . . . I know Ingram is not even remotely the same type of player as either of those guys physically, but he does have similar skills: he's a better shooter than either of those guys, he is a decent rebounder, and is potentially a good to great defender. I love his potential as an undersized 4 in college. This guy averaged 10.4 rebounds and 3.0 blocks per game in high school. Rebounding and shot blocking translate to any level of basketball. As long as he can hold his own on the glass, he can play the 4 in college. I know I might have made some folks roll their eyes when I likened his physical measurements to Kevin Durant in another thread, so how about this: Brice Johnson was just 6-9 190 in his freshman year at UNC, and managed to average 10.9 boards per 36 minutes. Ingram weighs in at 200 and has longer arms. I think he'll be more than fine . . in fact, I'd be absolutely shocked if he didn't become the starter at the 4 and play most of his minutes there next season.

Having a guy who can handle, pass and shoot like Ingram at the 4 provides the team with such a huge advantage, I just don't see the logic of putting him at the 3, where he may not be able to take full advantage of his quickness and shooting ability, and drawing opposing big men out of the paint. I don't think he'll have any issues on defense, either. With his length and athleticism, he'll be a terror in passing lanes and protecting the rim from the weak side.

We've got a glut of perimeter talent on next year's team, so why wouldn't Coach K maximize the offensive firepower on the floor by shifting Ingram up to the 4? We could then start a lineup with Thornton, Allen, Jones, Ingram, and Plumlee. I think that's the optimal lineup based on the strengths of our star players.

Could Thornton be this year's Okafor...eg the only guy on the roster we cannot really afford to lose or allow to get into foul trouble?

If so, does that skew Coach K's strategy towards a slower game or not? I would argue that a slower strategy would take advantage of our size at the 4/5 positions and skew towards a traditional Coach K distribution of minutes aligned with Kedsy's projection.

But if we can use Allen or Kennard at point (or Ingram!) then we have more options and can play a lot faster.

Skitzle
06-30-2015, 12:54 AM
Could Thornton be this year's Okafor...eg the only guy on the roster we cannot really afford to lose or allow to get into foul trouble?

If so, does that skew Coach K's strategy towards a slower game or not? I would argue that a slower strategy would take advantage of our size at the 4/5 positions and skew towards a traditional Coach K distribution of minutes aligned with Kedsy's projection.

But if we can use Allen or Kennard at point (or Ingram!) then we have more options and can play a lot faster.


We won a title with Okafor in foul trouble.

Troublemaker
06-30-2015, 12:07 PM
Could Thornton be this year's Okafor...eg the only guy on the roster we cannot really afford to lose or allow to get into foul trouble?

If so, does that skew Coach K's strategy towards a slower game or not? I would argue that a slower strategy would take advantage of our size at the 4/5 positions and skew towards a traditional Coach K distribution of minutes aligned with Kedsy's projection.

But if we can use Allen or Kennard at point (or Ingram!) then we have more options and can play a lot faster.

I doubt that will be the case. For one thing, one of Derryck's biggest assets appears to be his speed, so we would want to really push the pace with him, imo. Playing slow will make him and Duke less effective when he's in the ballgame.

Also, and you mentioned this as a possibility, I think there WILL be enough ball-handling / creating ability between Ingram, Allen, and Kennard that Duke might not need a true PG like Derryck to play effective offense. I think Kennard is going to really push Derryck for the starting job when it's all said and done. At the very least, there will be some opponents (zone teams?) where Kennard's shooting ability will earn him more minutes, imo.

Finally, I'm with Kaze that it is more likely that Coach K will try to get as many minutes as possible for the perimeter talent rather than "take advantage of the size at the 4/5." I just think there's more talent on the perimeter than there is inside on this team, and Duke's going to find ways to get all of Ingram, Allen, MJones, DThornton, and Kennard plenty of minutes.

superdave
06-30-2015, 12:16 PM
I doubt that will be the case. For one thing, one of Derryck's biggest assets appears to be his speed, so we would want to really push the pace with him, imo. Playing slow will make him and Duke less effective when he's in the ballgame.

Also, and you mentioned this as a possibility, I think there WILL be enough ball-handling / creating ability between Ingram, Allen, and Kennard that Duke might not need a true PG like Derryck to play effective offense. I think Kennard is going to really push Derryck for the starting job when it's all said and done. At the very least, there will be some opponents (zone teams?) where Kennard's shooting ability will earn him more minutes, imo.

Finally, I'm with Kaze that it is more likely that Coach K will try to get as many minutes as possible for the perimeter talent rather than "take advantage of the size at the 4/5." I just think there's more talent on the perimeter than there is inside on this team, and Duke's going to find ways to get all of Ingram, Allen, MJones, DThornton, and Kennard plenty of minutes.

I think you are right about the deep talent on the perimeter. A question for those who have seen Ingram play - Is he going to more Freshman Dunleavy (9.1 points, 4.3 boards in 24 minutes per) or Freshman Singler (13.3 and 5.8 in 29 minutes)? Or are those bad comps?

cato
06-30-2015, 12:22 PM
I think you are right about the deep talent on the perimeter. A question for those who have seen Ingram play - Is he going to more Freshman Dunleavy (9.1 points, 4.3 boards in 24 minutes per) or Freshman Singler (13.3 and 5.8 in 29 minutes)? Or are those bad comps?

Hopefully he will not get mono.

CDu
06-30-2015, 12:34 PM
I think you are right about the deep talent on the perimeter. A question for those who have seen Ingram play - Is he going to more Freshman Dunleavy (9.1 points, 4.3 boards in 24 minutes per) or Freshman Singler (13.3 and 5.8 in 29 minutes)? Or are those bad comps?

I would say those aren't great comps, but I would anticipate his stats being more like Singler's stats. Mainly because he is a higher-rated prospect than Dunleavy was, and because he faces less competition at his position than Dunleavy did as a frosh.

But it will look a lot different. For one thing, Singler played mostly PF/C (mostly at C) as a frosh. So he spent more time near the basket than I anticipate we'll see from Ingram (who'll play some PF but will probably play more often at SF on the wing).

If anything I'd say Ingram may score as much or more than Singler did as a frosh but have a rebound total more like Dunleavy's total.

Kedsy
06-30-2015, 12:47 PM
I think Kennard is going to really push Derryck for the starting job when it's all said and done. At the very least, there will be some opponents (zone teams?) where Kennard's shooting ability will earn him more minutes, imo.

As I've mentioned, in the past couple years Coach K has shown a possible predilection for departing from his previous historical norms. That said, here is the list of players who this system predicted to be outside the rotation and who ended up both among Duke's top seven minute-getters and having 10+ mpg:

Miles Plumlee, 2009-10
Tyler Thornton, 2011-12

That's it. Maybe Luke Kennard will be the third such player. In my head, that makes sense. But I wouldn't bet on it.

kAzE
06-30-2015, 02:15 PM
I would say those aren't great comps, but I would anticipate his stats being more like Singler's stats. Mainly because he is a higher-rated prospect than Dunleavy was, and because he faces less competition at his position than Dunleavy did as a frosh.

But it will look a lot different. For one thing, Singler played mostly PF/C (mostly at C) as a frosh. So he spent more time near the basket than I anticipate we'll see from Ingram (who'll play some PF but will probably play more often at SF on the wing).

If anything I'd say Ingram may score as much or more than Singler did as a frosh but have a rebound total more like Dunleavy's total.

I'm very high on Ingram. He's the most talented player on the roster next year, and I think he'll average something like 16 points and 6-7 rebounds a game. His rebounding will probably not be that high if he plays most of his minutes on the perimeter, but I'm still bullish on him playing mostly at the 4.

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but if you've seen this, I think you'll agree that Ingram is easily more talented than Singler or Dunleavy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0k46dtm_7Q

Yes, it's a highlight tape, but the guy's expression at 2:30 pretty much sums it up: dude can play. I think he steps right in and fills Justise Winslow role on last year's offense. Justise was a slasher/playmaker/1-man fast break type of guy on last year's team, and got by mostly on his speed and strength. I think Ingram can do all of that, just in a different way: using his awesome length, body control, and silky smooth ball handling. Can you imagine college 4s trying to guard him out at the 3 point line? He's going to absolutely embarrass guys out there, especially since he's also a deadly shooter.

Calling it right now: Ingram will lead the team next year in these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0k46dtm_7Q

as well as these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0k46dtm_7Q

(Chase down blocks and rebound/run-out dunks)

CDu
06-30-2015, 02:30 PM
I'm very high on Ingram. He's the most talented player on the roster next year, and I think he'll average something like 16 points and 6-7 rebounds a game. His rebounding will probably not be that high if he plays most of his minutes on the perimeter, but I'm still bullish on him playing mostly at the 4.

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but if you've seen this, I think you'll agree that Ingram is easily more talented than Singler or Dunleavy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0k46dtm_7Q

Yes, it's a highlight tape, but the guy's expression at 2:30 pretty much sums it up: dude can play. I think he steps right in and fills Justise Winslow role on last year's offense. Justise was a slasher/playmaker/1-man fast break type of guy on last year's team, and got by mostly on his speed and strength. I think Ingram can do all of that, just in a different way: using his awesome length, body control, and silky smooth ball handling. Can you imagine college 4s trying to guard him out at the 3 point line? He's going to absolutely embarrass guys out there, especially since he's also a deadly shooter.

Calling it right now: Ingram will lead the team next year in these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0k46dtm_7Q

as well as these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0k46dtm_7Q

(Chase down blocks and rebound/run-out dunks)

I'm certainly a fan of his scoring ability. I'm less sold on his ability to rebound at the college level. It's worth noting that the highlight reel he put together there was seemingly against midgets (okay, so more likely a bunch of 5'10" to 6'3" guys as is typical of high school teams). I don't think that's going to translate. I also don't think he'll play most of his time at PF, though I do think he'll play a fair amount there. But if he averages 5 rebounds per game next year, I'll be a bit surprised - in no small part because we'll have multiple strong rebounders at PF/C as well (Jefferson and Obi, possibly Jeter).

kAzE
06-30-2015, 05:12 PM
I'm certainly a fan of his scoring ability. I'm less sold on his ability to rebound at the college level. It's worth noting that the highlight reel he put together there was seemingly against midgets (okay, so more likely a bunch of 5'10" to 6'3" guys as is typical of high school teams). I don't think that's going to translate. I also don't think he'll play most of his time at PF, though I do think he'll play a fair amount there. But if he averages 5 rebounds per game next year, I'll be a bit surprised - in no small part because we'll have multiple strong rebounders at PF/C as well (Jefferson and Obi, possibly Jeter).

I'm curious, since you didn't mention him, what are your thoughts on Plumlee next year? I think he really handled himself quite well in his limited minutes last season, but as we've never gotten a chance to see him play extended minutes, he's still a huge question mark. He seemed to finally put it together defensively . . . and actually was our best big man defending the pick and roll. It wasn't a monumental task to be better than Okafor in that area, but I was impressed with the quickness he showed for his size. He also became much more decisive on the floor with his movements.

I think if he improves by the same magnitude this year as he showed last year, he may be the best candidate to start at center. Amile acquitted himself well 2 years ago as our only option in the post, but he just doesn't have to size to bother guys at the rim. MP3 has the size, but can he play without fouling, and does his lack of offensive skill hurt the team too much for him to play 20+ minutes?

I think he can do it! Maybe he can become a poor man's Willie Cauley-Stein. He's actually quite mobile for a 7 footer, and certainly hustles his butt off. He's probably not capable of defending guards like WCS, but I thought he did pretty well on switches in the NCAA tournament. Defensively, we were superior when he was in the game over Okafor, and there was never a moment last year where I thought he killed us. We actually went on some big runs in big games with Plumlee on the floor and Okafor on the bench. Amile should probably still play as many or more minutes, but I think we have enough offensive weapons on the roster to play MP3 major rotation minutes. I think he's our best defensive big man and is at least a top 2 rebounder on the team (not sure how good Obi is just yet).

CDu
06-30-2015, 05:28 PM
I'm curious, since you didn't mention him, what are your thoughts on Plumlee next year? I think he really handled himself quite well in his limited minutes last season, but as we've never gotten a chance to see him play extended minutes, he's still a huge question mark. He seemed to finally put it together defensively . . . and actually was our best big man defending the pick and roll. It wasn't a monumental task to be better than Okafor in that area, but I was impressed with the quickness he showed for his size. He also became much more decisive on the floor with his movements.

I think if he improves by the same magnitude this year as he showed last year, he may be the best candidate to start at center. Amile acquitted himself well 2 years ago as our only option in the post, but he just doesn't have to size to bother guys at the rim. MP3 has the size, but can he play without fouling, and does his lack of offensive skill hurt the team too much for him to play 20+ minutes?

I think he can do it! Maybe he can become a poor man's Willie Cauley-Stein. He's actually quite mobile for a 7 footer, and certainly hustles his butt off. He's probably not capable of defending guards like WCS, but I thought he did pretty well on switches in the NCAA tournament. Defensively, we were superior when he was in the game over Okafor, and there was never a moment last year where I thought he killed us. We actually went on some big runs in big games with Plumlee on the floor and Okafor on the bench. Amile should probably still play as many or more minutes, but I think we have enough offensive weapons on the roster to play MP3 major rotation minutes. I think he's our best defensive big man and is at least a top 2 rebounder on the team (not sure how good Obi is just yet).

I suspect Plumlee will be in the 10-15 mpg range. I think he will be the weakest rebounder of our top four bigs (I would list Obi and Jefferson abead for sure, with Jeter an unknown but likely to be better at it). And while its true that he was better than Okafor defensively, I am not sure he is so good defensively that he needs to be on the floor. This is especially true if Obi and Jeter are better defensively than Okafor (which would not surprise me). I do think he will play, but I have trouble seeing him be more than a reserve big.

But the main reason I didn't list Plumlee in that previous post was because I was talking about our good rebounders, and I don't view Plumlee as a good rebounder. He is a very energetic and capable defender, but he is just so-so as a rebounder.

johnb
07-01-2015, 11:23 AM
I suspect Plumlee will be in the 10-15 mpg range. I think he will be the weakest rebounder of our top four bigs (I would list Obi and Jefferson abead for sure, with Jeter an unknown but likely to be better at it). And while its true that he was better than Okafor defensively, I am not sure he is so good defensively that he needs to be on the floor. This is especially true if Obi and Jeter are better defensively than Okafor (which would not surprise me). I do think he will play, but I have trouble seeing him be more than a reserve big.

But the main reason I didn't list Plumlee in that previous post was because I was talking about our good rebounders, and I don't view Plumlee as a good rebounder. He is a very energetic and capable defender, but he is just so-so as a rebounder.

Marshall is a bit of a puzzle. While we haven't seen him play extended minutes, the coaching staff has, and he doesn't get a lot of PT. At the same time, he is such a mobile, athletic big guy that it seems like he warrants at least the 10-15" per game. Of course, he might have fouled out by then, and he did play behind a guy who won 2 NPOY awards, but I'm still optimistic that he can wedge himself into the lineup and get some serious NBA looks next year.

Kedsy
07-01-2015, 12:09 PM
Marshall is a bit of a puzzle. While we haven't seen him play extended minutes, the coaching staff has, and he doesn't get a lot of PT. At the same time, he is such a mobile, athletic big guy that it seems like he warrants at least the 10-15" per game. Of course, he might have fouled out by then, and he did play behind a guy who won 2 NPOY awards, but I'm still optimistic that he can wedge himself into the lineup and get some serious NBA looks next year.

Marshall averaged 6.2 fouls per 40 minutes last season (by far the highest rate of his Duke career). But even at that rate, on average he could play 32 minutes before fouling out. I'm not particularly worried about fouls being a major issue with Marshall.

For a guy his size, though, CDu is right. He's a very mediocre defensive rebounder. Has been his whole time at Duke.

That said, his advanced metrics in 2014-15 were pretty good. He had an outrageously good eFG%, led the team in BPM (Box Plus Minus, not to be confused with the Plus/Minus stats we banter about here), and is 2nd among returning Duke players in win shares per 40, though his PER was only OK.

If Marshall continues to improve the way he has so far, he has the potential to contribute more than 10 or 15 mpg, although with so much competition for the big man minutes, he may still end up in that range. But despite the old adage about the inability to teach height, I'll be surprised if any NBA team gives him a serious look.

CDu
07-01-2015, 12:19 PM
Marshall averaged 6.2 fouls per 40 minutes last season (by far the highest rate of his Duke career). But even at that rate, on average he could play 32 minutes before fouling out. I'm not particularly worried about fouls being a major issue with Marshall.

For a guy his size, though, CDu is right. He's a very mediocre defensive rebounder. Has been his whole time at Duke.

That said, his advanced metrics in 2014-15 were pretty good. He had an outrageously good eFG%, led the team in BPM (Box Plus Minus, not to be confused with the Plus/Minus stats we banter about here), and is 2nd among returning Duke players in win shares per 40, though his PER was only OK.

If Marshall continues to improve the way he has so far, he has the potential to contribute more than 10 or 15 mpg, although with so much competition for the big man minutes, he may still end up in that range. But despite the old adage about the inability to teach height, I'll be surprised if any NBA team gives him a serious look.

To be fair, his high eFG% was because he rarely shot unless it was a dunk attempt. His usage% had to be extremely low. He's a guy who knows his role and stays within his lane, so to speak. What he does, he does really well. He's kind of a quintessential backup big man. He can give you 10-15 minutes of solid defense and occasional highlight plays athletically, but he's not a guy whose game is well suited to play major minutes.

If he were a better defensive rebounder, I'd say he could be a solid option to start at C for a team loaded with offense at the 1-4 spots. In that role, he could be a screen setter and chase offensive rebounds (he's relatively a better offensive rebounder than defensive rebounder) and get occasional garbage dunks. But he's not strong as a defensive rebounder, which means you have to pair him with a stronger defensive rebounder if you are going to play him big minutes. And our strongest defensive rebounders (Jefferson and Obi) aren't big offensive players. So we'd be playing a fairly offensively-challenged lineup if Plumlee plays a lot.

kAzE
07-01-2015, 12:41 PM
To be fair, his high eFG% was because he rarely shot unless it was a dunk attempt. His usage% had to be extremely low. He's a guy who knows his role and stays within his lane, so to speak. What he does, he does really well. He's kind of a quintessential backup big man. He can give you 10-15 minutes of solid defense and occasional highlight plays athletically, but he's not a guy whose game is well suited to play major minutes.

If he were a better defensive rebounder, I'd say he could be a solid option to start at C for a team loaded with offense at the 1-4 spots. In that role, he could be a screen setter and chase offensive rebounds (he's relatively a better offensive rebounder than defensive rebounder) and get occasional garbage dunks. But he's not strong as a defensive rebounder, which means you have to pair him with a stronger defensive rebounder if you are going to play him big minutes. And our strongest defensive rebounders (Jefferson and Obi) aren't big offensive players. So we'd be playing a fairly offensively-challenged lineup if Plumlee plays a lot.

Well . . . I wouldn't consider Jefferson to be a MUCH better rebounder . . . he's a career 9.9 rebounds per 36 minutes, while MP3 is at 8.9. Plus, he's certainly not as good of a rim protector as MP3, so defensively, I believe it's a wash. Offensively, Jefferson is more skilled with the ball certainly, but MP3 at least grabs a good share of offensive boards and is always a lob away from an alley oop. My point was IF he shows even more improvement, he could earn a bigger role. I'm going on faith that he's improved, not on what he's shown us to this point. Like the cliche says, you can't teach size, and he'll always have that advantage over Obi and Jefferson.

CDu
07-01-2015, 12:54 PM
Well . . . I wouldn't consider Jefferson to be a MUCH better rebounder . . . he's a career 9.9 rebounds per 36 minutes, while MP3 is at 8.9. Plus, he's certainly not as good of a rim protector as MP3, so defensively, I believe it's a wash. Offensively, Jefferson is more skilled with the ball certainly, but MP3 at least grabs a good share of offensive boards and is always a lob away from an alley oop. My point was IF he shows even more improvement, he could earn a bigger role. I'm going on faith that he's improved, not on what he's shown us to this point. Like the cliche says, you can't teach size, and he'll always have that advantage over Obi and Jefferson.

I said Jefferson is a much better defensive rebounder than Plumlee. And that is true. It is also true that Plumlee is a better offensive rebounder than Jefferson, which offsets some of the difference in rebounding. But I was talking about defensive rebounding.

kAzE
07-01-2015, 01:05 PM
I said Jefferson is a much better defensive rebounder than Plumlee. And that is true. It is also true that Plumlee is a better offensive rebounder than Jefferson, which offsets some of the difference in rebounding. But I was talking about defensive rebounding.

I think it makes sense . . . Plumlee goes for more blocks than Jefferson on defense (which he should), and it's naturally more difficult to be in position for rebounds when you are challenging shots rather than boxing out. However, I'll always have some painful memories of easy defensive rebounds that MP3 could have secured if he didn't have bricks for hands. But I think his hands improved last year . . . and I'm hoping he's gotten even better this year. I really sincerely thought he showed some flashes of being a great defensive player last year. He's certainly not on the level of either of his older brothers as a rebounder, so here's to hoping he's a late bloomer.

CDu
07-01-2015, 01:13 PM
I think it makes sense . . . Plumlee goes for more blocks than Jefferson on defense (which he should), and it's naturally more difficult to be in position for rebounds when you are challenging shots rather than boxing out. However, I'll always have some painful memories of easy defensive rebounds that MP3 could have secured if he didn't have bricks for hands. But I think his hands improved last year . . . and I'm hoping he's gotten even better this year. I really sincerely thought he showed some flashes of being a great defensive player last year. He's certainly not on the level of either of his older brothers as a rebounder, so here's to hoping he's a late bloomer.

I totally agree. Plumlee's defensive rebounding certainly suffers by going for blocked shots (as is the case for a lot of shotblockers) and his not-so-good hands. But as you said he is steadily improving. I just don't know if he'll improve enough to be more than a 10-15 mpg guy at Duke by this year, especially given the crowd we have in the frontcourt this year.

Kedsy
07-01-2015, 01:57 PM
Well . . . I wouldn't consider Jefferson to be a MUCH better rebounder . . . he's a career 9.9 rebounds per 36 minutes, while MP3 is at 8.9. Plus, he's certainly not as good of a rim protector as MP3, so defensively, I believe it's a wash. Offensively, Jefferson is more skilled with the ball certainly, but MP3 at least grabs a good share of offensive boards and is always a lob away from an alley oop. My point was IF he shows even more improvement, he could earn a bigger role. I'm going on faith that he's improved, not on what he's shown us to this point. Like the cliche says, you can't teach size, and he'll always have that advantage over Obi and Jefferson.

I understand the relationship between blocks and defensive rebounds, although it's not like Marshall has been Olajuwon or anything. Still, in the past two seasons, Marshall's defensive rebounding percentage (a better guide than rebounds per minute) was 14.1% and 15.6%. Amile's defensive rebounding percentage in those two seasons was 21.5% and 18.0%. That's "MUCH better," at least in my mind.

kAzE
07-01-2015, 02:11 PM
I understand the relationship between blocks and defensive rebounds, although it's not like Marshall has been Olajuwon or anything. Still, in the past two seasons, Marshall's defensive rebounding percentage (a better guide than rebounds per minute) was 14.1% and 15.6%. Amile's defensive rebounding percentage in those two seasons was 21.5% and 18.0%. That's "MUCH better," at least in my mind.

Fair, but I'd like to see some advanced stats for opponent's FG% at the rim when Plumlee is at center vs when Jefferson is at center. It's probably not a big sample size, but I'd be interested to see if Plumlee's defensive presence is a real thing or not. I know Cameron has SportsVU, but I wasn't able to find any stats online. For some reason, I just remember being pleasantly surprised several times last year at how effective we were as a team on both ends when Okafor was on the bench and Plumlee on the floor. Maybe I'm imagining things, or maybe it was just some hot shooting by someone else, but some numbers to back this up would have been nice . . . I'll try to keep digging.

Kedsy
07-01-2015, 02:27 PM
Fair, but I'd like to see some advanced stats for opponent's FG% at the rim when Plumlee is at center vs when Jefferson is at center. It's probably not a big sample size, but I'd be interested to see if Plumlee's defensive presence is a real thing or not. I know Cameron has SportsVU, but I wasn't able to find any stats online. For some reason, I just remember being pleasantly surprised several times last year at how effective we were as a team on both ends when Okafor was on the bench and Plumlee on the floor. Maybe I'm imagining things, or maybe it was just some hot shooting by someone else, but some numbers to back this up would have been nice . . . I'll try to keep digging.

I agree with you that Marshall's defense was pretty effective in 2014-15. It remains to be seen how offensively challenged we might be with two of Marshall, Amile, Sean, and/or Chase playing together. If Amile got 20+ mpg in each of the past two seasons (which he did), you'd think he'd get at least that many this year. And if that's true then if the combination of Brandon and Chase play any number of decent minutes at the four, it would mean Marshall will probably play fewer than 20 mpg. And that's not even considering how much Sean might play. We'll have a very deep rotation this year, especially at the big positions.

kAzE
07-01-2015, 02:45 PM
I agree with you that Marshall's defense was pretty effective in 2014-15. It remains to be seen how offensively challenged we might be with two of Marshall, Amile, Sean, and/or Chase playing together. If Amile got 20+ mpg in each of the past two seasons (which he did), you'd think he'd get at least that many this year. And if that's true then if the combination of Brandon and Chase play any number of decent minutes at the four, it would mean Marshall will probably play fewer than 20 mpg. And that's not even considering how much Sean might play. We'll have a very deep rotation this year, especially at the big positions.

Yeah, that's the thing . . . they way I see it, playing any 2 of those guys together is going to create spacing issues. That's why I think Ingram at the 4 is the key. The reason I'm campaigning for Plumlee is probably more based on my lack of knowledge about Sean Obi and Chase Jeter. If either of those guys proves to be more than a role player this year, especially defensively, my opinions on Plumlee could change a lot. Jeter is the most interesting because he is the most talented offensively, but I don't expect him to come in and be a great defensive player from the get-go. His ability to score from the post will be valuable, and is unique to this team, so I think ideally, he develops quickly and becomes the #1 big. Obi's size and strength is intriguing, and if he can rebound as effectively in the ACC as he did at Rice, he may play more than I think he will.

I'm not really sure how Jefferson fits into all of this. He's clearly a leader on the team, and the guy I would trust the most in a tight game, but his relative inability to protect the rim or hit a 15 footer really limits the type of lineups we can play when he is on the floor. He may be best utilized as a small ball center with Ingram at the 4, but I would be worried about our rebounding with that group. I hope he's worked HARD on his jump shot over the summer . . . if he could just hit 45% from 10-15 feet, it would really open things up for him and the rest of the team, but we've been holding out hope for 3 years now, so I'm not going to expect it.

Edit: just read this - http://www.scout.com/college/basketball/recruiting/story/1429507-chase-jeter-evaluation

If Jeter can hit that mid ranged jumper . . . perhaps playing him at center with Jefferson at the 4 could be an option. That particular scouting report REALLY praised his rebounding ability, so there may be more to this kid than I gave him credit for.

sagegrouse
07-01-2015, 03:18 PM
I dunno. I pretended to swallow Kedsy's model hook, line and sinker. Now I am looking for an explanation of the outliers -- which was that Matt's defense, which gets him on the court at Duke, was under-valued by the RSCI.


BTW, I believe that Matt's gonna play a lot in 2016. Also, Grayson will start -- I mean, K established a NC award because of his play against Wisc.

Kedsy
07-01-2015, 05:00 PM
I dunno. I pretended to swallow Kedsy's model hook, line and sinker. Now I am looking for an explanation of the outliers -- which was that Matt's defense, which gets him on the court at Duke, was under-valued by the RSCI.

You may be right about Matt's RSCI, but it's worth noting that before Rasheed left the team, Matt had the fifth-most minutes among Duke's perimeter players. Meaning, he wasn't an outlier.


BTW, I believe that Matt's gonna play a lot in 2016. Also, Grayson will start -- I mean, K established a NC award because of his play against Wisc.

I agree that either Matt or Grayson will start. Possibly both if Brandon starts at PF. But if Brandon doesn't start at PF, then that could possibly push Luke out of the main rotation (as the system suggests).

luvdahops
07-01-2015, 05:56 PM
You may be right about Matt's RSCI, but it's worth noting that before Rasheed left the team, Matt had the fifth-most minutes among Duke's perimeter players. Meaning, he wasn't an outlier.



I agree that either Matt or Grayson will start. Possibly both if Brandon starts at PF. But if Brandon doesn't start at PF, then that could possibly push Luke out of the main rotation (as the system suggests).

The one thing to keep in mind about Kennard is that he will likely be our best 3-point threat and best option as a backup PG. Those factors alone should be worth ~15 mpg in my view. While not challenging the validity of the model per se, I am not sure how well it captures such truly differentiated skills. And 15 mpg may be more like a floor if Luke can play solid defense and contribute in other areas.

flyingdutchdevil
07-01-2015, 07:36 PM
The one thing to keep in mind about Kennard is that he will likely be our best 3-point threat and best option as a backup PG. Those factors alone should be worth ~15 mpg in my view. While not challenging the validity of the model per se, I am not sure how well it captures such truly differentiated skills. And 15 mpg may be more like a floor if Luke can play solid defense and contribute in other areas.

I don't agree with this. Kennard is indeed a good 3pt shooter, but Matt Jones can to Duke with the exact same expectations. It takes time to adjust to the game. Furthermore, we have very capable 3pt shooters: Grayson, Matt, Brandon, and potentially Thornton (not sure about his 3pt shooting). Secondly, I see Grayson as a more capable PG. His handle is solid, and that's all you really need. Neither Grayson nor Kennard are natural distributors, and they scored a toooon of points in high school. Also, I'm convinced that Thornton will be playing 35 min a game out of necessity. Coach K loves his PGs, and there isn't a legitimate PG outside of Thornton.

I see Kennard as getting squeezed for minutes next year (like Grayson this year). I'd be surprised if he played more than 10 mpg in ACC play. I hope he has a Grayson-type post-season, because that means a) Kennard really developed and, more importantly, b) we went far in the tourney.

gumbomoop
07-01-2015, 08:50 PM
The one thing to keep in mind about Kennard is that he will likely be our best 3-point threat and best option as a backup PG. Those factors alone should be worth ~15 mpg in my view. While not challenging the validity of the model per se, I am not sure how well it captures such truly differentiated skills. And 15 mpg may be more like a floor if Luke can play solid defense and contribute in other areas.


I don't agree with this. Kennard is indeed a good 3pt shooter, but Matt Jones can to Duke with the exact same expectations. It takes time to adjust to the game. Furthermore, we have very capable 3pt shooters: Grayson, Matt, Brandon, and potentially Thornton (not sure about his 3pt shooting). Secondly, I see Grayson as a more capable PG. His handle is solid, and that's all you really need. Neither Grayson nor Kennard are natural distributors....

We have an ongoing, friendly, but fundamental, difference of opinion on several EK threads re Luke Kennard, nicely exemplified here by luvdahops and fdd.

I disageee with fdd's assessment of Grayson v. Luke as backup PGs. I look forward to Grayson's powerful drives to the hoop, and to what I think will be his solid 3-pt %. But I do not see him as a more capable PG than Luke, precisely because Grayson is nowhere near the natural distributor that Luke is. I personally will be disappointed if Grayson needs to play backup PG, as I want to see him shoot and attack, shoot and attack.

Luke, meanwhile, is both a scorer and a distributor. Here are two telling comments about Luke-as-distributor [apologies, in that I have previously cited both of these, but I think they -- and of course I do mean "they" -- do support my and luvdahops' viewpoint]:

(1) Krzyzewski -- "Although he's a scorer, he's an amazing passer, and he's an easy guy to play with. I'm not sure most people would say that a 40 point a game scorer would be easy to play with, but he is."

(2) Capel -- "The ball doesn't get stuck in his hands. He either shoots it or he moves it."

I've no doubt that Matt is superior to Luke as a defender; and Grayson may turn out to be as fierce on D as on getting to the rim. So, yes, I concede that Luke will have to be competent on D, or his minutes will be limited. I think he will be respectable on D, as he's court-aware on both ends of the court. Like Scheyer, I think, he sees stuff.

I do not contend that Matt and Greyson are incapable of making make some nice passes. But I do contend that we'll regularly see some beauties from Luke. I trust his teammates will be ready. Because if he doesn't shoot it, he's gonna move it.

Kedsy
07-01-2015, 09:28 PM
Here are two telling comments about Luke-as-distributor [apologies, in that I have previously cited both of these, but I think they -- and of course I do mean "they" -- do support my and luvdahops' viewpoint]:

(1) Krzyzewski -- "Although he's a scorer, he's an amazing passer, and he's an easy guy to play with. I'm not sure most people would say that a 40 point a game scorer would be easy to play with, but he is."

(2) Capel -- "The ball doesn't get stuck in his hands. He either shoots it or he moves it."



At this point, I don't think we can form a reliable opinion of Luke's abilities compared to our other perimeter players. We just won't know until we see him in the Fall.

But I would caution against putting too much stock in quotes like the above, especially when made before the guy even sets foot on campus. I seem to recall Coach K saying very positive things about Alex Murphy, for example. And I believe the assistant coaches were raving over Marty Pocius, the summer before his freshman year. I'm not saying Luke is analogous to Alex or Marty, just that you shouldn't take throwaway comments made when a kid's in high school and expect those comments to accurately predict freshman year playing time.

gumbomoop
07-01-2015, 10:37 PM
At this point, I don't think we can form a reliable opinion of Luke's abilities compared to our other perimeter players. We just won't know until we see him in the Fall.

But I would caution against putting too much stock in quotes like the above, especially when made before the guy even sets foot on campus. I seem to recall Coach K saying very positive things about Alex Murphy, for example. And I believe the assistant coaches were raving over Marty Pocius, the summer before his freshman year. I'm not saying Luke is analogous to Alex or Marty, just that you shouldn't take throwaway comments made when a kid's in high school and expect those comments to accurately predict freshman year playing time.

We have a slight disagreement here. I concede that I'm not totally, totally certain about how much stock to put into the two statements I cited. All coaches, I guess, have good to wonderful things to say about signees. Still, I sense that the coaches not only think but are quietly confident that Luke has a combination of talents that the recruiting gurus have undervalued.

Further, my post wasn't specifically about playing time per se, but about taking a position on Luke's talent as a passer and distributor, in particular as compared to Matt and Grayson re these skills. Because the Krzyzewski and Capel comments seem to confirm my own eye-test assessment [all on TV, a couple of Franklin HS games, 3 all-star games this spring, and snippets of USA 2014 summer games] of Luke's passing/court vision, naturally I take them as something other than throwaway lines. I'd probably take notice of such comments even had I never seen Luke play. But I, and others, have, mostly against high level HS competition.

Although you're right that we can't yet form fully reliable opinions comparing Luke with Grayson or Matt, we can form educated-guess opinions. Now seems a good season -- off -- to engage in such educated guessing, and particularly on a thread that invites conversation on how gurus have assessed talented HS seniors. As you yourself have noted in a couple of recent posts, Luke presents an interesting test of your "standard model."

Troublemaker
07-02-2015, 11:46 AM
I disageee with fdd's assessment of Grayson v. Luke as backup PGs.

Let's also not rule out the possibility of Luke eventually just beating out Derryck for the starting slot. I make Derryck the favorite, sure, but I don't think that's a done deal. Don't allow me to edge out in front of you in Luke-love, gumbo. That would make me uncomfortable. You deserve the pole position.

Kedsy
07-02-2015, 11:55 AM
Let's also not rule out the possibility of Luke eventually just beating out Derryck for the starting slot.

Can we rule out the possibility of Justin Robinson beating out Brandon Ingram for a starting slot? Just asking. I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.

flyingdutchdevil
07-02-2015, 12:16 PM
Let's also not rule out the possibility of Luke eventually just beating out Derryck for the starting slot. I make Derryck the favorite, sure, but I don't think that's a done deal. Don't allow me to edge out in front of you in Luke-love, gumbo. That would make me uncomfortable. You deserve the pole position.

I'm conceding the PG position to Thornton, and I see the only ways this not happening is a) Thornton doesn't enroll at Duke (nooooooooooooo!!!) or b) Thornton gets injured (nooooooooooooooo!!!).

It's not that I think Thornton is already awesome (I'm sure he'll be good), but I just don't Kennard's strength as bringing the ball up. Kennard is a shooter, a passer, and a very cerebral player. He's Scheyer 2.0. And Scheyer as a freshman didn't pass a ton (1.8 apg). I admit that Scheyer didn't play much PG as a freshman, but there isn't a law about SGs not being allowed to pass.

I am convinced that Thornton starts the season and ends the season as a starter at the PG (and Ingram starts and ends the season as either a 3 or 4). Outside of that, I don't know.

Also, given Coach K's love of shortened rotations, someone is getting squeezed. It's an inevitability. We have nine players commanding minutes: Thornton, Grayson, Jones, Kennard, Ingram, Jefferson, Jeter, MP3, and Obi. Who is playing less than 10 min in ACC play?

CDu
07-02-2015, 12:55 PM
I'm conceding the PG position to Thornton, and I see the only ways this not happening is a) Thornton doesn't enroll at Duke (nooooooooooooo!!!) or b) Thornton gets injured (nooooooooooooooo!!!).

It's not that I think Thornton is already awesome (I'm sure he'll be good), but I just don't Kennard's strength as bringing the ball up. Kennard is a shooter, a passer, and a very cerebral player. He's Scheyer 2.0. And Scheyer as a freshman didn't pass a ton (1.8 apg). I admit that Scheyer didn't play much PG as a freshman, but there isn't a law about SGs not being allowed to pass.

I am convinced that Thornton starts the season and ends the season as a starter at the PG (and Ingram starts and ends the season as either a 3 or 4). Outside of that, I don't know.

Also, given Coach K's love of shortened rotations, someone is getting squeezed. It's an inevitability. We have nine players commanding minutes: Thornton, Grayson, Jones, Kennard, Ingram, Jefferson, Jeter, MP3, and Obi. Who is playing less than 10 min in ACC play?

I do agree with you that Thornton should be considered the heavy favorite to start at PG. But in this day and age (where so many different players can handle the ball), I don't think bringing the ball up the court is the key attribute for a PG. It's creating easier shots for himself and/or teammates. I'm quite sure that Thornton, Allen, Kennard, and even Ingram can each handle bringing the ball up the court. And given that we will have 3 (or 4) capable ballhandlers on the court at all times, I'm not concerned about the press. It's what happens in the half court offense that is where the value of a PG comes into play.

That's why I don't see a guy like Allen being a real option as a PG. His game appears to be that of a predator, ears pinned back with tunnel vision going at the basket trying to score. He's not best suited to patiently survey the floor and set up offense for others. Now, I'm not sure how good Thornton will be at that right away, but the fact that he has played PG throughout his career gives me hope that he's further along in that regard than any of our others.

Troublemaker
07-02-2015, 12:57 PM
Can we rule out the possibility of Justin Robinson beating out Brandon Ingram for a starting slot? Just asking. I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.


I'm conceding the PG position to Thornton, and I see the only ways this not happening is a) Thornton doesn't enroll at Duke (nooooooooooooo!!!) or b) Thornton gets injured (nooooooooooooooo!!!).

I think only Ingram is a lock starter. Not saying there aren't players who are > 50/50 favorites to be starters, and Derryck is probably one of those, but I would not be shocked if he ends up coming off the bench.



Also, given Coach K's love of shortened rotations, someone is getting squeezed. It's an inevitability. We have nine players commanding minutes: Thornton, Grayson, Jones, Kennard, Ingram, Jefferson, Jeter, MP3, and Obi. Who is playing less than 10 min in ACC play?

I think it'll be one of the bigs getting squeezed. In the minutes prediction thread, I guessed Obi.

flyingdutchdevil
07-02-2015, 01:10 PM
I think only Ingram is a lock starter. Not saying there aren't players who are > 50/50 favorites to be starters, and Derryck is probably one of those, but I would not be shocked if he ends up coming off the bench.



I think it'll be one of the bigs getting squeezed. In the minutes prediction thread, I guessed Obi.

We will have to respectfully disagree then. In my book, Thornton is not only a sheer lock to start, but will also rack up the most minutes.

Thornton is our most athletic and physical PG since Jay Will. I'm not saying he's going to be anywhere as good, but he will probably be the most agile and athletic player on the court in nearly any game (even moreso than Grayson, who will probably be the second most athletic). Kinda like we all do, I put certain Duke players on pedestals, whether it's rational or not. Next year, that player for me is Thornton.

luvdahops
07-02-2015, 01:34 PM
We will have to respectfully disagree then. In my book, Thornton is not only a sheer lock to start, but will also rack up the most minutes.

Thornton is our most athletic and physical PG since Jay Will. I'm not saying he's going to be anywhere as good, but he will probably be the most agile and athletic player on the court in nearly any game (even moreso than Grayson, who will probably be the second most athletic). Kinda like we all do, I put certain Duke players on pedestals, whether it's rational or not. Next year, that player for me is Thornton.

By all accounts, Thornton is very athletic, and an excellent on-ball defender. But I don't recall seeing many (if any) descriptions of him being particularly physical. I believe he is listed at 6'1" and 165 pounds, which is fairly wispy by today's CBB standards, and a far cry from the 195 ball of knotted muscle that J-Will was in his Duke days. Thornton may very well have comparable (or better) speed, quickness and leaping ability, but I have a very hard time seeing him being anywhere near as physical or as explosive as J-Will.

Billy Dat
07-02-2015, 01:49 PM
Further, my post wasn't specifically about playing time per se, but about taking a position on Luke's talent as a passer and distributor, in particular as compared to Matt and Grayson re these skills. Because the Krzyzewski and Capel comments seem to confirm my own eye-test assessment [all on TV, a couple of Franklin HS games, 3 all-star games this spring, and snippets of USA 2014 summer games] of Luke's passing/court vision, naturally I take them as something other than throwaway lines. I'd probably take notice of such comments even had I never seen Luke play. But I, and others, have, mostly against high level HS competition.

I am really enjoying the Kennard discussion because I am very bullish on him for the same eye-test reasons that gumbomoop describes. My primary sources were last summer's FIBA tournament and this past Nike Hoops Summit. In both cases, he just seemed to have that *IT* factor. Without focusing on any particular facet, when he entered the game, good stuff began to happen. He is an effortless scorer in all kinds of ways and he seems to be a really smart player.

I think this year will be extremely interesting because of how last year ended, with a team that won a title based primarily on its miraculously effective late-season defense. With so many new faces, and its easy to forget that save for his title game heroics Grayson didn't play a lot last year, you'd think that Matt and Amile would have a big leg up based on their established defensive bona fides. Save for Marshall, everyone else coming in who is a potential rotation player has nice offensive chops and their major D1 defense is a question mark (although Thornton seems to make it a primary focus). I feel like with Jah gone, we'll go back to a perimeter oriented attack as we should have good shooting and lots of guys who can pull up for 3 or attack of the dribble (Grayson, Luke, Brandon, Derryck, Matt- I think - maybe). But, with so many options, the rotation seems as wide open as its ever been, guys are really going to have to fight hard to win spots and K could take the team in a lot of different directions depending on who emerges.

Last year, when asked about Kentucky's platoon system relatively early in the year, K said he thought it was a smart way, when you have a glut of players of similar ability and versatility, to give everyone a chance to show their stuff. It wouldn't surprise me to see him try something similar early on, but if we all think Robinson and Vrank are not ready, then we don't have enough players for a true platoon. When I quickly jotted down what I thought might be a likely opening day starting line-up...Thornton, Jones, Jefferson, Allen, Ingram...I realized that the remaining players (Kennard, Obi, Plumlee, Jeter) aside from Luke were all big men.

It is very very tough to prognosticate the rotation based on the info we have right now.

gumbomoop
07-02-2015, 01:52 PM
Let's also not rule out the possibility of Luke eventually just beating out Derryck for the starting slot. I make Derryck the favorite, sure, but I don't think that's a done deal.

You're making Big Trouble here. I worry about your insanity. Ok, instability. I've got enough of my own nuttericity to deal with.


.... given Coach K's love of shortened rotations, someone is getting squeezed. It's an inevitability. We have nine players commanding minutes: Thornton, Grayson, Jones, Kennard, Ingram, Jefferson, Jeter, MP3, and Obi. Who is playing less than 10 min in ACC play?

This is the issue that permeates many of our current off-season threads.

Let's pin down "inevitability." Is there a possible consensus that (1) last season's close-to-8-man-rotation plus (2) the likelihood that 9 guys deserve some PT makes it easily plausible that K will shorten to 8, but probably not 7? Can we go further: call it 8.5?

I'll guess there's already a consensus that someone will play fewer than 10 mpg by ACC play. But that seems too easy, as, for example, if the last guy -- Chase, Marshall, or .... Luke -- were to be playing 7-8 mpg by ACC, that would surely be an 8.5-rotation. My own view is, any player getting a consistent 7-8 mpg by ACC is still "in the rotation," so even if our last 2 guys are each getting, consistently, 7-8 mpg, then it's pretty close to a 9-man rotation.

Now, if by ACC, 2 players get only 3-4 mpg, and even that inconsistently, then that will fairly be called a 7-man rotation. If the 9th guy gets "squeezed," garnering only a couple of minutes here and there and mostly DNPs, while the 8th gets 9-10, then that's an 8-man rotation.

I'm going for an 8.5, with the last guy -- Chase, possibly Marshall -- still getting 7-8 mpg by ACC. To be clear, this does mean my minutes prediction earlier [see minutes thread, post 168, Neals384's spreadsheet] has to be revised, as there I was preducting a very robust 9-man rotation, with last guy Chase getting 16 mpg. Although it still strikes me as [long-shot] possible that Chase will get 16 by ACC and after, it seems highly unlikely that he'd get that as 9th guy.

Maybe we should all give a mid-summer revised minutes prediction, and maybe Neals384 could update the spreadsheet.

As noted above, I don't like the 10-minute standard for counting a player "in the rotation." So I would like to hear others' views of exactly what counts as " in the rotation." For, if anything fewer than 10 mpg by ACC doesn't count as "in the rotation," then under that definition, I'd have to switch from predicting 8.5 to either 8 or 7.5. I will resist the 10-minute standard, but I'd like to know if/that we're sometimes talking past each other.

luvdahops
07-02-2015, 02:22 PM
Allow me to expand on my Kennard logic a little further. While I have not seen Luke play much myself, my opinion is rooted in comments I have heard from people who have watched him a lot, all of whom are involved in basketball for a living, and several of whom are close to the Duke program. There is a strong consensus among them that Luke will be firmly in the mix for PT from Day 1, and may even start. His skill is very different from our other perimeter players, and is expected to complement theirs very well. While I agree that no firm plans are made until the staff has a chance to see everyone play and compete, it is not as if they begin each season with a totally blank sheet of paper. There are always some assumptions and expectations going in.

As it relates to Matt Jones, while Matt did come to Duke with a reputation as a shooter, I don't believe he had anything comparable to Luke's track record in terms of International, All-Star and AAU play. He is also a very different sort of player, effectively the college equivalent of a "3 and D guy", with limited ability to create shots for himself or others. The make-up of last year's team made him an ideal fit as the fifth starter down the stretch, but I'm not sure that automatically carries over to this season. And while I think Grayson could become an effective option at the point in time, it is hard not to see him being relied on - perhaps heavily - as a primary scorer this year. He had a grand total of 14 assists in 322 minutes of PT last year (or 1 every 23 minutes), which doesn't suggest a quick or natural transition to the point.

It also seems to me that having a presumed swing forward on the roster like Ingram creates some bias toward an 8-man (vs. 7) rotation - 4.5 perimeter and 3.5 post players. That was the case this past season with Justise, who still played plenty of SF even after becoming the starter at PF, and also the case in 2011 when Kyle split time between the 3 and 4. And while I agree that Thornton is highly likely to start, I am not sure he is a lock to play 35 mpg, especially if the team plays at the tempo that many expect.

The last thing I would note is that Brick Oettinger, whom I respect far more than any other recruiting analyst, and who typically has a good sense for how well certain recruits will fit into ACC programs, had Kennard rated #4 in his final rankings for the Class of 2015.

COYS
07-02-2015, 03:05 PM
Allow me to expand on my Kennard logic a little further. While I have not seen Luke play much myself, my opinion is rooted in comments I have heard from people who have watched him a lot, all of whom are involved in basketball for a living, and several of whom are close to the Duke program. There is a strong consensus among them that Luke will be firmly in the mix for PT from Day 1, and may even start. His skill is very different from our other perimeter players, and is expected to complement theirs very well. While I agree that no firm plans are made until the staff has a chance to see everyone play and compete, it is not as if they begin each season with a totally blank sheet of paper. There are always some assumptions and expectations going in.

As it relates to Matt Jones, while Matt did come to Duke with a reputation as a shooter, I don't believe he had anything comparable to Luke's track record in terms of International, All-Star and AAU play. He is also a very different sort of player, effectively the college equivalent of a "3 and D guy", with limited ability to create shots for himself or others. The make-up of last year's team made him an ideal fit as the fifth starter down the stretch, but I'm not sure that automatically carries over to this season. And while I think Grayson could become an effective option at the point in time, it is hard not to see him being relied on - perhaps heavily - as a primary scorer this year. He had a grand total of 14 assists in 322 minutes of PT last year (or 1 every 23 minutes), which doesn't suggest a quick or natural transition to the point.

It also seems to me that having a presumed swing forward on the roster like Ingram creates some bias toward an 8-man (vs. 7) rotation - 4.5 perimeter and 3.5 post players. That was the case this past season with Justise, who still played plenty of SF even after becoming the starter at PF, and also the case in 2011 when Kyle split time between the 3 and 4. And while I agree that Thornton is highly likely to start, I am not sure he is a lock to play 35 mpg, especially if the team plays at the tempo that many expect.

The last thing I would note is that Brick Oettinger, whom I respect far more than any other recruiting analyst, and who typically has a good sense for how well certain recruits will fit into ACC programs, had Kennard rated #4 in his final rankings for the Class of 2015.

I am bullish on Luke just from watching him in last year's FIBA tourney and this seasons Hoop Summit, just like Billy Dat. All the caveats about how that is a really small sample size aside, I agree with luvdahops that Luke has skills that will most likely prove to be unique among our perimeter players . . . at least all of our perimeter players not named Brandon Ingram. If I am to draw a rough comparison between Luke and former Dukies, I saw a bit of Kyle and a bit of Jon in Luke during those games. He's definitely a scorer but he also has the ability to do some play making. At this point, I would wager that he will be our best playmaking guard behind Derryck. Matt can probably help bring the ball up the court, but he has shown very little in the way of creating offense. Grayson's playmaking this past season basically came down to driving to the hoop, having the defense collapse, and hitting an open teammate. Granted, this is a great skill to have. However, Grayson looked to score when he drove to the hoop, plain and simple. In this way, his drives remind me more of Gerald (who was even stronger driving to his right hand) or Nolan (the early years). Of these guys, I feel like Grayson fits somewhere between Gerald and Nolan. His three point shooting is far superior to Gerald. Gerald's game was a little more small-forward than it was shooting guard. On the other end of the spectrum, Nolan showed more signs of being able to handle point guard duties during his freshman season (45 assists in 500 minutes compared to 14 in 322 for Grayson), even if he didn't fully fulfill that promise until his senior season. If these observations are correct, I just don't see our offense being set up by a guy who is somewhere between Nolan and Gerald in point guard ability.

Also, part of the reason Nolan turned the corner during his junior year was because Jon took the reigns on offense, allowing Nolan to do his thing attacking the basket and spotting up for threes. When Derryck is not in the game but Grayson is, I anticipate that the offense will click better with someone other than Grayson setting up the offense so that Grayson can stay in attack mode. Given the lack of other options on the roster, I really do think Luke will be that guy. And I think he'll be good at it. For that reason, I guess he'll be in the 12-18 minute range most nights. I could even see a situation where Luke plays point guard on offense while Grayson (or Matt) defends the opponent's point guard on the defensive end, just like Jon and Nolan did in 2010 or Jon and Elliot Williams late in the 2009 season.

One wildcard in all of this for me is Brandon Ingram. In the all star games, he didn't really look to set up teammates too much, but at the same time, he has an uncannily good handle for a guy with his size. With his height, he can see over the defense really well. We could potentially run the offense through him like we ran the offense through Austin in 2012. Give Brandon the ball on the wing, surround him with shooters, and let him attack, shoot, or pass based on what the defense gives him. If he's particularly good on the offensive end, then a true back up point guard might prove to be superfluous.

JohnJ
07-02-2015, 03:27 PM
Every time I watch Luke play it reminds me of Jon Scheyer's 21 pts in 75 sec video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SEjogKE7voY

Edit: The above isn't the right one. Nevermind - the above IS the correct link.

Troublemaker
07-02-2015, 03:55 PM
Can we rule out the possibility of Justin Robinson beating out Brandon Ingram for a starting slot? Just asking. I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.

Kedsy, I know you were going for humor here, and it was pretty good. That said, I am legitimately interested in why you think Kennard has almost no chance to start. Is it basically just the model you created to predict the rotation?

Kedsy
07-02-2015, 06:00 PM
Kedsy, I know you were going for humor here, and it was pretty good. That said, I am legitimately interested in why you think Kennard has almost no chance to start. Is it basically just the model you created to predict the rotation?

Yeah, sorry if it was too snarky. I just couldn't resist.

The model is one reason -- if historically Luke wouldn't even be in the rotation, then it seems quite a stretch to see him starting.

But more than that was the way the coaching staff scrambled all over themselves to get Derryck into Durham this season. Coach K has said on multiple occasions how much work they had to put into last minute recruiting because Justise and Tyus surprised them by being good enough to leave. If they really thought Luke was capable of being a starting PG as a freshman, would they have scrambled around like that? My thought is no.

Finally, and I've heard the counter-arguments to this one, but Luke Kennard didn't even play point guard on his high school team. I get that he's a good passer and has pretty decent handle and that Coach K said he might be capable at the position, but to my knowledge the guy has never played PG at an organized level. Seems like a long shot that his first experience as a starting PG would be at Duke. As a freshman. When we have a strong alternative. That just seems crazy to me.

Billy Dat
07-02-2015, 06:50 PM
Seems like a long shot that his first experience as a starting PG would be at Duke. As a freshman. When we have a strong alternative. That just seems crazy to me.

Yes, while I feel Luke will play, I don't think he's a starting PG. I think the story goes that Scheyer told him to work on his ball-handling just in case before they locked-up Thornton.

FireOgilvie
07-02-2015, 08:21 PM
I think Thornton will be something like the 7th best player on the team next year. He'll get reasonable minutes because we don't have another player on the roster with his skill set, but he's a freshman and he's going to struggle a lot. He's also entering college a year earlier than everyone thought, so his ranking has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. I hope he's a quick learner, because we definitely need him playing at a high level if he's going to be the starting PG.

Kedsy
07-02-2015, 08:25 PM
He's also entering college a year earlier than everyone thought, so his ranking has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Not really. Unlike Andre Dawkins and Alex Murphy, Derryck re-classified early enough so that all the recruiting services re-ranked him in the 2015 class. So it's definitely an apples-to-apples ranking.

FireOgilvie
07-02-2015, 08:40 PM
Not really. Unlike Andre Dawkins and Alex Murphy, Derryck re-classified early enough so that all the recruiting services re-ranked him in the 2015 class. So it's definitely an apples-to-apples ranking.

He never played in any of the all-star games or practices head to head with the other members of the class of '15, which play a big role in those rankings. Ingram jumped up something like 10 places into the top 4 based on those games. Thornton was not very impressive in the last national tournament he played in (he was completely shut down by lower ranked players). I think he would have had similar results in the all-star games and practices, which would have dropped his ranking in the class. He has potential, but he's not ready to contribute at a high level in college, IMO.

Also, PG is the hardest position to come in to and play well from the beginning. We were spoiled by having Tyus this past season.

-jk
07-02-2015, 08:43 PM
...

Also, PG is the hardest position to come in to and play well from the beginning. We were spoiled by having Tyus this past season.

I think bigs have a harder adjustment. We've had several frosh PGs do well.

-jk

FireOgilvie
07-02-2015, 08:56 PM
I think bigs have a harder adjustment. We've had several frosh PGs do well.

-jk

We've had freshman bigs lead us in scoring the past 2 seasons. It's difficult to come in and run an offense and lead a team successfully from the PG position. Even Kyrie struggled with that.

-jk
07-02-2015, 08:59 PM
We've had freshman bigs lead us in scoring the past 2 seasons. It's difficult to come in and run an offense and lead a team successfully from the PG position. Even Kyrie struggled with that.

I hardly think our last two years are a norm. And Kyrie did a fantastic job before his injury.

-jk

Troublemaker
07-02-2015, 09:36 PM
Yeah, sorry if it was too snarky. I just couldn't resist.

No problem. I can dish, and I can take.



But more than that was the way the coaching staff scrambled all over themselves to get Derryck into Durham this season. Coach K has said on multiple occasions how much work they had to put into last minute recruiting because Justise and Tyus surprised them by being good enough to leave. If they really thought Luke was capable of being a starting PG as a freshman, would they have scrambled around like that? My thought is no.

I think the scramble was as much about trying to go from 7 scholarship players to 10, including trying to get at least one pure PG on the roster to compete for the starting position, but I don't think they have permanently-inked Derryck into the starting rotation now that he's signed. Ultimately, for Derryck to become the starting PG, he'll have to beat out Luke in fall practice to do so, and I'm not certain it will go down that way. I'm one of a legion of DBR posters (it seems) who believe that Luke is underrated by his guru rankings. The most I can say at this point is that Derryck is the favorite, and he will get fierce competition from Luke.



Finally, and I've heard the counter-arguments to this one, but Luke Kennard didn't even play point guard on his high school team. I get that he's a good passer and has pretty decent handle and that Coach K said he might be capable at the position, but to my knowledge the guy has never played PG at an organized level. Seems like a long shot that his first experience as a starting PG would be at Duke. As a freshman. When we have a strong alternative. That just seems crazy to me.

Luke handled the ball so much for Franklin High School that he ranked second in his high school league in assists (http://www.swblsports.com/bkStatistics.aspx?sat=14&div=-1). He's certainly not a conventional PG, scoring 39 ppg, but I would say that it's more true than not that he was Franklin's PG.

FireOgilvie
07-02-2015, 10:08 PM
Luke handled the ball so much for Franklin High School that he ranked second in his high school league in assists (http://www.swblsports.com/bkStatistics.aspx?sat=14&div=-1). He's certainly not a conventional PG, scoring 39 ppg, but I would say that it's more true than not that he was Franklin's PG.

His stats are ridiculous - 53.6% 3pt (90/168), 60.7% fg, 88.2% ft, 9.9 rebounds/game

Kedsy
07-02-2015, 10:12 PM
His stats are ridiculous - 53.6% 3pt (90/168), 60.7% fg, 88.2% ft, 9.9 rebounds/game

Semi's high school stats were incredible, too. I don't know much about high school ball in Ohio, but I don't think Luke was playing at the highest level.

Kedsy
07-02-2015, 10:13 PM
I think the scramble was as much about trying to go from 7 scholarship players to 10, including trying to get at least one pure PG on the roster to compete for the starting position, but I don't think they have permanently-inked Derryck into the starting rotation now that he's signed.

That wasn't the impression I got, but obviously I have no actual idea what was going on.


Ultimately, for Derryck to become the starting PG, he'll have to beat out Luke in fall practice to do so, and I'm not certain it will go down that way. I'm one of a legion of DBR posters (it seems) who believe that Luke is underrated by his guru rankings. The most I can say at this point is that Derryck is the favorite, and he will get fierce competition from Luke.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Kedsy
07-02-2015, 10:19 PM
Also, PG is the hardest position to come in to and play well from the beginning. We were spoiled by having Tyus this past season.

OK, well first of all, Luke Kennard will be a freshman, too. Pretty much no matter what we'll have a freshman PG next season. Not sure why you think it will be easier for Luke than it would be for Derryck.

Also, the following PGs have come to Duke under Coach K and started from Day 1:

Johnny Dawkins
Tommy Amaker
Bobby Hurley
Jeff Capel
Jason Williams
Greg Paulus
Kyrie Irving
Tyus Jones

Frankly, I think they all came in and played well.

CDu
07-02-2015, 10:35 PM
Count me in the group that thinks (a) Thornton will be the starting and primary PG and also (b) Kennard will very much be in the rotation next year.

FireOgilvie
07-02-2015, 10:40 PM
Semi's high school stats were incredible, too. I don't know much about high school ball in Ohio, but I don't think Luke was playing at the highest level.

Yes, Semi also averaged 38 pts/game. Shot 38% from 3 (not quite as impressive as Luke's 53%), and averaged 8.5 rebounds. Ottawa has ~700 students and played in the third largest division in Kansas - finished 25-0 Semi's senior year.

Franklin (Luke's HS) has about ~940 students, played in the second largest division in Ohio - finished 26-2 his senior year.

FireOgilvie
07-02-2015, 10:56 PM
OK, well first of all, Luke Kennard will be a freshman, too. Pretty much no matter what we'll have a freshman PG next season. Not sure why you think it will be easier for Luke than it would be for Derryck.

Also, the following PGs have come to Duke under Coach K and started from Day 1:

Johnny Dawkins
Tommy Amaker
Bobby Hurley
Jeff Capel
Jason Williams
Greg Paulus
Kyrie Irving
Tyus Jones

Frankly, I think they all came in and played well.

Coach K likes to have his best players on the floor; I think Luke will be one of those guys. However, I also said Thornton will play due to a lack of depth at his position. I don't expect either one to be particularly impressive at the PG position this year.

roywhite
07-02-2015, 11:08 PM
Yes, Semi also averaged 38 pts/game. Shot 38% from 3 (not quite as impressive as Luke's 53%), and averaged 8.5 rebounds. Ottawa has ~700 students and played in the third largest division in Kansas - finished 25-0 Semi's senior year.

Franklin (Luke's HS) has about ~940 students, played in the second largest division in Ohio - finished 26-2 his senior year.

And Luke showed very well against good competition outside of his home area. In the Beachball Classic, he led his Franklin team (which had no other D-1 talent) to the finals of a good tournament field (where they got wiped out by Chase Jeter and Las Vegas Bishop Gorman), setting a Beach Ball Classic 4-game scoring record of 147 points. In the Nike Hoops Summit, Kennard led the US team with 22 points, also producing 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and 0 turnovers.

His high school resumé was considerably better established than that of Semi.

Kedsy
07-02-2015, 11:52 PM
Kennard will very much be in the rotation next year.

He might be. He seems like the sort of player who plays a lot and thrives at Duke.

That said, it's a numbers game. If Luke plays a lot then both Chase and Sean probably won't. Does one scenario seem so much more likely than the other?

Alternatively, Coach K could play all 9 guys on a regular basis. With the talent we'll have that's what a lot of coaches would do. It's what I would do. I'm only skeptical because in 33 years he's never done it that way before.

gumbomoop
07-03-2015, 01:11 AM
Kennard will very much be in the rotation next year.


If Luke plays a lot then both Chase and Sean probably won't.

Kedsy's response to CDu got me wondering. Here's a plausible scenario in which Kennard is "very much" in the rotation, playing "a lot," but in which Sean also plays "a lot." Here I don't predict what will happen, but merely test Kedsy's assertion, in view of CDu's assertion. Again, I propose this merely as a reasonable, plausible scenario for, say, ACC and after. [That Ingram is listed second for his 2 positions does not mean he won't start; he will start, but won't get the majority of minutes at either wing/3 or PF.]

PG -- Thornton 30, Kennard 10
Wing/2 -- Allen 25, Kennard 15
Wing/3 -- Jones 25, Ingram 15
PF -- Jefferson 22, Ingram 15, Jeter 3
C -- Obi 22, Plumlee 15, Jeter 3

Totals: Ingram 30, Thornton 30, Allen 25, Jones 25, Kennard 25, Jefferson 22, Obi 22, Plumlee 15, Jeter 6.

I'd call this an 8.5-man rotation. It surely satisfies CDu's assertion that Luke will "very much" be in the rotation. If Kedsy accepts 25 mpg for Luke and 22 for Sean as constituting "a lot," then it disputes Kedsy's assertion that "a lot" of minutes for Luke necessarily means that neither Sean nor Chase would play "a lot."

Admittedly, if Kedsy finds my hypothetical scenario implausible, then all bets are off.

gep
07-03-2015, 01:21 AM
He might be. He seems like the sort of player who plays a lot and thrives at Duke.

That said, it's a numbers game. If Luke plays a lot then both Chase and Sean probably won't. Does one scenario seem so much more likely than the other?

Alternatively, Coach K could play all 9 guys on a regular basis. With the talent we'll have that's what a lot of coaches would do. It's what I would do. I'm only skeptical because in 33 years he's never done it that way before.

Sorry... but I think I've heard this for many Duke teams in the past during the summer. I don't think any of them panned out to a 9 man rotation... oops, you said "regular basis", which might not really mean "in the rotation". I really like the fact that this past 2014-2015 team, especially from Jan 2015, actually used an 8 man rotation... and wow, what that 8th man did!!! I hope Coach K will at least see an 8 man rotation as "good" and very possible... rather than reverting to his "normal" 7 man rotation. If a 9th can routinely get into a game... great... but I'm not holding my breath.

Kedsy
07-03-2015, 07:52 AM
Totals: Ingram 30, Thornton 30, Allen 25, Jones 25, Kennard 25, Jefferson 22, Obi 22, Plumlee 15, Jeter 6.

I'd call this an 8.5-man rotation. It surely satisfies CDu's assertion that Luke will "very much" be in the rotation. If Kedsy accepts 25 mpg for Luke and 22 for Sean as constituting "a lot," then it disputes Kedsy's assertion that "a lot" of minutes for Luke necessarily means that neither Sean nor Chase would play "a lot."

Admittedly, if Kedsy finds my hypothetical scenario implausible, then all bets are off.

I suppose it's "plausible" in a vacuum. Certainly there are ways to find good minutes for 8, or even 9, players in a hypothetical rotation. It's just not consistent with the way Coach K has always done things.

Here's a table showing the minutes of Duke's top three minute-getters over Coach K's 33 seasons:



Year #1 mpg #2 mpg #3 mpg Combined
2015 35.8 33.8 30.3 99.9
2014 32.9 30.7 29.8 93.4
2013 34.7 33.6 32.3 100.6
2012 33.2 30.2 28.4 91.8
2011 34.8 34.0 25.6 94.4
2010 36.8 35.9 35.5 108.2
2009 32.8 32.2 29.7 94.7
2008 30.9 28.6 28.3 87.8
2007 35.3 33.7 32.4 101.4
2006 37.1 33.3 32.3 102.7
2005 37.3 34.5 33.6 105.4
2004 35.4 31.1 31.1 97.6
2003 36.0 30.7 30.7 97.4
2002 35.1 33.6 32.4 101.1
2001 34.9 31.8 29.2 95.9
2000 35.6 35.5 34.0 105.1
1999 31.0 31.0 29.3 91.3
1998 28.8 28.2 24.6 81.6
1997 31.3 29.5 26.7 87.5
1996 34.9 34.6 31.9 101.4
1995 35.2 29.5 28.7 93.4
1994 35.7 31.0 30.5 97.2
1993 35.6 31.9 31.6 99.1
1992 33.6 32.2 30.9 96.7
1991 34.7 30.2 24.8 89.7
1990 33.4 31.5 29.9 94.8
1989 33.2 30.4 29.6 93.2
1988 32.5 29.6 28.7 90.8
1987 35.6 33.2 29.0 97.8
1986 33.1 30.2 29.8 93.1
1985 36.0 33.8 30.2 100.0
1984 38.4 36.3 33.2 107.9
1983 35.8 28.0 27.4 91.2
1982 38.4 37.3 34.6 110.3
1981 34.6 34.3 33.1 102.0
AVG 34.6 32.2 30.3 97.0


Your top three minute-getters combine for 85 minutes. Duke's top three guys have been that low just once in all Coach K's time here. And it's possible 1998 was a fluke occurrence due to Elton Brand's injury.

But even if 1998 is a fair precedent, it only happened once. The average Duke team under Coach K has played its top three guys a combined 97 minutes. Take 12 away from your 8th guy, and you're back to the conclusion that if Luke plays a lot then two of our big men won't.


Sorry... but I think I've heard this for many Duke teams in the past during the summer. I don't think any of them panned out to a 9 man rotation... oops, you said "regular basis", which might not really mean "in the rotation". I really like the fact that this past 2014-2015 team, especially from Jan 2015, actually used an 8 man rotation... and wow, what that 8th man did!!! I hope Coach K will at least see an 8 man rotation as "good" and very possible... rather than reverting to his "normal" 7 man rotation. If a 9th can routinely get into a game... great... but I'm not holding my breath.

I agree with you. That's why I said I was skeptical that Coach K would do this.

Kedsy
07-03-2015, 08:13 AM
Sorry... but I think I've heard this for many Duke teams in the past during the summer. I don't think any of them panned out to a 9 man rotation... oops, you said "regular basis", which might not really mean "in the rotation". I really like the fact that this past 2014-2015 team, especially from Jan 2015, actually used an 8 man rotation... and wow, what that 8th man did!!! I hope Coach K will at least see an 8 man rotation as "good" and very possible... rather than reverting to his "normal" 7 man rotation. If a 9th can routinely get into a game... great... but I'm not holding my breath.

We can quibble about what it means to be "in the rotation," but after January 1, 2015, in games decided by fewer than 20 points, here's how many Duke players played 10+ minutes:

8: 2 games
7: 8 games
6: 9 games
5: 1 game

So, if you count 10 minutes as the cutoff for being in the rotation, we didn't really play an 8-man rotation from January 2015. Looks more like a 6.5 man rotation, numberswise.

If you don't think it's fair to cut off rotation status at 10 minutes, fine, but we still at best only played a 7.5 man rotation (more accurately six and two halves). In some games Grayson moved ahead of Marshall and became the 7th man, that's all.

Also, back to the Luke vs. Chase and Sean part of the discussion, if only 6 or 7 guys are going to play 10+ minutes, then in my mind the 8th and 9th guys aren't playing "a lot." The 7th man isn't really playing "a lot," either, though he might be hovering on the plus side of 10mpg.

CDu
07-03-2015, 09:35 AM
He might be. He seems like the sort of player who plays a lot and thrives at Duke.

That said, it's a numbers game. If Luke plays a lot then both Chase and Sean probably won't. Does one scenario seem so much more likely than the other?

Alternatively, Coach K could play all 9 guys on a regular basis. With the talent we'll have that's what a lot of coaches would do. It's what I would do. I'm only skeptical because in 33 years he's never done it that way before.

I think the more likely scenario is that Plumlee and one of Jeter/Obi will play a combined 15-20 mpg rather than both Obi and Jeter playing sparingly.

gumbomoop
07-03-2015, 09:41 AM
I suppose it's "plausible" in a vacuum. Certainly there are ways to find good minutes for 8, or even 9, players in a hypothetical rotation. It's just not consistent with the way Coach K has always done things.

Your top three minute-getters combine for 85 minutes. Duke's top three guys have been that low just once in all Coach K's time here..... Even if 1998 is a fair precedent, it only happened once. The average Duke team under Coach K has played its top three guys a combined 97 minutes.


.... it's a numbers game.

It is a numbers game, an interesting one to me, as I wonder whether Krzyzewski's historic pattern and preference will be tested in 2015-16.

Still testing your "if Luke plays a lot, then neither Sean nor Chase will" hypothesis...... If I up the minutes of the top 3 to 92 mpg, does that suffice to take my scenario out of a "vacuum," thus making it more reasonable, more plausible? I assume I wouldn't have to come up with a scenario in which the top 3 reach the combined average mpg of 97, as your valuable chart shows a fair amount of variety, which variety must be mostly a function of the actual players on each season's roster. Here, then, a scenario in which the top 3 take 92 mpg, surpassing 8 of the 33 years.

PG -- Thornton 30, Kennard 10
Wing/2 -- Allen 28, Kennard 12
Wing/3 -- Jones 24, Ingram 16
PF -- Jefferson 22, Ingram 18
C -- Obi 21, Plumlee 15, Jeter 4

This looks like a legit 8-man rotation, right? Does it look reasonable, plausible, not in any way strained to meet your criteria? Does it include Luke being in the rotation? Does it include Sean playing a lot? Does the fact that the top 3 combine for 92 mpg fit comfortably into K's 33-year history? Does surpassing the top-3-combined-average for 8 of the 33 years meet your "vacuum" objection?

Or would it be even more plausible to go with a scenario in which the top 3 combine for 94 mpg, thus surpassing 12 years in the historic pattern? That might plausibly look like this.

PG -- Thornton 31, Kennard 9
Wing/2 -- Allen 28, Kennard 12
Wing/3 -- Jones 23, Ingram 17
PF -- Jefferson 22, Ingram 18
C -- Obi 21, Plumlee 15, Jeter 4

Legit 8-man rotation, in which the top 3 combine for 94 mpg, the next 4 -- including both Luke and Sean -- play a lot, and the 8th guy is fully in the rotation.

To be clear, I don't at all expect our top 3 to come anywhere near a combined 97 mpg, nor even 94. Maybe 90, I don't know. As I look at the roster (top 9), I don't see 3 obvious 30+ mpg guys. K has recently noted, "We'll be young again," from which I infer he expects substantial minutes from at least 4 of the 5 newcomers (4 frosh and Sean). I will be surprised if Luke and one of Sean and Chase aren't clearly in the rotation and playing a lot.

CDu
07-03-2015, 09:55 AM
It is a numbers game, an interesting one to me, as I wonder whether Krzyzewski's historic pattern and preference will be tested in 2015-16.

Still testing your "if Luke plays a lot, then neither Sean nor Chase will" hypothesis...... If I up the minutes of the top 3 to 92 mpg, does that suffice to take my scenario out of a "vacuum," thus making it more reasonable, more plausible? I assume I wouldn't have to come up with a scenario in which the top 3 reach the combined average mpg of 97, as your valuable chart shows a fair amount of variety, which variety must be mostly a function of the actual players on each season's roster. Here, then, a scenario in which the top 3 take 92 mpg, surpassing 8 of the 33 years.

PG -- Thornton 30, Kennard 10
Wing/2 -- Allen 28, Kennard 12
Wing/3 -- Jones 24, Ingram 16
PF -- Jefferson 22, Ingram 18
C -- Obi 21, Plumlee 15, Jeter 4

This looks like a legit 8-man rotation, right? Does it look reasonable, plausible, not in any way strained to meet your criteria? Does it include Luke being in the rotation? Does it include Sean playing a lot? Does the fact that the top 3 combine for 92 mpg fit comfortably into K's 33-year history? Does surpassing the top-3-combined-average for 8 of the 33 years meet your "vacuum" objection?

Or would it be even more plausible to go with a scenario in which the top 3 combine for 94 mpg, thus surpassing 12 years in the historic pattern? That might plausibly look like this.

PG -- Thornton 31, Kennard 9
Wing/2 -- Allen 28, Kennard 12
Wing/3 -- Jones 23, Ingram 17
PF -- Jefferson 22, Ingram 18
C -- Obi 21, Plumlee 15, Jeter 4

Legit 8-man rotation, in which the top 3 combine for 94 mpg, the next 4 -- including both Luke and Sean -- play a lot, and the 8th guy is fully in the rotation.

To be clear, I don't at all expect our top 3 to come anywhere near a combined 97 mpg, nor even 94. Maybe 90, I don't know. As I look at the roster (top 9), I don't see 3 obvious 30+ mpg guys. K has recently noted, "We'll be young again," from which I infer he expects substantial minutes from at least 4 of the 5 newcomers (4 frosh and Sean). I will be surprised if Luke and one of Sean and Chase aren't clearly in the rotation and playing a lot.

How about this?

PG: Thornton (28), Kennard (12)
SG: Allen (32), Kennard (8)
SF: Ingram (16), Jones (24)
PF: Jefferson (22), Ingram (18)
C: Obi/Jeter (22), Jefferson (2), Plumlee (10), Jeter/Obi (6)

Gets us back to our 7.5 man rotation, with the top 3 guys playing 94 mpg. And, quite frankly, strikes me as entirely plausible given the players' skillsets and Coach M's preference to play smaller and more skilled.

CDu
07-03-2015, 10:18 AM
To be clear, I don't at all expect our top 3 to come anywhere near a combined 97 mpg, nor even 94. Maybe 90, I don't know. As I look at the roster (top 9), I don't see 3 obvious 30+ mpg guys. K has recently noted, "We'll be young again," from which I infer he expects substantial minutes from at least 4 of the 5 newcomers (4 frosh and Sean). I will be surprised if Luke and one of Sean and Chase aren't clearly in the rotation and playing a lot.

I think this season is almost inherently built to break the model for a few reasons:
- no proven backcourt players: our 3 guards (Thornton, Allen, Kennard) are all fairly green. Allen has played just 322 minutes, none of which came at PG. He has thrown just 14 assists to 15 turnovers, which suggests to me that he's not going to be a PG for us. Thornton and Kennard are both freshmen, and Thornton hasn't played as much against the best high school competition (and didn't play great when he has) and Kennard hasn't played PG. This doesn't suggest a clear PG deserving of 30+ mpg.
- unproven big men who can't play PF: Plumlee, Obi, and Jeter are our 3 options at C, given that we probably shouldn't play a Jefferson/Ingram frontcourt too often for size reasons. None of those guys is a PF at the college level. That restricts those 3 to - at most - 40 mpg. And none of them have clearly distinguished themselves from one another, which makes it hard for Coach K to stick with one guy over the others.
- only one true PF: Jefferson is the only PF on the roster. Ingram can (and will) probably play there quite a bit, but that's it. That, along with the previous point, means we are limited in where we can play Jefferson (our only "proven" big man, as crazy as that sounds).

Because of that, I think we see all five of our perimeter guys (Thornton, Allen, Kennard, Jones, Ingram) play 20+ mpg. I suspect Ingram will play over 30 mpg, splitting time between SF and PF. How the minutes break down between the four smaller guys is up in the air.

At PF, we'll see Jefferson start and we'll see Jefferson and Ingram handle pretty much all the minutes.

That leaves C. If one of Obi/Jeter/Plumlee establishes himself as the clear best, then one of these 3 gets squeezed out. More likely though, I think we have a situation more like 2008 where we have a 3-headed "monster" at this spot, as none of the options clearly distinguishes himself.

Frankly, I think this team parallels fairly closely to that 2008 team (which had 8 guys playing 10 mpg or more and 2 more playing about 8 mpg) but better. There just isn't a clear separation in talent, which has usually defined the dropoff in minutes.

mattman91
07-03-2015, 10:39 AM
Lots of off-season rosterbating going on here.

sagegrouse
07-03-2015, 10:39 AM
I am happy to be the cheerful dissenter on all of the topics rated above, but please let me start with the supposed "iron law of the rotation size." Yep. K prefers a seven man rotation, expanding to eight in special circumstances. Yep, but K also insists on a man-to-man defense to exhibit toughness and more than occasionally reach the point of a "shut-down" defense. Yep, K prefers seniors and upperclassmen, who know the system and can best mold a team on the court. But in the latter two cases we have certainly seen a change in practice if not in philosophy. This year, I predict we will see a nine-man rotation, with the player with the fewest minutes still playing 12-15 minutes per game.


Although the statistics are informative and useful, we need to recognize the changing world of Duke basketball. Duke's is now dominated by super-talented but green freshmen who are most likely gone after one year. Because of their talent, giving most of the playing time to upperclassmen is not an option. K's philosophy, I believe, has evolved through his international successes and the experience with not only the top players but also with his peers in the coaching profession serving as assistants. We see it in the use of the zone defense. We saw it in the increasing use of an eight-man rotation after Rasheed left the team: in the final game the player with the fewest minutes was MP3 with nine; in the semifinal game eight players had ten or more minutes.

The conditions are even better for a larger rotation next year. The four best players on the 2015 team have departed. The four returning players all bring defense, other skills, and leadership, but only Grayson is a prospective star. Grayson, I think we all agree, has a lot to prove and will have ample opportunity to show what he can do. (Didn't K just label his defensive save against Wisconsin "the best play in Duke basketball history?")

I think each of the five new players has a good chance for double-digit minutes. Brandon Ingram's exceptional talent will put him in the starting lineup somewhere. K likes having a point guard, and Derryck Thornton will be given every chance to show that he is the reincarnation of Tyus Jones. I also don't think Luke Kennard will have trouble finding minutes; I expect he will be the sub for Grayson and maybe for Brandon and Derryck -- in the latter case the PG responsibilities being shared.

All of which brings us to Sean Obi and Chase Jeter. Obi's strength, tenacity, rebounding and defense will be in demand, and he should get significant playing time. I also think Chase Jeter will play, as the only inside player with a semblance of an offensive game (although our Field Marshall is allowed to dunk five times every game, as far as I am concerned). He will be given a chance to develop his game and, I predict, will take advantage of it. Moreover, I don't think K is about to run the risk of a high-profile transfer who will truly be needed in 2017. (Oh yes, and there's that "Jeter" name, which will be a factor for showing once again how Duke is a brand of national significance. Do you think Derek Jeter will show up at CIS and maybe bring Hannah Davis?)

All well and good, but how do the numbers work? Of course, the numbers do work, if no one's over 30 and everyone else is at least 15 MPG. The inevitable dings and injuries will also lead one deeper down the bench. Well, we should probably point out that K had no difficulty with Team USA in playing 10 players more than 12 minutes per game, where Kyrie had max minutes of 24.4. The best empirical Duke example, from a different era to be sure, is 1998, when the top three minutes were by seniors McLeod and Wojo and freshman Battier, none reaching 30. Brand's injury was a factor, but even before his metatarsal break, he never once played 30 minutes in a game. In 1998 nine players averaged more than 12.5 MPG (plus Ricky Price and Domzalski played quite a bit).

I think Kedsy is doing valuable work in starting and keeping this thread alive with facts, figures and assertions. I point out again that this is a "cheerful" dissent.

sagegrouse
07-03-2015, 10:55 AM
OMG, CDu and I were pursuing parallel paths at the same time! Good work!

kAzE
07-03-2015, 11:48 AM
I believe Thornton will start at PG out of necessity, but I'm tempering expectations for his first year. I think he's absolutely a NBA talent, but I'm not going expect him to come in and be Kyrie or Tyus. I love his athleticism and his instincts, but he's very young, and I'd maybe expect a sophomore Quinn Cook type of performance from him in his first year, something along the lines of 30 minutes, 11 points and 4 assists per game. I believe both he and Jeter will be at Duke at least 2 years. Both are talented, but need to develop. I want to believe that Jeter will play more than Obi, though. I like his potential, and if we're going to make a serious run in the postseason, Jeter will have to be involved because he's really our only low post scorer.

Duke76
07-03-2015, 01:41 PM
I am happy to be the cheerful dissenter on all of the topics rated above, but please let me start with the supposed "iron law of the rotation size." Yep. K prefers a seven man rotation, expanding to eight in special circumstances. Yep, but K also insists on a man-to-man defense to exhibit toughness and more than occasionally reach the point of a "shut-down" defense. Yep, K prefers seniors and upperclassmen, who know the system and can best mold a team on the court. But in the latter two cases we have certainly seen a change in practice if not in philosophy. This year, I predict we will see a nine-man rotation, with the player with the fewest minutes still playing 12-15 minutes per game.


Although the statistics are informative and useful, we need to recognize the changing world of Duke basketball. Duke's is now dominated by super-talented but green freshmen who are most likely gone after one year. Because of their talent, giving most of the playing time to upperclassmen is not an option. K's philosophy, I believe, has evolved through his international successes and the experience with not only the top players but also with his peers in the coaching profession serving as assistants. We see it in the use of the zone defense. We saw it in the increasing use of an eight-man rotation after Rasheed left the team: in the final game the player with the fewest minutes was MP3 with nine; in the semifinal game eight players had ten or more minutes.

The conditions are even better for a larger rotation next year. The four best players on the 2015 team have departed. The four returning players all bring defense, other skills, and leadership, but only Grayson is a prospective star. Grayson, I think we all agree, has a lot to prove and will have ample opportunity to show what he can do. (Didn't K just label his defensive save against Wisconsin "the best play in Duke basketball history?")

I think each of the five new players has a good chance for double-digit minutes. Brandon Ingram's exceptional talent will put him in the starting lineup somewhere. K likes having a point guard, and Derryck Thornton will be given every chance to show that he is the reincarnation of Tyus Jones. I also don't think Luke Kennard will have trouble finding minutes; I expect he will be the sub for Grayson and maybe for Brandon and Derryck -- in the latter case the PG responsibilities being shared.

All of which brings us to Sean Obi and Chase Jeter. Obi's strength, tenacity, rebounding and defense will be in demand, and he should get significant playing time. I also think Chase Jeter will play, as the only inside player with a semblance of an offensive game (although our Field Marshall is allowed to dunk five times every game, as far as I am concerned). He will be given a chance to develop his game and, I predict, will take advantage of it. Moreover, I don't think K is about to run the risk of a high-profile transfer who will truly be needed in 2017. (Oh yes, and there's that "Jeter" name, which will be a factor for showing once again how Duke is a brand of national significance. Do you think Derek Jeter will show up at CIS and maybe bring Hannah Davis?)

All well and good, but how do the numbers work? Of course, the numbers do work, if no one's over 30 and everyone else is at least 15 MPG. The inevitable dings and injuries will also lead one deeper down the bench. Well, we should probably point out that K had no difficulty with Team USA in playing 10 players more than 12 minutes per game, where Kyrie had max minutes of 24.4. The best empirical Duke example, from a different era to be sure, is 1998, when the top three minutes were by seniors McLeod and Wojo and freshman Battier, none reaching 30. Brand's injury was a factor, but even before his metatarsal break, he never once played 30 minutes in a game. In 1998 nine players averaged more than 12.5 MPG (plus Ricky Price and Domzalski played quite a bit).

I think Kedsy is doing valuable work in starting and keeping this thread alive with facts, figures and assertions. I point out again that this is a "cheerful" dissent.

It'd be nice if one of you guys could sneak in over to Cameron or the practice gym and video a little practice....Coach K said in his interview last night on The Fan, that they are practicing some with the whole group in front of the coaches,,,,sure would like to get an early glimpse. Who's game for it? Not as tough as hanging a Duke banner over in the "hellhole" arena.

Kedsy
07-03-2015, 01:54 PM
I'd maybe expect a sophomore Quinn Cook type of performance from him in his first year, something along the lines of 30 minutes, 11 points and 4 assists per game.

It's worth noting that sophomore Quinn Cook played almost 34 mpg. If Derryck plays those kinds of minutes (instead of 28 or 30) then most if not all of the above projections fall apart.

Honestly I think we're just going round and round here. The starting PG at Duke plays a lot of minutes. Top 5 recruits at Duke play a lot of minutes. Amile Jefferson has played 20+ mpg in each of the last two seasons and is now a senior captain. Matt Jones is a returning starter who plays good defense (and thus probably won't fall out of the rotation). Grayson Allen excelled on the highest stage and flashed some serious upside, but we have no idea how low his floor is. We're all assuming the upside will vault him into the starting lineup, but have we really seen enough of him to know if that's reasonable? A year ago he was essentially the last man on the bench.

And beyond that, we really can't predict anything with much hope of accuracy. We simply don't know what combination of Luke, Chase, Sean, or Marshall will force themselves onto the floor, and what combination will find themselves at the end of the bench. We can talk about high school games and all star games and recruiting rankings and historical precedent, but we just don't know.

Why, for example, do so many people seem to concede Chase Jeter to the end of the bench? He's the #14 recruit in the country, he had good numbers at a high level high school. But I guess he didn't dominate the high school all star games so some people think he won't play. And maybe they're right. I have no idea. But why is that position any more or less reasonable than thinking Luke Kennard is going to have to wait a year before getting into the rotation? We're all just guessing.

I think CDu's "clear separation of talent" point is key, though I'd combine that with scarcity of skillset. Derryck and Brandon would seem to be unique skillsets on this particular team (though apparently some are arguing that Derryck and Luke may have similar skillsets), and Brandon would appear to stick out, talent-wise. If that's all true, those two should receive a ton of minutes. But if Amile, Chase, Sean, and Marshall are essentially the same player in both skillset and talent (and I'm not suggesting that's the case, it's just an example), then there would seem to be little reason to differentiate them and logically they should all play approximately equal minutes to maximize freshness on the court. Same with Grayson, Matt, and Luke, though here the difference in skillset (and maybe in talent) seems more obvious. But I think it's unlikely to happen that way. Some players will distinguish themselves talent-wise or skillset-wise and others will perhaps distinguish themselves as not being ready.

But I don't think we can say any more than that until the team starts playing, or at least practicing.

Kedsy
07-03-2015, 02:03 PM
Predicted perimeter rotation: Brandon Ingram (1.0), Derryck Thornton (2.0), Matt Jones (2.0), Grayson Allen (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Amile Jefferson (1.5), Chase Jeter (2.0), Marshall Plumlee (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Luke Kennard (3.0), Justin Robinson (4.0)
Other interior players: Sean Obi (3.0), Antonio Vrankovic (4.0)



I'd also point out that whether Brandon Ingram plays primarily PF or primarily SF will make a big difference in the rotation (both predicted and actual). My original statement of the system's prediction (above) assumes Brandon as a perimeter player. BUT if Brandon turns out to be an interior player, then the prediction would look like this:


Predicted perimeter rotation: Derryck Thornton (2.0), Matt Jones (2.0), Grayson Allen (2.5), Luke Kennard (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Brandon Ingram (1.0), Amile Jefferson (1.5), Marshall Plumlee (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Justin Robinson (4.0)
Other interior players: Chase Jeter (2.0, less experience than Marshall), Sean Obi (3.0), Antonio Vrankovic (4.0)


Looking at how skinny Brandon is, along with his reputation as a perimeter ballhandler and scorer, I think the guess now has to be that he'll be a perimeter player. But if Justise Winslow could be our primary PF, then why not Brandon Ingram?

It's another thing we just can't know at this point. But I stick by my belief that if Luke plays big rotation minutes then two of our big men won't.

johnb
05-23-2016, 08:04 AM
Every year, debate rages here at DBR over who will find playing time at Duke. The high level of talent we enjoy on an annual basis combined with Coach K's propensity for a short rotation makes it natural message board fodder. Those who believe the Michael Gbinijes of the world will set college basketball on fire point to players like Jon Scheyer (#28 in the RSCI in 2006), who started and played big minutes as a freshman. Those who feel the hotshot newcomers will have to wait their turn point to players like Michael Gbinije himself, who despite being a highly regarded recruit played just 3.3 mpg as a freshman and only 0.9 mpg once ACC play began.

So who's right? Is there even an answer to this question? I say there is, that we can with reasonable accuracy predict who will be in Duke's rotation based on a relatively simple formula.

First, here are my assumptions:

(1) Coach K generally plays a 7-man rotation, consisting of four perimeter players and three bigs (C/PF). Thus, he will play the "best" four perimeter players and the "best" three bigs.

(2) Who is "best" is determined by a blend of talent and experience. While Coach K clearly does not make decisions based on recruiting rankings, such rankings are the best evaluation of "talent" that we fans possess.

(3) Experience is based on how many years a player has been in college, including redshirt years since a player does mature both physically and basketball-wise during a redshirt year.

(4) Coach K will occasionally go to an 8-man rotation if we have five outstanding perimeter options. It is also possible to see an 8-man rotation if two of the top three interior options more or less can only play center (since the RSCI was invented in 1998, this has only happened once, in 2010, but it looks like it may happen again next season, so I'm mentioning it here).

(5) The recruiting rankings aren't perfect. It would be silly to argue that the #21 recruit is significantly better than the #23 recruit. But we have to group them somehow, and on a quantum level we can make some broad statements, e.g., in general a top 10 recruit is a better player than a guy rated 11 to 20 (even while admitting that a #10 recruit may or may not be better than a #11 recruit, we have to draw lines somewhere).

(6) It's easier to predict who will be in the rotation as opposed to who will start or the exact order of who will get the most-to-least minutes (e.g., who will gain the 3rd-most minutes vs. the 6th-most minutes). Because the "best" players will probably make the rotation, but who starts, etc., is partially governed by ability to blend with teammates' skillsets, factors like conditioning, and actual on-court performance, none of which is necessarily susceptible to prediction without actually seeing practice, etc. In other words, we should be able to predict with reasonable accuracy whether Grayson Allen will get rotation minutes, but it will be almost impossible to say with any certainty whether Justise Winslow starts or is the 6th or 7th man (at least until Coach K speaks on the subject, and maybe not even then).


OK, here's the formula:

Freshmen players are assigned a number from 1 to 4 (lower being better), based on their RSCI recruting ranking, as follows:

1 to 10: 1
11 to 20: 2
21 to 35: 3
36+: 4

Non-freshmen players take their freshman number and subtract half a point (0.5) for each year they've been in college. Redshirt years count as a year in college, although if the player is away from the team (like Andre Dawkins in 2013), this could be debatable. A redshirt year due to a transfer counts an extra half point, because if the player hadn't exceeded the expectations of his recruiting ranking, Coach K probably wouldn't have accepted him as a transfer.

So, for example, Amile Jefferson was #21 in the RSCI in his senior year of high school (2012), so he started as a 3.0. In 2014-15, his junior year of college, he'll be a 2.0, because two half points will be deducted for his two years spent in college.

Assuming a 7-man rotation, the theory is that the seven guys who play the most minutes will be the perimeter players with the four lowest numbers and the interior players with the three lowest numbers. If we have five perimeter guys with numbers of 2.5 or lower, the rotation should be 8 guys (5 perimeter, 3 interior). This has happened four times in the past 15 years (2008, 2009, 2011, 2014).

In cases of ties, I generally go with the player who has more experience. If two players from the same class are tied for the last spot in the rotation, it's impossible to predict in advance which will be chosen, but if history is our guide, whoever wins the competition will play rotation minutes and the other won't play very much.



Let's see how this theory has worked in the past, going back to the 1999-2000 season:

1999-2000:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (1.0), Nate James* (1.5), Chris Carrawell* (2.5), Mike Dunleavy (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Shane Battier* (0.0), Carlos Boozer (1.0), Casey Sanders (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Andre Buckner** (5.0)
Other interior players: Matt Christensen* (3.5), Nick Horvath (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: J Williams (1157 minutes for season), N James (970), C Carrawell (1212), M Dunleavy (724)
Actual interior rotation: S Battier (1206), C Boozer (807), M Christensen (295)

Others: N Horvath (269), C Sanders (144), A Buckner (68)

* - since RSCI didn't exist before the 1998 high school seniors, I had to estimate Battier, Carrawell, James, and Christensen
** - since Andre Buckner was basically a walk-on with a scholarship, I counted him as a "5," rather than a "4."

OK, in the first year we look at, the formula failed for the 8th man, as both Matt Christensen and Nick Horvath beat out Casey Sanders. It's arguable, since Christensen didn't even play as much as 10 mpg, that we only had a 6-man rotation, with the six players the formula predicted, but instead I'm going to say this season gives us an exception to the rule.


2000-01:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (0.5), Nate James* (1.0), Chris Duhon (1.0), Mike Dunleavy (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Shane Battier* (-0.5), Carlos Boozer (0.5), Casey Sanders (1.5)

Other perimeter players: Andre Buckner** (4.5)
Other interior players: Matt Christensen* (3.0), Reggie Love (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (1246 minutes for season), Nate James (1085), Chris Duhon (1085), Mike Dunleavy (1137)
Actual interior rotation: Shane Battier (1363), Carlos Boozer (820), Casey Sanders (373)

Others: Matt Christensen (253), Reggie Love (130), Andre Buckner (83)

Exactly as predicted


2001-02:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (0.0), Chris Duhon (0.5), Dahntay Jones (2.0), Daniel Ewing (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Carlos Boozer (0.0), Casey Sanders (1.0), Mike Dunleavy (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Andre Buckner** (4.0)
Other interior players: Matt Christensen* (2.5), Nick Horvath (3.0), Reggie Love (3.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Jason Williams (1175), Chris Duhon (1229), Dahntay Jones (1012), Daniel Ewing (636)
Actual interior rotation: Carlos Boozer (993), Mike Dunleavy (1134), Nick Horvath (247)

Others: Casey Sanders (242), Matt Christensen (133), Reggie Love (59)

Again Casey Sanders got beat out for 7th man, although again, the guy who beat him out played fewer than 10 mpg, and this time if Casey had received six (6) more minutes of playing time the rotation would have been properly predicted. Still, he didn't get six more minutes, so here's another exception.


2002-03:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Chris Duhon (0.0), JJ Redick (2.0), Daniel Ewing (2.5), Sean Dockery (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Casey Sanders (0.5), Shelden Williams (1.0), Dahntay Jones (1.5)

Other perimeter players: Andre Buckner (3.5), Lee Melchionni (4.0)
Other interior players: Shavlik Randolph (2.0), Nick Horvath (3.0), Michael Thompson (3.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: Chris Duhon (1188), JJ Redick (1013), Daniel Ewing (920), Sean Dockery (345)
Actual interior rotation: Casey Sanders (589), Shelden Williams (633), Dahntay Jones (1014)

Others: Nick Horvath (405), Shavlik Randolph (351), Lee Melchionni (71), Mike Thompson (59), Andre Buckner (37)

It's not entirely clear whether Dahntay Jones was a perimeter or an interior player in 2002-03. However, since none of the obvious big men on the team earned more than 633 minutes, I think we'll have to call Dahntay an interior player for rotation purposes.

That said, this was a very odd year for a Coach K Duke team, in which 9 players earned more than 10 mpg for the season. Note that despite nine players averaging more than 10 mpg, we didn't actually have a 9-man rotation. We played 23 games that season after January 1 in which the score was within 20 points; nine guys got 10 or more minutes in only one of those games and eight guys got 10 or more minutes in only two other games. In three games only six guys played 10 or minutes, and in the remaining 17 games we had seven guys playing 10 or more minutes. So really, due to Dahntay's ability to play both the perimeter and interior, what really happened was Coach K tried lots of different 7-man combinations, and so it's hard to say which of Dockery or Randolph or Horvath was the 7th man.


2003-04:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Chris Duhon (-0.5), JJ Redick (1.5), Daniel Ewing (2.0), Sean Dockery (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Shelden Williams (0.5), Luol Deng (1.0), Shavlik Randolph (1.5)

Other perimeter players: Lee Melchionni (3.5)
Other interior players: Nick Horvath (2.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Chris Duhon (1311), JJ Redick (1152), Daniel Ewing (1131), Sean Dockery (571)
Actual interior rotation: Shelden Williams (963), Luol Deng (1149), Shavlik Randolph (709)

Others: Nick Horvath (218), Lee Melchionni (145)

Exactly as predicted.


2004-05:

Predicted perimeter rotation: JJ Redick (1.0), Daniel Ewing (1.5), Sean Dockery (2.0), DeMarcus Nelson (2.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Shelden Williams (0.0), Shavlik Randolph (1.0), Lee Melchionni (3.0)

Other perimeter players: none
Other interior players: Reggie Love (3.0???), Dave McClure (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: JJ Redick (1231), Daniel Ewing (1138), Sean Dockery (720), DeMarcus Nelson (634)
Actual interior rotation: Shelden Williams (1109), Shavlik Randolph (548), Lee Melchionni (716)

Others: Reggie Love (215), Dave McClure (184)

Reggie Love hadn't played organized basketball in three years, so I wasn't sure how to grade him. He wasn't really recruited for basketball anyway, so since they were tied I wouldn't have expected him to beat out a junior Melchionni.


2005-06:

Predicted perimeter rotation: JJ Redick (0.5), Sean Dockery (1.5), DeMarcus Nelson (1.5), Greg Paulus (2.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Shelden Williams (-0.5), Josh McRoberts (1.0), Lee Melchionni (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Martynas Pocius (4.0)
Other interior players: Eric Boateng (4.0), Jamal Boykin (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: JJ Redick (1336), Sean Dockery (1069), DeMarcus Nelson (517), Greg Paulus (1163)
Actual interior rotation: Shelden Williams (1198), Josh McRoberts (883), Lee Melchionni (717)

Others: Martynas Pocius (172), Eric Boateng (50), Jamal Boykin (70)

Exactly as predicted, despite three intriguing freshmen (rated #39, #53, and #60). Here's an example of an upperclassman (Lee Melchionni) beating out three freshmen who had higher recruiting rankings than he did, due to his experience. If we'd had a 6'7 freshman rated #18 (and thus earning a 2.0), such a player very well could have beaten out Lee for the 3rd big slot, but guys with a 4.0 score weren't able to do it.


2006-07:

Predicted perimeter rotation: DeMarcus Nelson (1.0), Gerald Henderson (1.0), Greg Paulus (1.5), Jon Scheyer (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Josh McRoberts (0.5), Lance Thomas (2.0), Dave McClure (3.0)

Other perimeter players: Marty Pocius (3.5)
Other interior players: Brian Zoubek (3.0, less experience than Dave McClure)

Actual perimeter rotation: DeMarcus Nelson (1052), Gerald Henderson (618), Greg Paulus (1068), Jon Scheyer (1112)
Actual interior rotation: Josh McRoberts (1164), Lance Thomas (463), Dave McClure (716)

Others: Brian Zoubek (235), Marty Pocius (193)

Exactly as predicted. Jon Scheyer's #28 RSCI rank probably wouldn't have gotten him a rotation spot in most years, but in 2006-07, his 3.0 was the 4th best perimeter score. Brian Zoubek had a solid #25 RSCI rank, but it only earned him a tie with Dave McClure (in his 3rd year in the program) and McClure had more experience.


2007-08:

Predicted perimeter rotation: DeMarcus Nelson (0.5), Gerald Henderson (0.5), Greg Paulus (1.0), Nolan Smith (2.0), Jon Scheyer (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Kyle Singler (1.0), Lance Thomas (1.5), Dave McClure (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Taylor King (3.0)
Other interior players: Brian Zoubek (2.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: DeMarcus Nelson (1051), Gerald Henderson (891), Greg Paulus (943), Nolan Smith (500), Jon Scheyer (963)
Actual interior rotation: Kyle Singler (972), Lance Thomas (593), Dave McClure (268)

Others: Taylor King (330), Brian Zoubek (262)

Exactly as predicted. This was a year that we had five outstanding (2.5 or better) perimeter options, so it's one of the few years we played an 8-man rotation. Again, McClure and Zoubek were tied (and McClure still had more experience), but the gap between them narrowed.


2008-09:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Gerald Henderson (0.0), Greg Paulus (0.5), Nolan Smith (1.5), Jon Scheyer (2.0), Elliot Williams (2.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Kyle Singler (0.5), Lance Thomas (1.0), Dave McClure (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Marty Pocius (2.5)
Other interior players: Brian Zoubek (2.0), Miles Plumlee (4.0), Olek Czyz (4.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: Gerald Henderson (1098), Greg Paulus (578), Nolan Smith (734), Jon Scheyer (1214), Elliot Williams (563)
Actual interior rotation: Kyle Singler (1193), Lance Thomas (689), Dave McClure (568)

Others: Brian Zoubek (427), Miles Plumlee (165), Marty Pocius (135), Olek Czyz (51)

As predicted. Again, we had five outstanding perimeter options, although in reality we never had an 8-man rotation (rather Elliot Williams, 5th on the perimeter totem pole, displaced Greg Paulus for the fourth perimeter slot, although for the season Paulus still had more minutes). Zoubek and McClure were still tied and once again experience prevailed, though Zoubek's minutes continued on the way up. Marty Pocius was down to a 2.5, but that still made him the sixth perimeter option.


2009-10:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Kyle Singler (0.0), Nolan Smith (1.0), Jon Scheyer (1.5), Andre Dawkins (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Lance Thomas (0.5), Brian Zoubek (1.5), Mason Plumlee (2.0) OR Ryan Kelly (2.0) (but not both)

Other perimeter players: none
Other interior players: Miles Plumlee (3.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Kyle Singler (1436), Nolan Smith (1349), Jon Scheyer (1470), Andre Dawkins (477)
Actual interior rotation: Lance Thomas (1013), Brian Zoubek (746), Miles Plumlee (654)

Others: Mason Plumlee (480), Ryan Kelly (227)

You could argue that we played a 4-big rotation this season (8-man overall), with Mason Plumlee beating Ryan Kelly out of the tie for the 4th big spot, but that doesn't change the fact that Miles Plumlee leapfrogged both freshmen for the 7th spot, thus this season contains an exception to the rule. That said, I suspect the reason for this exception is Mason Plumlee's early season broken hand. It cost him the first six games of the season, and then he had to play catchup as a freshman. Considering how the staff was touting him in the pre-season, my guess is had he not gotten injured he would have won the third spot in the big rotation and this season would have gone exactly as predicted.


2010-11:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Kyle Singler (-0.5), Nolan Smith (0.5), Kyrie Irving (1.0), Andre Dawkins (2.5), Seth Curry (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (1.5), Ryan Kelly (1.5), Miles Plumlee (3.0)

Other perimeter players: Tyler Thornton (4.0)
Other interior players: Josh Hairston (3.0, less experience than Miles Plumlee)

Actual perimeter rotation: Kyle Singler (1286), Nolan Smith (1259), Kyrie Irving*** (303), Andre Dawkins (778), Seth Curry (924)
Actual interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (949), Ryan Kelly (743), Miles Plumlee (628)

Others: Tyler Thornton (337), Josh Hairston (165)

*** Kyrie obviously was a big part of the rotation while healthy.

Another season skewed by an injury. Again we see five outstanding perimeter options and a five man (counting Kyrie) perimeter rotation. So this season went as predicted as possible considering Kyrie's injury.


2011-12:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Austin Rivers (1.0), Seth Curry (2.0), Andre Dawkins (2.0), Quinn Cook (3.0) OR Michael Gbinije (3.0) (but not both)
Predicted interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (1.0), Ryan Kelly (1.0), Miles Plumlee (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Tyler Thornton (3.5)
Other interior players: Josh Hairston (2.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Austin Rivers (1129), Seth Curry (1026), Andre Dawkins (760), Tyler Thornton (717)
Actual interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (964), Ryan Kelly (803), Miles Plumlee (697)

Others: Quinn Cook (387), Josh Hairston (246), Michael Gbinije (111)

Gbinije and Cook were tied and Cook beat Silent G out, and for awhile we played an 8-man (5-perimeter) rotation, despite Quinn's number being not quite as good as we usually needed for that. But in the end, Tyler Thornton leapfrogged them both and thus this season includes an exception. Again Miles's experience advantage broke his tie with Josh.


2012-13:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Seth Curry (1.5), Rasheed Sulaimon (2.0), Quinn Cook (2.5), Tyler Thornton (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (0.5), Ryan Kelly (0.5), Josh Hairston (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Alex Murphy (3.5)
Other interior players: Amile Jefferson (3.0), Marshall Plumlee (3.5)

Actual perimeter rotation: Seth Curry (1130), Rasheed Sulaimon (1050), Quinn Cook (1208), Tyler Thornton (791)
Actual interior rotation: Mason Plumlee (1248), Ryan Kelly (664), Josh Hairston (444)

Others: Amile Jefferson (405), Alex Murphy (194), Marshall Plumlee (50)

Exactly as predicted. Ryan Kelly's injury thrust the next guy in the pecking order (Amile) into the rotation for 13 games, which is why his minutes almost reached Josh's. Despite DBR clamoring for Alex and Marshall to get minutes, they clearly were the lowest rated.


2013-14:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Rasheed Sulaimon (1.5), Rodney Hood (1.5), Andre Dawkins (1.5), Quinn Cook (2.0), Tyler Thornton (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Jabari Parker (1.0), Josh Hairston (1.5), Amile Jefferson (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Matt Jones (3.0), Semi Ojeleye (3.0)
Other interior players: Marshall Plumlee (3.0)

Actual perimeter rotation: Rasheed Sulaimon (871), Rodney Hood (1150), Andre Dawkins (453), Quinn Cook (1042), Tyler Thornton (745)
Actual interior rotation: Jabari Parker (1073), Josh Hairston (284), Amile Jefferson (796)

Others: Marshall Plumlee (254), Matt Jones (235), Semi Ojeleye (80)

As predicted. I didn't move Andre up a half point for the year he spent away from the program, but he was still among five outstanding perimeter options and Coach K once again played all five in the rotation. Marshall almost but didn't quite catch Josh for the 8th most minutes. Despite DBR clamoring for Semi, Matt, and Alex (also 3.0) they were all tied for 7th among perimeter options and/or 4th among interior options.


Fifteen (15) seasons, 109 rotation spots, and only four (4) exceptions to the rule. And two of those four exceptions were due to Casey Sanders probably being overrated as a high school senior, while a third was likely due to injury. No system is perfect, but this one seems to cover most of the angles, explaining why some guys in the high 20s (e.g., Scheyer, Dunleavy, Ewing) played solid rotation minutes while others with similar or even better ratings (e.g., Gbinije, T King, Zoubek, Randolph, Kelly) didn't.



The new final RSCI (https://sites.google.com/site/rscihoops/home/2014-final) just came out, so we can apply this theory to our upcoming 2014 rotation. Looks like Jahlil Okafor retained his #1 ranking, Tyus Jones came in at #7, Justise Winslow at #13, and Grayson Allen at #24. So what does our theory predict for the 2014-15 season? Let's take a look:

2014-15:

Predicted perimeter rotation: Rasheed Sulaimon (1.0), Tyus Jones (1.0), Quinn Cook (1.5), Justise Winslow (2.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Jahlil Okafor (1.0), Amile Jefferson (2.0), Marshall Plumlee (2.5)

Other perimeter players: Matt Jones (2.5), Grayson Allen (3.0)
Other interior players: Semi Ojeleye (2.5, less experience than Marshall Plumlee)

If we apply the "five outstanding perimeter player" rule, then Matt Jones (2.5) would appear in the predicted perimeter rotation (or if Semi Ojeleye is considered a perimeter player, since he's also 2.5 with the same experience as Matt, then possibly he could beat Matt out for that spot).

The only reason I didn't include the fifth perimeter guy is the fact that Marshall and Jahlil are both "pure" centers who are unlikely to be on the court together for more than a few minutes (if at all). Since Amile isn't going to play 40 minutes, presumably either Justise or Semi will have to fill the positional need of backup PF and, depending on which one it is, we may see a quirk. If it's Justise, then Matt (or possibly Semi) can fill in as the fifth outstanding perimeter option in an 8-man rotation. I guess it's also possible that Semi beats Marshall out for the third big man spot (they both rated at 2.5 but Marshall has been at Duke a year longer), in which case Matt could be the fifth outstanding perimeter guy and Marshall could be outside the rotation, looking in.

But if we have four bigs in the rotation, and the fourth big is Semi, then the "five outstanding perimeter option" rule will probably have to be ignored (meaning Matt Jones will not make the rotation), because it's very unlikely Coach K would go to a 9-man rotation. That said, we had a similar situation in 2003, so we might have a season like that in which Coach K tries a lot of different 7- or 8-man rotations before finally settling on one of them.

In the end, if the theory holds then we should be fairly confident that Rasheed, Tyus, Quinn, Justise, Jahlil, Amile and probably Marshall will be in the rotation. But Grayson Allen, despite earning a very respectable #24 in the RSCI, is very unlikely to be. There is likely to be an 8th guy earning around 10 mpg, and the only real question is whether that 8th man will be Matt or Semi.

Unless Coach K decides to completely abandon the substitution pattern he's used for at least the past 15 years. And while of course that's possible, I wouldn't bet on it.

Unless someon has already done it, would anyone care to apply one of my all-time favorite systems to 2016-17?

CDu
05-23-2016, 09:33 AM
Unless someon has already done it, would anyone care to apply one of my all-time favorite systems to 2016-17?

Well, we can't do it fully yet as we don't have the final RSCI rankings for the freshmen.

But for the sophomores and upperclassmen, it would be as follows:
Jefferson (1)
Jeter (1.5)
Allen (2)
Obi (2)*
Jones (2.5)
Kennard (2.5)
Vrankovic (3.5)
Robinson (4.5)**

Based on the summer 2016 RSCI rankings for the freshmen, we'd have the following scores:
Giles (1)
Tatum (1)
Jackson (2)
Bolden (3)
DeLaurier (4)
White (4)

* Obi is an oddball case, as he gets the "transfer bump" but almost certainly won't be in the rotation next year in spite of his high ranking.
** for Robinson, I used the same approach Kedsy used for Buckner (since he is a walk-on) and started him as a 5.

It's worth noting, though, that Bolden is almost certainly going to move up into the 2 range (and probably a high 2 at that).

Using this metric system, we may have a real test to Coach K's system, as we'll likely have 4.5 frontcourt (PF/C) players with a rating of 2 or better (assuming Bolden bumps up to the 2 range) and 4.5 perimeter players with a rating of 2.5 or better. I find it exceedingly unlikely that either Jones or Kennard get bumped from the rotation, owing to the "5 exceptional perimeter players" theory. So given that our frontcourt guys have monster ratings, that would suggest a 9-man rotation.

However, I suspect we won't see a 9-man rotation. And since I find it exceedingly unlikely that Kennard or Jones sits, I think we'll have a situation like last year where a big (either Jeter or Bolden) gets marginalized in spite of their high ranking. I think the most likely scenario is that Jeter (perhaps having received an inflated high school ranking a product of a weaker class that was also light on quality big men) gets the short end of the stick.

budwom
05-23-2016, 09:45 AM
^ yeah, i'd say Bolden is at least a 1.5.....#8 with Scout, 11 with Rivals, 15 with 247...

Olympic Fan
05-23-2016, 10:20 AM
.
** for Robinson, I used the same approach Kedsy used for Buckner (since he is a walk-on) and started him as a 5.

Robinson is, of course, a walk-on, who was given a scholarship this past season because we had one extra (but who won't be on scholarship this season). But Andre Buckner was not as walk-on ... a last-minute replacement for Will Avery, he was going to walk on at Tennessee before Coach K offered him a scholarship. He was a recruited player.

Kedsy
05-23-2016, 11:34 AM
However, I suspect we won't see a 9-man rotation. And since I find it exceedingly unlikely that Kennard or Jones sits, I think we'll have a situation like last year where a big (either Jeter or Bolden) gets marginalized in spite of their high ranking. I think the most likely scenario is that Jeter (perhaps having received an inflated high school ranking a product of a weaker class that was also light on quality big men) gets the short end of the stick.

Thanks, CDu, I think you got everything right. Marques Bolden will likely end up as a 2.0, considering his positive movement in the major recruiting services. With all the frontcourt talent we have, I'd expect Jayson Tatum to play primarily on the wing. Sean Obi probably won't play despite his high rating, and that leaves either a 9-man rotation or either Chase Jeter or Marques Bolden on the outside, looking in. I can't imagine Marques signing on so late unless he had a reasonable expectation of decent playing time, so that suggests Chase may be looking for table scraps.

I will note there have been plenty of 2.0 or 2.5 big men who did not play when they had three better ranked big men ahead of them:

2000 Casey Sanders, 2.0 (exception; system predicted he should have played)
2002 Casey Sanders, 1.0 (ditto)
2002 Matt Christensen, 2.5
2003 Shavlik Randolph, 2.0
2004 Nick Horvath, 2.5
2008 Brian Zoubek, 2.5
2009 Brian Zoubek, 2.0
2010 Mason Plumlee, 2.0 (exception; system predicted he'd be 7th man but he ended up 8th man; although his injury may have played a part in that; it could also be argued that we played an 8-man rotation in 2010, even though we only had four perimeter players)
2010 Ryan Kelly, 2.0
2012 Josh Hairston, 2.5
2015 Semi Ojeleye, 2.5
2016 Sean Obi, 2.5
2016 Chase Jeter, 2.0

Coach K's willingness to bench a guy in the 2.0/2.5 range does not bode well for two of Sean Obi/Chase Jeter/Marques Bolden, although there should be plenty of garbage time minutes this coming season so the fourth big will probably get more minutes than most fourth bigs do for Duke.

Having 10 players with a 2.5 or better rating ties for the most for Duke in the RSCI era:

NUMBER OF PLAYERS WITH 2.5 O BETTER
2000: 6
2001: 7
2002: 7
2003: 7
2004: 8
2005: 6
2006: 7
2007: 5
2008: 9 (4th big, a 2.5, got only 262 minutes)
2009: 10 (4th big, a 2.0, got 427 minutes)
2010: 7
2011: 7
2012: 7
2013: 6
2014: 8
2015: 9 (4th big, a 2.5, got 375 minutes)
2016: 8
2017: 10

The only other year we had as many as 10 such players, nine players got 400+ minutes, though by crunch time in close games we only played 7 guys. I suspect this year will be similar, though hopefully we'll play at least 8 guys for the whole season.

CDu
05-23-2016, 11:40 AM
Robinson is, of course, a walk-on, who was given a scholarship this past season because we had one extra (but who won't be on scholarship this season). But Andre Buckner was not as walk-on ... a last-minute replacement for Will Avery, he was going to walk on at Tennessee before Coach K offered him a scholarship. He was a recruited player.

Yes, but Buckner was essentially a walk-on in terms of talent. We just gave him a scholarship because we needed a body badly and needed a way to entice one to come at the last minute, and we had a scholarship available. Buckner was probably relatively similarly rated (perhaps a bit higher-rated) as Robinson. In terms of the KRS (Kedsy Rating Scale) I think the two are probably really comparable, which was my point.

CDu
05-23-2016, 11:51 AM
It's also important to note the addendum that there is a lot of subjectivity in the numbers of the KRS (Kedsy Rating System). That's not a criticism of the KRS, but rather an acknowledgement that (a) the recruiting rankings within each year are subjective, (b) the talent from year to year isn't consistent, and (c) player development in college isn't consistent.

So a guy like Allen (who was perhaps an underrated 3 coming in but was in a fairly strong class and had huge development in college) is rated a 2 whereas Jeter (who was a 2 coming in but was in a much weaker class and especially weaker in frontcourt players) is rated a 1.5. This anomaly is a combination of the limitations of recruiting rankings, the limitations of using those recruiting rankings across different years, and the uncertainty of player development during college. Clearly Allen is as close to a 0 as you are going to get, whereas Jeter is probably more of a 2-2.5.

Or, perhaps more interestingly, Kennard was a 3 coming in whereas Jeter was a 2, but Kennard was much more college-ready and is much more certain to be in the rotation as a 2.5 than Jeter as a 1.5. Again, that's not a criticism of Kedsy's system, just a limitation of the rankings.

sagegrouse
05-23-2016, 11:55 AM
It's also important to note the addendum that there is a lot of subjectivity in the numbers of the KRS (Kedsy Rating System). That's not a criticism of the KRS, but rather an acknowledgement that (a) the recruiting rankings within each year are subjective, (b) the talent from year to year isn't consistent, and (c) player development in college isn't consistent.

So a guy like Allen (who was perhaps an underrated 3 coming in but was in a fairly strong class and had huge development in college) is rated a 2 whereas Jeter (who was a 2 coming in but was in a much weaker class and especially weaker in frontcourt players) is rated a 1.5. This anomaly is a combination of the limitations of recruiting rankings, the limitations of using those recruiting rankings across different years, and the uncertainty of player development during college. Clearly Allen is as close to a 0 as you are going to get, whereas Jeter is probably more of a 2-2.5.

Or, perhaps more interestingly, Kennard was a 3 coming in whereas Jeter was a 2, but Kennard was much more college-ready and is much more certain to be in the rotation as a 2.5 than Jeter as a 1.5. Again, that's not a criticism of Kedsy's system, just a limitation of the rankings.


As someone once said about KenPom, RSCI rankings are foreword not destiny.

Jeffrey
05-23-2016, 12:03 PM
Should Obi transfer again?

NSDukeFan
05-23-2016, 12:06 PM
Should Obi transfer again?

If it makes his knees better?

Jeffrey
05-23-2016, 12:08 PM
If it makes his knees better?

Do they have to be better to get PT on a less loaded team in a weaker conference? For example, I suspect Tommy would give him PT and the opportunity for an equally great education.

Ichabod Drain
05-23-2016, 12:23 PM
Should Obi transfer again?

Obi would lose a year of eligibility if he transfers now. He is three years into college and two years into his Duke education. If he did wish to go somewhere else it would make a lot more sense for him to stay this season at Duke, graduate, and the potentially be a grad transfer the following year. That's if he is even considering it at all.

johnb
05-23-2016, 01:10 PM
As someone once said about KenPom, RSCI rankings are foreword not destiny.

Or as someone once said in reference to Carolina's administrative perspective on student-athlete academic requirements, "garbage in, garbage out."

CrazyNotCrazie
05-23-2016, 02:14 PM
Obi would lose a year of eligibility if he transfers now. He is three years into college and two years into his Duke education. If he did wish to go somewhere else it would make a lot more sense for him to stay this season at Duke, graduate, and the potentially be a grad transfer the following year. That's if he is even considering it at all.

Based on the little I have seen of Obi's play and what I can sense about his background and priorities, I think that at this point, his primary goal is likely to leverage basketball to maximize his education. I don't think he would ever consider going to another school solely to get a bit more PT. Rather, he is going to finish up his valuable Duke degree and likely get a free year of grad school at Duke, or potentially (though not likely) somewhere else. If there is another school where he could get a little more PT and get a free year of a Duke-caliber education, he might consider that.

johnb
05-23-2016, 03:20 PM
Based on the little I have seen of Obi's play and what I can sense about his background and priorities, I think that at this point, his primary goal is likely to leverage basketball to maximize his education. I don't think he would ever consider going to another school solely to get a bit more PT. Rather, he is going to finish up his valuable Duke degree and likely get a free year of grad school at Duke, or potentially (though not likely) somewhere else. If there is another school where he could get a little more PT and get a free year of a Duke-caliber education, he might consider that.

Has there been word on whether Obi's knees are improved? If he's as good as he was during his freshman year, he might not get off the bench as a 5th year student at Duke, but he could be avaluable contributor elsewhere.

subzero02
05-23-2016, 03:47 PM
Robinson is, of course, a walk-on, who was given a scholarship this past season because we had one extra (but who won't be on scholarship this season). But Andre Buckner was not as walk-on ... a last-minute replacement for Will Avery, he was going to walk on at Tennessee before Coach K offered him a scholarship. He was a recruited player.

He wasn't brought in to replace Will Avery at point guard; Jwill did that. He was brought in to backup Jwill. I think initially K planned to play Avery at the 1, Jwill at the 2, Cwell the 3, Batter the 4 and Boozer at the 5 with Dunleavy, James, Christensen and Sanders coming off the bench. Due to Avery's unexpected early departure, K knew that he would need to move Jwill to the point so he brought in Buckner to back him up. Buckner played sparingly as a freshman, scoring only 19 points during the course of the season.

Olympic Fan
05-23-2016, 09:04 PM
He wasn't brought in to replace Will Avery at point guard; Jwill did that. He was brought in to backup Jwill. I think initially K planned to play Avery at the 1, Jwill at the 2, Cwell the 3, Batter the 4 and Boozer at the 5 with Dunleavy, James, Christensen and Sanders coming off the bench. Due to Avery's unexpected early departure, K knew that he would need to move Jwill to the point so he brought in Buckner to back him up. Buckner played sparingly as a freshman, scoring only 19 points during the course of the season.

Never said Buckner was brought in to replace Avery ... but he was brought in because Avery unexpectedly went pro. K needed a point guard for J-Will to work against in practice. Buckner wasn't even the backup -- that was Carrawell. But J-Will was a high school wing guard who needed a lot of good practice time at the point. Carrawell could have done it, but J-Will needed to play with Carrawell ... and Carrawell carried the team early -- he needed the practice time on the wing.

Buckner was never much of a game player -- the only time he made a difference on the floor was in a tough game at Clemson. But he more than paid back his scholarship by becoming a superb practice player (better than K could have found in student walk-on tryouts) who helped hone J-Will into a national player of the year.

The numerical system being debated here has some interesting aspects, but it's also got one major flaw. Talent is very different in different years and getting a top 10 player in one class does not mean getting a top 10 player in another class. Just as an example, Duke has landed the No. 13 rsci prospect in the last three classes -- Frank Jackson, Derryck Thornton and Justise Winslow.

Their level of talent is vast different and reflects the much stronger 2014 and 2015 classes, compared to the 2016 class. Winslow would have been top 10, even top 5 in 2016 class. Look at the 11-15 kids in the 2016 class -- Briscoe at Kentucky, Trier at Arizona, Thornton at Duke, Jeter at Duke, Blakeney at LSU. Not bad players, but none of them an impact freshman.

(Note: Jackson should go up a spot or two in the final rsci, but he's No. 13 at the moment, exactly where Thornton and Winslow were).

subzero02
05-23-2016, 10:03 PM
Robinson is, of course, a walk-on, who was given a scholarship this past season because we had one extra (but who won't be on scholarship this season). But Andre Buckner was not as walk-on ... a last-minute replacement for Will Avery, he was going to walk on at Tennessee before Coach K offered him a scholarship. He was a recruited player.



Never said Buckner was brought in to replace Avery....

I guess I misunderstood you. You stated that he was brought in as a replacement for Will Avery . I see how that is different than being brought in to replace Avery. No Will and a different preposition.

Kedsy
05-23-2016, 10:36 PM
Their level of talent is vast different and reflects the much stronger 2014 and 2015 classes, compared to the 2016 class. Winslow would have been top 10, even top 5 in 2016 class. Look at the 11-15 kids in the 2016 class -- Briscoe at Kentucky, Trier at Arizona, Thornton at Duke, Jeter at Duke, Blakeney at LSU. Not bad players, but none of them an impact freshman.

I think you meant the "much stronger 2014 and 2016" classes. Briscoe, Thornton, Jeter, et al. were in the 2015 class.

And while I freely admit that the system doesn't (and couldn't possibly) control for the difference among classes, I wouldn't call it a "flaw." The system is an approximation, a prediction, and it has a pretty good track record, with only four exceptions in 17 years (though I suspect this coming season will bring us the fifth exception). And even if we could control for strength of class, there would be exceptions (for example, Casey Sanders brought us two of the four exceptions, and my recollection is the 1999 high school class was considered a strong one).

Put another way, while strength of class might have differentiated Justise Winslow from Chase Jeter, the fact is that the system predicted Winslow would be in the rotation and Jeter wouldn't, so that differentiation wouldn't have made the prediction more accurate.

Jeffrey
05-24-2016, 10:49 AM
And while I freely admit that the system doesn't (and couldn't possibly) control for the difference among classes, I wouldn't call it a "flaw." The system is an approximation, a prediction, and it has a pretty good track record, with only four exceptions in 17 years (though I suspect this coming season will bring us the fifth exception). And even if we could control for strength of class, there would be exceptions (for example, Casey Sanders brought us two of the four exceptions, and my recollection is the 1999 high school class was considered a strong one).

Put another way, while strength of class might have differentiated Justise Winslow from Chase Jeter, the fact is that the system predicted Winslow would be in the rotation and Jeter wouldn't, so that differentiation wouldn't have made the prediction more accurate.

As an investor, I would gladly utilize a "system" with its track record. IMO, it's very impressive given the rather unpredictable subject.

Skitzle
05-24-2016, 11:16 AM
I'd also point out that whether Brandon Ingram plays primarily PF or primarily SF will make a big difference in the rotation (both predicted and actual). My original statement of the system's prediction (above) assumes Brandon as a perimeter player. BUT if Brandon turns out to be an interior player, then the prediction would look like this:


Predicted perimeter rotation: Derryck Thornton (2.0), Matt Jones (2.0), Grayson Allen (2.5), Luke Kennard (3.0)
Predicted interior rotation: Brandon Ingram (1.0), Amile Jefferson (1.5), Marshall Plumlee (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Justin Robinson (4.0)
Other interior players: Chase Jeter (2.0, less experience than Marshall), Sean Obi (3.0), Antonio Vrankovic (4.0)


Looking at how skinny Brandon is, along with his reputation as a perimeter ballhandler and scorer, I think the guess now has to be that he'll be a perimeter player. But if Justise Winslow could be our primary PF, then why not Brandon Ingram?

It's another thing we just can't know at this point. But I stick by my belief that if Luke plays big rotation minutes then two of our big men won't.

Can we just mention that the system worked 100% as predicted for last year...

Skitzle
05-24-2016, 11:30 AM
Well, we can't do it fully yet as we don't have the final RSCI rankings for the freshmen.

But for the sophomores and upperclassmen, it would be as follows:

Based on the summer 2016 RSCI rankings for the freshmen, we'd have the following scores:

Bolden (3)


* Obi is an oddball case, as he gets the "transfer bump" but almost certainly won't be in the rotation next year in spite of his high ranking.
** for Robinson, I used the same approach Kedsy used for Buckner (since he is a walk-on) and started him as a 5.

It's worth noting, though, that Bolden is almost certainly going to move up into the 2 range (and probably a high 2 at that).

Using this metric system, we may have a real test to Coach K's system, as we'll likely have 4.5 frontcourt (PF/C) players with a rating of 2 or better (assuming Bolden bumps up to the 2 range) and 4.5 perimeter players with a rating of 2.5 or better. I find it exceedingly unlikely that either Jones or Kennard get bumped from the rotation, owing to the "5 exceptional perimeter players" theory. So given that our frontcourt guys have monster ratings, that would suggest a 9-man rotation.

However, I suspect we won't see a 9-man rotation. And since I find it exceedingly unlikely that Kennard or Jones sits, I think we'll have a situation like last year where a big (either Jeter or Bolden) gets marginalized in spite of their high ranking. I think the most likely scenario is that Jeter (perhaps having received an inflated high school ranking a product of a weaker class that was also light on quality big men) gets the short end of the stick.

Some quick notes and a format change from Kedsy's past Season numbers) I've bolded the two numbers that were wrong.

Predicted perimeter rotation: Tatum (1.0), Matt Jones (1.5), Grayson Allen (2.0), Jackson (2.0), Luke Kennard (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Amile Jefferson (1.0), Giles (1.0), Chase Jeter (1.5) Bolden (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Justin Robinson (3.5), White (4.0), DeLaurier (4.0)
Other interior players: Sean Obi (2.5), Antonio Vrankovic (3.5)

Assement holds true. We will probably see a 8 man rotation with 7 in crunch games. Bold on Jeter on the Outside looking in. Obi doesn't make the cut regardless of years played and health based on the ranking of the other players.

CDu
05-24-2016, 11:35 AM
Some quick notes and a format change from Kedsy's past Season numbers) I've bolded the two numbers that were wrong.

Predicted perimeter rotation: Tatum (1.0), Matt Jones (1.5), Grayson Allen (2.0), Jackson (2.0), Luke Kennard (2.5)
Predicted interior rotation: Amile Jefferson (1.0), Giles (1.0), Chase Jeter (1.5) Bolden (2.0)

Other perimeter players: Justin Robinson (3.5), White (4.0), DeLaurier (4.0)
Other interior players: Sean Obi (2.5), Antonio Vrankovic (3.5)

Assement holds true. We will probably see a 8 man rotation with 7 in crunch games. Bold on Jeter on the Outside looking in. Obi doesn't make the cut regardless of years played and health based on the ranking of the other players.

You are correct on the edit of Matt Jones (should be 1.5, not 2.5; for some reason I had him as RSCI #36, but he was RSCI #34). But Obi is indeed a 2.0 and not a 2.5. He has was a 4 coming in, has two years of playing experience (-1), a year of transfer (-0.5), and the "transfer bump" given by having proven enough to have Coach K recruit you (-0.5).

Skitzle
05-24-2016, 02:40 PM
You are correct on the edit of Matt Jones (should be 1.5, not 2.5; for some reason I had him as RSCI #36, but he was RSCI #34). But Obi is indeed a 2.0 and not a 2.5. He has was a 4 coming in, has two years of playing experience (-1), a year of transfer (-0.5), and the "transfer bump" given by having proven enough to have Coach K recruit you (-0.5).

So was obi's rank of three last year a mistake?

CDu
05-24-2016, 03:07 PM
So was obi's rank of three last year a mistake?

Based on the criteria laid out in the first post in the thread, I would say yes. He came to Rice as a 4.0. He played one season there before deciding to transfer, so he was at 3.5 at the time of transfer. He got a half point for his redshirt year, bringing him to 3.0. But by accepting him as a transfer, Coach K conferred in Obi an extra half point reduction, bumping him down to a 2.5. So Obi should have been marked as a 2.5 going into last season. So if he was listed as a 3.0 last year, then that was wrong according to the criteria originally posted as he should have been a 2.5.

Having said that, I've not read through all 9 pages of the thread to see if the formula had been revised subsequently. If so, then obviously that would change the answer. But I don't think it has been revised, at least not to my knowledge.

Skitzle
05-24-2016, 03:37 PM
Based on the criteria laid out in the first post in the thread, I would say yes. He came to Rice as a 4.0. He played one season there before deciding to transfer, so he was at 3.5 at the time of transfer. He got a half point for his redshirt year, bringing him to 3.0. But by accepting him as a transfer, Coach K conferred in Obi an extra half point reduction, bumping him down to a 2.5. So Obi should have been marked as a 2.5 going into last season. So if he was listed as a 3.0 last year, then that was wrong according to the criteria originally posted as he should have been a 2.5.

Having said that, I've not read through all 9 pages of the thread to see if the formula had been revised subsequently. If so, then obviously that would change the answer. But I don't think it has been revised, at least not to my knowledge.

I think transfers were an exception anyway... and Obi with his bad knees has been a double exception.

CDu
05-24-2016, 04:29 PM
I think transfers were an exception anyway... and Obi with his bad knees has been a double exception.

Yeah, ultimately, it really doesn't matter. Obi isn't going to play much, so whether he is scored a 2 or a 2.5 doesn't matter much. I guess technically it matters in that he'd violate the "veterans with the same score as underclassmen would get the nod" rule. But we're already going to have a violation thanks to Kennard (in) and possibly Jeter (out), so what's one more violation?

Wahoo2000
05-24-2016, 04:39 PM
I think you meant the "much stronger 2014 and 2016" classes. Briscoe, Thornton, Jeter, et al. were in the 2015 class.

He MUST have. The 2015 class, after Simmons and Ingrahm was almost totally devoid of superstar talent (i.e. "lottery picks"). I honestly think this huge "resurgence" of seniors leading the way in 15-16 was largely due to the lack of incoming premier freshman talent last year.

I think in most other seasons, Brogdon & Johnson would have been FAR from consensus 1st team AAs. Good chance that Hield and/or Valentine might have missed on being unanimous AAs as well.

It's another reason I'd think ANY borderline player considering leaving early this year should just go now. A guy like Melo Trimble could come back next season, make a HUGE leap, and still miss the 1st round next year too. I was kind of surprised Allen didn't explore the draft option a little more. He's already won a title, and on a deeper team next year that could deflate his numbers a bit, there's no way his draft status is higher next year than this season. Still, SOME guys value the college experience above NBA dollars. Those are rare birds though (Sampson and Tim Duncan come to mind)

Kedsy
06-08-2016, 11:38 AM
Final RSCI is in (https://sites.google.com/site/rscihoops/home/2016-final).

Highlights:

Harry Giles: #2
Jayson Tatum: #3 (tied)
Marques Bolden: #11 (just one point -- 537 to 538 -- from #10)
Frank Jackson: #14
Javin DeLaurier: #35

Kedsy
06-08-2016, 11:59 AM
Well, we can't do it fully yet as we don't have the final RSCI rankings for the freshmen.

But for the sophomores and upperclassmen, it would be as follows:
Jefferson (1)
Jeter (1.5)
Allen (2)
Obi (2)*
Jones (2.5)
Kennard (2.5)
Vrankovic (3.5)
Robinson (4.5)**

Based on the summer 2016 RSCI rankings for the freshmen, we'd have the following scores:
Giles (1)
Tatum (1)
Jackson (2)
Bolden (3)
DeLaurier (4)
White (4)

* Obi is an oddball case, as he gets the "transfer bump" but almost certainly won't be in the rotation next year in spite of his high ranking.
** for Robinson, I used the same approach Kedsy used for Buckner (since he is a walk-on) and started him as a 5.

It's worth noting, though, that Bolden is almost certainly going to move up into the 2 range (and probably a high 2 at that).

Using this metric system, we may have a real test to Coach K's system, as we'll likely have 4.5 frontcourt (PF/C) players with a rating of 2 or better (assuming Bolden bumps up to the 2 range) and 4.5 perimeter players with a rating of 2.5 or better. I find it exceedingly unlikely that either Jones or Kennard get bumped from the rotation, owing to the "5 exceptional perimeter players" theory. So given that our frontcourt guys have monster ratings, that would suggest a 9-man rotation.

However, I suspect we won't see a 9-man rotation. And since I find it exceedingly unlikely that Kennard or Jones sits, I think we'll have a situation like last year where a big (either Jeter or Bolden) gets marginalized in spite of their high ranking. I think the most likely scenario is that Jeter (perhaps having received an inflated high school ranking a product of a weaker class that was also light on quality big men) gets the short end of the stick.

"Official" 2016 rankings:

INTERIOR
Amile Jefferson: 1.0
Harry Giles: 1.0
Chase Jeter: 1.5
Marques Bolden: 2.0
Sean Obi: 2.0
Javin DeLaurier: 3.0
Antonio Vrankovic: 3.5
Justin Robinson: 4.5

PERIMETER:
Jayson Tatum: 1.0
Matt Jones: 1.5
Grayson Allen: 2.0
Frank Jackson: 2.0
Luke Kennard: 2.5

So, the system would predict a rotation of:

PERIMETER: Tatum, Jones, Allen, Jackson, Kennard
INTERIOR: Jefferson, Giles, Jeter


I'd note that if ESPN had ranked Marques Bolden #15 instead of #16, then Marques would be a 1.0 and the system would have him in the rotation ahead of Chase Jeter. Personally, I think that's what's going to happen, and if it does I'll blame ESPN for the system exception. ;)

CDu
06-08-2016, 12:27 PM
"Official" 2016 rankings:

INTERIOR
Amile Jefferson: 1.0
Harry Giles: 1.0
Chase Jeter: 1.5
Marques Bolden: 2.0
Sean Obi: 2.0
Javin DeLaurier: 3.0
Antonio Vrankovic: 3.5
Justin Robinson: 4.5

PERIMETER:
Jayson Tatum: 1.0
Matt Jones: 1.5
Grayson Allen: 2.0
Frank Jackson: 2.0
Luke Kennard: 2.5

So, the system would predict a rotation of:

PERIMETER: Tatum, Jones, Allen, Jackson, Kennard
INTERIOR: Jefferson, Giles, Jeter


I'd note that if ESPN had ranked Marques Bolden #15 instead of #16, then Marques would be a 1.0 and the system would have him in the rotation ahead of Chase Jeter. Personally, I think that's what's going to happen, and if it does I'll blame ESPN for the system exception. ;)

I agree with your (and not your model's) prediction of next year's top 8. And I would add that this is perfect example of two of the inherent challenges to getting this 100% correct every year with a relatively simple (and I don't mean that in a negative way at all) formula: (1) incrementally small changes in recruiting ranks can drastically change a player's starting value, and (b) differences in depth/quality of the class as a whole can lead to odd results. If Bolden was a senior in 2015, he's most likely a top-10 recruit and would thus enter with a rating of 1.0. If Jeter was in this year's class, maybe he slips all the way to a 3.0, but definitely stays at least a 2.0. The oddity that Jeter is a 1.5 to Bolden's 2.0 is almost entirely a result of the 2015 class being light at the top and the 2016 class being strong at the top.

BD80
06-08-2016, 01:03 PM
...

So, the system would predict a rotation of:

PERIMETER: Tatum, Jones, Allen, Jackson, Kennard
...

That listing never fails to remind me of the country singer, and how we are in for:


https://youtu.be/PSROm-vgVRk


I'd say "Too Much of a Good Thing" is a good thing, but it isn't the party song we need.

Indoor66
06-08-2016, 02:16 PM
That listing never fails to remind me of the country singer, and how we are in for:


https://youtu.be/PSROm-vgVRk


I'd say "Too Much of a Good Thing" is a good thing, but it isn't the party song we need.

Over at the dump on the hump they cry in their beer over "There Will Never Be Another Ewe."

superdave
06-09-2016, 09:21 AM
"Official" 2016 rankings:

INTERIOR
Amile Jefferson: 1.0
Harry Giles: 1.0
Chase Jeter: 1.5
Marques Bolden: 2.0
Sean Obi: 2.0
Javin DeLaurier: 3.0
Antonio Vrankovic: 3.5
Justin Robinson: 4.5

PERIMETER:
Jayson Tatum: 1.0
Matt Jones: 1.5
Grayson Allen: 2.0
Frank Jackson: 2.0
Luke Kennard: 2.5

So, the system would predict a rotation of:

PERIMETER: Tatum, Jones, Allen, Jackson, Kennard
INTERIOR: Jefferson, Giles, Jeter


I'd note that if ESPN had ranked Marques Bolden #15 instead of #16, then Marques would be a 1.0 and the system would have him in the rotation ahead of Chase Jeter. Personally, I think that's what's going to happen, and if it does I'll blame ESPN for the system exception. ;)



Thanks for updating this. Always helpful to set expectations.

We obviously need to see how Bolden adjusts to the college game, but I think the consensus is that he will play a bigger role in the rotation than Jeter. I always worry that some big guys just struggle to adapt to the speed of the game and get into a lot of foul trouble.

The other big caveat here is no one knows how Giles' knee is going to hold up. Could he miss the November/December games? Could his minutes be limited? That would make Bolden and Jeter much more important.

flyingdutchdevil
06-09-2016, 11:07 AM
Thanks for updating this. Always helpful to set expectations.

We obviously need to see how Bolden adjusts to the college game, but I think the consensus is that he will play a bigger role in the rotation than Jeter. I always worry that some big guys just struggle to adapt to the speed of the game and get into a lot of foul trouble.

The other big caveat here is no one knows how Giles' knee is going to hold up. Could he miss the November/December games? Could his minutes be limited? That would make Bolden and Jeter much more important.

Everything that I've heard or assumed leads me to believe he'll be ready for the start of the season. But I doubt he'll be comfortable going at full speed. And that's pretty natural. Hopefully he can be hitting full speed by the time the ACC rolls around.

And I agree about Jeter and Bolden - their roles become so much more important if Giles isn't ready. I'd be shocked if Giles plays close to 30 min a game during the months of November and December. That means plenty of minutes for Bolden and/or Jeter. It would also mean a lot more playing time for our guards if Amile slides to the 5 and Tatum to the 4 (which you know will happen quite a bit. Tatum is the perfect stretch 4). A line-up of Allen, Jackson/Jones, Kennard, Tatum, and Amile has the potential to be Duke's equivalent of the Dubs' Lineup of Death.

JNort
06-09-2016, 03:15 PM
"Official" 2016 rankings:

INTERIOR
Amile Jefferson: 1.0
Harry Giles: 1.0
Chase Jeter: 1.5
Marques Bolden: 2.0
Sean Obi: 2.0
Javin DeLaurier: 3.0
Antonio Vrankovic: 3.5
Justin Robinson: 4.5

PERIMETER:
Jayson Tatum: 1.0
Matt Jones: 1.5
Grayson Allen: 2.0
Frank Jackson: 2.0
Luke Kennard: 2.5

So, the system would predict a rotation of:

PERIMETER: Tatum, Jones, Allen, Jackson, Kennard
INTERIOR: Jefferson, Giles, Jeter


I'd note that if ESPN had ranked Marques Bolden #15 instead of #16, then Marques would be a 1.0 and the system would have him in the rotation ahead of Chase Jeter. Personally, I think that's what's going to happen, and if it does I'll blame ESPN for the system exception. ;)

I know I'm in a vast minority here but injuries not withstanding I still think Jeter beats out Bolden. That was my prediction before and it still is now.

flyingdutchdevil
06-09-2016, 05:50 PM
I know I'm in a vast minority here but injuries not withstanding I still think Jeter beats out Bolden. That was my prediction before and it still is now.

Interesting. Care to share more? I'm interested in why you think this.

I guess I'm in the majority who thinks Bolden will be an 8th man and potentially the 7th man. Potential-wise, I don't think you can argue Bolden vs Jeter; that is pretty clear to me that Bolden has a much higher ceiling. But the freshman vs sophomore debate is more interesting. Will Jeter's productivity beat out Bolden? I don't think so, but the best thing about freshman is they become sophomores (unless you're Duke or Kentucky, and then freshman become millionaires...)

SilkyJ
06-09-2016, 07:25 PM
So, the system would predict a rotation of:

PERIMETER: Tatum, Jones, Allen, Jackson, Kennard
INTERIOR: Jefferson, Giles, Jeter


I'd note that if ESPN had ranked Marques Bolden #15 instead of #16, then Marques would be a 1.0 and the system would have him in the rotation ahead of Chase Jeter. Personally, I think that's what's going to happen, and if it does I'll blame ESPN for the system exception. ;)

There's been much hemming and hawing on this board re: Bolden vs Jeter (myself included), but I'm much more interested in how our perimeter rotation shakes out. I usually harp on the fact that for any Duke team to make a deep run in March (read: Final Four), we need a senior Leader to be among our top 2 scorers/players, but the other ingredient all of our Final Four teams had was a really good PG running the ship. "A really good PG" has usually been A) a veteran leader who at worst is a steady ball-handler and facilitator, and at best is an all-acc/all-america level player, or B) a young talent who is an elite level player.

The "worst" PGs we've ever had running a Final Four team were Tommy Amaker in '86 and Quinn Snyder in '88/'89 (as measured by conference & national accolades). Tommy earned some national DPOY awards and was all-ACC 2nd team in his senior season (1987). Quinn was a steady eddy, but not an all-acc caliber player. Still, both were pure natural PGs and veterans who could play Krzyzewski-level defense and naturally facilitate the wealth of talent around them.

This year we have no true PGs on the roster, unless Frank (I'm sorry Ms.) Jackson is more of a true point than I've heard. Moreover, a #14 RSCI ranking is not exactly elite, even in a strong class. Its pretty rare for a player at that level to start right away, unless its out of necessity. Bobby Hurley (pre-rankings) was elite. Tyus Jones (#5 entering senior year, #7 exiting senior year) was elite. But most importantly, we need a facilitator and a defender out there. We have Grayson, Tatum, Giles, Kennard, Jefferson, and Jones to put the ball in the hoop. We need someone to stop ball and distribute--who can do that for this team?

In 2010 we had no true PGs and made it work by moving Scheyer to the point, and as a crafty senior veteran who never turned the ball over he was able to handle the duties. Can Matt Jones make a similar move? Will Grayson handle the ball? Is Kennard (use the force Luke!) the answer? Or is Frank ready to step into a starting PG role? I have a tough time calling this one. We tried Matt at the point last year and he is just too limited as an athlete and playmaker. That said, Jon Scheyer was hardly known for his first step. Last year K repeatedly said it was "Matt Jones' team." Methinks we need Matt to evolve as a PG this year in the mold of Scheyer--and luckily he has Scheyer on the bench to learn from. The good news is, with Grayson, Kennard, and Tatum on the wing Matt doesn't need to do much more than initiate the offense and make smart decisions. Those other guys can penetrate and carry the load on offense. What I worry about, though, is that we get into too much 1on1 on offense, much like last year. We need Grayson, Luke and Tatum to develop as passers so the ball keeps whipping on offense.

JNort
06-09-2016, 08:02 PM
Interesting. Care to share more? I'm interested in why you think this.

I guess I'm in the majority who thinks Bolden will be an 8th man and potentially the 7th man. Potential-wise, I don't think you can argue Bolden vs Jeter; that is pretty clear to me that Bolden has a much higher ceiling. But the freshman vs sophomore debate is more interesting. Will Jeter's productivity beat out Bolden? I don't think so, but the best thing about freshman is they become sophomores (unless you're Duke or Kentucky, and then freshman become millionaires...)

Sure! I must admit going into last season I wasn't very high on Jeter and his play for the first 2/3rds of the season seemed to further my doubts about his abilities. However the last bit of the season he showed what seemed to be a much improved overall game on defense and offense. I think he was only lacking in confidence and tried to overdo or over think everything rather than just play. With a year under his belt and more time spent around the staff and teammates I think he will have "it" all put together this coming season.

Combine that with Bolden incoming as a freshmen big and to me bigs seem to struggle to adapt more than other positions so I think he struggles out the gate. With early struggles and a more confident Jeter who has 1 year in the system I expect him to stay behind him in the rotation.

I also don't think the talent in this incoming class will be as great up top as the one we just saw. It may end up better as a class overall but it doesn't appear to be so up in the top 10. Again this is all just my opinion but I never really get caught up in the "shiny new toy" hoopla.

Side note: Bolden's highlight reels arn't overly impressive either. Great no doubt but not the dominate right away kind of impressive which is what I think we would need to pass Jeter in the rotation. Also see SilkyJ's last comment, but guys ranked 14 and 15 no matter how strong a class arn't usually "elite" status and that I agree with.

Side side note: Not sure about Bolden yet obviously but Chase is a very intense guy on the court and I would think Coach would like having that intensity, I know I like to see it.

fraggler
06-09-2016, 08:09 PM
There's been much hemming and hawing on this board re: Bolden vs Jeter (myself included), but I'm much more interested in how our perimeter rotation shakes out. I usually harp on the fact that for any Duke team to make a deep run in March (read: Final Four), we need a senior Leader to be among our top 2 scorers/players, but the other ingredient all of our Final Four teams had was a really good PG running the ship. "A really good PG" has usually been A) a veteran leader who at worst is a steady ball-handler and facilitator, and at best is an all-acc/all-america level player, or B) a young talent who is an elite level player.

The "worst" PGs we've ever had running a Final Four team were Tommy Amaker in '86 and Quinn Snyder in '88/'89 (as measured by conference & national accolades). Tommy earned some national DPOY awards and was all-ACC 2nd team in his senior season (1987). Quinn was a steady eddy, but not an all-acc caliber player. Still, both were pure natural PGs and veterans who could play Krzyzewski-level defense and naturally facilitate the wealth of talent around them.

This year we have no true PGs on the roster, unless Frank (I'm sorry Ms.) Jackson is more of a true point than I've heard. Moreover, a #14 RSCI ranking is not exactly elite, even in a strong class. Its pretty rare for a player at that level to start right away, unless its out of necessity. Bobby Hurley (pre-rankings) was elite. Tyus Jones (#5 entering senior year, #7 exiting senior year) was elite. But most importantly, we need a facilitator and a defender out there. We have Grayson, Tatum, Giles, Kennard, Jefferson, and Jones to put the ball in the hoop. We need someone to stop ball and distribute--who can do that for this team?

In 2010 we had no true PGs and made it work by moving Scheyer to the point, and as a crafty senior veteran who never turned the ball over he was able to handle the duties. Can Matt Jones make a similar move? Will Grayson handle the ball? Is Kennard (use the force Luke!) the answer? Or is Frank ready to step into a starting PG role? I have a tough time calling this one. We tried Matt at the point last year and he is just too limited as an athlete and playmaker. That said, Jon Scheyer was hardly known for his first step. Last year K repeatedly said it was "Matt Jones' team." Methinks we need Matt to evolve as a PG this year in the mold of Scheyer--and luckily he has Scheyer on the bench to learn from. The good news is, with Grayson, Kennard, and Tatum on the wing Matt doesn't need to do much more than initiate the offense and make smart decisions. Those other guys can penetrate and carry the load on offense. What I worry about, though, is that we get into too much 1on1 on offense, much like last year. We need Grayson, Luke and Tatum to develop as passers so the ball keeps whipping on offense.

We went 1 on 1 too much last year because we had very few options. Basically zero post threats outside of the occasional "hide-a-Plumlee" baseline dunk. With more scoring threats, I think you will see good ball movement even without a traditional point.

SilkyJ
06-09-2016, 08:33 PM
We went 1 on 1 too much last year because we had very few options. Basically zero post threats outside of the occasional "hide-a-Plumlee" baseline dunk. With more scoring threats, I think you will see good ball movement even without a traditional point.

Maybe, but only if those bigs and other scoring threats can be creators as well. Jah was a great and willing passer out of the post. Harry seems to have the all around skills to be a good passer, and Amile isn't a ball stopper on offense either, but we'll see. A natural PG creator is the best way to create ball initial ball movement, which allows slashing/shooting wings like Grayson, Tatum and Kennard to shoot or drive if their men help off them.

Kedsy
06-09-2016, 10:00 PM
Maybe, but only if those bigs and other scoring threats can be creators as well. Jah was a great and willing passer out of the post. Harry seems to have the all around skills to be a good passer, and Amile isn't a ball stopper on offense either, but we'll see. A natural PG creator is the best way to create ball initial ball movement, which allows slashing/shooting wings like Grayson, Tatum and Kennard to shoot or drive if their men help off them.

For what it's worth, Jahlil's assist percentage in 2014-15 was 9.4%. Amile's assist percentage in his 9 games of 2015-16 was 9.0%. So if Jahlil was a "great and willing passer," then Amile can probably be that as well.

flyingdutchdevil
06-10-2016, 10:09 AM
Sure! I must admit going into last season I wasn't very high on Jeter and his play for the first 2/3rds of the season seemed to further my doubts about his abilities. However the last bit of the season he showed what seemed to be a much improved overall game on defense and offense. I think he was only lacking in confidence and tried to overdo or over think everything rather than just play. With a year under his belt and more time spent around the staff and teammates I think he will have "it" all put together this coming season.

Combine that with Bolden incoming as a freshmen big and to me bigs seem to struggle to adapt more than other positions so I think he struggles out the gate. With early struggles and a more confident Jeter who has 1 year in the system I expect him to stay behind him in the rotation.

I also don't think the talent in this incoming class will be as great up top as the one we just saw. It may end up better as a class overall but it doesn't appear to be so up in the top 10. Again this is all just my opinion but I never really get caught up in the "shiny new toy" hoopla.

Side note: Bolden's highlight reels arn't overly impressive either. Great no doubt but not the dominate right away kind of impressive which is what I think we would need to pass Jeter in the rotation. Also see SilkyJ's last comment, but guys ranked 14 and 15 no matter how strong a class arn't usually "elite" status and that I agree with.

Side side note: Not sure about Bolden yet obviously but Chase is a very intense guy on the court and I would think Coach would like having that intensity, I know I like to see it.

Thanks. I have to disagree on a few key points you made.

1) I don't really see what you saw about Jeter's play in the last third of the season. He played better, but the bar was sooooooooooo low based on his performance post Georgetown game. He had two back-to-back decent games with NC States and Notre Dame in the ACC Tourney where he averaged 11 min, 6ppg, and 4.5 rebounds. Definitely an improvement. But that was the high point with a very small sample size. Also, I don't think I ever saw serviceable defense from Jeter. In those 14 minutes against Notre Dame, he fouled out. IMO, his positioning never improved. Do I expect Jeter to get better next year? Absolutely. But the question is, "how much"? I don't know.

2) Which class that we just saw? I assume you're referring to Tyus/Okafor/Winslow and not Ingram/Thornton/Kennard/Jeter. Because if it's the latter, I couldn't disagree more. If it's the former, I may be aligned with you. That said, I think the basketball world is underestimating Jayson Tatum. Even though he's #3 in RSCI, he's the best offensive recruit in the country with a more advanced skillset than Rodney Hood as a sophomore. And analysts have been gushing over Giles, even with two torn ACLs. Jackson is an enigma, but his athleticism is undeniable. Is he more athletic than Winslow? Maybe.

3) I too don't have "shiny-new-toy-itis". But that kinda changed with a) the Tyus/Okafor/Winslow class and b) Ingram. If players are ranked in the top 3-5, they are bound to be good from Day 1. They may take a month or two to get going, but they are bound be be excellent. And Duke has 2 of these top 3 players. The class will be good, especially with a 5 year senior in Amile, the best returning player in the ACC(dare I say country) in Grayson, and Old Man River (I mean Jones) guiding them.

4) I wouldn't put any equity in highlight reels. Amile Jefferson and Lance Thomas had highlight reels that would make you think they are the next Al Jeffersons. And Okafor's highlight reels showed a big player who looked really lazy.

5) Chase is very intense. But that intensity sometimes leads to excitement and that doesn't work on the court. It leads to too many not-smart plays on both ends of the court. I want Chase to harness that intensity and energy to be effective on both ends of the court. And let's hope that he will harness it next year.

For the record, I'm not anti-Chase. I'm merely trying to be realistic based on a) Chase's performance next year, b) Bolden's reputation for back-to-the-basket play and defense, and c) Bolden's Draftexpress position (#8 in 2017 draft). Best case scenario - Jeter and Bolden as both so good that Coach K is forced to play a 9-man rotation. That would be lovely.

flyingdutchdevil
06-10-2016, 10:25 AM
In 2010 we had no true PGs and made it work by moving Scheyer to the point, and as a crafty senior veteran who never turned the ball over he was able to handle the duties. Can Matt Jones make a similar move? Will Grayson handle the ball? Is Kennard (use the force Luke!) the answer? Or is Frank ready to step into a starting PG role? I have a tough time calling this one. We tried Matt at the point last year and he is just too limited as an athlete and playmaker. That said, Jon Scheyer was hardly known for his first step. Last year K repeatedly said it was "Matt Jones' team." Methinks we need Matt to evolve as a PG this year in the mold of Scheyer--and luckily he has Scheyer on the bench to learn from. The good news is, with Grayson, Kennard, and Tatum on the wing Matt doesn't need to do much more than initiate the offense and make smart decisions. Those other guys can penetrate and carry the load on offense. What I worry about, though, is that we get into too much 1on1 on offense, much like last year. We need Grayson, Luke and Tatum to develop as passers so the ball keeps whipping on offense.

Gotta disagree with you. I can't see Matt in the Scheyer role. Matt's value to the team, at least for the last three years, has been, in order, a) defense (individual and team), b) 3-point shooting, and c) leadership. He is our JR Smith minus and crazy and with more leadership (for the record, I love me some JR. He's the most entertaining player in the Finals).

What Matt has shown that he's not particularly good at is a) driving to the hoop and b) distribution (2.3 assists last year, 1.0 assist before that). Matt's ball-handling is good, but it's not elite like Scheyer's.

I think the player that makes the most sense to the defacto PG is Allen. Allen is a) our best driver, b) our highest returning playmaker (3.5 assists per game), c) decent ball-handling skills, and d) best 3pt shooter (both he and Jones shot 42% from deep. But Allen often did it with a defender in his face). If Allen can a) continue to keep his aggressive nature as both a facilitator and scorer, b) master the drive-and-dish, and c) strike a balance between scoring and distributing, he'll be more than serviceable on that end. The question is whether Grayson can strike that balance. It'll be tough, but it's doable.

As for Jackson, there is no way he's the PG. He is a scorer first, second, and third, and I can't think of a freshman scorer who started playing PG for Coach K. Thornton comes close, but Thornton had a really solid reputation for being a playmaker in the high school.

As for Kennard, it's interesting. Kennard has arguably the tightest handle of Allen, Jones, and Kennard, and he's a really good shooter (until proven otherwise, I still think Allen and Jones are better). But Kennard's defense isn't anywhere near Jones's, and with Allen not being a defensive-stopper, I'm not sure how a backcourt of Allen and Kennard will fair on D.

So, bottomline, I'd be surprised to see anyone but Allen in the driver's seat with Jones as the secondary PG.

Kedsy
06-10-2016, 10:30 AM
Best case scenario - Jeter and Bolden as both so good that Coach K is forced to play a 9-man rotation. That would be lovely.

This has been my hope as well... but I've come to the realization that it's very unlikely unless you count garbage time minutes.

There are only 80 big man minutes available. In competitive games, if Amile plays 28 to 30 mpg and Harry 27 to 25 mpg, and if Jayson plays 5 mpg at PF, that leaves just 20 mpg combined for Chase and Marques. Sure, they could both play 10 mpg and make it a 9-man rotation, but that's not really Coach K's way. I think one of them will play at least 13 to 15 mpg (and personally I think that will be Marques) and the other will be stuck playing 5 to 7 mpg. And I believe the most likely scenario would be one of them playing 17 or 18 mpg and the other 2 to 3 mpg.

I guess it's also possible that Amile and Harry both play in the low 20s mpg-wise, but that's really not Coach K's way. Barring injury I can't imagine either of those two getting fewer than 25 mpg, or not approaching 30 mpg in the big games.

But that would be in competitive games after January 1. I fully expect there to be a lot of garbage time minutes available this season, meaning Chase (or whichever one of them is 9th man) will play enough in blowouts for his season playing time to approach (or possibly even exceed) 10 mpg. But it won't be a real 9-man rotation.

Kedsy
06-10-2016, 10:32 AM
I can't think of a freshman scorer who started playing PG for Coach K.

Jason Williams?

CDu
06-10-2016, 10:38 AM
Jason Williams?

I don't think Jason Williams fits the criteria either, as he had a really solid reputation as a PG (though also as a scorer) in high school. Frank Jackson was a SG in high school and very much not known for his ability to create for others in high school. That was - I think - the Dutchman's point.

It'd be like Grayson Allen coming to Duke and playing PG as a freshman. I think Jackson will be a more advanced version of freshman year Grayson Allen - a good player, but definitely not clear how he'd do as a PG.

luburch
06-10-2016, 10:40 AM
I don't think Jason Williams fits the criteria either, as he had a really solid reputation as a PG (though also as a scorer) in high school. Frank Jackson was a SG in high school and very much not known for his ability to create for others in high school. That was - I think - the Dutchman's point.

It'd be like Grayson Allen coming to Duke and playing PG as a freshman. I think Jackson will be a more advanced version of freshman year Grayson Allen - a good player, but definitely not clear how he'd do as a PG.

I thought that J-Will was played as a SG in high school like Frank? Wasn't there a story that Coach K told his high school coach he was playing him in the wrong position on a recruiting trip?

tbyers11
06-10-2016, 10:45 AM
I thought that J-Will was played as a SG in high school like Frank? Wasn't there a story that Coach K told his high school coach he was playing him in the wrong position on a recruiting trip?

Yes. In Jason Williams' recent book, he said that he saw himself as a SG coming out of high school and initially bristled at K's idea of playing him in more of a PG role.

flyingdutchdevil
06-10-2016, 10:52 AM
I don't think Jason Williams fits the criteria either, as he had a really solid reputation as a PG (though also as a scorer) in high school. Frank Jackson was a SG in high school and very much not known for his ability to create for others in high school. That was - I think - the Dutchman's point.

It'd be like Grayson Allen coming to Duke and playing PG as a freshman. I think Jackson will be a more advanced version of freshman year Grayson Allen - a good player, but definitely not clear how he'd do as a PG.

Kedsy is right in that Williams does fit the bill. But, like you said, Jason's distributing skills were much more advanced than Jackson's.

Jackson averaged 3.0 assists in high school. Williams averaged 7 assists in high school. They were playing different roles, but I'm a little surprised by only 3 assists per game.

yancem
06-10-2016, 11:19 AM
Kedsy is right in that Williams does fit the bill. But, like you said, Jason's distributing skills were much more advanced than Jackson's.

Jackson averaged 3.0 assists in high school. Williams averaged 7 assists in high school. They were playing different roles, but I'm a little surprised by only 3 assists per game.

High School stats can be misleading though. Sometimes you have a kid that plays on a terrible team in a terrible conference that puts up amazing numbers while a significantly more talented player plays on a loaded team that plays in a brutal conference and put up mediocre numbers. I don't know the specifics in Jackson's case but the thing about assists is the best pass doesn't count if it is a) not caught or b) the shot is missed. A lot of assists depend on decent teammates. But yeah, 3 seems pretty low for a guy people are hoping to be the starting pg for the #1 team in the country.

CDu
06-10-2016, 01:32 PM
High School stats can be misleading though. Sometimes you have a kid that plays on a terrible team in a terrible conference that puts up amazing numbers while a significantly more talented player plays on a loaded team that plays in a brutal conference and put up mediocre numbers. I don't know the specifics in Jackson's case but the thing about assists is the best pass doesn't count if it is a) not caught or b) the shot is missed. A lot of assists depend on decent teammates. But yeah, 3 seems pretty low for a guy people are hoping to be the starting pg for the #1 team in the country.

Jackson's low assist totals have also carried over to the All Star games and the Nike Hoops Summit. I think it's quite fair to wonder how good a passer he is at this point in his career. He is a terrific scorer, but he's never (yet, at least) shown the passing ability expected of a PG.

MChambers
06-10-2016, 01:44 PM
Jason Williams?

Johnny Dawkins? Of course, that was on a very young and shallow team.

English
06-10-2016, 01:51 PM
Jackson's low assist totals have also carried over to the All Star games and the Nike Hoops Summit. I think it's quite fair to wonder how good a passer he is at this point in his career. He is a terrific scorer, but he's never (yet, at least) shown the passing ability expected of a PG.

If you think judging players by mixtape videos is useless, judging passing prowess based on All-Star game assist numbers holds a virtual net-negative utility. The All Star games are glorified playground pick-up games with little passing and less defense. If you want to judge his playmaking by USA Hoops and/or AAU stats, that's one thing, but highlight reels and performances in the All Star games are essentially meaningless.

SilkyJ
06-10-2016, 01:55 PM
For what it's worth, Jahlil's assist percentage in 2014-15 was 9.4%. Amile's assist percentage in his 9 games of 2015-16 was 9.0%. So if Jahlil was a "great and willing passer," then Amile can probably be that as well.

I certainly hope so. I had to look up the calc for assist %, but thanks, I actually like that stat as it isn't based on how many times you touch the ball.

Oddly, and separately, going into last season I thought Amile was an underrated scorer for us. His ability to finish in the low block with a crafty over the shoulder hook type shot is very solid, and he doesn't usually command a double team. My hope is for him to be a 12ppg scorer for us again this year, though with all our weapons that will be a tough number to get to. If he averages 10/10 i think we'll all be incredibly happy.


Gotta disagree with you. I can't see Matt in the Scheyer role. Matt's value to the team, at least for the last three years, has been, in order, a) defense (individual and team), b) 3-point shooting, and c) leadership. He is our JR Smith minus and crazy and with more leadership (for the record, I love me some JR. He's the most entertaining player in the Finals).

What Matt has shown that he's not particularly good at is a) driving to the hoop and b) distribution (2.3 assists last year, 1.0 assist before that). Matt's ball-handling is good, but it's not elite like Scheyer's.

I think the player that makes the most sense to the defacto PG is Allen. Allen is a) our best driver, b) our highest returning playmaker (3.5 assists per game), c) decent ball-handling skills, and d) best 3pt shooter (both he and Jones shot 42% from deep. But Allen often did it with a defender in his face). If Allen can a) continue to keep his aggressive nature as both a facilitator and scorer, b) master the drive-and-dish, and c) strike a balance between scoring and distributing, he'll be more than serviceable on that end. The question is whether Grayson can strike that balance. It'll be tough, but it's doable.

As for Jackson, there is no way he's the PG. He is a scorer first, second, and third, and I can't think of a freshman scorer who started playing PG for Coach K. Thornton comes close, but Thornton had a really solid reputation for being a playmaker in the high school.

As for Kennard, it's interesting. Kennard has arguably the tightest handle of Allen, Jones, and Kennard, and he's a really good shooter (until proven otherwise, I still think Allen and Jones are better). But Kennard's defense isn't anywhere near Jones's, and with Allen not being a defensive-stopper, I'm not sure how a backcourt of Allen and Kennard will fair on D.

So, bottomline, I'd be surprised to see anyone but Allen in the driver's seat with Jones as the secondary PG.

We are actually on the same page and I agree with you. Jones is not a natural PG and showed that last year. I think i said this in my OP, but Matt is clearly limited as an athlete and a playmaker--though you could have arguably said the same about Jon as an athlete.

My point is that I don't know who will end up manning the position, but that Matt is a likely early candidate b/c K clearly loves him. It may end up being Grayson over time b/c my guess is Matt can't cut it at the position, but Grayson's a pure scorer. Sure he draws the D and finds ways to get his teammates involved sometimes, but he's not a setup man. Its tough for me to see Frank jumping Luke or Matt to start, and assuming Tatum-Amile-Giles all start or at least play 25-30mpg, then who plays alongside Grayson in the backcourt? I assume its going to be Matt initially as he was our leader last year.

If i'm being honest, I'm not a big Matt Jones fan and think our team's ceiling is much higher with Luke as our starting PG/SG alongside Grayson. Before DT committed late last year, Kennard was going to have to handle some PG duties and he demonstrated a really smart IQ throughout the year. If he develops into the knockdown 3pt shooter we all expect, I think he's our best bet at PG. He had nearly a 2:1 ast/to ratio, which is great for a wing guard as a freshman. He committed a TO once every 34 mins last year, vs 18mins for Grayson and 28 mins for Matt (one of our stat geeks should adjust that for usage, but I still bet his numbers look good). I forget who was clammoring for Luke to start last offseason (gumbo? troublemaker?), but my guess is that with no natural PG I think you will find me firmly planted on the "Luke's our best PG" bandwagon this year.

Off course, Luke is a natural scorer as well, but he seems better suited to adjust to the PG role and let Grayson do his thing as our leading scorer. I wouldn't want to "distract" Grayson this year by forcing him to do something that's unnatural to him. He'll be one of the best 5-10 players & scorers in the country this year, so let's Grayson be Grayson and have someone else adapt their game for this season.

CDu
06-10-2016, 02:53 PM
If you think judging players by mixtape videos is useless, judging passing prowess based on All-Star game assist numbers holds a virtual net-negative utility. The All Star games are glorified playground pick-up games with little passing and less defense. If you want to judge his playmaking by USA Hoops and/or AAU stats, that's one thing, but highlight reels and performances in the All Star games are essentially meaningless.

I wasn't judging it based only on All Star games. I was only adding to the list of evidence (which included his low high school assist numbers) that suggested he isn't a passer.

CDu
06-10-2016, 02:57 PM
My point is that I don't know who will end up manning the position, but that Matt is a likely early candidate b/c K clearly loves him. It may end up being Grayson over time b/c my guess is Matt can't cut it at the position, but Grayson's a pure scorer. Sure he draws the D and finds ways to get his teammates involved sometimes, but he's not a setup man. Its tough for me to see Frank jumping Luke or Matt to start, and assuming Tatum-Amile-Giles all start or at least play 25-30mpg, then who plays alongside Grayson in the backcourt? I assume its going to be Matt initially as he was our leader last year.

If i'm being honest, I'm not a big Matt Jones fan and think our team's ceiling is much higher with Luke as our starting PG/SG alongside Grayson. Before DT committed late last year, Kennard was going to have to handle some PG duties and he demonstrated a really smart IQ throughout the year. If he develops into the knockdown 3pt shooter we all expect, I think he's our best bet at PG. He had nearly a 2:1 ast/to ratio, which is great for a wing guard as a freshman. He committed a TO once every 34 mins last year, vs 18mins for Grayson and 28 mins for Matt (one of our stat geeks should adjust that for usage, but I still bet his numbers look good). I forget who was clammoring for Luke to start last offseason (gumbo? troublemaker?), but my guess is that with no natural PG I think you will find me firmly planted on the "Luke's our best PG" bandwagon this year.

Off course, Luke is a natural scorer as well, but he seems better suited to adjust to the PG role and let Grayson do his thing as our leading scorer. I wouldn't want to "distract" Grayson this year by forcing him to do something that's unnatural to him. He'll be one of the best 5-10 players & scorers in the country this year, so let's Grayson be Grayson and have someone else adapt their game for this season.

I think the concern over who will play PG next year is more or less irrelevant. Who played PG this year? We didn't have a PG this year, and yet we were one of the most efficient offensive teams in the country.

The reason that Matt Jones starts is not because he makes the team better offensively. Our offensive ceiling is almost certainly higher with him on the bench. The reason he starts is because he was our best defender last year, and he'll be one of our two best this year with Jefferson returning. On a team that is almost definitely a top-5 offense anyway, Jones' defense has more marginal benefit to the team than Kennard's offense.

And I don't think Allen will be asked to do anything differently than he did this year. He'll be asked to play lead guard, just like he did this year. Tatum will be asked to do a lot of the things that Ingram did. Jackson will be asked to be a hybrid of what Thornton and Allen did (probably closer to the results that Thornton gave). Kennard and Jones will be asked to play a similar role as last year. Jefferson and Giles will likely play the role that the various Plumlees played for Duke. Jeter/Bolden will be asked to play a better version of the Jeter role from last year.

Kedsy
06-10-2016, 04:21 PM
If he averages 10/10 i think we'll all be incredibly happy.

Well, yeah. Because here's the complete list of Duke players who averaged 10.0 or more rebounds per game in the Coach K era:

Shelden Williams, 2005 (11.2)
Shelden Williams, 2006 (10.7)

Even if you look at the list of Duke players under Coach K who averaged 9.0 or more rebounds per game, you'd be pretty ecstatic to have one of these guys on your team:

Mason Plumlee, 2013 (9.97)
Mason Plumlee, 2012 (9.2)
Shelden Williams, 2005 (11.2)
Shelden Williams, 2006 (10.7)
Elton Brand, 1999 (9.8)
Cherokee Parks, 1995 (9.3)
Christian Laettner, 1990 (9.6)

Amile averaged 10.3 rpg last season in 9 games, so he could conceivably do it, but darn right we should all be thrilled if he does.


I think the concern over who will play PG next year is more or less irrelevant.

I completely agree with this. Our offense is going to be fantastic, with or without a "true" PG.

BD80
06-10-2016, 04:34 PM
Well, yeah. Because here's the complete list of Duke players who averaged 10.0 or more rebounds per game in the Coach K era:

Shelden Williams, 2005 (11.2)
Shelden Williams, 2006 (10.7)

...

Amile averaged 10.3 rpg last season in 9 games, so he could conceivably do it, but darn right we should all be thrilled if he does.



I completely agree with this. Our offense is going to be fantastic, with or without a "true" PG.


Looks like the rebounds will have to come on the defensive end, as we may be shooting over 50% on offense! :D

sagegrouse
06-10-2016, 04:36 PM
For the record, I'm not anti-Chase. I'm merely trying to be realistic based on a) Chase's performance next year, b) Bolden's reputation for back-to-the-basket play and defense, and c) Bolden's Draftexpress position (#8 in 2017 draft). Best case scenario - Jeter and Bolden as both so good that Coach K is forced to play a 9-man rotation. That would be lovely.

I also believe that Chase Jeter will play significant minutes in 2017 -- First, because he's a sophomore, and the most underrated players on a team are subs who were on the bench the previous season. Also, Chase made real progress towards the end of last season. Second, because I expect a nine-man or ten-man rotation next year.

Kindly,
Sage
'I am sure that Kedsy will point out to me that the former is actually a seven-person rotation expressed 36 ways (nine take seven) and the latter is the same but expressed 120 different ways (ten take seven) ;)'

Kedsy
06-10-2016, 06:03 PM
'I am sure that Kedsy will point out to me that the former is actually a seven-person rotation expressed 36 ways (nine take seven) and the latter is the same but expressed 120 different ways (ten take seven) ;)'

Way ahead of you. See post 187 in this thread.

NSDukeFan
06-10-2016, 06:42 PM
Well, yeah. Because here's the complete list of Duke players who averaged 10.0 or more rebounds per game in the Coach K era:

Shelden Williams, 2005 (11.2)
Shelden Williams, 2006 (10.7)

Even if you look at the list of Duke players under Coach K who averaged 9.0 or more rebounds per game, you'd be pretty ecstatic to have one of these guys on your team:

Mason Plumlee, 2013 (9.97)
Mason Plumlee, 2012 (9.2)
Shelden Williams, 2005 (11.2)
Shelden Williams, 2006 (10.7)
Elton Brand, 1999 (9.8)
Cherokee Parks, 1995 (9.3)
Christian Laettner, 1990 (9.6)

Amile averaged 10.3 rpg last season in 9 games, so he could conceivably do it, but darn right we should all be thrilled if he does.



I completely agree with this. Our offense is going to be fantastic, with or without a "true" PG.

I'm rooting for Amile to join that select group of Duke rebounding greats.

I agree there shouldn't be any concerns with who is the offensive point guard. My way too early concern is who guards the opponents' quick point guards and small quick wings?

MChambers
06-10-2016, 08:33 PM
I'm rooting for Amile to join that select group of Duke rebounding greats.

I agree there shouldn't be any concerns with who is the offensive point guard. My way too early concern is who guards the opponents' quick point guards and small quick wings?

Yes, that's my concern. I assume it will be Allen and Jackson, because I think they are the two quickest guards Duke has.

Saratoga2
06-10-2016, 10:12 PM
Thanks. I have to disagree on a few key points you made.

1) I don't really see what you saw about Jeter's play in the last third of the season. He played better, but the bar was sooooooooooo low based on his performance post Georgetown game. He had two back-to-back decent games with NC States and Notre Dame in the ACC Tourney where he averaged 11 min, 6ppg, and 4.5 rebounds. Definitely an improvement. But that was the high point with a very small sample size. Also, I don't think I ever saw serviceable defense from Jeter. In those 14 minutes against Notre Dame, he fouled out. IMO, his positioning never improved. Do I expect Jeter to get better next year? Absolutely. But the question is, "how much"? I don't know.

5) Chase is very intense. But that intensity sometimes leads to excitement and that doesn't work on the court. It leads to too many not-smart plays on both ends of the court. I want Chase to harness that intensity and energy to be effective on both ends of the court. And let's hope that he will harness it next year.

For the record, I'm not anti-Chase. I'm merely trying to be realistic based on a) Chase's performance next year, b) Bolden's reputation for back-to-the-basket play and defense, and c) Bolden's Draftexpress position (#8 in 2017 draft). Best case scenario - Jeter and Bolden as both so good that Coach K is forced to play a 9-man rotation. That would be lovely.

I agree with your comments. Chase started the year looking lost and gradually improved with PT. He is athletic and no doubt will be better this coming season, but on an eye test basis to date, I think Bolden is more capable than Chase showed last year. They may be more comparable this year and it will depend on how they practice and develop as to which gets more PT.

In other places in the thread, the PG discussion continues on. I think that Grayson's primary role will be scoring and the coaches may not want to encumber him with bringing the ball up and regular play making. Frank is a freshman who is also more of a scorer and may take time to adapt to the idea of being the primary play maker. That may leave the role of PG to a Scheyer like presence of a big guard with a decent handle and good floor vision to take the role. Of Matt and Luke, I see Luke as having a better handle, better court vision and the more likely fit. Its a problem for the coaches who will want to keep Matt's defense on the floor but somethings may need to be sacrificed. To me Amile, Harry and Justin will be starters so it will narrow down the choices the coaches can make.

NSDukeFan
06-10-2016, 10:23 PM
I agree with your comments. Chase started the year looking lost and gradually improved with PT. He is athletic and no doubt will be better this coming season, but on an eye test basis to date, I think Bolden is more capable than Chase showed last year. They may be more comparable this year and it will depend on how they practice and develop as to which gets more PT.

In other places in the thread, the PG discussion continues on. I think that Grayson's primary role will be scoring and the coaches may not want to encumber him with bringing the ball up and regular play making. Frank is a freshman who is also more of a scorer and may take time to adapt to the idea of being the primary play maker. That may leave the role of PG to a Scheyer like presence of a big guard with a decent handle and good floor vision to take the role. Of Matt and Luke, I see Luke as having a better handle, better court vision and the more likely fit. Its a problem for the coaches who will want to keep Matt's defense on the floor but somethings may need to be sacrificed. To me Amile, Harry and Justin will be starters so it will narrow down the choices the coaches can make.
I'm not sure Robinson will get many starts, unless he undergoes a dad-like transformation in the off-season.

Kedsy
06-10-2016, 10:32 PM
Its a problem for the coaches who will want to keep Matt's defense on the floor but somethings may need to be sacrificed. To me Amile, Harry and Justin will be starters so it will narrow down the choices the coaches can make.

As others have said, next year's team will have plenty of offense. If "somethings may need to be sacrificed," it makes more sense to sacrifice offense for defense rather than the other way around.

Also, I assume you meant Jayson, rather than Justin.

SilkyJ
06-11-2016, 05:45 PM
I think the concern over who will play PG next year is more or less irrelevant. Who played PG this year? We didn't have a PG this year, and yet we were one of the most efficient offensive teams in the country.

The reason that Matt Jones starts is not because he makes the team better offensively. Our offensive ceiling is almost certainly higher with him on the bench. The reason he starts is because he was our best defender last year, and he'll be one of our two best this year with Jefferson returning. On a team that is almost definitely a top-5 offense anyway, Jones' defense has more marginal benefit to the team than Kennard's offense.


Maybe, but we were a team that lost in the sweet 16. We played a ton of 1on1 and a good PG elevates the play of his teammates by getting them easy buckets.

Our only final four team without a true PG running the show was Scheyer, and he was all-american level, our leading scorer, and put up a 3:1 a/to ratio. He became a good PG and we need a good PG to win a natty.

As others have said, next year's team will have plenty of offense. If "somethings may need to be sacrificed," it makes more sense to sacrifice offense for defense rather than the other way around.

Also, I assume you meant Jayson, rather than Justin.

You may be right on the defensive front. We will need to be a good defensive team to go far in March, but I think figuring out the PG position is an important factor as well. We may win a bunch of games and have a great/efficient offense without one, but fatal flaws are exposed in March. Lack of a great PG is a fatal flaw. They get you easy buckets when teams buckle down on D in the tournament and you get into crunch time. Of course, a bad defense is also a fatal flaw so it is a tricky dynamic to navigate.

Remember last year? Grayson had a bad night and we basically couldn't afford that b/c only he and Brandon could really get their own shot. Oregon had a good game and maybe our defense an issue as well, but what about 2006? We had the best player in the country (JJ) and an incredible offense, but LSU locked down JJ, we shot 28% and lost in the sweet 16. And that was in a game where the opponent scored 62 points and we were a top 20 defensive team. Paulus/Dockery were our PGs, and the chickens roosted in March. 2012? No PG, top 10 offense, out in the first round. I will admit that defense was an issue for several of these teams (though not 2006), but a lack of a PG reflects itself in March when its tough to get buckets and you don't have a setup man who makes the offense run more fluidly.

Also, Matt is a solid defender, but its not like he's other worldly. He's limited athletically and in quickness, but makes up for it somewhat with a strong IQ. Luke was an OK defender and as a soph should grow into a better one. Grayson is even better and if he can grow as well, that combined with solid post defense from Amile et al. should mean we are fine defensively and I would argue the marginal improvement from Matt on D would not outweigh the marginal improvement from having Luke in on offense.

Of course, Matt may grow as both a defender and scorer. If he makes a senior leap (possible, but I'm not holding my breath), then the marginal benefits could swing the other way. If I go back to my OP my point is that I think its going to be very interesting to see how the perimeter rotation shakes out and I don't know how it will. I'm also clearly placing more emphasis on figuring out the PG position, which has long been the most critical position under K. For now, I'm in the Luke+Grayson camp, but we'll see...

GGLC
06-11-2016, 07:05 PM
Matt is better than solid. Ask Sam Dekker.

Kedsy
06-11-2016, 11:06 PM
Our only final four team without a true PG running the show was Scheyer...

What about 1994 (Jeff Capel was the nominal PG, but he was by no means a "true PG")?


Paulus/Dockery were our PGs, and the chickens roosted in March.

Do you really think Quin Snyder and no backup PG (1988, 1989 Final Fours) was that much better than Paulus/Dockery?

Obviously having a PG is better than not having a PG, but I think you're oversimplifying here. Our 2006 team lost in the Sweet 16 because that team only had two legitimate scorers, those two scorers took 55+% of our shots in the LSU game (36 out of 65) and shot 20+ points lower than their combined season average (JJ and Shelden combined to shoot 51.2% that season; in that game they combined to shoot 30%).

Next year's team should have at least four or five legitimate scorers. If someone shuts down one or two of them we'll still have three or four more. That makes a huge difference, PG or no PG.

Saratoga2
06-12-2016, 10:31 AM
As others have said, next year's team will have plenty of offense. If "somethings may need to be sacrificed," it makes more sense to sacrifice offense for defense rather than the other way around.

Also, I assume you meant Jayson, rather than Justin. Yes, Little brain freeze on that one. Jayson is likely to be a starter and get a lot of PT

SilkyJ
06-12-2016, 07:31 PM
What about 1994 (Jeff Capel was the nominal PG, but he was by no means a "true PG")?

Good point. That team of course had one of the greatest players in Duke and NBA history playing as a 4th year senior. And yes, Grant hill is one of the greatest basketball players ever. An all-star as a rookie and an all-pro for 5 straight years before injuries got him. He might have been a top 10-20 player all time if those injuries hadn't grabbed him. I submit that 1994 was an oddity and a senior grant hill (who was basically an NBA all-star at that point) ain't walking through that door.




Obviously having a PG is better than not having a PG, but I think you're oversimplifying here.

Agree to agree to disagree...or something like that. I think we know where each other stands on this issue. We agree that having a really good, true PG is better than not having that, but I just think its more critical than you do. Reasonable minds and all that...

I do get caught up in my forumlaic approach sometimes and also get caught up thinking only about results in March. In truth, I'm excited to see how our perimeter rotation evolves this season and will try to appreciate the journey vs only focusing on the end result.

Kedsy
06-12-2016, 08:46 PM
Good point. That team of course had one of the greatest players in Duke and NBA history playing as a 4th year senior. And yes, Grant hill is one of the greatest basketball players ever. An all-star as a rookie and an all-pro for 5 straight years before injuries got him. He might have been a top 10-20 player all time if those injuries hadn't grabbed him. I submit that 1994 was an oddity and a senior grant hill (who was basically an NBA all-star at that point) ain't walking through that door.

True, nobody as good as Grant Hill will be on the court for Duke next season. On the other hand, our overall roster next season is probably more talented than our overall roster in 1993-94. My point is that there are exceptions to every "rule" and reasons for every exception. You say we didn't need a true PG so much in 1994 because we had Grant Hill. I say we probably won't need a true PG next year because of all our overall talent. Tomato, tomahto and all that.


Agree to agree to disagree...or something like that. I think we know where each other stands on this issue. We agree that having a really good, true PG is better than not having that, but I just think its more critical than you do. Reasonable minds and all that...

I do get caught up in my forumlaic approach sometimes and also get caught up thinking only about results in March. In truth, I'm excited to see how our perimeter rotation evolves this season and will try to appreciate the journey vs only focusing on the end result.

I admit in my turn that while I love it when Duke excels in the NCAAT, I generally don't think the post-season completely trumps the season. I also think that when we say none of our Final Four teams had/didn't have [insert requirement here], we're fitting data to a very small dataset, we're rationalizing any exceptions to our statement, and we're only looking backward and not forward.

During the 2015 season, a lot of people around here were predicting doom and gloom because we'd never had a Final Four team that relied on so many freshmen, that we'd never had a Final Four team when a senior wasn't one of our best two players, that we'd never had a Final Four team that was so bad at defense, or whatever. But after we won, people who said that stuff either had to admit they were wrong or recalibrate their "rules." My thought is the rules don't mean so much.

Kedsy
06-12-2016, 09:08 PM
...but what about 2006?

I've talked about this before, but I'm going to do it again, to illustrate the intellectual danger of equating NCAA tournament finish with how good a team is.

In the Atlanta Regional of the 2006 NCAA tournament, #12 Texas A&M upset #5 Syracuse in the first round. A&M was well on their way to upsetting #4-seeded LSU until a 5'11" guard named Darrel Mitchell sank what was essentially a halfcourt shot with 3 seconds left to give LSU an improbable one point win. If that guy takes that shot 10 times, it goes in maybe once. In the other nine scenarios, Duke plays the #12 seed and then moves on to a Texas team we'd beaten by 31 earlier in the season.

If Duke had played (and beaten) Texas A&M and Texas, instead of a super-athletic LSU team that was almost designed to beat that Duke team, then our view of history would be very different. That 2006 team would be considered one of our best ever, instead of the team that everybody "knew" wasn't as good as its ranking. Nobody would have been so upset about Duke's "decline" because we hadn't been to any Final Fours between 2004 and 2010. Our kids in 2006-07 would have had the confidence of having made the Final Four the previous season, so maybe we don't even lose to VCU in the 2007 NCAAT and that 2007 team wouldn't have been considered such a failure. We might not be so collectively upset with Josh McRoberts. We would have been "led" to a Final Four by Greg Paulus, so maybe this PG debate doesn't happen. We might not get so excited about "living and dying by the three." Some people might be more comfortable with our stars playing 35+ mpg. On and on and on.

All because someone (in a game Duke wasn't involved in) happened to hit a lucky halfcourt shot.

MChambers
06-13-2016, 08:44 AM
Good point. That team of course had one of the greatest players in Duke and NBA history playing as a 4th year senior. And yes, Grant hill is one of the greatest basketball players ever. An all-star as a rookie and an all-pro for 5 straight years before injuries got him. He might have been a top 10-20 player all time if those injuries hadn't grabbed him. I submit that 1994 was an oddity and a senior grant hill (who was basically an NBA all-star at that point) ain't walking through that door.




Agree to agree to disagree...or something like that. I think we know where each other stands on this issue. We agree that having a really good, true PG is better than not having that, but I just think its more critical than you do. Reasonable minds and all that...

I do get caught up in my forumlaic approach sometimes and also get caught up thinking only about results in March. In truth, I'm excited to see how our perimeter rotation evolves this season and will try to appreciate the journey vs only focusing on the end result.

I love "forumlaic". At least, I assume it's a typo, but if not, I'm really impressed.

Indoor66
06-13-2016, 09:36 AM
I love "forumlaic". At least, I assume it's a typo, but if not, I'm really impressed.

You might want to expand your vocabulary! (https://www.google.com/search?q=forumlaic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) :p:cool:

Spanarkel
06-13-2016, 10:38 AM
Looks like the rebounds will have to come on the defensive end, as we may be shooting over 50% on offense! :D

I certainly hope we can shoot >50%, but the only Duke squad of the past 15 years to do so was the '14-'15 National Champions(.502).

fraggler
06-13-2016, 11:00 AM
You might want to expand your vocabulary! (https://www.google.com/search?q=forumlaic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) :p:cool:

Think you missed the misspelling and why it would be funny :)

Edit: or Google corrected it and showed me formulaic...

SilkyJ
06-14-2016, 02:40 AM
...that we'd never had a Final Four team when a senior wasn't one of our best two players...But after we won, people who said that stuff either had to admit they were wrong or recalibrate their "rules." My thought is the rules don't mean so much.

Quinn kept that rule intact in 2015 :)

I do think if anyone can adapt, break the rules, and create a new winning formula its coach K. He's been winning titles for 25 years and obviously has adapted to the new OAD era well enough to win a title just 14 months ago...


I love "forumlaic". At least, I assume it's a typo, but if not, I'm really impressed.

Ah, I wish. Not that clever :cool:

flyingdutchdevil
06-14-2016, 08:56 AM
During the 2015 season, a lot of people around here were predicting doom and gloom because we'd never had a Final Four team that relied on so many freshmen, that we'd never had a Final Four team when a senior wasn't one of our best two players, that we'd never had a Final Four team that was so bad at defense, or whatever. But after we won, people who said that stuff either had to admit they were wrong or recalibrate their "rules." My thought is the rules don't mean so much.

Does this apply to juniors who are academically seniors or will graduate early? If not, then I'm sure Grayson will break this trend this year.

BD80
06-14-2016, 10:19 AM
Does this apply to juniors who are academically seniors or will graduate early? If not, then I'm sure Grayson will break this trend this year.

Break the trend? Or break the trend of breaking the trend?

SilkyJ
06-14-2016, 04:22 PM
Does this apply to juniors who are academically seniors or will graduate early? If not, then I'm sure Grayson will break this trend this year.

It does not. Amile or Matt will need to be among our top two scorers/players to keep this trend intact. '91 was the one trend breaker in my rule. A team led by all juniors and sophs. In 2004 we had a very balanced attack and Duhon was only our 5th leading scorer, but he was indoubtedly the heart, leader, and among the best players on the team.

In this day and age, though, a junior is the new senior so maybe it should apply...

jimsumner
06-14-2016, 04:42 PM
I'm reasonably certain Bruce Bell wasn't one of Duke's two best players in 1978.

Troublemaker
06-14-2016, 04:54 PM
Matt may grow as both a defender and scorer. If he makes a senior leap (possible, but I'm not holding my breath)

Oh, we disagree here, Silky. Duke seniors almost always make a substantial leap in improvement, with MP3 being the latest example.

I don't know exactly what Matt's improvements will entail, but I can't wait to find out and I expect most Duke fans will be absolutely thrilled with the Matt Jones that shows up next season.

That said, I also expect Luke Kennard to make a massive frosh-to-soph jump. Luke has star potential, unlike Matt, and I think it's likely that Luke will displace Matt from the starting lineup. But Matt will be an incredible 6th-man for us.

We are so lucky to be able to root for all this talent.

Anyway, the 5th starter debate will continue throughout the offseason (with Grayson, Jayson, Harry, and Amile considered to be settled starters by most). Right now, my pecking order for that 5th spot is Kennard > Matt >>> Frank.

I see Frank as a 7th or 8th man next season. Again, a testament to how talented next season's team will be.

NSDukeFan
06-14-2016, 05:04 PM
Oh, we disagree here, Silky. Duke seniors almost always make a substantial leap in improvement, with MP3 being the latest example.

I don't know exactly what Matt's improvements will entail, but I can't wait to find out and I expect most Duke fans will be absolutely thrilled with the Matt Jones that shows up next season.

That said, I also expect Luke Kennard to make a massive frosh-to-soph jump. Luke has star potential, unlike Matt, and I think it's likely that Luke will displace Matt from the starting lineup. But Matt will be an incredible 6th-man for us.

We are so lucky to be able to root for all this talent.

Anyway, the 5th starter debate will continue throughout the offseason (with Grayson, Jayson, Harry, and Amile considered to be settled starters by most). Right now, my pecking order for that 5th spot is Kennard > Matt >>> Frank.

I see Frank as a 7th or 8th man next season. Again, a testament to how talented next season's team will be.

I expect there will be a number of Duke fans who won't be impressed with Matt for much of the year, but may be once the season is over and his career can be put in perspective.

MChambers
06-14-2016, 05:06 PM
I'm reasonably certain Bruce Bell wasn't one of Duke's two best players in 1978.

I'll second that. He had a big heart, but wasn't all that talented.

SilkyJ
06-14-2016, 05:23 PM
I'm reasonably certain Bruce Bell wasn't one of Duke's two best players in 1978.

I'm 100% certain my rule is only during Krzyzewski era. Its his formula after all, though I am willing to accept some credit for helping create it ;)


Oh, we disagree here, Silky. Duke seniors almost always make a substantial leap in improvement, with MP3 being the latest example.

I don't know exactly what Matt's improvements will entail, but I can't wait to find out and I expect most Duke fans will be absolutely thrilled with the Matt Jones that shows up next season.

That said, I also expect Luke Kennard to make a massive frosh-to-soph jump. Luke has star potential, unlike Matt, and I think it's likely that Luke will displace Matt from the starting lineup. But Matt will be an incredible 6th-man for us.

We are so lucky to be able to root for all this talent.

Anyway, the 5th starter debate will continue throughout the offseason (with Grayson, Jayson, Harry, and Amile considered to be settled starters by most). Right now, my pecking order for that 5th spot is Kennard > Matt >>> Frank.

I see Frank as a 7th or 8th man next season. Again, a testament to how talented next season's team will be.

I'm supportive of the bolded part, but I think you're contradicting yourself. Matt as a 6th man is something I can live with, but realize that your senior captain being your 6th man is a pretty rare thing at Duke. That would mean he moved from a starting role on a national champion to a starting captain as a junior, and then moved to the bench thereafter. That's not the progression you're looking for and doesn't jibe with making "substantial improvements." If Matt makes those substantial improvements, he'll start. If he doesn't progress substantially, he may end up coming off the bench. And nobody give me the John Havlichek Jon Scheyer non-sense about the importance of the 6th man. Sure its an important role, but not as important as being the starting captain. Last year it was Matt's team and he was the captain. He'll again be the captain this year. If he moves to the bench, its b/c he's just not good enough to be on the floor with the starters.

Troublemaker
06-14-2016, 05:36 PM
I'm supportive of the bolded part, but I think you're contradicting yourself. Matt as a 6th man is something I can live with, but realize that your senior captain being your 6th man is a pretty rare thing at Duke. That would mean he moved from a starting role on a national champion to a starting captain as a junior, and then moved to the bench thereafter.

This upcoming team is very deep with talent, though. There's no contradiction. You can be a 6th man and be a better player than you were when you were a starter. Sometimes the roles have more to do with the depth of talent on the roster, especially at your positions.



That would mean he moved from a starting role on a national champion to a starting captain as a junior, and then moved to the bench thereafter. That's not the progression you're looking for and doesn't jibe with making "substantial improvements."

The substantial improvement I'm talking about is the junior-to-senior leap that many Duke seniors have experienced. I expect Matt to do the same but that doesn't mean he's going to start if there are 3 better players on the perimeter.



If Matt makes those substantial improvements, he'll start. If he doesn't progress substantially, he may end up coming off the bench. And nobody give me the John Havlichek Jon Scheyer non-sense about the importance of the 6th man.

Disagree. This is a needlessly rigid way of looking at things. He can improve a lot AND be a 6th man.



If he moves to the bench, its b/c he's just not good enough to be on the floor with the starters.

And this is tautological.

SilkyJ
06-14-2016, 06:21 PM
This upcoming team is very deep with talent, though. There's no contradiction. You can be a 6th man and be a better player than you were when you were a starter. Sometimes the roles have more to do with the depth of talent on the roster, especially at your positions.

Yes, its physically possible to make a junior to senior leap and then move to the bench. But how realistic is that? Can you point to an example of that ever happening at Duke? I can think of Greg Paulus failing to make a jump and being relegated to the bench...

Troublemaker
06-14-2016, 06:34 PM
Yes, its physically possible to make a junior to senior leap and then move to the bench. But how realistic is that? Can you point to an example of that ever happening at Duke? I can think of Greg Paulus failing to make a jump and being relegated to the bench...

I'm not going to hunt down examples. Why would I rely on induction when the deduction is so clear?

Here's how it happens: Matt improves a lot, but Luke also improves a lot and becomes better than Matt. Thus, Luke becomes the starter.

If you think that's unrealistic, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

SilkyJ
06-14-2016, 06:58 PM
I'm not going to hunt down examples. Why would I rely on induction when the deduction is so clear?

Here's how it happens: Matt improves a lot, but Luke also improves a lot and becomes better than Matt. Thus, Luke becomes the starter.

If you think that's unrealistic, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You can't rely solely on deduction b/c you don't get to determine what is an obvious deduction or not and evidence is a beautiful thing.

You're proposing a scenario. You would find an example b/c an example (or lack thereof) would be a signal of how realistic (or not) your scenario is. If its happened 10 times in the last 10 years, then certainly its realistic. If it has never happened before, then maybe its a stretch. For example, you might say that a 1 seed can beat a 16 seed this year b/c there is more parity in college basketball. Sure, its possible, and that deduction may be clear to you, but I would submit that its never happened before and isn't likely to occur, i.e. its not realistic.

I can't think of a time when a veteran starter made that much sought after "senior leap" and then moved down in the rotation. Its certainly possible that it could happen, but given K's natural inclination to value veteran leadership and defense, I don't think its a very realistic scenario. Impossible? No. Its not impossible for a 1/16 upset to occur, either. Just unrealistic.

Saratoga2
06-14-2016, 09:18 PM
Anyway, the 5th starter debate will continue throughout the offseason (with Grayson, Jayson, Harry, and Amile considered to be settled starters by most). Right now, my pecking order for that 5th spot is Kennard > Matt >>> Frank.


The supposition is that both Harry and Jayson will start as freshmen. It is probably a good one because of their recruitment ratings, size and athleticism. It is not a certainty at this point until they prove their worth in practice. Amile and Grayson have already done that are are very high probability starters. The questions which have been discussed include the one remaining starting guard position with his backups and the PT of the two likely PF/Cs.

In the case of the 3rd starting back court man, it could go as you infer as Luke is a good ball handler, has excellent floor vision and can score in a number of ways. Clearly Matt also is in that discussion and Frank has a lot of talent and may compete for that job or sub for Grayson on a limited basis. What occurs at the beginning of the season may well change as the effectiveness of play becomes more apparent.

In the case of the backup PF/C we have the more experienced Chase competing with Marques who I believe is coming in ahead of where Chase started.

I believe that the coaching staff will make good decisions to optimize the team's play. This team playing at its optimum has got to be up there in the top 5 in the country.

Kedsy
06-14-2016, 09:42 PM
For example, you might say that a 1 seed can beat a 16 seed this year b/c there is more parity in college basketball. Sure, its possible, and that deduction may be clear to you, but I would submit that its never happened before and isn't likely to occur, i.e. its not realistic.

Actually, I'm pretty sure a 1 seed can beat a 16 seed, this year or any year. :p

SilkyJ
06-14-2016, 11:37 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure a 1 seed can beat a 16 seed, this year or any year. :p

:confused::confused: woooooooooops

Steven43
06-15-2016, 01:43 AM
I'm not going to hunt down examples. Why would I rely on induction when the deduction is so clear?

Here's how it happens: Matt improves a lot, but Luke also improves a lot and becomes better than Matt. Thus, Luke becomes the starter.

If you think that's unrealistic, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I could see Matt improving in the areas of when and how to pass the ball inside, free throw shooting, shot selection (not taking as many 3's by deferring to better-shooting teammates), and on defense in general.

Where improvement is doubtful includes the areas of dribbling, shooting effectiveness, and penetration. I don't recall seeing a guard dramatically improve the skills of dribbling, shooting, or quickness from junior to senior year. You either have it by then or you don't.

NSDukeFan
06-15-2016, 05:48 AM
I could see Matt improving in the areas of when and how to pass the ball inside, free throw shooting, shot selection (not taking as many 3's by deferring to better-shooting teammates), and on defense in general.

Where improvement is doubtful includes the areas of dribbling, shooting effectiveness, and penetration. I don't recall seeing a guard dramatically improve the skills of dribbling, shooting, or quickness from junior to senior year. You either have it by then or you don't.

I'm hoping Matt shoots as many 3s as he can, if he shoots how he did last year, as that is one of Duke's best shots. I could also see Matt making slight improvements in his abilities as a lead guard,mconfidence beating the first defender and decision making on when to finish at the basket, pull up or pass; slight improvements on his communication skills defensively and as a team leader and a slight improvement on his defensive footwork and positioning, all leading to a nice senior season for the captain.

Troublemaker
06-15-2016, 07:10 AM
I could see Matt improving in the areas of when and how to pass the ball inside, free throw shooting, shot selection (not taking as many 3's by deferring to better-shooting teammates), and on defense in general.

Where improvement is doubtful includes the areas of dribbling, shooting effectiveness, and penetration. I don't recall seeing a guard dramatically improve the skills of dribbling, shooting, or quickness from junior to senior year. You either have it by then or you don't.

fyi, Matt shot 42% from three last season. (37% against ACC opponents, 41% against top-50 opponents per kenpom). He's a good shooter. If there's doubt about whether he can improve his outside shooting, it's because 42% is tough to top already.

Also, I believe a player can make an incremental improvement in ANY area of his game and won't rule anything out. For example, you list "penetration" as an area you doubt he will improve. Well, one aspect of penetration is how a player finishes his penetration. Last season Matt shot a very poor 40% at the rim. I believe he'll shoot over 50% at the rim next season, which still isn't great, but would represent an important incremental improvement that helps Duke win. He can accomplish this by, as NSDukeFan mentioned, picking his spots better on when to drive.

sagegrouse
06-15-2016, 07:53 AM
fyi, Matt shot 42% from three last season. (37% against ACC opponents, 41% against top-50 opponents per kenpom). He's a good shooter. If there's doubt about whether he can improve his outside shooting, it's because 42% is tough to top already.

Also, I believe a player can make an incremental improvement in ANY area of his game and won't rule anything out. For example, you list "penetration" as an area you doubt he will improve. Well, one aspect of penetration is how a player finishes his penetration. Last season Matt shot a very poor 40% at the rim. I believe he'll shoot over 50% at the rim next season, which still isn't great, but would represent an important incremental improvement that helps Duke win. He can accomplish this by, as NSDukeFan mentioned, picking his spots better on when to drive.

This is a good point. Matt Jones did a good job of penetrating last year but seemed to have trouble making shots near the basket. This is an area where he can improve a lot, and I look forward to seeing it.

Matt Jones is a very tough defender and, as such, is gonna play a lot for Coach K. This would be true if he were a freshman. As a senior leader, you gotta believe he's gonna play more than 25 minutes a game (he played 31.6 in 2015 when we had a very short rotation).

And, of course, on a different subject, it may be that our top players play 25-30 minutes in 2017 as opposed to 30-35 this year.

Kedsy
06-15-2016, 11:17 AM
I don't recall seeing a guard dramatically improve the skills of dribbling, shooting, or quickness from junior to senior year.

In just the past five seasons, from junior season to senior season:



Name eFG% trueSP% 3pt%
Quinn Cook .535 to .569 .571 to .609 .371 to .395
Tyler Thornton .559 to .607 .576 to .641 .392 to .450
Seth Curry .515 to .577 .573 to .617 .383 to .438


Going further back, there are many other examples, including Chris Collins, Johnny Dawkins, Chris Carrawell (if you consider him a guard), even JJ Redick (.530 to .578 eFG%; .607 to .630 trueSP%; .403 to .421 3pt%), who improved their shooting percentages between junior and senior seasons.

cato
06-15-2016, 11:32 AM
I could see Matt improving in the areas of when and how to pass the ball inside, free throw shooting, shot selection (not taking as many 3's by deferring to better-shooting teammates), and on defense in general.


Which better shooting teammates? Grayson barely edged Matt in 3P percentage (41.7% v 41.5%), on higher volume (216 shots v 183). Grayson shooting is absolutely a good thing, but I don't think that he was held back by Matt's shot attempts.

The only other person on the team who shot above 40% from 3 was Brandon, who did it on slightly higher volume (he took 12 more 3s than Matt last year). I would love to see Matt passing the ball around the perimeter to Brandon, but . . .

Furniture
06-20-2016, 08:47 PM
64576457https://mobile.twitter.com/AmileJefferson/status/744951056656961540/photo/1

superdave
06-21-2016, 09:34 AM
64576457https://mobile.twitter.com/AmileJefferson/status/744951056656961540/photo/1

Amile should know by now that he needs to pose in front of a cinder block wall.

Saratoga2
06-21-2016, 10:00 AM
Amile should know by now that he needs to pose in front of a cinder block wall.


Whatever else you do Amile, don't drop the weight on either of your feet!

David Bunkley
04-23-2019, 07:31 AM
Giving this thread a bump thanks to the DBR podcast and the fact that I remember being really interested in this analysis when I initially read it.

If I did this correctly (and assuming Bolden and Javin both return), then the breakdown for the upcoming season should look something like this:

Tre Jones: 1
Vernon Carey, Jr: 1
Matthew Hurt: 1
Marques Bolden: 1
Joey Baker: 2.5
Javin DeLaurier: 2.5
Jack White: 2.5
Wendell Moore: 3
Cassius Stanley: 3
Boogie Ellis: 3
Alex O'Connell: 3
Justin Robinson: 3
Jordan Goldwire: 3

On paper there are a lot of similarities on this team, though maybe not as much top-end Freshman talent as the last few seasons. It'll be fun to see which players separate themselves in practice and what the rotations ultimately become. I'd love to see how this played out over the last few seasons, if anyone has the time.

As of now, I will make the prediction that K won't greatly increase his bench usage (vs starters usage), a lot of the guys with 3s next to their name will see their time fluctuate between big roles and DNP-CDs on a night-to-night basis.

#GODUKE

Kedsy
04-23-2019, 10:38 AM
Giving this thread a bump thanks to the DBR podcast and the fact that I remember being really interested in this analysis when I initially read it.

If I did this correctly (and assuming Bolden and Javin both return), then the breakdown for the upcoming season should look something like this:

Tre Jones: 1
Vernon Carey, Jr: 1
Matthew Hurt: 1
Marques Bolden: 1
Joey Baker: 2.5
Javin DeLaurier: 2.5
Jack White: 2.5
Wendell Moore: 3
Cassius Stanley: 3
Boogie Ellis: 3
Alex O'Connell: 3
Justin Robinson: 3
Jordan Goldwire: 3

On paper there are a lot of similarities on this team, though maybe not as much top-end Freshman talent as the last few seasons. It'll be fun to see which players separate themselves in practice and what the rotations ultimately become. I'd love to see how this played out over the last few seasons, if anyone has the time.

As of now, I will make the prediction that K won't greatly increase his bench usage (vs starters usage), a lot of the guys with 3s next to their name will see their time fluctuate between big roles and DNP-CDs on a night-to-night basis.

#GODUKE

Your numbers aren't exactly right, but I don't think it's a good idea to update until the final RSCI numbers are out (at which time I can do that).

One issue that I'm not sure how to deal with is recruits who come in with recruiting rankings up over 200 -- at the time I invented this analysis, the only such recruit we'd ever had was Andre Buckner, and I treated him like a walk-on. At this point, we've had four of them -- including Antonio Vrankovic, Jack White, and Jordan Goldwire (Justin Robinson is a walk-on) -- but I'm not sure how to treat them. I don't think it's right to rate, e.g., Jack White the same as a walk-on, (or like Andre Buckner, for that matter), but I also don't think guys in this group should be rated the same as, e.g., a #37 recruit. It needs thought, anyway.

Putting all that aside, I agree with you that we're going to have a lot of guys, especially wings, in the 3 to 3.5 range. It's going to be difficult to accurately predict who plays out of that bunch.

kAzE
04-23-2019, 10:56 AM
Your numbers aren't exactly right, but I don't think it's a good idea to update until the final RSCI numbers are out (at which time I can do that).

One issue that I'm not sure how to deal with is recruits who come in with recruiting rankings up over 200 -- at the time I invented this analysis, the only such recruit we'd ever had was Andre Buckner, and I treated him like a walk-on. At this point, we've had four of them -- including Antonio Vrankovic, Jack White, and Jordan Goldwire (Justin Robinson is a walk-on) -- but I'm not sure how to treat them. I don't think it's right to rate, e.g., Jack White the same as a walk-on, (or like Andre Buckner, for that matter), but I also don't think guys in this group should be rated the same as, e.g., a #37 recruit. It needs thought, anyway.

Putting all that aside, I agree with you that we're going to have a lot of guys, especially wings, in the 3 to 3.5 range. It's going to be difficult to accurately predict who plays out of that bunch.

I'm really excited for this. It's been awhile since we've had this much uncertainty over rotation players due to having a lot potential guys who can all play. I think the competition will be good for guys like Alex O'Connell and Joey Baker. Hopefully, it will bring out the very best in every player on the roster, and help them raise their game to a new level.

David Bunkley
04-23-2019, 11:30 AM
Your numbers aren't exactly right, but I don't think it's a good idea to update until the final RSCI numbers are out (at which time I can do that).

One issue that I'm not sure how to deal with is recruits who come in with recruiting rankings up over 200 -- at the time I invented this analysis, the only such recruit we'd ever had was Andre Buckner, and I treated him like a walk-on. At this point, we've had four of them -- including Antonio Vrankovic, Jack White, and Jordan Goldwire (Justin Robinson is a walk-on) -- but I'm not sure how to treat them. I don't think it's right to rate, e.g., Jack White the same as a walk-on, (or like Andre Buckner, for that matter), but I also don't think guys in this group should be rated the same as, e.g., a #37 recruit. It needs thought, anyway.

Putting all that aside, I agree with you that we're going to have a lot of guys, especially wings, in the 3 to 3.5 range. It's going to be difficult to accurately predict who plays out of that bunch.

I completely agree about the difficulty using your model to predict time for guys like Goldwire and White (that's why I didn't even attempt) - they have outplayed the initial analysis.

Kedsy
05-28-2019, 05:54 PM
Your numbers aren't exactly right, but I don't think it's a good idea to update until the final RSCI numbers are out (at which time I can do that).

One issue that I'm not sure how to deal with is recruits who come in with recruiting rankings up over 200 -- at the time I invented this analysis, the only such recruit we'd ever had was Andre Buckner, who was essentially a walk-on with a scholarship and so I treated him like a walk-on. At this point, we've had four of them -- including Antonio Vrankovic, Jack White, and Jordan Goldwire (Justin Robinson is a walk-on) -- but I'm not sure how to treat them. I don't think it's right to rate, e.g., Jack White the same as a walk-on, (or like Andre Buckner, for that matter), but I also don't think guys in this group should be rated the same as, e.g., a #37 recruit. It needs thought, anyway.

Putting all that aside, I agree with you that we're going to have a lot of guys, especially wings, in the 3 to 3.5 range. It's going to be difficult to accurately predict who plays out of that bunch.

OK, the final RSCI is out, and we know who will be back and who will be gone. I guess it's time to update this analysis.

Before I do that, however, I have three notes that (perhaps unfortunately) will muddy up the waters for my annual guess:

(1) As I mentioned above, I have some uncertainty about how to initially rank recruits that come in with a rank over #200 (or maybe #150). Before 2015-16, in the RSCI era we only had one player ranked above #144 (that player was Andre Buckner). Since then we've had Antonio Vrankovic, Jack White, and Jordan Goldwire, two of whom are on next year's team. In my mind, that type of player can't be ranked equally with, e.g., the #36 recruit in the country. For now, I'm going to assign them a 5 to start (rather than the 4 that in the original analysis was assigned to "36+").

(2) Joey Baker was ranked much higher as an expected member of the 2019 high school class than as a member of the 2018 high school class (#37). There could be any number of reasons for that and any number of ways to treat it, including simply saying that he was in fact a member of the 2018 h.s. class so let's treat him that way (which is how I'm treating it in this post). It's also worth noting that though we know he was ranked better, we have no RSCI rank for Joey as a member of the 2019 class; some say he was top 20 (which would give him a 2.0 score) and some say top 30 (which would give him a 3.0 score). As the #37 in the 2018 h.s. class, his "actual" score is 3.5.

(3) Our perimeter player situation this coming season is unique (for Duke) in the RSCI era, in that we've never had a group of perimeter players ranked like this year's. Here's a table showing how many perimeter players on Duke's (opening day) roster with a "score" of 2.5 or better:

2000: 3
2001: 4
2002: 3
2003: 3
2004: 4
2005: 4
2006: 4
2007: 3
2008: 5
2009: 5
2010: 3
2011: 4
2012: 3
2013: 3
2014: 5
2015: 6 (including Rasheed Sulaimon and Semi Ojeleye, though maybe Semi should be counted as an interior guy, in which case this number is 5)
2016: 3
2017: 4
2018: 3
2019: 3
2020: 1

One of these things is not like the others. And since this is unprecedented, it's difficult to say if it will affect K's rotation or not. Generally he plays 4 or 5 (if he has 5 perimeter guys at 2.5 or better) perimeter guys, but usually he has at least 3 guys that indisputedly deserve it. This year, that's not the case. Also, some have hypothesized that K would play a longer rotation if there's little to distinguish the middle from the end of the roster. This will be the season that tests that hypothesis.

OK, now to the roster. Here's what we have (recruited scholarship players only):

Interior: Vernon Carey (1.0), Javin DeLaurier (1.5), Matthew Hurt (2.0)

Perimeter: Tre Jones (1.5), Alex O'Connell (3.0), Wendell Moore (3.0), Cassius Stanley (3.0), Jack White (3.5), Joey Baker (3.5), Jordan Goldwire (4.0)


So, without looking at any of my three caveats to begin the thread, the system predicts a rotation of Vernon, Javin, Matthew, Tre, Alex, Wendell, and Cassius.

However, if Jack White and Jordan Goldwire should have started as 4s and Joey Baker should be counted as a (2019 high school) 3, then all those guys would be ahead of Wendell and Cassius (well, I guess Joey would be tied with them). If the "lack of separation" theory is accurate, it would seem we have five or six guys who are essentially equal, vying for three spots (with Tre definitely in on the perimeter).

In the past, when we've had "ties" in this system for the last rotation spot, the first tiebreaker would be college game experience. If that tiebreaker was inapplicable (for example, in 2010 when Mason Plumlee and Ryan Kelly had the exact same score and exact same experience), it was an open competition and whoever won (in that case, Mason) made the rotation and whoever lost (Ryan) basically didn't play.

My guess is that's what will happen here, with three of the six guys winning the three regular rotation perimeter spots and the three remaining players getting most of their minutes in the early season and blowouts. If the "lack of separation" theory wins the day, though, I guess we could see four or more of the six guys winning regular minutes. It seems very un-K like, though. It's also possible that K mixes and matches, playing only three of the six in any particular game but trying a different combination of three each time. Theoretically there are 20 possible combinations, so it could take awhile before he finds the right one.

Ultimately, I find it impossible to "know" will happen here. We're just going to have to wait and see. Sorry to whoever was expecting me to clear this all up for you.