Coach K, one-and-dones and upperclassmen

[wk2109]

Someone posted this link earlier re: Coach K and one-and-dones: http://zagsblog.com/articles/coach-k-must-figure-out-the-one-and-done-thing/#more-121628. Adam Zagoria asks the following:


For now, as Coach K returns to Duke from Spain, the immediate question is this: Can he translate all his success on the international stage into success with three potential one-and-dones this coming season?

The ideal situation, Coach K told me last November, is to have a blend of one-and-done talent and experienced upperclassmen, which is exactly the recipe Calipari and Kentucky used to win the title in 2012.

If I'm not mistaken, Coach K has had 5 one-and-dones during his career: Corey Maggette, Luol Deng, Kyrie Irving, Austin Rivers and Jabari Parker. The first two made the Final Four during their only season at Duke (but, for what it's worth, they played when players could go straight to the NBA from high school). Kyrie Irving made the Sweet Sixteen (but there's a good chance that if he hadn't gotten hurt, Duke could have made another Final Four, won its second consecutive national title, and maybe even gone undefeated). And, of course, the Austin and Jabari teams got knocked out in the Round of 64.

I have the following questions:
1. How much, if any, of the team's lack of NCAA tournament success with Austin and Jabari can be attributed to having a one-and-done player? (I'm talking specifically about Duke's 2012 and 2014 teams, not having one-and-dones in general)
2. If the answer to #1 is greater than "none," what exactly is/are the reason(s) that having a one-and-done player in 2012 and 2014 led to a lack of NCAA tournament success?
3. Could the same reasons, if they exist, affect the 2014-2015 team?

I'm going to take a detour and turn my attention to the upperclassman part of the equation. I'd submit that regardless of the presence or absence of one-and-done talent, Duke's successful teams almost always have at least one upperclassman who is among the top players in the nation. Therefore, it didn't matter that the 2012 and 2014 teams depended heavily one a one-and-done -- it matters more that these teams didn't have a dominant upperclassman. Only one junior or senior made an all-ACC team in 2012 or 2014 (Mason made 3rd-team in 2012, but was hardly the dominant force he'd become in 2013). On every single "successful" Duke team during the past 15 years (I'll loosely define "success" as a Sweet 16 or better), at least one upperclassman made 1st-team All-ACC. Kyrie, Luol and Corey all had great upperclassmen on their teams.

I love that Duke is able to attract top-10 talent in virtually every recruiting class, but what I love more is that Coach K can bring in so many guys who develop over 3-4 years and become great players by the time they're juniors and seniors. Does any other school have a recent history of upperclassman All-Americans like Mason Plumlee, Nolan Smith, Kyle Singler, Jon Scheyer, Gerald Henderson, JJ Redick and Shelden Williams? Not to mention others like Ryan Kelly, Seth Curry, Brian Zoubek, Lance Thomas, etc.?

As much as I'd love for Tyus, Jahlil and Justise to come in and set the world on fire, I want to see Quinn, Rasheed, Amile and Marshall develop not just into great leaders, but into some of the best players in the country. I think that's when Duke is historically at its best -- when the upperclassmen are experienced AND talented.

[OldPhiKap]

Someone posted this link earlier re: Coach K and one-and-dones: http://zagsblog.com/articles/coach-k-must-figure-out-the-one-and-done-thing/#more-121628. Adam Zagoria asks the following:



If I'm not mistaken, Coach K has had 5 one-and-dones during his career: Corey Maggette, Luol Deng, Kyrie Irving, Austin Rivers and Jabari Parker. The first two made the Final Four during their only season at Duke (but, for what it's worth, they played when players could go straight to the NBA from high school). Kyrie Irving made the Sweet Sixteen (but there's a good chance that if he hadn't gotten hurt, Duke could have made another Final Four, won its second consecutive national title, and maybe even gone undefeated). And, of course, the Austin and Jabari teams got knocked out in the Round of 64.

I have the following questions:
1. How much, if any, of the team's lack of NCAA tournament success with Austin and Jabari can be attributed to having a one-and-done player? (I'm talking specifically about Duke's 2012 and 2014 teams, not having one-and-dones in general)
2. If the answer to #1 is greater than "none," what exactly is/are the reason(s) that having a one-and-done player in 2012 and 2014 led to a lack of NCAA tournament success?
3. Could the same reasons, if they exist, affect the 2014-2015 team?

I'm going to take a detour and turn my attention to the upperclassman part of the equation. I'd submit that regardless of the presence or absence of one-and-done talent, Duke's successful teams almost always have at least one upperclassman who is among the top players in the nation. Therefore, it didn't matter that the 2012 and 2014 teams depended heavily one a one-and-done -- it matters more that these teams didn't have a dominant upperclassman. Only one junior or senior made an all-ACC team in 2012 or 2014 (Mason made 3rd-team in 2012, but was hardly the dominant force he'd become in 2013). On every single "successful" Duke team during the past 15 years (I'll loosely define "success" as a Sweet 16 or better), at least one upperclassman made 1st-team All-ACC. Kyrie, Luol and Corey all had great upperclassmen on their teams.

I love that Duke is able to attract top-10 talent in virtually every recruiting class, but what I love more is that Coach K can bring in so many guys who develop over 3-4 years and become great players by the time they're juniors and seniors. Does any other school have a recent history of upperclassman All-Americans like Mason Plumlee, Nolan Smith, Kyle Singler, Jon Scheyer, Gerald Henderson, JJ Redick and Shelden Williams? Not to mention others like Ryan Kelly, Seth Curry, Brian Zoubek, Lance Thomas, etc.?

As much as I'd love for Tyus, Jahlil and Justise to come in and set the world on fire, I want to see Quinn, Rasheed, Amile and Marshall develop not just into great leaders, but into some of the best players in the country. I think that's when Duke is historically at its best -- when the upperclassmen and experienced AND talented.

From my perspective:

1. Kyrie, even in the few games he played, was one of the most talented and gifted players I have ever seen in a Duke uniform. When he came back, there just was not enough time to blend him back in (the team had moved on) but you could not leave a lottery player on the bench if he could play. And pg is particularly difficult to just plug someone else in. I think our exit had more to do with Kyrie's injury than the mix of the team.

2. Parker -- we had lousy defense last year. Parker was not great at it, but nobody on the team really shone on the defensive end and the needed whole team defense never got it together. Parker was a positive on the team; the early loss was due to the entire team's failures on the defensive end. The loss goes on everyone. So again, I don't think it had anything to do with the mix of the team in terms of one-and-done versus not.

3. Austin -- that team just never seemed to gel. I think some others stood back and waited for Austin to take over (although to be fair Austin liked to shoot and was given the green light to do so).

I think that over time, the best teams have a blend of experience and NBA-level talent. Upperclass point guards are a big plus too.

Oh, and a coach who knows how to pull it all together. That doesn't hurt either.

[Kedsy]

For the purposes of this discussion, someone please explain the difference between a one-and-done and a freshman?

Is it simply that the one-and-done is, almost by definition, one of the best players on the team? Is it the idea that the one-and-done doesn't really "unpack his bags"? It's hard for me to think of any other reason why a decision made after the season is over would differentiate the two terms.

I ask this because Duke very often plays a freshman starter:

2014: Jabari Parker
2013: Rasheed Sulaimon
2012: Austin Rivers
2011: Kyrie Irving
2010: None (although Mason might have started if he hadn't been injured at the beginning of the season)
2009: None (although Elliot Williams started 12 games)
2008: Kyle Singler
2007: Jon Scheyer, Lance Thomas (18 starts) (also, Gerald Henderson started 10)
2006: Josh McRoberts, Greg Paulus
2005: None
2004: Luol Deng
2003: JJ Redick, Shelden Williams
2002: None
2001: None (but *Chris Duhon started 10 games, including our big win at UNC and all the post-season games)
2000: Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer
1999: None, but **Corey Maggette was one-and-done
1998: Elton Brand (18 starts in 21 games played), Shane Battier (20 starts)
1997: None (but Chris Carrawell started 12 games)
1996: Taymon Domzalski (18 starts)
1995: Trajan Langdon (plus Ricky Price started 14 games and Wojo started 15 games)
1994: Jeff Capel
1993: None
1992: None
1991: Grant Hill
1990: Bobby Hurley
1989: None (but ***Christian Laettner started 16 games, including our big win at UNC and all the post-season games)
1988: None
1987: None
1986: Danny Ferry (21 starts)
1985: None
1984: Tommy Amaker
1983: Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, David Henderson, Jay Bilas


No freshman starters: 2010, 2009, 2005, 2002, 2001*, 1999**, 1997, 1993, 1992, 1989***, 1988, 1987, 1985.

This includes three national championships (if you count 2001) and six Final Fours (if you count 2001, 1999, and 1989) but also includes less-than-stellar post-season performances in 2009, 2005, 2002, 1997, 1993, 1987, and 1985. Not sure there's a meaningful pattern here.

Multiple freshman starters: 2007, 2006, 2003, 2000, 1998, 1983.

All but 1998 had disappointing post-seasons (except 1983 when we didn't make the post-season). However, with the exception of 1998 (Elite Eight team) and 2003, none of those teams had a duo nearly as dynamic as we hope Tyus Jones and Jahlil Okafor will be in 2015.

Ultimately, I think this discussion stems from trying to cobble two very disappointing post-season flameouts into a pattern, which I just don't think is there.

[Wander]

Is it simply that the one-and-done is, almost by definition, one of the best players on the team?

Yes, I think that's exactly it. Not all starters are created equal.

[Bob Green]

For the purposes of this discussion, someone please explain the difference between a one-and-done and a freshman?

I do not believe there is much of a difference. As you stated, the decision/announcement comes after the season. The important factor is team chemistry. The reason Austin Rivers and Jabari Parker never won an NCAA Tournament game is not because they were one-and-done it is because they played on teams with poor chemistry. All the pieces have to fit together to achieve success.

[JetpackJesus]

From my perspective:

1. Kyrie, even in the few games he played, was one of the most talented and gifted players I have ever seen in a Duke uniform. When he came back, there just was not enough time to blend him back in (the team had moved on) but you could not leave a lottery player on the bench if he could play. And pg is particularly difficult to just plug someone else in. I think our exit had more to do with Kyrie's injury than the mix of the team.

2. Parker -- we had lousy defense last year. Parker was not great at it, but nobody on the team really shone on the defensive end and the needed whole team defense never got it together. Parker was a positive on the team; the early loss was due to the entire team's failures on the defensive end. The loss goes on everyone. So again, I don't think it had anything to do with the mix of the team in terms of one-and-done versus not.

3. Austin -- that team just never seemed to gel. I think some others stood back and waited for Austin to take over (although to be fair Austin liked to shoot and was given the green light to do so).

Agreed on Kyrie squad and everything else you wrote.

I would add to the Parker season the lack of a true inside player as a major limiting factor for that team. Even if they don't blow the Mercer game, it's tough, though not impossible, to see that team making it through an entire NCAA tournament with the personnel it had.

As for the Austin season, I would add the Ryan Kelly injury as a major contributing factor to that team's relative failure. I think that team actually could've done some damage if he were available, although I don't think they should have needed him to beat Lehigh.

Ultimately, I agree with others who said it isn't the presence of one-and-dones that is the problem. Each of those teams we've discussed "failed" for other reasons.

[FerryFor50]

I would add to the Parker season the lack of a true inside player as a major limiting factor for that team. Even if they don't blow the Mercer game, it's tough, though not impossible, to see that team making it through an entire NCAA tournament with the personnel it had.
.

They would have had their hands full with their next matchup - Tennessee. They had some monsters inside.

[dukelifer]

I do not believe there is much of a difference. As you stated, the decision/announcement comes after the season. The important factor is team chemistry. The reason Austin Rivers and Jabari Parker never won an NCAA Tournament game is not because they were one-and-done it is because they played on teams with poor chemistry. All the pieces have to fit together to achieve success.

K system - particularly the D- is not easy to learn- and Freshman struggle to pick it up regardless of how good they are. As a result- team play is affected. Cal seems to have a system that players pick up faster and hence have been more successful in the post season with his Freshman. Clearly, K has done better with older teams.

[wk2109]

For the purposes of this discussion, someone please explain the difference between a one-and-done and a freshman?

I agree with your analysis and everyone else's, but it all gets in the way of the media's need to create overly simple narratives re: Coach K and Duke. (e.g. Coach K can't win with one-and-dones)

I'm still curious about which, if any, of the guys projected to be three- and four-year players on this year's team can become dominant upperclassmen, because those are my favorite types of players. If it's none, then the question becomes whether Coach K can make a deep NCAA run without a 1st-team All-ACC caliber upperclassman, which he has yet to do in the one-and-done era.

[kAzE]

I don't think there's any pattern or specific outcome attributed to high usage of OAD players. Every team and every player is unique. Kentucky won a national championship in 2012 starting a bunch of freshmen. They tried the same thing again in 2013, only to lose in the first round of the NIT. I think we have at least 3 really good freshmen this year, and I believe this class is superior to any of Calipari's recruiting hauls at UK with the exception of his 2012 class. This Duke team has a pretty high ceiling (as with most Duke teams, due to our talent), but in my opinion, has a considerably higher floor than last year, because of the major improvement that I think we will see defensively. With Okafor inside, Jefferson moving over to the 4, and Winslow/Sulaimon patrolling the perimeter, the only weak spot on D (at least on paper) is on the ball. But due to our size inside, and versatility on the wings, it shouldn't be a huge issue.

This class should easily be a top 5 Duke class in terms of talent. I really like the depth and versatility we have at every position. I believe it will almost certainly be much better team than last year.

[ricks68]

K system - particularly the D- is not easy to learn- and Freshman struggle to pick it up regardless of how good they are. As a result- team play is affected. Cal seems to have a system that players pick up faster and hence have been more successful in the post season with his Freshman. Clearly, K has done better with older teams.

I think that you hit the nail on the head with the first part of your post. That's why there appears to be such a big jump for players in their sophomore year IMHO. I can't comment on Calamari's system, as I don't follow much about his actual coaching abilities. He kinda reminds me a little of the style of Guy Lewis with the University of Houston during their NCAA run to the championship. The players pretty much ignored him, and just played together as they felt like. Calamari's teams appear to really listen to him, however, but seem to have a step up on knowing how to play together maybe due to their experiences with each other on the court during the summer circuits, etc.

ricks

[lotusland]

Deng and Maggette were complimentary players on teams with veteran stars. Rivers and Parker were the best players on their respective teams..

[Duvall]

K system - particularly the D- is not easy to learn- and Freshman struggle to pick it up regardless of how good they are. As a result- team play is affected. Cal seems to have a system that players pick up faster and hence have been more successful in the post season with his Freshman. Clearly, K has done better with older teams.

But there no reason why a team can't have a freshman starter and still be an older team. That was the plan for 2011 and 2013, anyway.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I don't think there's any pattern or specific outcome attributed to high usage of OAD players. Every team and every player is unique. Kentucky won a national championship in 2012 starting a bunch of freshmen. They tried the same thing again in 2013, only to lose in the first round of the NIT. I think we have at least 3 really good freshmen this year, and I believe this class is superior to any of Calipari's recruiting hauls at UK with the exception of his 2012 class. This Duke team has a pretty high ceiling (as with most Duke teams, due to our talent), but in my opinion, has a considerably higher floor than last year, because of the major improvement that I think we will see defensively. With Okafor inside, Jefferson moving over to the 4, and Winslow/Sulaimon patrolling the perimeter, the only weak spot on D (at least on paper) is on the ball. But due to our size inside, and versatility on the wings, it shouldn't be a huge issue.

This class should easily be a top 5 Duke class in terms of talent. I really like the depth and versatility we have at every position. I believe it will almost certainly be much better team than last year.

I love your optimism, but I unfortunately don't share it with you.

This year's team has sooooo many question marks, it's really tough to put my finger on anything.

I think we know two concrete facts:
-Rasheed will be the same / better than last year and play plenty of minutes
-Amile will be the same / better than last year and play plenty of minutes

A core of Rasheed and Amile by themselves is a really good place to start. Amile will be playing a position that he is built for (at least on the college level). Even without a jumper, his ability to rebound, run, and provide energy is a great thing (poorman's Faried, anyone?). Rasheed, to me, is the key to this season. I may be overvaluing him (I obviously don't think so), but Rasheed has proven to create off the dribble, hit the midrange with okay success, pass when necessary, and be insanely accurate at the 3. He isn't a great defender, but he isn't a liability either. If Rasheed improves, I believe it will be on the D side of the ball. I also think that Rasheed will be our leading scorer, even if the ball does go through Jahlil.

There are plenty of question marks for next season, so let's start with the question marks that we feel more comfortable with:
-Will Jahlil be a beast? Even if he's 50% of what we expect, that still a really good 5.
-Will Cook make better decisions and improve on D? Cook's "hero ball" antics improved throughout the season. He was one of two players who nearly carried us to a Mercer win. Cook's D is an ongoing joke at DBR. Every year we think it gets better, only for Cook to be one of the weakest links. Can we improve this? I think he can, primarily because he has some major competition.
-Can Tyus Jones score and play D? We know Tyus will pass. A lot. But can he score? His 3pt shot was never a strength in high school, so I'm not sure if that will be a strength as a freshman. Greg Paulus, also not known for his 3pt shot coming out of high school but turned that into an asset, shot a poor 31% as a freshman. Lastly, Tyus's D has been described as a liability in some recruiting circles and a non-factor (in either direction) in others. He's not going to be a defensive stopper, but can he be better than Cook?
-What offensive value will Winslow bring? Winslow is our most physically ready wing since Demarcus Nelson. And freshman Demarcus Nelson was good, but really inconsistent. Demarcus's favorite move was dribbling as fast and as powerful as he could into traffic, and this stunt normally resulted in a turnover. Winslow brings defensive chops, and I hope he can learn the schemes before March. But can Winslow score? He's not known as a 3pt shooter and I have no idea about his midrange, but he's supposedly good at taking it to the hoop. Will that translate to the college game?

And how about the more uncomfortable questions:
-Will Matt Jones break the rotation? I've been on DBR for only around 7 years, and in that time one of the biggest solved debates has been Coach K's tight rotation. Coach K will not have a 10 man rotation. He won't. We will rarely have a 9 man rotation (unless you consider a player like Josh Hairston part of the rotation last year, which I don't). 8 is definitely doable and likely with next year's team. I'd say many of us are comfortable with at least 7 known rotation players: Cook, Sulaimon, Jefferson, MP3, Tyus, Jahlil, Winslow. There will likely be a need of a back-up 3/4 player (although Sulaimon at the 3, Jefferson at the 4, and Winslow at the 3/4 helps to reduce this need, somewhat). Matt Jones came into Duke with the reputation as an excellent shooter. But after shooting an appalling 14% from 3 (seriously) and, even more surprising, 56% from the FT, Matt Jones has lost all of his range. He's a big dude with decent D, so if we can get enough scoring from the other 7 players, Jones may see the floor a lot just for his D.
-Will Semi break the rotation? Sadly, both MJones and Semi breaking the rotation seems highly unlikely. I suspect that either MJones or Semi will break it, and my guess is that MJones's D will win out. I honestly don't think that Grayson Allen has a chance of playing in ACC play. I'm not short-changing him, but the only way that Grayson plays is a) Coach K decides to up the rotation to 9, b) Grayson beats out Semi and Jones for that 8th spot (and Semi and Jones don't play much for another year), c) an injury to another player in the rotation (God forbid).
-Will this team be serviceable at D? Last year was a joke on D. I mean, historically bad for Coach K defense. The personnel, the system, the strategy; it never worked on D. This year on D, it's addition by subtraction and addition by addition. Players who left last year weren't good at on-ball D (with some being just awful) and a few didn't understand team D at all. In comes Winslow, did a rep for excellent D, and Jahlil, whose massive body (6'10", 265) should be an upgrade on D in the interior just by standing there.

This year has the opportunity to be amazing. I am trying to not catch "Shiny-New-Recruit-itis", so I'm probably more down on the new recruits than most. Because of this, I think we'll be good, but there are so many question marks that I can't make any inferences on how good.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Deng and Maggette were complimentary players on teams with veteran stars. Rivers and Parker were the best offensive players on their respective teams..

I changed the quote above for you to reflect accuracy.

[lotusland]

I changed the quote above for you to reflect accuracy.

True but who were the defensive stoppers on those teams? I mean Hood was defensive POY and was average at best imo. Cook and Curry weren't really much better than Rivers on D. I would add that good D was a missing factor both years. Kyrie may also have been the best offensive player for the feew games where he played but Nolan and Kyle were better all around players. That team had a chance to repeat imo had Irving been healthy all year.

[UrinalCake]

Deng and Maggette were complimentary players on teams with veteran stars. Rivers and Parker were the best players on their respective teams..

I think this is key. There's a big difference between having a one and done as a complementary piece of your team versus having the whole team built around him. The latter puts too much pressure on a freshman IMO, even one as mature as Parker.

But I think the biggest damage that a OAD does is not the lack of experience for the year he plays. It's the fact that you did not get a lesser-ranked player in his place who would have then developed into an upperclassmen. In other words, let's say we didn't get Austin Rivers but instead got a top-15 or top-25 PG who stayed three years. That player would have been a junior in 2014 and probably one of the better players in the country. He would have assumed the leadership of the team, taking the pressure off of Parker. As it was, our only players with experience were Tyler and Josh, both of whom I loved and were warriors but let's be honest, their talent level just wasn't as high as we have come to expect.

If we hadn't gotten Parker then last year would have been a whole lot less exciting, but then this year we'd have a quality sophomore to go with our super freshman class (plus Rasheed, Amile, Cook, etc. ).

[tommy]

I think this is key. There's a big difference between having a one and done as a complementary piece of your team versus having the whole team built around him. The latter puts too much pressure on a freshman IMO, even one as mature as Parker.

But I think the biggest damage that a OAD does is not the lack of experience for the year he plays. It's the fact that you did not get a lesser-ranked player in his place who would have then developed into an upperclassmen. In other words, let's say we didn't get Austin Rivers but instead got a top-15 or top-25 PG who stayed three years. That player would have been a junior in 2014 and probably one of the better players in the country. He would have assumed the leadership of the team, taking the pressure off of Parker. As it was, our only players with experience were Tyler and Josh, both of whom I loved and were warriors but let's be honest, their talent level just wasn't as high as we have come to expect.

If we hadn't gotten Parker then last year would have been a whole lot less exciting, but then this year we'd have a quality sophomore to go with our super freshman class (plus Rasheed, Amile, Cook, etc. ).

Isn't that exactly what Quinn Cook was, or should've been? He is a point guard who we signed in the same class as Rivers, who in fact was a junior last year. Just didn't work out as well as hoped.

[Duvall]

Deng and Maggette were complimentary players on teams with veteran stars. Rivers and Parker were the best players on their respective teams..

Deng was the best player on his fairly young team, though having a senior point guard certainly helped, along with having a significant talent advantage most nights.

[wk2109]

But I think the biggest damage that a OAD does is not the lack of experience for the year he plays. It's the fact that you did not get a lesser-ranked player in his place who would have then developed into an upperclassmen. In other words, let's say we didn't get Austin Rivers but instead got a top-15 or top-25 PG who stayed three years. That player would have been a junior in 2014 and probably one of the better players in the country. He would have assumed the leadership of the team, taking the pressure off of Parker. As it was, our only players with experience were Tyler and Josh, both of whom I loved and were warriors but let's be honest, their talent level just wasn't as high as we have come to expect.

I know you're just using the above as an example, but Quinn Cook (#29 RCSI) almost fits the exact description of the hypothetical player you described above. So in reality, Duke didn't recruit your hypothetical player instead of Rivers, but along with Rivers.

I think Quinn's trajectory over his first two years made it reasonable to believe he'd become your hypothetical junior. I'd even suggest that he was playing well enough during the beginning of his junior year to fit that mold (when describing Duke's rotation during non-conference play, many were saying that Coach K had to reserve 100 minutes for the Parker/Hood/Cook trio -- I might be wrong, but I think even Coach K said this). I think his ankle injuries kept him from finishing the year strong, however.

I think there's a good possibility that Cook can be that combination of experience and elite talent that Duke needs. If Quinn and/or Rasheed and/or Amile can be truly elite, we'll finally see the blend of one-and-done talent and elite upperclassman talent that we didn't get to see in 2011.

[Kedsy]

In other words, let's say we didn't get Austin Rivers but instead got a top-15 or top-25 PG who stayed three years. That player would have been a junior in 2014 and probably one of the better players in the country. He would have assumed the leadership of the team, taking the pressure off of Parker.

Well, we did get Quinn Cook in that class, a top-31 PG who stayed four years. Our supposed rebuff of Myck Kabongo suggests that Coach K didn't want another top-15 PG in that class. So I'm not sure history would have been any different if we'd failed to recruit Austin Rivers.


[Rasheed] isn't a great defender, but he isn't a liability either.

During his freshman season, defense was generally considered to be one of Rasheed's greatest strengths. He had problems last season for various reasons, so I'm not sure what to make of his defense regressing the way it did, or the likelihood that it will become a strength again.


What offensive value will Winslow bring? Winslow is our most physically ready wing since Demarcus Nelson. And freshman Demarcus Nelson was good, but really inconsistent. Demarcus's favorite move was dribbling as fast and as powerful as he could into traffic, and this stunt normally resulted in a turnover. Winslow brings defensive chops, and I hope he can learn the schemes before March. But can Winslow score? He's not known as a 3pt shooter and I have no idea about his midrange, but he's supposedly good at taking it to the hoop. Will that translate to the college game?

To me, the DeMarcus Nelson comparison may not be apt. DeMarcus was used to being his team's main scorer in high school. He set a California state record for scoring. My guess is the powerful dribble into traffic had always worked for him. Justise has the reputation of being a complementary piece on offense, able to do whatever the team needs. It's a different mindset.


Will Matt Jones break the rotation? I've been on DBR for only around 7 years, and in that time one of the biggest solved debates has been Coach K's tight rotation. Coach K will not have a 10 man rotation. He won't. We will rarely have a 9 man rotation (unless you consider a player like Josh Hairston part of the rotation last year, which I don't). 8 is definitely doable and likely with next year's team. I'd say many of us are comfortable with at least 7 known rotation players: Cook, Sulaimon, Jefferson, MP3, Tyus, Jahlil, Winslow. There will likely be a need of a back-up 3/4 player (although Sulaimon at the 3, Jefferson at the 4, and Winslow at the 3/4 helps to reduce this need, somewhat). Matt Jones came into Duke with the reputation as an excellent shooter. But after shooting an appalling 14% from 3 (seriously) and, even more surprising, 56% from the FT, Matt Jones has lost all of his range. He's a big dude with decent D, so if we can get enough scoring from the other 7 players, Jones may see the floor a lot just for his D.

-Will Semi break the rotation? Sadly, both MJones and Semi breaking the rotation seems highly unlikely. I suspect that either MJones or Semi will break it, and my guess is that MJones's D will win out. I honestly don't think that Grayson Allen has a chance of playing in ACC play. I'm not short-changing him, but the only way that Grayson plays is a) Coach K decides to up the rotation to 9, b) Grayson beats out Semi and Jones for that 8th spot (and Semi and Jones don't play much for another year), c) an injury to another player in the rotation (God forbid).


I agree with you there's a decent chance that either Matt or Semi (but not both and not Grayson) will jump into the rotation as the 8th man. Having said that, the 8th man in a Duke rotation plays 8 to 12 mpg -- and that's when we even play an 8-man rotation, which is somewhat rare -- so it's not like we're going to see all that much of either player, no matter what.

[gurufrisbee]

It's not that complicated.

In 2012 you had a one-and-done who played no defense, wasn't really interested in team offense as much as individual offense, and you had a remarkably weak senior class.

In 2014 you had a one-and-done who played no defense, wasn't really interested in team offense as much as individual offense, and you had a pretty weak senior class (with a few exceptions of when Andre got hot).

I think this is the struggle with recruiting. One-and-dones need veterans to be able to lead and step up. But guys who stay for four years need the immense talent of one-and-dones these days to compete nationally. There are some exceptions to all rules, but usually the exception still stays pretty close (Kentucky won with no seniors, but they had more returning talent than they usually did; UConn won with no one-and-dones but Daniels basically was, etc.).

[flyingdutchdevil]

During his freshman season, defense was generally considered to be one of Rasheed's greatest strengths. He had problems last season for various reasons, so I'm not sure what to make of his defense regressing the way it did, or the likelihood that it will become a strength again.

I agree. It was really strange to see that evolution with Rasheed. I really feel that the CBB world is underestimating Rasheed. I think Coach K will/did sit down with Rasheed and told him that he wants him to lead our offense. I really hope that happened/happens. He's our most versatile offensive threat next year.


To me, the DeMarcus Nelson comparison may not be apt. DeMarcus was used to being his team's main scorer in high school. He set a California state record for scoring. My guess is the powerful dribble into traffic had always worked for him. Justise has the reputation of being a complementary piece on offense, able to do whatever the team needs. It's a different mindset.

You absolutely may be right about Winslow. I just don't know. He isn't afraid to shoot, but he also isn't a known commodity when it comes to scoring. I could see him average 3ppg shooting 30% from the floor or 12ppg shooting 55% from the floor. Nothing would surprise me with Winslow (outside of Parker-esque offensive production).


I agree with you there's a decent chance that either Matt or Semi (but not both and not Grayson) will jump into the rotation as the 8th man. Having said that, the 8th man in a Duke rotation plays 8 to 12 mpg -- and that's when we even play an 8-man rotation, which is somewhat rare -- so it's not like we're going to see all that much of either player, no matter what.

Yeah, it's not looking good for that 8th man and terrible for that 9th man. Let's hope that there is some quality competition!

[lotusland]

Deng was the best player on his fairly young team, though having a senior point guard certainly helped, along with having a significant talent advantage most nights.

I would rank Deng 4th best behind JJ, Duhon, Shelden and Ewing. Chris and JJ started more games and Ewing started the same numberas Deng but was a junior (was he hurt a few games?) I suppose you could make an argument for Deng but that team definitely wasn't built around him like Parker and, to a lesser extent, Rivers in their freshman years.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I would rank Deng 4th best behind JJ, Duhon, Shelden and Ewing. Chris and JJ started more games and Ewing started the same numberas Deng but was a junior (was he hurt a few games?) I suppose you could make an argument for Deng but that team definitely wasn't built around him like Parker and, to a lesser extent, Rivers in their freshman years.

Your math doesn't add up. Is Deng 4th best or 5th best?

Deng was my freshman year of college, and I got hooked to college ball that year, although I didn't really understand it very well.

To me, Deng was our X-factor, our most talent player, and the one guy who could really bring fear into opponents. But Duhon was our most important player: the steady hand who had to lead all these youngins. Redick was our gunner, Shelden our rebounder and defender, and Ewing our glue guy (a triple G - great glue guy. One of Duke's best).

My lord, that team was stacked!

[lotusland]

Your math doesn't add up. Is Deng 4th best or 5th best?

Deng was my freshman year of college, and I got hooked to college ball that year, although I didn't really understand it very well.

To me, Deng was our X-factor, our most talent player, and the one guy who could really bring fear into opponents. But Duhon was our most important player: the steady hand who had to lead all these youngins. Redick was our gunner, Shelden our rebounder and defender, and Ewing our glue guy (a triple G - great glue guy. One of Duke's best).

My lord, that team was stacked!

Yeah my bad - make Deng 5th best on that team imo. Again nothing like the dynamic with Parker last year no matter where you rank him.

[jimsumner]

I would rank Deng 4th best behind JJ, Duhon, Shelden and Ewing. Chris and JJ started more games and Ewing started the same numberas Deng but was a junior (was he hurt a few games?) I suppose you could make an argument for Deng but that team definitely wasn't built around him like Parker and, to a lesser extent, Rivers in their freshman years.

Wouldn't that be fifth best?

Chris Duhon was runner-up for ACC POY in 2004. He averaged 10 points, six assists and two steals per game, while providing stellar senior leadership.

Redick led that team with 15.9 ppg, while Deng was second at 15.1. Williams led that team with 8.5 rpg, while Deng was second at 6.9.

Duhon was first-team All-ACC that year, Redick and Williams second team and Deng third team. Deng was runner-up for ACC Freshman of the Year, to Chris Paul.

Deng had outstanding regional--he was MOP--and the case could be made that he was Duke's best player by the end of the season.

But looking at the season in aggregate, I think Duhon and Redick were Duke's best players. I think a good case could be made for Deng at number three, no lower than fourth.

[johnb]

I think we had this conversation a few weeks ago, and someone came up with a great system for rating players that began with points based on their hs rating and gave them points for each year on campus. The team's point total was quite correlated with NCAA success. Maturity counts, but so does perceived baseline talent. From that perspective, the OAD player has not been the problem. It's the lack of upperclassmen who were really elite hs players (as in top dozen). I'd guess that last year's team would have been just fine if Kyrie had stuck around a few years.

The 2003 team is a good example. My recollection is that the team consensus was that Deng was the best player on the court after his first practice (and he was the 2nd best hs player in the country that year, behind only LeBron). And, in fact, he did turn out to be the best overall player. JJ and Shelden had obviously more celebrated college careers, but they stuck around for 4 years, and only JJ is close to being the NBA player that Luol has been. But for that team to make the FF, it was presumably helpful to Luol that he was playing with two guys who were on their way to jersey retirement as well as an upperclassmen who was also a (marginal) NBA player. Last year's team didn't have that and might well have had a historically difficult season without its two best players.

[lotusland]

Wouldn't that be fifth best?

Chris Duhon was runner-up for ACC POY in 2004. He averaged 10 points, six assists and two steals per game, while providing stellar senior leadership.

Redick led that team with 15.9 ppg, while Deng was second at 15.1. Williams led that team with 8.5 rpg, while Deng was second at 6.9.

Duhon was first-team All-ACC that year, Redick and Williams second team and Deng third team. Deng was runner-up for ACC Freshman of the Year, to Chris Paul.

Deng had outstanding regional--he was MOP--and the case could be made that he was Duke's best player by the end of the season.

But looking at the season in aggregate, I think Duhon and Redick were Duke's best players. I think a good case could be made for Deng at number three, no lower than fourth.
I won't quibble with Deng being #3 vs #4 or 5 but I think that team would have been hurt more by the loss of Williams than Deng. Shelden got called for a lot more fouls as a Sophomore than as a Jr. and Sr. but he was still the Landlord. They had no replacement for what Shelden provided although Shav may have prospered more if given the opportunity and Thompson could have stepped up perhaps.

[lotusland]

I think we had this conversation a few weeks ago, and someone came up with a great system for rating players that began with points based on their hs rating and gave them points for each year on campus. The team's point total was quite correlated with NCAA success. Maturity counts, but so does perceived baseline talent. From that perspective, the OAD player has not been the problem. It's the lack of upperclassmen who were really elite hs players (as in top dozen). I'd guess that last year's team would have been just fine if Kyrie had stuck around a few years.

The 2003 team is a good example. My recollection is that the team consensus was that Deng was the best player on the court after his first practice (and he was the 2nd best hs player in the country that year, behind only LeBron). And, in fact, he did turn out to be the best overall player. JJ and Shelden had obviously more celebrated college careers, but they stuck around for 4 years, and only JJ is close to being the NBA player that Luol has been. But for that team to make the FF, it was presumably helpful to Luol that he was playing with two guys who were on their way to jersey retirement as well as an upperclassmen who was also a (marginal) NBA player. Last year's team didn't have that and might well have had a historically difficult season without its two best players.

I never understand why someone's pro career is held up as proof that they were a better or worse college player than someone else. I think you meant that Deng was the second best player coming out of HS behind Lebron. Lebron had a pretty crappy college career as I recall and I don't think Deng wasn't anywhere near POY his freshman year. You could argue that Deng has been a better pro than several of the players who have their jersey hanging in the CIS rafters but I don't think you could make much of an argument that his jersey belongs there. If Deng had stayed 4-years he may very well be considered an all-time great player at Duke but then if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts...

[jimsumner]

I won't quibble with Deng being #3 vs #4 or 5 but I think that team would have been hurt more by the loss of Williams than Deng. Shelden got called for a lot more fouls as a Sophomore than as a Jr. and Sr. but he was still the Landlord. They had no replacement for what Shelden provided although Shav may have prospered more if given the opportunity and Thompson could have stepped up perhaps.

That doesn't necessarily mean Williams was better than Deng, just more valuable.

Sometimes the same thing. But not always.

Thompson transferred to Northwestern at mid-season. Would he have hung around longer had Williams not been around? Who knows?

Torin Francis from that class wanted to go to Duke, but with Thompson and Williams already on board, Duke didn't have room. Francis went on to a pretty good career at Notre Dame. He was a better college player than Thompson, not as good as Williams.

While we're playing what-might-have-been, would Randolph have been a better replacement for Williams at the 5 or for Deng at the 4? I suspect the latter but he had some serious foot-speed issues guarding quicker 4s.

Or maybe Kris Humphries would have been more amenable to Duke had Williams not been around.

Or maybe not.

Back to Deng. Duke expected to get three years out of him and was quite surprised when he went to the NBA, largely for family financial reasons. A lot of that money has gone to charitable endeavors and he certainly has had a quality NBA career. So, it's hard to argue.

I'll always wonder if a 2005 Duke team with Deng and Shaun Livingston joining Redick, Williams, Ewing, Randolph, Dockery and Nelson wouldn't have been one of K's best.

[Kedsy]

Lebron had a pretty crappy college career as I recall...

Is that because he never played college ball?

Also, I think you misread the OP's comment. He said, Luol Deng "was the 2nd best hs player in the country that year..." (bold emphasis mine), exactly what you suggest he should have said.

[lotusland]

Is that because he never played college ball?

Also, I think you misread the OP's comment. He said, Luol Deng "was the 2nd best hs player in the country that year..." (bold emphasis mine), exactly what you suggest he should have said.

Yes and you are correct - my apologies to OP for misreading the post.

[Billy Dat]

Back to Deng. Duke expected to get three years out of him and was quite surprised when he went to the NBA, largely for family financial reasons. A lot of that money has gone to charitable endeavors and he certainly has had a quality NBA career. So, it's hard to argue.

That's what he said, but I've heard that Deng has a little African in him, not in a bad way, but he's a guy who would have a nice store out front, but sell you counterfeit stuff out of the back.

Hey, I am just reading what it says here in a scouting report.

[CDu]

Deng and Maggette were complimentary players on teams with veteran stars. Rivers and Parker were the best players on their respective teams..

I think Deng was absolutely the best player on the 2004 team. Duhon, Redick, Ewing and Williams were key players (and very good ones at that). But Deng was the star. 2nd leading scorer, 2nd leading rebounder, 3rd in assists, steals, and blocks.

[kAzE]

I love your optimism, but I unfortunately don't share it with you.

This year's team has sooooo many question marks, it's really tough to put my finger on anything.


There are plenty of question marks for next season, so let's start with the question marks that we feel more comfortable with:
-Will Jahlil be a beast? Even if he's 50% of what we expect, that still a really good 5.

By all indications, he's the best offensive big man/low post scorer to come along since Jared Sullinger. And I think he's way better than Sullinger. I predict he leads the team in scoring, averaging 18 a game and shoots 60% from the field.


-Will Cook make better decisions and improve on D? Cook's "hero ball" antics improved throughout the season. He was one of two players who nearly carried us to a Mercer win. Cook's D is an ongoing joke at DBR. Every year we think it gets better, only for Cook to be one of the weakest links. Can we improve this? I think he can, primarily because he has some major competition.

Not sure about this one. I'm in the camp that believes Tyus Jones will be the starting point guard eventually.


-Can Tyus Jones score and play D? We know Tyus will pass. A lot. But can he score? His 3pt shot was never a strength in high school, so I'm not sure if that will be a strength as a freshman. Greg Paulus, also not known for his 3pt shot coming out of high school but turned that into an asset, shot a poor 31% as a freshman. Lastly, Tyus's D has been described as a liability in some recruiting circles and a non-factor (in either direction) in others. He's not going to be a defensive stopper, but can he be better than Cook?

Tyus can definitely score. He prefers to pass, but his feel for the game is at an extremely high level. Like, possibly freshman Kyrie Irving level. He's not as good an athlete or as good a ball handler as Kyrie, but make no mistake, he has the ability to get in the lane at will. You're right in that he's not a deadly perimeter shooter, but he can get wherever he wants to go with the ball, and that's a very important ability to have as a point guard. Not sure about his finishing ability, but he dropped 30+ points pretty regularly in high school/AAU when his teammates weren't hitting. He knows when to set up his teammates and when to hunt his own shot. I believe I'm much higher on Tyus than you. I think he's going to be phenomenal. I think he averages like 11 points and 6-7 assists.


-What offensive value will Winslow bring? Winslow is our most physically ready wing since Demarcus Nelson. And freshman Demarcus Nelson was good, but really inconsistent. Demarcus's favorite move was dribbling as fast and as powerful as he could into traffic, and this stunt normally resulted in a turnover. Winslow brings defensive chops, and I hope he can learn the schemes before March. But can Winslow score? He's not known as a 3pt shooter and I have no idea about his midrange, but he's supposedly good at taking it to the hoop. Will that translate to the college game?


Winslow's biggest contribution will be his defensive versatility, but he can also contribute on offense. He's a very good ball handler for his size, and is also a good passer. He's totally capable of being a slasher who can drive and kick the ball to an open man. He's also a supreme athlete who can run the floor and finish above the rim. Okafor should lead the team in dunks, but Winslow won't be far behind. He's an all-purpose glue guy on both ends of the floor, and I'll be shocked if he doesn't play 30+ minutes a game.

[NSDukeFan]

I love your optimism, but I unfortunately don't share it with you.

I am mostly optimistic and am happy that I usually feel that Duke can contend for the title. I certainly feel that is the case this year. Mind you, I also felt that in 2012 and 2014. (I still kind of do, as I believe both of those teams had almost as good a chance as anyone to make a tournament run, but didn't get hot at the right time.)


This year's team has sooooo many question marks, it's really tough to put my finger on anything.

I think we know two concrete facts:
-Rasheed will be the same / better than last year and play plenty of minutes
-Amile will be the same / better than last year and play plenty of minutes

A core of Rasheed and Amile by themselves is a really good place to start. Amile will be playing a position that he is built for (at least on the college level). Even without a jumper, his ability to rebound, run, and provide energy is a great thing (poorman's Faried, anyone?). Rasheed, to me, is the key to this season. I may be overvaluing him (I obviously don't think so), but Rasheed has proven to create off the dribble, hit the midrange with okay success, pass when necessary, and be insanely accurate at the 3. He isn't a great defender, but he isn't a liability either. If Rasheed improves, I believe it will be on the D side of the ball. I also think that Rasheed will be our leading scorer, even if the ball does go through Jahlil.

I don't know if this year's team has any more question marks than most top college programs. It's certainly nice to have three upperclass players who have each started at least 30 games at Duke in Amile, Quinn and Rasheed. Having contributors Marshall and Matt back is nice as well.
I agree that Amile and Rasheed is a very good place to start, but would certainly add Quinn in there, as well. I think you are overvaluing Rasheed a bit in his ability to hit the midrange (I hope to see more of it this year) and I wouldn't characterize him as "insanely accurate at the 3." I also think that players individual defensive abilities get criticized a bit too much on this board in general, as I think it is more of a good, communicating defense makes everyone look good and when the team doesn't communicate and gel defensively, individual get blamed. I believe Rasheed can be a very good defensive player, but it will depend on how the rest of the team communicates and helps each other out. I expect Jahlil will be the team's leading scorer, but wouldn't be surprised if Rasheed was instead.
I always thought Amile was a sneaky good scorer on the baseline, but I think he may also be a sneaky good rebounder as he had an excellent rebounding year last year. I am also expecting big things from him this year and love watching him play. Poor man's Faried is an interesting comparison that I hadn't thought about, but he does do some of the same things.



There are plenty of question marks for next season, so let's start with the question marks that we feel more comfortable with:
-Will Jahlil be a beast? Even if he's 50% of what we expect, that still a really good 5.
-Will Cook make better decisions and improve on D? Cook's "hero ball" antics improved throughout the season. He was one of two players who nearly carried us to a Mercer win. Cook's D is an ongoing joke at DBR. Every year we think it gets better, only for Cook to be one of the weakest links. Can we improve this? I think he can, primarily because he has some major competition.
-Can Tyus Jones score and play D? We know Tyus will pass. A lot. But can he score? His 3pt shot was never a strength in high school, so I'm not sure if that will be a strength as a freshman. Greg Paulus, also not known for his 3pt shot coming out of high school but turned that into an asset, shot a poor 31% as a freshman. Lastly, Tyus's D has been described as a liability in some recruiting circles and a non-factor (in either direction) in others. He's not going to be a defensive stopper, but can he be better than Cook?
-What offensive value will Winslow bring? Winslow is our most physically ready wing since Demarcus Nelson. And freshman Demarcus Nelson was good, but really inconsistent. Demarcus's favorite move was dribbling as fast and as powerful as he could into traffic, and this stunt normally resulted in a turnover. Winslow brings defensive chops, and I hope he can learn the schemes before March. But can Winslow score? He's not known as a 3pt shooter and I have no idea about his midrange, but he's supposedly good at taking it to the hoop. Will that translate to the college game?
I'm not worried about Jahlil, just wondering about how good he is going to be. Should be fun to watch.

I don't think Cook's D is a joke, but that he has been inconsistent as have the teams around him. When Ryan Kelly and Mason were seniors, Quinn and Rasheed somehow were both much better defensive players. I think if Rasheed, Quinn and Amile can help the freshmen defensively, the team could certainly look better defensively, as will all individuals. Mind you, all our guards will get beat off the dribble. It happens when even East Southern State has quick guards. Tyus will get beat off the dribble, but hopefully he will pick up defensive principles quickly and be a good defensive player, hopefully close to how well Kyrie played defensively as a freshman (of course he had Kyle and Nolan as senior anchors as well.) I am hoping both Tyus and Quinn will be solid defensively and fun to watch offensively.
My impression is that Winslow may not be known for his shooting, but that he has been able to hit perimeter shots whenever he has had to, as well as do all the other things that help his teams win. I am excited to see how he will contribute and if he can learn to communicate well as I expect he should be as prepared for individual defense as any player Duke has recruited in the past 4 years.



And how about the more uncomfortable questions:
-Will Matt Jones break the rotation? I've been on DBR for only around 7 years, and in that time one of the biggest solved debates has been Coach K's tight rotation. Coach K will not have a 10 man rotation. He won't. We will rarely have a 9 man rotation (unless you consider a player like Josh Hairston part of the rotation last year, which I don't). 8 is definitely doable and likely with next year's team. I'd say many of us are comfortable with at least 7 known rotation players: Cook, Sulaimon, Jefferson, MP3, Tyus, Jahlil, Winslow. There will likely be a need of a back-up 3/4 player (although Sulaimon at the 3, Jefferson at the 4, and Winslow at the 3/4 helps to reduce this need, somewhat). Matt Jones came into Duke with the reputation as an excellent shooter. But after shooting an appalling 14% from 3 (seriously) and, even more surprising, 56% from the FT, Matt Jones has lost all of his range. He's a big dude with decent D, so if we can get enough scoring from the other 7 players, Jones may see the floor a lot just for his D.
-Will Semi break the rotation? Sadly, both MJones and Semi breaking the rotation seems highly unlikely. I suspect that either MJones or Semi will break it, and my guess is that MJones's D will win out. I honestly don't think that Grayson Allen has a chance of playing in ACC play. I'm not short-changing him, but the only way that Grayson plays is a) Coach K decides to up the rotation to 9, b) Grayson beats out Semi and Jones for that 8th spot (and Semi and Jones don't play much for another year), c) an injury to another player in the rotation (God forbid).
-Will this team be serviceable at D? Last year was a joke on D. I mean, historically bad for Coach K defense. The personnel, the system, the strategy; it never worked on D. This year on D, it's addition by subtraction and addition by addition. Players who left last year weren't good at on-ball D (with some being just awful) and a few didn't understand team D at all. In comes Winslow, did a rep for excellent D, and Jahlil, whose massive body (6'10", 265) should be an upgrade on D in the interior just by standing there.

This year has the opportunity to be amazing. I am trying to not catch "Shiny-New-Recruit-itis", so I'm probably more down on the new recruits than most. Because of this, I think we'll be good, but there are so many question marks that I can't make any inferences on how good.

I expect the rotation will be 7/8 deep in ACC/tournament play, but I will of course keep hoping to see Marshall, Semi, Matt and Grayson force their way into minutes. Unlikely more than 1 or two of them will get significant minutes in close games, but I will keep hoping, but understand coach K's rationale (especially with many new players that have to get minutes together) if it doesn't happen.
Because the team didn't succeed consistently on defense last year and there are many freshmen that are expected to contribute right away, I wonder if the coaching staff will tweak things a bit defensively to help less experienced players catch on more quickly. I believe Coach K indicated that they would be looking at everything defensively after last year, though it may be more challenging to without Coach Collins and Wojo around. Hopefully, the coaching staff and upperclassmen do a good job establishing a strong defensive identity for this year's team.
Nice post about the upcoming season.
Bring on the season!

[lotusland]

I think Deng was absolutely the best player on the 2004 team. Duhon, Redick, Ewing and Williams were key players (and very good ones at that). But Deng was the star. 2nd leading scorer, 2nd leading rebounder, 3rd in assists, steals, and blocks.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but here is how they finished in the All-ACC voting that year:

2004 Chris Duhon First
2004 J.J. Redick Second
2004 Shelden Williams Second
2004 Luol Deng Third

[Newton_14]

I don't think there's any pattern or specific outcome attributed to high usage of OAD players. Every team and every player is unique. Kentucky won a national championship in 2012 starting a bunch of freshmen. They tried the same thing again in 2013, only to lose in the first round of the NIT. I think we have at least 3 really good freshmen this year, and I believe this class is superior to any of Calipari's recruiting hauls at UK with the exception of his 2012 class. This Duke team has a pretty high ceiling (as with most Duke teams, due to our talent), but in my opinion, has a considerably higher floor than last year, because of the major improvement that I think we will see defensively. With Okafor inside, Jefferson moving over to the 4, and Winslow/Sulaimon patrolling the perimeter, the only weak spot on D (at least on paper) is on the ball. But due to our size inside, and versatility on the wings, it shouldn't be a huge issue.

This class should easily be a top 5 Duke class in terms of talent. I really like the depth and versatility we have at every position. I believe it will almost certainly be much better team than last year.
So you have easily moved up to second place on the official DBR "Eternal Optomist" List behind Ozzie (Speaking of which, where the heck is Ozzie??? Did someone kidnap the guy? Steal his computer??) but, easy there young cowboy. Our defense is a "huge issue" and "huge question mark' until this group of kids prove on the court they can play strong defense. Last year we thought we had a group with all the required ingredients, those being, quickness, lenghth, athleticism, heart, and what I define as "defensive desire". That group ended up not being able to defend me, you, or Ozzie. I think they had the first four attributes in spades, lacked the fifth, lacked the ability to grasp Duke/K's scheme's, and likely lacked an attribute or two that matters, that I am not thinking of.

The other thing is, the tip of the spear absolutely matters, especially in Duke's defense. The disruption of the other teams offensive desires start with the defender on the opposing PG, and evolves from there. If that part breaks down, it throw's the other 4 guys out of synch, and the defense as a whole breaks down. Next thing you know, our 4 man is pulling the ball out of the net to inbound it.

We are all hoping this new group can defend much much better but it is not a given. Especially since we are likely to have two shrimps in the backcourt for large amount of minutes in key games. One or both are going to need to be able to hold down that tip of the spear job, and/or have the ability to defend the shooting guard or a bigger wing.

K has a lot of creativity in him, and has vowed to simplify the defensive scheme's due to having freshman on the floor in key spots year over year and less star power upperclassmen. I am anxious to see what he roles out on defense to deal with that. (One month away!!!)

Let's be cautiously optoemistic in honor of the great Oz one, but prepare for the worst just in case. :) (I do think this group can be very good. Just tempering my expectations until I see them kill it on the defensive end)

Cheers!

[OldPhiKap]

So you have easily moved up to second place on the official DBR "Eternal Optomist" List behind Ozzie (Speaking of which, where the heck is Ozzie??? Did someone kidnap the guy? Steal his computer??) but, easy there young cowboy. Our defense is a "huge issue" and "huge question mark' until this group of kids prove on the court they can play strong defense. Last year we thought we had a group with all the required ingredients, those being, quickness, lenghth, athleticism, heart, and what I define as "defensive desire". That group ended up not being able to defend me, you, or Ozzie. I think they had the first four attributes in spades, lacked the fifth, lacked the ability to grasp Duke/K's scheme's, and likely lacked an attribute or two that matters, that I am not thinking of.

The other thing is, the tip of the spear absolutely matters, especially in Duke's defense. The disruption of the other teams offensive desires start with the defender on the opposing PG, and evolves from there. If that part breaks down, it throw's the other 4 guys out of synch, and the defense as a whole breaks down. Next thing you know, our 4 man is pulling the ball out of the net to inbound it.

We are all hoping this new group can defend much much better but it is not a given. Especially since we are likely to have two shrimps in the backcourt for large amount of minutes in key games. One or both are going to need to be able to hold down that tip of the spear job, and/or have the ability to defend the shooting guard or a bigger wing.

K has a lot of creativity in him, and has vowed to simplify the defensive scheme's due to having freshman on the floor in key spots year over year and less star power upperclassmen. I am anxious to see what he roles out on defense to deal with that. (One month away!!!)

Let's be cautiously optoemistic in honor of the great Oz one, but prepare for the worst just in case. :) (I do think this group can be very good. Just tempering my expectations until I see them kill it on the defensive end)

Cheers!

I think this nails it. Tell me how well we will play team defense, and I will tell you how far we may go.

[Kedsy]

I think this nails it. Tell me how well we will play team defense, and I will tell you how far we may go.

While defense is obviously very important, and last season Duke had both a very disappointing defense and a very disappointing NCAAT, the formula isn't nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.

Last season, for example, going into the NCAA tournament Michigan had the 104th ranked defense in the country (according to Pomeroy; Duke was 102nd), and the Wolverines went to the Elite Eight, losing to eventual national finalist Kentucky by 3 points. Baylor had the 114th ranked defense, and made the Sweet 16, losing to eventual Final Four team Wisconsin by 3 points. Dayton, the 101st ranked defense, also made the Elite Eight. On the other end of the spectrum, #2 defense VCU lost to a 12-seed in the first round. #8 defense St. Louis, #10 defense Wichita State, #14 defense Villanova, and #18 defense Syracuse all lost in the 2nd round (all but St. Louis getting upset by much lower-seeded teams). Team defense is not really correlated to NCAA tournament success.

I think we may be falling victim to "last season's biggest problem is the only problem that matters" syndrome. It happens a lot on this board.

[flyingdutchdevil]

While defense is obviously very important, and last season Duke had both a very disappointing defense and a very disappointing NCAAT, the formula isn't nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.

Last season, for example, going into the NCAA tournament Michigan had the 104th ranked defense in the country (according to Pomeroy; Duke was 102nd), and the Wolverines went to the Elite Eight, losing to eventual national finalist Kentucky by 3 points. Baylor had the 114th ranked defense, and made the Sweet 16, losing to eventual Final Four team Wisconsin by 3 points. Dayton, the 101st ranked defense, also made the Elite Eight. On the other end of the spectrum, #2 defense VCU lost to a 12-seed in the first round. #8 defense St. Louis, #10 defense Wichita State, #14 defense Villanova, and #18 defense Syracuse all lost in the 2nd round (all but St. Louis getting upset by much lower-seeded teams). Team defense is not really correlated to NCAA tournament success.

I think we may be falling victim to "last season's biggest problem is the only problem that matters" syndrome. It happens a lot on this board.

While you're right that "last season's biggest problem is the only problem that matters" syndrome does exist at DBR (although not as contagious as "Shiny-New-Recruit-itis"), I think that defense was the crux of the issue in both 2012 and 2014, two years where Duke was an incredibly high seed and got upset. The sample size is small, but the takeaways are huge. I think the Duke community would like to avoid those scenarios, and if Lehigh/Mercer weren't allowed to do whatever they wanted on offense, 2012 and 2014 may have been a different story.

Defense may not be the solution to Duke winning a natty in 2015, but it's the best place to start. I agree 100% with OldPhiKap's first statement: focus on team defense.

[kAzE]

While defense is obviously very important, and last season Duke had both a very disappointing defense and a very disappointing NCAAT, the formula isn't nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.

Last season, for example, going into the NCAA tournament Michigan had the 104th ranked defense in the country (according to Pomeroy; Duke was 102nd), and the Wolverines went to the Elite Eight, losing to eventual national finalist Kentucky by 3 points. Baylor had the 114th ranked defense, and made the Sweet 16, losing to eventual Final Four team Wisconsin by 3 points. Dayton, the 101st ranked defense, also made the Elite Eight. On the other end of the spectrum, #2 defense VCU lost to a 12-seed in the first round. #8 defense St. Louis, #10 defense Wichita State, #14 defense Villanova, and #18 defense Syracuse all lost in the 2nd round (all but St. Louis getting upset by much lower-seeded teams). Team defense is not really correlated to NCAA tournament success.

I think we may be falling victim to "last season's biggest problem is the only problem that matters" syndrome. It happens a lot on this board.

Nah . . . it's not as much about last year, it's more about EVERY year. Defense is 50% of the game, and is always the most important problem to solve. If we play great D, we'll always have a chance. It like everyone always says, good offense comes and goes from game to game, but good defense is a constant. At least on paper, this should be a much better team defensively than last year. Last year, we were mediocre to horrendous at all 3 of these levels: in the paint, on the wings, and on the ball. In the paint, we just didn't have size, it was that simple. Okafor solves that problem. Even if he's not a great defensive player, his size alone is a deterrent down low on defense. Also, Marshall Plumlee as a junior should be a pretty good back up. The Plumlees have a pretty good track record for improvement in year 3, so I believe his size and experience will be an asset.

On the wings, Sulaimon regressed last year, and although I think Hood did an admirable job defensively, I don't think anyone was nominating him for any all-defensive teams. He just wasn't very quick laterally (because of his size), and he didn't really have the type of wingspan (very important on D) that you'd expect from a 6'8" player. Winslow isn't the offensive force that Hood was, but he's a much better athlete who is likely to become an NBA level defensive stopper on the perimeter. If Sulaimon returns to his freshman level of commitment on D, we should have 2 very good, very versatile defensive players on the wings.

So . . . at least two of those 3 levels are more or less improved over last year's defense. It remains to be seen whether or not Cook or Tyus can be effective on the ball defenders. (Although you have to believe Tyus can be a little better, given that he's more athletic, and Cook's defense often resembles a turnstile) You're absolutely right that the on ball defense is the most important part of many's of Coach K's schemes (especially our high ball pressure schemes), but recall that we also won a championship in 2010 with a much more conservative style of defense which relied on much more on help defense and switches. I think that's our best bet this year, especially since I believe our offense will be much more half-court oriented, with Okafor being the main focus. We may give up more 3s than usual this year, but I think we will be able to lock down the paint much more effectively than in recent years.

[freshmanjs]

While defense is obviously very important, and last season Duke had both a very disappointing defense and a very disappointing NCAAT, the formula isn't nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.

Last season, for example, going into the NCAA tournament Michigan had the 104th ranked defense in the country (according to Pomeroy; Duke was 102nd), and the Wolverines went to the Elite Eight, losing to eventual national finalist Kentucky by 3 points. Baylor had the 114th ranked defense, and made the Sweet 16, losing to eventual Final Four team Wisconsin by 3 points. Dayton, the 101st ranked defense, also made the Elite Eight. On the other end of the spectrum, #2 defense VCU lost to a 12-seed in the first round. #8 defense St. Louis, #10 defense Wichita State, #14 defense Villanova, and #18 defense Syracuse all lost in the 2nd round (all but St. Louis getting upset by much lower-seeded teams). Team defense is not really correlated to NCAA tournament success.

I think we may be falling victim to "last season's biggest problem is the only problem that matters" syndrome. It happens a lot on this board.

a few anecdotal data points don't tell us how closely defensive efficiency is tied to ncaa tournament success. we'd need to look at this over a large enough sample to tell. i would be very surprised if it turned out not to be well correlated. it is, of course, possible to succeed without a good defense just like it is possible to succeed without a good offense.

[Kedsy]

a few anecdotal data points don't tell us how closely defensive efficiency is tied to ncaa tournament success. we'd need to look at this over a large enough sample to tell. i would be very surprised if it turned out not to be well correlated. it is, of course, possible to succeed without a good defense just like it is possible to succeed without a good offense.

How about the last six years of pre-tournament Pomeroy data (pre-tournament defensive efficiency rank in parenthesis):

2009
FINAL FOUR
UNC (35)
Mich St (10)
Villanova (25)
UConn (3)
ELITE EIGHT
Louisville (2)
Pitt (34)
Missouri (8)
Oklahoma (46)

2010
FINAL FOUR
Duke (4)
Butler (15)
Mich St (27)
West Va (24)
ELITE EIGHT
Kentucky (10)
Kansas St (19)
Baylor (52)
Tennessee (8)

2011
FINAL FOUR
UConn (31)
Butler (77)
VCU (143)
Kentucky (22)
ELITE EIGHT
Kansas (12)
UNC (7)
Florida (40)
Arizona (67)

2012
FINAL FOUR
Kentucky (6)
Kansas (8)
Ohio St (1)
Louisville (2)
ELITE EIGHT
UNC (12)
Syracuse (15)
Baylor (34)
Florida (119)

2013
FINAL FOUR
Louisville (1)
Michigan (58)
Syracuse (23)
Wichita St (30)
ELITE EIGHT
Florida (2)
Ohio St (6)
Duke (25)
Marquette (50)

2014
FINAL FOUR
UConn (11)
Kentucky (35)
Florida (5)
Wisconsin (59)
ELITE EIGHT
Arizona (1)
Mich St (39)
Michigan (104)
Dayton (101)

TOTALS:
Top 20 defenses: 23
Non-top 20 defenses: 25

Top 10 defenses: 17
30+ defenses: 19

Top 5 defenses: 9
50+ defenses: 10


Still think defensive efficiency is tied to NCAAT success?

[freshmanjs]

How about the last six years of pre-tournament Pomeroy data (pre-tournament defensive efficiency rank in parenthesis):

2009
FINAL FOUR
UNC (35)
Mich St (10)
Villanova (25)
UConn (3)
ELITE EIGHT
Louisville (2)
Pitt (34)
Missouri (8)
Oklahoma (46)

2010
FINAL FOUR
Duke (4)
Butler (15)
Mich St (27)
West Va (24)
ELITE EIGHT
Kentucky (10)
Kansas St (19)
Baylor (52)
Tennessee (8)

2011
FINAL FOUR
UConn (31)
Butler (77)
VCU (143)
Kentucky (22)
ELITE EIGHT
Kansas (12)
UNC (7)
Florida (40)
Arizona (67)

2012
FINAL FOUR
Kentucky (6)
Kansas (8)
Ohio St (1)
Louisville (2)
ELITE EIGHT
UNC (12)
Syracuse (15)
Baylor (34)
Florida (119)

2013
FINAL FOUR
Louisville (1)
Michigan (58)
Syracuse (23)
Wichita St (30)
ELITE EIGHT
Florida (2)
Ohio St (6)
Duke (25)
Marquette (50)

2014
FINAL FOUR
UConn (11)
Kentucky (35)
Florida (5)
Wisconsin (59)
ELITE EIGHT
Arizona (1)
Mich St (39)
Michigan (104)
Dayton (101)

TOTALS:
Top 20 defenses: 23
Non-top 20 defenses: 25

Top 10 defenses: 17
30+ defenses: 19

Top 5 defenses: 9
50+ defenses: 10


Still think defensive efficiency is tied to NCAAT success?

i don't know. i have not run the correlation (and wont have time today). i certainly can't tell by eyeballing data. i suspect that yes, there is a correlation.

[Wander]

Still think defensive efficiency is tied to NCAAT success?

Yes. The metrics that you chose seem pretty arbitrary to me, but they do show that. (I imagine the same would hold for offensive efficiency).

[duke09hms]

How about the last six years of pre-tournament Pomeroy data (pre-tournament defensive efficiency rank in parenthesis):

TOTALS:
Top 20 defenses: 23
Non-top 20 defenses: 25

Top 10 defenses: 17
30+ defenses: 19

Top 5 defenses: 9
50+ defenses: 10


Still think defensive efficiency is tied to NCAAT success?

Ummm YES definitely. Just because the numbers are similar doesn't mean they're not statistically significant. There's what, 300+ plus programs eligible for the NCAAs? So let's look at Top 20 over your 6 yr time period, assuming ~300 total teams.

Top 20: 23 out of 120 (20 teams * 6 yrs) = 20%
Non-top 20: 25 out of 1680 (~280 teams * 6 yrs) = 1.4%

Top 10 defenses: 17 out of 60 = 28%
Non-top 30: 19 out of 1620 (~270 * 6 yrs) = 1.2%

Top 5 defenses: 9 out of 30 = 30%
Non-top 50 defenses: 10 out of 1500 (~250 * 6 yrs) = 0.7%

Now, I haven't run t-tests and generated p-values, but I think the trend is quite clear. Higher defensive efficiency means a greater chance of making it to the Elite 8/Final 4. Probability increases from 20 to 30% as your defense improves from 20 to 5, and probability decreases from 1.4% to 0.7% as one's defense rating drops from 20 to 50.

[sagegrouse]

How about the last six years of pre-tournament Pomeroy data (pre-tournament defensive efficiency rank in parenthesis):

TOTALS:
Top 20 defenses: 23
Non-top 20 defenses: 25

Top 10 defenses: 17
30+ defenses: 19

Top 5 defenses: 9
50+ defenses: 10


Still think defensive efficiency is tied to NCAAT success?

Yes. There are 320 or so D1 programs. Of the 48 elite eight teams in your sample, 38 are in the top 50 of KenPom's efficiency rating. If the top 30 are the 90th percentile, then 28/48 are above the 90th percentile. And 9/48 are in the top five, which is the 98th percentile.

Moreover, all of the teams were in the 50th percentile or better, and 44/48 were below 100, which is above the 70th percentile.

Defense matters.

[MCFinARL]

I don't think Cook's D is a joke, but that he has been inconsistent as have the teams around him. When Ryan Kelly and Mason were seniors, Quinn and Rasheed somehow were both much better defensive players. I think if Rasheed, Quinn and Amile can help the freshmen defensively, the team could certainly look better defensively, as will all individuals. Mind you, all our guards will get beat off the dribble. It happens when even East Southern State has quick guards. Tyus will get beat off the dribble, but hopefully he will pick up defensive principles quickly and be a good defensive player, hopefully close to how well Kyrie played defensively as a freshman (of course he had Kyle and Nolan as senior anchors as well.) I am hoping both Tyus and Quinn will be solid defensively and fun to watch offensively.



This is such a good point. Yes, some players seem to be lock-down defenders most of the time, and some seem never to offer anything on defense. But defense is ultimately a team function--and for a lot of players, Quinn included, how well they defend is likely influenced a lot by the people they are playing with--whether there is effective defensive leadership on the floor, how well the players' skills complement each other, how well they communicate with each other, etc.--and what role they are expected to play. I am optimistic that, if the players seem to be working together as well as Coach K said in his presser this morning and the coaching staff has, in fact, tweaked the schemes to make them easier to pick up quickly, Duke can have a better defense this year and Quinn Cook can contribute to it. But we will see.

[Henderson]

While defense is obviously very important...

****

Team defense is not really correlated to NCAA tournament success.


So why is defense so obviously important if it doesn't correlate to success?

If the stats you've selected show that team defense is not so important to success, the problem is probably with the stats being used. I don't know of any coach at any level who thinks that defense is unimportant to success, and your opening statement suggests that you yourself are viscerally skeptical of the conclusions your statistics purport to establish.

[gurufrisbee]

It's also worth remembering that the list there of elite eight and final four teams shows their defensive rankings for the season - and many of them may have been able to pump up their defensive level for the couple tournament games. It's possible at least.

[Kedsy]

Ummm YES definitely. Just because the numbers are similar doesn't mean they're not statistically significant. There's what, 300+ plus programs eligible for the NCAAs? So let's look at Top 20 over your 6 yr time period, assuming ~300 total teams.

Top 20: 23 out of 120 (20 teams * 6 yrs) = 20%
Non-top 20: 25 out of 1680 (~280 teams * 6 yrs) = 1.4%

Top 10 defenses: 17 out of 60 = 28%
Non-top 30: 19 out of 1620 (~270 * 6 yrs) = 1.2%

Top 5 defenses: 9 out of 30 = 30%
Non-top 50 defenses: 10 out of 1500 (~250 * 6 yrs) = 0.7%

Now, I haven't run t-tests and generated p-values, but I think the trend is quite clear. Higher defensive efficiency means a greater chance of making it to the Elite 8/Final 4. Probability increases from 20 to 30% as your defense improves from 20 to 5, and probability decreases from 1.4% to 0.7% as one's defense rating drops from 20 to 50.

In order to have NCAA tournament success, you have to actually be in the NCAA tournament, right? So we're talking about between 65 and 68 teams, not 300+. Otherwise the whole discussion is ridiculous.

Moreover, if we're talking about NCAA tournament success, and measuring that by advancement to the Elite Eight, you can't count the really bad teams because they have virtually no chance to advance that far. So let's knock out at least seeds 12 to 16, meaning the "universe" we're talking about is 267 teams in six years. But even that isn't enough to calculate percentages like yours.

For example, in 2014 15 of the top 20 defenses made the tournament, while 30 non-top 20 defenses were seeded between 1 and 11. Three top 20 defenses made the Elite Eight (20%) while 5 non-top 20 defenses made it (16.7%). All ten of the top 10 defenses made the tournament, while 26 defenses ranked 30+ and seeded 11 or better made it. Of those, two top 10 defenses made the Elite Eight (20%), while five 30+ defenses made the Elite Eight (19.2%). All five top 5 defenses made the tournament while 15 defenses ranked 50+ and seeded 11 or better made it. Of those, two top 5 defenses made the Elite Eight (40%) while three 50+ defenses made it (20%).

So the percentages are WAY closer than you suggest. But even that doesn't tell us much. Because as Wander sort of points out, the best offenses enjoy much more dominance in this regard than the best defenses:

Top 20 offenses: 33
Non-top 20 offenses: 15

Top 10 offenses: 16
30 + offenses: 13

Top 5 offenses: 11
50+ offenses: 6

So, even if good defense is correlative to NCAAT success, apparently good offense has an even stronger correlation.

Obviously, some of the teams that have advanced to the Elite Eight had both top offenses and top defenses:

Top 20 offense AND top 20 defense: 15
Top 10 offense AND top 10 defense: 5
Top 5 offense AND top 5 defense: 2

Meaning only eight (8) top 20 defenses that didn't also have top 20 offenses made the Elite Eight in six years (compared to seven (7) non-top 20 defenses made the Elite Eight while also having non-top 20 offenses). To me this suggests the correlation is really that good teams have NCAA tournament success, rather than good defenses.

Finally, saying that having a good defense is technically correlative to NCAA tournament success is significantly different from the original statement of "Tell me how well we will play team defense, and I will tell you how far we may go."

So, "defense matters," as Sagegrouse so sagely states. Of course it does. Offense matters too. Based on the above, I think you could argue offense might matter more than defense. But even if you don't agree with that, it seems pretty clear that defense doesn't matter as much as some people think it does. It certainly doesn't appear that defense is anywhere close to the deciding factor in how far a team might advance in the NCAA tournament.


P.S.: In 2007, Duke ranked 4th in the country (pre-tournament) in Pomeroy's defensive efficiency. We all know that defensive prowess didn't predict how far we went in the tournament.

[Kedsy]

So why is defense so obviously important if it doesn't correlate to success?

As I said, defense is obviously important. Not being a statistician, perhaps I used the word "correlated" incorrectly. My point was defense is not the only thing that's important for success (as the post I was responding to suggested), and arguably isn't even the most important thing.

In order to advance in the NCAA tournament, you need to have a good team and you need to get lucky. Having a good defense certainly helps, but plenty of teams with adequate-to-poor defenses seem to advance pretty far, so defense is certainly not a prerequisite for NCAAT success. And while I didn't provide this data, plenty of teams with top defenses lose early in the NCAAT, meaning having a top defense is not a shield against getting upset in the first or second round. Further, more teams with top offenses advance in the NCAAT than do teams with top defenses, again suggesting good defense isn't a prerequisite and possibly is less important than good offense.

Does that answer your question?

[freshmanjs]

As I said, defense is obviously important. Not being a statistician, perhaps I used the word "correlated" incorrectly. My point was defense is not the only thing that's important for success (as the post I was responding to suggested), and arguably isn't even the most important thing.

In order to advance in the NCAA tournament, you need to have a good team and you need to get lucky. Having a good defense certainly helps, but plenty of teams with adequate-to-poor defenses seem to advance pretty far, so defense is certainly not a prerequisite for NCAAT success. And while I didn't provide this data, plenty of teams with top defenses lose early in the NCAAT, meaning having a top defense is not a shield against getting upset in the first or second round. Further, more teams with top offenses advance in the NCAAT than do teams with top defenses, again suggesting good defense isn't a prerequisite and possibly is less important than good offense.

Does that answer your question?

no one factor or quality of a team is a shield against getting upset or a guarantee of success. the proper way to understand the importance of defensive efficiency vs other factors in determining both the likelihood of an early upset and the likelihood of achieving final 4 (or whatever) is to actually analyze the data statistically. you can't just point to counterexamples and conclude defense is less important than something else. it's entirely possible that defensive efficiency could be the MOST important single factor and all of the counterexamples you've stated could still be true.

[Kedsy]

it's entirely possible that defensive efficiency could be the MOST important single factor and all of the counterexamples you've stated could still be true.

Show that to me and maybe I'll believe it. In the meantime, how about this: having a good defense is neither necessary nor sufficient for NCAA tournament success.

[freshmanjs]

Show that to me and maybe I'll believe it. In the meantime, how about this: having a good defense is neither necessary nor sufficient for NCAA tournament success.

agree and you could say the same for any other single factor

[Wander]

Because I'm putting off work: below are NCAA tournament success as a function of pre-tournament offensive efficiency (top) and defensive efficiency (bottom) for all 68 teams in the 2014 tournament (with the exception that teams that win a play-in game but lose in the real first round count as winning 0 games).


4339

4340


The bottom line is: offense was a slightly better predictor of success than defense overall for the tournament, but if you're just talking about the Elite 8 or above, then defense was much more predictive (UConn had the worst offense of the Elite 8 teams, for example). Whether this holds for other tournaments, I have no idea. My guess would be both offense and defense are correlated with NCAA success (duh) in equal amounts if you average over enough years.

[Kedsy]

Because I'm putting off work: below are NCAA tournament success as a function of pre-tournament offensive efficiency (top) and defensive efficiency (bottom) for all 68 teams in the 2014 tournament (with the exception that teams that win a play-in game but lose in the real first round count as winning 0 games).


4339

4340


The bottom line is: offense was a slightly better predictor of success than defense overall for the tournament, but if you're just talking about the Elite 8 or above, then defense was much more predictive (UConn had the worst offense of the Elite 8 teams, for example). Whether this holds for other tournaments, I have no idea. My guess would be both offense and defense are correlated with NCAA success (duh) in equal amounts if you average over enough years.

If it's just one tournament, do you have enough data points to make predictions for just the Elite Eight and above? I don't know enough to tell from the graphs.

[Wander]

If it's just one tournament, do you have enough data points to make predictions for just the Elite Eight and above? I don't know enough to tell from the graphs.

I don't think so - my statement about defense correlating more closely with winning than offense does for the Elite 8 and above (basically, just look at the top half of the graph, the part with the points for 3 tournament wins or more, and pretend the rest of the graph isn't there) is only meant to apply to the 2014 tournament. My guess is that this is a small sample size thing*, and that offense and defense would correlate with winning about equally at all levels if I included a bunch of tournaments. But I don't know - maybe tournament success really is 55% defense and 45% offense or something like that, which would be interesting.

*One of the things that makes it sort of obvious that the sample size is too small is that for the Elite 8 and above in the 2014 tournament, offense is actually inversely correlated to success - for example, UConn had the worst offense of the 8 and won the whole thing, and Michigan had the best offense of the 8 and lost in the "first round" - which I think we can all agree is silly as a general rule

[Kedsy]

But I don't know - maybe tournament success really is 55% defense and 45% offense or something like that, which would be interesting.

I have six years worth of pre-tournament data I could send you if you're interested in expanding your graph. PM me if you want the data.

[Wander]

I have six years worth of pre-tournament data I could send you if you're interested in expanding your graph. PM me if you want the data.

Kenpom heard your wishes and now lists pre-tournament data for every year :)

[Kedsy]

Kenpom heard your wishes and now lists pre-tournament data for every year :)

Pretty cool. It's behind the paywall, though, right?

[Wander]

Yeah, and only in the form of a downloadable spreadsheet, I think