PDA

View Full Version : Duke #9 on Luke Winn's pre-season Power Rankings. And, a Sean Obi mention!



FerryFor50
05-15-2015, 10:52 AM
http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/05/14/college-basketball-power-rankings-north-carolina-kentucky-kansas

roywhite
05-15-2015, 11:59 AM
http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/05/14/college-basketball-power-rankings-north-carolina-kentucky-kansas

Hmmm....UNC #1 and Duke #9?

I'll make the way-too-early prediction that UNC will not end up as #1 and Duke will do better than #9.

FerryFor50
05-15-2015, 12:01 PM
Hmmm....UNC #1 and Duke #9?

I'll make the way-too-early prediction that UNC will not end up as #1 and Duke will do better than #9.

Yea, hard to see UNC as #1 based solely on Marcus Paige.

Tokoto will be a bigger loss for them than they realize.

flyingdutchdevil
05-15-2015, 12:21 PM
I'm buying into the UNC hype. They are the deepest team in the country, have great talent at the 1 and 4, very good talent at the 3 and 5, and have improved shooting by removing Tokoto and Jackson taking an increased role. There are question marks, most notably defense, but they are easily a top 3 team pre-season. The question is whether Ole Roy can put it all together (isn't that the question every year?).

Duke at 9 - I agree - is a little low. Ingram isn't the next Okafor (or Winslow, for that matter) and I assume he'll struggle in the beginning of ACC play with his shear lack of bulk, but he's one of the most versatile players in college basketball. I like Winn's analysis on "Alpha-Dog Allen" and would love to see this happen. Winn, like many of us at DBR, have a lot of faith in Sean Obi as a rebounder. And MP3 will be a quality back-up.

For me, Duke's success is dependent on three variables:

1) How good/ready is Derryk Thonrton? Slim chance he's Tyus-ready, but can he be Duhon-ready? Or will he be "freshman Nolan Smith"-ready? There isn't anyone else on the team who can consistently play point guard outside of Thornton (consistently being the operative word).
2) How reliable will Matt Jones and Amile Jefferson be on the offensive end? They are easily our two best defensive players, so they will get a lot of playing time, but can they knock down shots? Matt Jones found his 3pt shot, but he was inconsistent and a disaster at driving to the hoop. Amile Jefferson can score with the best of them 4-feet in, but 6-feet out he has zero offensive game. If they can average a combined 18+ points, we may be the most balanced team in the country.
3) Can Ingram play the 4? Coach K loves the stretch 4. That's no secret. And the only time in the last 15 years where Coach K didn't play a stretch 4 was Lance Thomas (partially out of necessity and partially because that team had the most defined roles I've ever seen on a basketball team). There isn't any big man on our roster who can currently knock down a 15-footer with the exception of Ingram. But Ingram has weight-issues for the 4, and he will always be out-muscled at that position. If his length can make up for his lack of weight, then Ingram at the 4 looks like a winner.

Olympic Fan
05-15-2015, 12:54 PM
Not a bad list from Winn, except for his love of UNC ... as I've said many times in this forum, they are going to be the most overrated team in college basketball next season. Not a bad team, mind you, but a borderline top 10 team.

Better than Duke? That depends on too many question marks for the Devils -- either freshmen that must step in and perform at a high level or support players that must change their roles (Allen!)

Obviously, I think Virginia is a bit too low (they should be ahead of UNC) and I think Kentucky is also a bit too high -- luke UNC, I think that with this lineup (three big men and four guards), they have some issues. Plus they have the same question marks with young players that Duke has.

One other omission. I know the loss to Trevor Lacey hurt NC State, but no way they should be left out of the top 25. With Lacey, I think they were another borderline top 10 team. Without him (and Washington), I see them in the 16-21 range

moonpie23
05-15-2015, 12:57 PM
cool...we're underdogs again.......aweseome...


i love it...

Nugget
05-15-2015, 12:59 PM
Yea, hard to see UNC as #1 based solely on Marcus Paige.

Tokoto will be a bigger loss for them than they realize.

I think Luke Winn's piece makes an important point about UNC's chances for next year, beyond simply Paige getting healthy:

"The other big-upside area for Carolina is that it retained three sophomores who were top-25 recruits: wing Justin Jackson (No. 9 in the Recruiting Services Consensus Index), wing Theo Pinson (No. 15) and point guard Joel Berry (No. 25). The statistical projection system that Sports Illustrated debuted last season—based on historic data for thousands of players—is bullish on the year 2 and 3 production of former elite recruits, and Jackson (if his shooting improves) and Pinson (if he can earn playing time in Tokoto's old spot) have real growth potential."

We tend to lose sight of this in these days of 1 and done, but the old adage of "the best thing about freshmen is they become sophmores" still has some truth to it, at least for those who may not come in as true stars. Jackson, Pinson and Berry are all high-level talents, but who have significant room to improve.

Jarhead
05-15-2015, 02:07 PM
It's strange how people try to make predictions so early in the pre-season. Forget UNC for a minute. Kentucky lost a bunch of talented folks from its #1 all year except April team, and Duke also lost a bunch of talented folks from its #1 team when it counts. Now it seems that Duke has signed the #1 incoming class of freshman, but Kentucky has not. So SI still says that Kentucky is the #2 team behind UNC which could very well be banned from post season play even though SI says they are #1. I guess SI has no respect for its own integrity. They do say that Duke is #9, though. That's about what I'd expect out of SI. One more question -- How will the Terps manage when they play outside of the B1G?

Kedsy
05-15-2015, 02:15 PM
I think Luke Winn's piece makes an important point about UNC's chances for next year, beyond simply Paige getting healthy:

"The other big-upside area for Carolina is that it retained three sophomores who were top-25 recruits: wing Justin Jackson (No. 9 in the Recruiting Services Consensus Index), wing Theo Pinson (No. 15) and point guard Joel Berry (No. 25). The statistical projection system that Sports Illustrated debuted last season—based on historic data for thousands of players—is bullish on the year 2 and 3 production of former elite recruits, and Jackson (if his shooting improves) and Pinson (if he can earn playing time in Tokoto's old spot) have real growth potential."

We tend to lose sight of this in these days of 1 and done, but the old adage of "the best thing about freshmen is they become sophmores" still has some truth to it, at least for those who may not come in as true stars. Jackson, Pinson and Berry are all high-level talents, but who have significant room to improve.

Well, UNC also has Hicks, who was a #14 recruit and is going into his third year. Except Hicks wasn't so hot his second year, which is why I assume Luke Winn left him out of his analysis. On the one hand if all four of these guys play to their recruiting ranking, then alongside high-achievers Pagie, Johnson, and Meeks the UNC team looks pretty good (though I still might not rank them #1). On the other hand, if all four play like Isaiah Hicks, then the team doesn't look any better (and maybe worse, sans Tokoto) than last season's edition.

I think Winn's analysis is pretty good overall. Amazing how many teams have gigunda question marks, even the contenders. In addition to UNC's and Duke's question marks (which have been fairly well established at DBR), and Kentucky's question marks (ridiculous to rank that roster #2 before seeing if Labissiere is an All American or not), you have Kansas (replacing Oubre and Alexander with Diallo on a team that was good but nowhere near great), Maryland (replacing Dez Wells and Smotrycz with Sulaimon, Stone, and Carter on a team that was ranked #32 in Pomeroy's final rankings), Iowa State (poor defense and not sure if Hoiberg is staying around), Virginia (lost arguably best overall player plus the ACC defensive player of the year), and Gonzaga (lost entire backcourt).

Should be an interesting season.

Kedsy
05-15-2015, 02:37 PM
Kentucky lost a bunch of talented folks from its #1 all year except April team, and Duke also lost a bunch of talented folks from its #1 team when it counts. Now it seems that Duke has signed the #1 incoming class of freshman, but Kentucky has not.

Well, UK returns Ulis, Poythress, and Lee compared to Grayson, Matt, Amile, and Marshall. Objectively, their returning trio is probably better than our returning foursome. UK's newcomers Labissiere and Briscoe probably compare favorably to our top two newcomers (Brandon and Derryck). So it comes down to how much better our remaining newcomers (Sean, Luke, Chase) make the Duke team than whatever UK's going to run out there as 6th and 7th men. If Coach utilizes the depth, that's one thing, but if he only plays seven guys, then we match up against Kentucky like this:

Labissiere v. Ingram (probable advantage UK)
Briscoe v. Thornton (probably close to even)
Ulis v. Allen (hard to say, but arguable advantage UK)
Poythress v. Jefferson (probable advantage UK)
Lee v. Plumlee or Obi or Jeter (probable advantage UK, but not as big an advantage as most people think)
Matthews v. Kennard (probable advantage Duke, but possibly not as big an advantage as most Duke fans think)
Hawkins v. M Jones (advantage Duke)

Looking at that, UK probably has a slightly stronger top seven than Duke has, though Duke will have a considerable depth advantage if Coach K uses it.

Having said all that, I agree with you that Kentucky is ranked way too high on the list at #2 and Duke is ranked too low at #9. But if he ranked UK #5 and Duke #7 it might be hard to argue all that much.

MChambers
05-15-2015, 02:46 PM
Well, UK returns Ulis, Poythress, and Lee compared to Grayson, Matt, Amile, and Marshall. Objectively, their returning trio is probably better than our returning foursome. UK's newcomers Labissiere and Briscoe probably compare favorably to our top two newcomers (Brandon and Derryck). So it comes down to how much better our remaining newcomers (Sean, Luke, Chase) make the Duke team than whatever UK's going to run out there as 6th and 7th men. If Coach utilizes the depth, that's one thing, but if he only plays seven guys, then we match up against Kentucky like this:

Labissiere v. Ingram (probable advantage UK)
Briscoe v. Thornton (probably close to even)
Ulis v. Allen (hard to say, but arguable advantage UK)
Poythress v. Jefferson (probable advantage UK)
Lee v. Plumlee or Obi or Jeter (probable advantage UK, but not as big an advantage as most people think)
Matthews v. Kennard (probable advantage Duke, but possibly not as big an advantage as most Duke fans think)
Hawkins v. M Jones (advantage Duke)

Looking at that, UK probably has a slightly stronger top seven than Duke has, though Duke will have a considerable depth advantage if Coach K uses it.

Having said all that, I agree with you that Kentucky is ranked way too high on the list at #2 and Duke is ranked too low at #9. But if he ranked UK #5 and Duke #7 it might be hard to argue all that much.
You left out a comparison:
Calipari vs. K

Jarhead
05-15-2015, 02:57 PM
You left out a comparison:
Calipari vs. K
Exactly!

Troublemaker
05-15-2015, 03:06 PM
Well, UK returns Ulis, Poythress, and Lee compared to Grayson, Matt, Amile, and Marshall. Objectively, their returning trio is probably better than our returning foursome. UK's newcomers Labissiere and Briscoe probably compare favorably to our top two newcomers (Brandon and Derryck). So it comes down to how much better our remaining newcomers (Sean, Luke, Chase) make the Duke team than whatever UK's going to run out there as 6th and 7th men. If Coach utilizes the depth, that's one thing, but if he only plays seven guys, then we match up against Kentucky like this:

Labissiere v. Ingram (probable advantage UK)
Briscoe v. Thornton (probably close to even)
Ulis v. Allen (hard to say, but arguable advantage UK)
Poythress v. Jefferson (probable advantage UK)
Lee v. Plumlee or Obi or Jeter (probable advantage UK, but not as big an advantage as most people think)
Matthews v. Kennard (probable advantage Duke, but possibly not as big an advantage as most Duke fans think)
Hawkins v. M Jones (advantage Duke)

Looking at that, UK probably has a slightly stronger top seven than Duke has, though Duke will have a considerable depth advantage if Coach K uses it.

Having said all that, I agree with you that Kentucky is ranked way too high on the list at #2 and Duke is ranked too low at #9. But if he ranked UK #5 and Duke #7 it might be hard to argue all that much.

Oooh, I love these player comparison posts

I see it like this:




Duke
Kentucky
Advantage


C
Jeter / Plumlee / Obi
Skal / Lee
UK


PF
Amile / Ingram
Poythress / Willis
Duke


SF
Ingram / MJones
Mulder / Matthews
Duke


SG
Allen / MJones / Kennard
Briscoe / Hawkins
Duke


PG
Thornton / Kennard
Ulis / Briscoe
UK



So 3 to 2, Duke. But UK arguably has the advantage at the more impactful positions, PG and C.

I would say Duke has a slight edge but it's reasonable to think that Kentucky has it.

Kedsy
05-15-2015, 03:11 PM
You left out a comparison:
Calipari vs. K

And of course I agree on that, on almost any measure or level.

Except... short-term NCAA tournament performance. In the six years Calipari has been at UK, he's been to four Final Fours (one championship), one Elite Eight, and one NIT berth. In the same six years, Coach K has been to two Final Fours (two championships), one Elite Eight, one Sweet 16, and two first round exits. Despite the championships, I'd have to say Cal's NCAAT achievements are more impressive during the period.

Just because Calipari is reputed to be a rulebreaker and may not be the best person in the world doesn't mean he can't coach. He's done amazing things with incredibly young rosters year after year.

Kedsy
05-15-2015, 03:25 PM
Oooh, I love these player comparison posts

I see it like this:




Duke
Kentucky
Advantage


C
Jeter / Plumlee / Obi
Skal / Lee
UK


PF
Amile / Ingram
Poythress / Willis
Duke


SF
Ingram / MJones
Mulder / Matthews
Duke


SG
Allen / MJones / Kennard
Briscoe / Hawkins
Duke


PG
Thornton / Kennard
Ulis / Briscoe
UK



So 3 to 2, Duke. But UK arguably has the advantage at the more impactful positions, PG and C.

I would say Duke has a slight edge but it's reasonable to think that Kentucky has it.

I suppose there are lots of ways to break it up. If you split it simply at perimeter/interior it gets murkier:


Labissiere/Lee/Poythress vs. Ingram/Jefferson/Plumlee/Obi/Jeter: probable advantage UK

Ulis/Briscoe/Matthews/Hawkins vs. Thornton/Allen/Jones/Kennard: probably about even, maybe small advantage to Duke


This would imply UK's roster has the advantage.

Ultimately when comparing UK to Duke it comes down to which of Labissiere and Ingram are more impressive (allowing for the fact they play different positions), and whether Thornton can be as good or better than Ulis. Right now, both of those matchups appear to be in Kentucky's favor. But if Duke wins or breaks even in those two, then our superior depth should be able to make up for the huge athleticism advantage Lee/Poythress has over the rest of Duke's frontcourt.

If everything breaks for Duke, then we might have the advantage. Though assuming we're anywhere close to even, I don't really care, since even if we lose head-to-head in the regular season, the NCAA tournament has so many independent variables that the slight difference in team strength won't matter at all.

BD80
05-15-2015, 03:26 PM
Well, UK returns Ulis, Poythress, and Lee compared to Grayson, Matt, Amile, and Marshall. Objectively, their returning trio is probably better than our returning foursome. UK's newcomers Labissiere and Briscoe probably compare favorably to our top two newcomers (Brandon and Derryck). So it comes down to how much better our remaining newcomers (Sean, Luke, Chase) make the Duke team than whatever UK's going to run out there as 6th and 7th men. If Coach utilizes the depth, that's one thing, but if he only plays seven guys, then we match up against Kentucky like this:

Labissiere v. Ingram (probable advantage UK)
Briscoe v. Thornton (probably close to even)
Ulis v. Allen (hard to say, but arguable advantage UK)
Poythress v. Jefferson (probable advantage UK)
Lee v. Plumlee or Obi or Jeter (probable advantage UK, but not as big an advantage as most people think)
Matthews v. Kennard (probable advantage Duke, but possibly not as big an advantage as most Duke fans think)
Hawkins v. M Jones (advantage Duke)

Looking at that, UK probably has a slightly stronger top seven than Duke has, though Duke will have a considerable depth advantage if Coach K uses it.

Having said all that, I agree with you that Kentucky is ranked way too high on the list at #2 and Duke is ranked too low at #9. But if he ranked UK #5 and Duke #7 it might be hard to argue all that much.

Comparing individuals undervalues a Duke team and overvalues a Kentucky team.

For example, how well will Brisco share the ball?

Kedsy
05-15-2015, 03:33 PM
I suppose there are lots of ways to break it up. If you split it simply at perimeter/interior it gets murkier:


Labissiere/Lee/Poythress vs. Ingram/Jefferson/Plumlee/Obi/Jeter: probable advantage UK

Ulis/Briscoe/Matthews/Mulder vs. Thornton/Allen/Jones/Kennard: probably about even, maybe small advantage to Duke


This would imply UK's roster has the advantage.

I forgot about Mulder. He should be plugged into the perimeter instead of Hawkins. Which probably makes Kentucky stronger than Duke on the perimeter too, though maybe it's even. Overall, I stand by my analysis that UK has a stronger roster than Duke. It remains to be seen whether that translates into a stronger team, however.

Kedsy
05-15-2015, 03:37 PM
For example, how well will Brisco share the ball?

Yeah, I thought about that. My guess is, since Lee, Poythress, and Ulis don't really expect to take a lot of shots (and don't need to take a lot of shots to be valuable), then the fact that Briscoe has the reputation of being a ball hog won't matter so much. Should be enough shots left for Labissiere, and that's really all that matters, unless Briscoe is ridiculously inefficient or the rest of the team pouts because they never see the ball. Both of which are possible but not necessarily probable.

cato
05-15-2015, 03:40 PM
And of course I agree on that, on almost any measure or level.

Except... short-term NCAA tournament performance. In the six years Calipari has been at UK, he's been to four Final Fours (one championship), one Elite Eight, and one NIT berth. In the same six years, Coach K has been to two Final Fours (two championships), one Elite Eight, one Sweet 16, and two first round exits. Despite the championships, I'd have to say Cal's NCAAT achievements are more impressive during the period.

Just because Calipari is reputed to be a rulebreaker and may not be the best person in the world doesn't mean he can't coach. He's done amazing things with incredibly young rosters year after year.

You know, I never thought about it before, but should we be comparing Calipari at UK to K starting circa 86? History suggests that, even for coaches as exceptional as K and Calipari, there will be a drop off in NCAA success.

CDu
05-15-2015, 04:19 PM
You know, I never thought about it before, but should we be comparing Calipari at UK to K starting circa 86? History suggests that, even for coaches as exceptional as K and Calipari, there will be a drop off in NCAA success.

I am not sure that history tells us much with regard to this. We are in a very dramatically different era of college bball than we were 30 years ago. That is not to say the Calipari will keep churning out great tourney runs. Just that his situation is quite different than Coach K's was in 1986-1994.

oldnavy
05-15-2015, 05:06 PM
Not a bad list from Winn, except for his love of UNC ... as I've said many times in this forum, they are going to be the most overrated team in college basketball next season. Not a bad team, mind you, but a borderline top 10 team.

Better than Duke? That depends on too many question marks for the Devils -- either freshmen that must step in and perform at a high level or support players that must change their roles (Allen!)

Obviously, I think Virginia is a bit too low (they should be ahead of UNC) and I think Kentucky is also a bit too high -- luke UNC, I think that with this lineup (three big men and four guards), they have some issues. Plus they have the same question marks with young players that Duke has.

One other omission. I know the loss to Trevor Lacey hurt NC State, but no way they should be left out of the top 25. With Lacey, I think they were another borderline top 10 team. Without him (and Washington), I see them in the 16-21 range

Talent is not UNC's issue, it's execution and effort. They have the talent to play with and beat anyone, but can they maintain the intensity to make it all the way? They haven't shown that they can.

roywhite
05-15-2015, 05:51 PM
I forgot about Mulder. He should be plugged into the perimeter instead of Hawkins. Which probably makes Kentucky stronger than Duke on the perimeter too, though maybe it's even. Overall, I stand by my analysis that UK has a stronger roster than Duke. It remains to be seen whether that translates into a stronger team, however.

We simply don't know at this point.

Last year, at this time, we saw that Justise Winslow was regarded as comparable or just a shade better than Theo Pinson, and not as good as Justin Jackson.

I think I'll watch at least some action before making a judgment about teams where the difference may be small.

Kedsy
05-15-2015, 06:18 PM
We simply don't know at this point.

Last year, at this time, we saw that Justise Winslow was regarded as comparable or just a shade better than Theo Pinson, and not as good as Justin Jackson.

I think I'll watch at least some action before making a judgment about teams where the difference may be small.

Fair enough. Like I said the key to comparing Duke and Kentucky are Labissiere and Ingram, Ulis, and Thornton, and three of those four are complete unknowns at the college level.

Obviously guys like Mulder, Matthews, Kennard, Jeter, and even Obi are similarly unknown, but they don't look like they'll be as important to their teams as the above four guys. As you point out, though, if any of the players involved turn out to be significantly better or significantly worse than expected, it could have a bearing on it.

That said, if we have to wait until we see game action before making any comparisons or comments, it'll be a pretty boring, DBR-free off-season.

77devil
05-15-2015, 07:09 PM
Despite the championships, I'd have to say Cal's NCAAT achievements are more impressive during the period.


You're entitled to your opinion but I'll take 2 vs. 1 championship and no NITs every day.

jv001
05-15-2015, 11:01 PM
You're entitled to your opinion but I'll take 2 vs. 1 championship and no NITs every day.

And you never know when Cal might have one or more Final Four appearances vacated. GoDuke!

miramar
05-15-2015, 11:46 PM
#1 is pretty lofty for a team that barely got past Harvard and beat Arkansas by 9. Just sayin'.

Kedsy
05-16-2015, 12:33 AM
#1 is pretty lofty for a team that barely got past Harvard and beat Arkansas by 9. Just sayin'.

While I agree #1 is too high for UNC, I don't necessarily think the previous year's NCAA tournament performance is the best measuring stick for the following year's ranking.

For example, Duke lost to Mercer in the first round of the 2014 NCAAT. Didn't stop Duke from becoming national champion in 2015. In 2009, Duke beat #7 seed Texas by just 5 and then got plastered by 23 by Villanova, and yet Duke managed the 2010 national championship. In the 2007 tournament, Kansas beat Southern Illinois by just 3 and still won the 2008 natty. In 2005, Florida edged Ohio U by 5 in the first round before losing to 5-seed Villanova; the Gators went on to win titles in both 2006 and 2007. In 2010, UConn didn't even make the tournament, but they won it in 2011. Same with Syracuse in 2002 (NIT) and 2003 (national champs).

Expanding the idea beyond the tournament, is there any team in the nation that didn't have a bad loss and/or an embarrassingly close win against an inferior team in 2014-15? But somebody has to be #1 in 2015-16.

papa whiskey
05-16-2015, 01:16 AM
Kinda surprised Winn has us in the top ten. I remember reading an article from him Kyrie's freshman year stating we were unguardable when he was on his game. For the life of me I can't recall a single other positive statement he has ever made about Duke. He's not quite Pat Forde, but just as big of a tool.

Olympic Fan
05-16-2015, 01:09 PM
I was interested in the K vs. Cal comparisons made earlier in this threat.

Obviously, if you compare their entire careers, it's no contest -- K blows Cal (and everybody) away.

But if we limit it to the last six years -- the years when Cal has been at Kentucky, working his one and done magic -- then it becomes a much more interesting debate.

K does have two national titles to Cal's one.

Cal does have four Final Fours to K's two. Both have one Elite Eight in that span.

K does have six straight NCAA appearances -- Cal missed and played in the NIT in 2013.

So which is the better resume? Would you trade two final fours for an extra national championship?

That got me thinking about turning Final Fours into national titles.

Wooden is obviously the champ at that -- 12 Final Fours and 10 titles
K has 12 Final Fours and five titles (he's 5-for-8 after an 0-4 start)
Calipari now has six Final Fours (two vacated) and one title
The late Dean Smith had 11 Final Fours, but just two titles
Roy Williams has seven Final Fours and two titles
Rick Pitino has seven Final Fours and two titles
Tom Izzo has seven Final Fours and one title
Adolph Rupp did pretty good -- six Final Fours and four titles
Lute Olsen had five Final Fours and one title
Jim Calhoun also did well -- four Final Fours and three titles

(Note: reading this list, I want to make one thing clear -- I am not trashing any coach with a poor Final Four record Just GETTING to the Final Four is a great accomplishment. But winning it is better.)

Back to the K vs. Cal comparison and how it impacts on next year's predictions .... a lot of that has to do with what we're trying to predict. The team with the best chance of winning the title (then K 2-1)? The team with the best chance to be in the Final Four (then Cal 4-2)?

Personally, I think preseason predictions are trying to project which team will be better over the course of the season -- predicting a one-and-done tournament 10 minutes in advance is not a reasonable goal.

Based on the last six years, you have to give the edge to K -- his teams have been better over the course of the season. Cal has earned three No. 1 seeds in those six years -- but he's also been a 4 seed (2011), an 8 seed (2014) and a non-qualifier. In that span, K has been a No. 1 seed three times, a No. 2 seed twice and a No. 3 seed once.

His teams have been better over the course of the regular season. Give Cal credit for taking his 4th seeded 2011 team and his 8th seeded 2014 teams to the Final Four. But K's teams have been more consistently successful over the last six years.

Troublemaker
05-16-2015, 01:47 PM
Mathematically, it probably makes sense to equate 1 National Championship to 4 Final Fours. (Emotionally, it doesn't make sense at all, as I'm sure no coach or fan would trade a title for 4 or 5 or even 8 additional Final Fours.)

Coach K: 2 National Championships with 0 additional Final Fours ==> 2(4) = 8 FFs

Calipari: 1 National Championship with 3 additional Final Fours ==> 1(4) + 3 = 7 FFs

8 FFs > 7 FFs

K wins.

Des Esseintes
05-16-2015, 02:11 PM
Kinda surprised Winn has us in the top ten. I remember reading an article from him Kyrie's freshman year stating we were unguardable when he was on his game. For the life of me I can't recall a single other positive statement he has ever made about Duke. He's not quite Pat Forde, but just as big of a tool.

What? Winn always comes across as fair (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/04/07/duke-blue-devils-national-championship-tyus-jones-jahlil-okafor) and intelligent (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/03/24/jahlil-okafor-duke-blue-devils-ncaa-tournament) to me. Can you link to an occasion when he was unfair to Duke?

Duke95
05-16-2015, 05:45 PM
UNC at #1 and us at #9 seems very reasonable to me.

Philadukie
05-16-2015, 05:59 PM
Kinda surprised Winn has us in the top ten. I remember reading an article from him Kyrie's freshman year stating we were unguardable when he was on his game. For the life of me I can't recall a single other positive statement he has ever made about Duke. He's not quite Pat Forde, but just as big of a tool.

Really? Winn might be my favorite college bball writer/analyst right now. I think he blends advanced stats with sharp observations just about better than anyone. I've never seen him write anything negative about Duke.

DBFAN
05-16-2015, 07:20 PM
I sorta understand this but really the contradictions are just too much to ignore. If there are lots of questions about Duke for next year, why on earth do the same doubts not apply to UNC and UK. If a Duke player was injured all last year and had to have off season surgery I highly doubt they would be given the benefit of the doubt, and if said player had a really bad year before they prob wouldn't ranked top 10. Why is it that writers are assuming Paige's surgery is gonna fix everything? Why is Tokoto leaving not a big deal? Why does our number 1 recruiting class have questions surrounding them but not UK? I really don't get this assumption not just by this Guy but others as well. If our returning players have shown moments of greatness ( Grayson),why does someone like Poythress get more respect. No offense to him but all he has ever shown are flashes of brilliance and injuries. The rest of his time he has shown a great deal of apathetic behavior. I also don't get the Love for UVA. didn't they lose Anderson who was half of their scoring. Are we gonna assume other players are gonna step up, if so why doesn't the defending champs get the same respect. Just my 2 cents

MChambers
05-16-2015, 08:08 PM
Really? Winn might be my favorite college bball writer/analyst right now. I think he blends advanced stats with sharp observations just about better than anyone. I've never seen him write anything negative about Duke.
+1

I like Luke's writing too.

Olympic Fan
05-16-2015, 10:21 PM
I sorta understand this but really the contradictions are just too much to ignore. If there are lots of questions about Duke for next year, why on earth do the same doubts not apply to UNC and UK. If a Duke player was injured all last year and had to have off season surgery I highly doubt they would be given the benefit of the doubt, and if said player had a really bad year before they prob wouldn't ranked top 10. Why is it that writers are assuming Paige's surgery is gonna fix everything? Why is Tokoto leaving not a big deal? Why does our number 1 recruiting class have questions surrounding them but not UK? I really don't get this assumption not just by this Guy but others as well. If our returning players have shown moments of greatness ( Grayson),why does someone like Poythress get more respect. No offense to him but all he has ever shown are flashes of brilliance and injuries. The rest of his time he has shown a great deal of apathetic behavior. I also don't get the Love for UVA. didn't they lose Anderson who was half of their scoring. Are we gonna assume other players are gonna step up, if so why doesn't the defending champs get the same respect. Just my 2 cents

I think measuring Duke's 2016 prospects against UNC's prospects are tough -- the two teams have very different situations.

But I can't see why Duke is No. 9 and Kentucky is No. 3.

Kentucky returns three significant players -- backup point guard Tyler Ulis (who played 56 percent of the minutes for Kentucky), backup power forward Marcus Lee (who played 14.7 percent of the minutes for UK last season) and Alex Poythress, a power forward who was starting at small forward -- and struggling -- last season before he was hurt eight games in and missed the rest of the season with knee surgery.

On the other hand, Duke returns four significant players - starting guard Matt Jones (who played 53 percent of the minutes for Duke), parttime starter Amile Jefferson (who played 53.6 percent of the minutes for Duke), backup guard Grayson Allen (19.1 percent of the minutes) and backup center Marshall Plumlee (who played 23.9 percent of the minutes played).

Of the seven veteran players, MP3 actually has the best offensive rating (139.5), followed by Ulis (120), Jefferson (118), Allen (116), Lee (114), Jones 113) and Poythress (97).

Or put it another way, the four returning veterans for Duke averaged 19.2 points, 11.5 rebounds and 3.3 assists for the national champs. Kentucky's three returnees averaged 13.7 points (and that's with Poythress playing just eight games), 8.3 rebounds and 4.2 assists.

I don't see how you can look at that and suggest that Kentucky's returning core is better than Duke's.

But you HAVE to make that assumption if you're going to rank Kentucky ahead of Duke because Duke's incoming recruiting class is ranked ahead of Kentucky's by every major survey.

I would argue that as it now stands, Duke has a far more balanced team -- one with four significant post players (Jefferson, Jeter, Obi and MP3), a natural wing forward (Ingram) and three top-flight wing guards -- better than any wing (forward or guard) that Kentucky has on the roster (thy don't have a wing forward and their two wing guards and four-star guys ... not bad, but not as highly ranked as Allen, Jones and Kennard). Labissierre is the nation's No. 2 prospect (according to ESPN), but Ingram is No. 3. Briscoe is No. 13, but Jeter is No. 11. Matthews is No. 42, but Ingram is No. 17 and Kennard No. 24.

A lot of people are giving Ulis at edge at PG and he does have a year as a backup as experience ... but remember, Ingram is a higher rated player coming out of high school than Ulis.

Plus, Kentucky is the one with a couple of big off-season question marks hanging over the 2016 team (Poythress' recovery from his injury and Labissierre's eligibility).

I repeat, I don't see how you can look at Kentucky and Duke and think Kentucky should be eight places higher in the ranking. But, of course, I don't understand how anybody can look at UNC and Virginia and think UNC should be rated higher, so what do I know.

OldPhiKap
05-16-2015, 10:38 PM
Meh. You never know what you have with a new group of freshman. Last year, we were preseason 4, 5, 6, or even 12 last year:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/rankings

So if someone wants to put us nine to start the season, so be it. We will get better as the year progresses, health permitting.

Regarding Carolina, they are clearly one of the top two or three preseason teams to me. If someone wants to put them in the top spot, again so be it. Carolina has the potential to win it all, and are probably favored to make the Final Four to the extent that matters in May.

I can quibble with the rankings, but neither are wholly unreasonable IMO. To start.

jipops
05-16-2015, 10:52 PM
While I agree #1 is too high for UNC, I don't necessarily think the previous year's NCAA tournament performance is the best measuring stick for the following year's ranking.

For example, Duke lost to Mercer in the first round of the 2014 NCAAT. Didn't stop Duke from becoming national champion in 2015. In 2009, Duke beat #7 seed Texas by just 5 and then got plastered by 23 by Villanova, and yet Duke managed the 2010 national championship. In the 2007 tournament, Kansas beat Southern Illinois by just 3 and still won the 2008 natty. In 2005, Florida edged Ohio U by 5 in the first round before losing to 5-seed Villanova; the Gators went on to win titles in both 2006 and 2007. In 2010, UConn didn't even make the tournament, but they won it in 2011. Same with Syracuse in 2002 (NIT) and 2003 (national champs).

Expanding the idea beyond the tournament, is there any team in the nation that didn't have a bad loss and/or an embarrassingly close win against an inferior team in 2014-15? But somebody has to be #1 in 2015-16.

In 2004 unc finished 8-8 in the conference. In 2005 they were national champions with mostly the same roster.

It should come as a surprise to no one that they are favorites for 2016.

Duvall
05-16-2015, 10:59 PM
In 2004 unc finished 8-8 in the conference. In 2005 they were national champions with mostly the same roster.

It should come as a surprise to no one that they are favorites for 2016.

In 2005 UNC had four lottery picks in the upcoming draft. In 2016 they will probably have none.

The question is not how UNC became a contender in 2005; the question is how Matt Doherty screwed that team up so badly in 2003 and 2004 as to make them mediocre.

roywhite
05-16-2015, 11:16 PM
In 2004 unc finished 8-8 in the conference. In 2005 they were national champions with mostly the same roster.



...and in 2005 the team was so dedicated to winning that they blew off their academics for the whole year.

BD80
05-17-2015, 09:03 AM
...and in 2005 the team was so dedicated to winning that they blew off their academics for the whole year.

Using that measure, the 2004 was nearly as dedicated to winning. It's the carolina way.

CDu
05-17-2015, 09:05 AM
In 2005 UNC had four lottery picks in the upcoming draft. In 2016 they will probably have none.

The question is not how UNC became a contender in 2005; the question is how Matt Doherty screwed that team up so badly in 2003 and 2004 as to make them mediocre.

Well, Doherty wasn't the coach in 2004. And if the 2016 team proves worthy of a #1 ranking, they will have a few lottery pick possibilities (Paige, Jackson, and Johnson jump to mind).

superdave
05-17-2015, 11:10 AM
Well, Doherty wasn't the coach in 2004. And if the 2016 team proves worthy of a #1 ranking, they will have a few lottery pick possibilities (Paige, Jackson, and Johnson jump to mind).

Unc has lost 10+ games each of the last three seasons. That is a cultural thing, right? These players do not believe they can win the close games. Their coach is not getting them over that hump either.

Who is the guy - if any - who gets them over that hump? Who will take over when they are down a handful at Pitt or some other conference road game? These are the games they have lost the last few years, even with Paige being "All-Media".

I am not sure I see that changing despite a lot of talent. I think the talent is really good, but mostly role players. Can Jackson make a huge leap? That might be the best shot.

I also think Roy is not the coach he was a few years ago. I think he's been deflated with the academic stuff, with losing Dean and now Gut. That's kind of sad because it is bad for the rivalry. I dont know that Roy is long for coaching. Unless something changes going into next season, he has a diminished competitive spirit...from where I'm sitting.

Unc didnt beat anyone better than themselves last season. To be truly top 5 you have to be able to knock off all the other top 5 teams on any given night. I doubt Unc's ability to beat the best.

Super "That's just, like, my opinion, man" Dave

Olympic Fan
05-17-2015, 12:58 PM
Meh. You never know what you have with a new group of freshman. Last year, we were preseason 4, 5, 6, or even 12 last year:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/rankings

So if someone wants to put us nine to start the season, so be it. We will get better as the year progresses, health permitting.


OPK, I have no problem with ranking Duke at the lower end of the top 10. It is a new team and we have a lot of question marks that must be answered in a positive fashion if the Devils are going to challenge for a Final Four or a national title.

My objection is ranking Duke so far below Kentucky on this list. Kentucky has the same question marks. The have a marginally weaker core group returning and a significantly weaker recruiting class arriving. Duke at No. 9, is fine. But Duke at No. 9 and Kentucky at No. 3 -- as Winn projects -- defies the evidence.

As for Duke vs. UNC, I don't object when somebody ranks UNC ahead of Duke at this point. They have less question marks. I don't think they have top five talent (and the suggestion that Paige and Johnson will be potential lottery picks is a stretch. Maybe, just maybe Jackson could be, but even that is a longshot). But the odds are good that they'll be at least as good and maybe a bit better than the second-ten team they've been the past three years. With Duke, we don't know -- I think the Devils could be a lot better than UNC, but if a few things go wrong, we could be worse.

Virginia, on the other hand ...

OldPhiKap
05-17-2015, 01:42 PM
OPK, I have no problem with ranking Duke at the lower end of the top 10. It is a new team and we have a lot of question marks that must be answered in a positive fashion if the Devils are going to challenge for a Final Four or a national title.

My objection is ranking Duke so far below Kentucky on this list. Kentucky has the same question marks. The have a marginally weaker core group returning and a significantly weaker recruiting class arriving. Duke at No. 9, is fine. But Duke at No. 9 and Kentucky at No. 3 -- as Winn projects -- defies the evidence.

As for Duke vs. UNC, I don't object when somebody ranks UNC ahead of Duke at this point. They have less question marks. I don't think they have top five talent (and the suggestion that Paige and Johnson will be potential lottery picks is a stretch. Maybe, just maybe Jackson could be, but even that is a longshot). But the odds are good that they'll be at least as good and maybe a bit better than the second-ten team they've been the past three years. With Duke, we don't know -- I think the Devils could be a lot better than UNC, but if a few things go wrong, we could be worse.

Virginia, on the other hand ...

I don't really disagree. One could rarionally argue that Ulis and Poythress are two proven NBA-level players at key positions, and they get the benefit of the doubt until someone proves otherwise. Virginia brings back 6 of 8 main players, and actually played very well after Anderson was hurt; if anything, their undoing was trying to work him back into the team in the post-season and he played horribly. Bennett has a great system and is a top 10 team, again, until someone proves otherwise.

To me, you have UNC, Kansas, and Md on tier 1, and the rest (us included) on 1A. To start. But no one is head and shoulders above anyone else in the top ten by a big margin.

I like our chances.

Des Esseintes
05-17-2015, 02:08 PM
I don't really disagree. One could rarionally argue that Ulis and Poythress are two proven NBA-level players at key positions, and they get the benefit of the doubt until someone proves otherwise. Virginia brings back 6 of 8 main players, and actually played very well after Anderson was hurt; if anything, their undoing was trying to work him back into the team in the post-season and he played horribly. Bennett has a great system and is a top 10 team, again, until someone proves otherwise.

To me, you have UNC, Kansas, and Md on tier 1, and the rest (us included) on 1A. To start. But no one is head and shoulders above anyone else in the top ten by a big margin.

I like our chances.

Ulis is tiny and doesn't score much. Guys like that do not typically play in the League. As for Poythress, he's entering his senior year at a school where anyone with an NBA pulse, uh, doesn't enter his senior year. He had an extenuating injury last season, but I think calling either of these players proven as prospects for the next level is a tad presumptuous.

OldPhiKap
05-17-2015, 02:47 PM
Ulis is tiny and doesn't score much. Guys like that do not typically play in the League. As for Poythress, he's entering his senior year at a school where anyone with an NBA pulse, uh, doesn't enter his senior year. He had an extenuating injury last season, but I think calling either of these players proven as prospects for the next level is a tad presumptuous.

Perhaps. But compared to Matt, Marshall, and Grayson, I again think you could argue that UK.starts ahead of us. (That is not my belief, but you could make the argument).

You don't think Poythress will be playing in the league next year? I sure do. And you may be right that Ulis is undersized for NBA, so to bring it to more concrete -- he was named to the SEC all-freshman team last year IIRC. More minutes can only help.

I don't want to be in the position of advocating for either UK or UNC. I do admit, though, that ranking both of them ahead of us pre-season is not unreasonable.

Olympic Fan
05-17-2015, 03:56 PM
Don't get the love for Poythress.

Yeah, he was a top recruit -- but so was James Michael McAdoo. Indeed, Poythress is Kentucky's version of McAdoo -- a guy who's performance has dropped every year at Kentucky.

His best year was his freshman season, when he averaged 11.2 ppg and 6.0 rebounds -- for a team that played in the NIT (and suffered first-round loss to Robert Morris). The lnext year, he dropped to 18 mpg and averaging 5.9 points -- his shooting percentage dropped 10 points. Last year, before his injur, he was averaging 5.5 points, 3.8 rebounds and shooting 38 percent from the floor.

Now he's coming off a major injury.

I think Amile Jefferson had been a significantly better player over the last two seasons.

Marcus Lee has never done anything at Kentucky. He's never averaged 3.0 points and 3.0 rebounds in a season.

Ulis has been better, but it's not like he's been a spectacular -- 5.6 ppg on 40.8 percent shooting. Nice playmaker -- 3.6 apg and just 1.1 TO per game.

But I repeat -- Matt Jones, Amile Jefferson, Marshall Plumlee and especially Grayson Allen are more accomplished at the college level than Kentucky's trio.

Kedsy
05-17-2015, 07:29 PM
I don't see how you can look at that and suggest that Kentucky's returning core is better than Duke's.

I agree Lee and Poythress haven't done much yet for UK, but they are both far more athletic than any of Duke's 2015-16 frontcourt members, and will be thrust into far more prominent roles in 2015-16, which gives them both a very good chance of cranking out far better stats. Ulis is also very quick and athletic, while of Duke's returnees only Grayson Allen could be fairly described as athletic at all.

Put another way, if you look strictly at past performance, Duke's returning quartet may have outperformed Kentucky's returning trio in the past. But the Kentucky group would appear to have a much higher ceiling, and a better chance at approaching that ceiling given the likelihood of playing much larger roles in the future than they did in the past.

Will Kentucky's returning core be better than Duke's? I don't know. But I think you can make a pretty credible argument that they will.


But you HAVE to make that assumption if you're going to rank Kentucky ahead of Duke because Duke's incoming recruiting class is ranked ahead of Kentucky's by every major survey.

I disagree. You don't have to make that assumption at all. Duke's class is ranked so high in large part because of the high quantity of good-to-excellent recruits we have coming in. If the recruiting services only looked at UK's top two or three newcomers and compared them to Duke's top two or three newcomers, I think the two groups would be about even, with maybe a slight edge for Kentucky.

If we could be sure Coach K would utilize nine guys, giving Duke much better depth than Kentucky can hope for, then it would make more sense to count Duke's entire recruiting class in the equation. But that's far from certain, and may not even be more likely than not (considering that Coach K has never played that deep a rotation). If both teams play a 7-man rotation, I think Kentucky's top 7 look a little better than Duke's top 7 (for reasons I spelled out earlier in this thread).


A lot of people are giving Ulis at edge at PG and he does have a year as a backup as experience ... but remember, Ingram is a higher rated player coming out of high school than Ulis.

Why would you be comparing Ingram to Ulis? Do you mean Thornton? Assuming you do, I think it's reasonable to assume that Ulis, a #18 recruit in the RSCI who will be a sophomore, has a good chance to outperform Thornton, whose RSCI rank we don't know yet, but who probably won't be significantly better than #18 and will be a young (17-year-old) freshman.


In 2004 unc finished 8-8 in the conference. In 2005 they were national champions with mostly the same roster.

It should come as a surprise to no one that they are favorites for 2016.

Are you seriously suggesting that because on one occasion UNC went from 8-8 to national champions when returning its entire team, then any time ever that UNC returns most or all of its team they should be pre-season #1 and national title favorites? If so, no offense, but that's ridiculous.

Not only that, as others have pointed out, the grossly underachieving 2004 UNC team was a MUCH better team than the overachieving 2015 UNC team. Even more importantly, the 2004 UNC team lost nobody and added the #7 recruit in the country (the 2nd highest rated recruit that actually attended college). The 2015 UNC team lost its most athletic and best defensive player and is adding nobody of consequence.

Duvall
05-17-2015, 07:47 PM
Well, Doherty wasn't the coach in 2004.

Sure. But it took Roy Williams a full year to undo Doherty's damage and turn losers into winners.


And if the 2016 team proves worthy of a #1 ranking, they will have a few lottery pick possibilities (Paige, Jackson, and Johnson jump to mind).

I mean, NBA GMs are capable of anything, but Marcus Paige as a lottery pick? As a first round pick? He's a streaky shooting guard that's small for his position in college.

fuse
05-17-2015, 08:01 PM
Duke in the top ten preseason is highly complimentary for a team with a lot of unknowns.

I'm still in awe of how special this past year was.

I believe Duke is a potential top 5, top ten team at the end of the season.
I would be less surprised to see Duke ranked top 15-20 and have to earn their way up and build that chip on their shoulder as a band of brothers out to prove themselves.

tbyers11
05-17-2015, 08:17 PM
I agree Lee and Poythress haven't done much yet for UK, but they are both far more athletic than any of Duke's 2015-16 frontcourt members, and will be thrust into far more prominent roles in 2015-16, which gives them both a very good chance of cranking out far better stats.

Poythress' role has shrunk each of his three years in the program and he's coming off an ACL tear. Lee has shown pretty much only athletic prowess and very little skill in his first 2 years. Your idea that their higher athletic ceiling may turn into good stats with more PT is possible but it is just as likely, with Poythress' injury and Lee's "rawness", that they don't develop into big-time players.


Why would you be comparing Ingram to Ulis? Do you mean Thornton? Assuming you do, I think it's reasonable to assume that Ulis, a #18 recruit in the RSCI who will be a sophomore, has a good chance to outperform Thornton, whose RSCI rank we don't know yet, but who probably won't be significantly better than #18 and will be a young (17-year-old) freshman.

247 composite has Thornton at #14 which is similar to Ulis (RSCI #18, 247 composite #19) last year. The year's experience will likely benefit Ulis (who I think is a solid player) and he may outperform Thornton but it won't be because he is young. Thornton turns 18 in 2 weeks and is older than Ingram and Jeter.

Wander
05-17-2015, 08:17 PM
I mean, NBA GMs are capable of anything, but Marcus Paige as a lottery pick? As a first round pick? He's a streaky shooting guard that's small for his position in college.

I agree about Paige - even if he proves that last year's dip was due to injury, I think he's already shown that SG and not PG is not his ideal position, and he's obviously too small for that in the NBA.

However, UNC might have an entire starting lineup of guys who get drafted in the NBA, something I imagine very few teams can say. So even though none of them are individually top-end talent like Winslow or Towns or whoever, they're collectively very talented, and it's been shown plenty of times that you can win a national championship with a bunch of guys who are good enough to get drafted or play but not star in the NBA (for example, our own 2010 team). Of course, that was true last year too, but I think the extra year of experience will help them a lot, just as it did with our 2010 guys.

The X factor, as Kedsy notes, is Tokoto. I'm of the opinion that his defensive value will be offset by better offense by whoever replaces him, and the net result from the Tokoto departure will be neutral or maybe even addition by subtraction. Obviously, that's not guaranteed, and my being wrong there would go a long way to showing whether UNC is being accurately rated or not.

jimsumner
05-17-2015, 09:43 PM
I agree Lee and Poythress haven't done much yet for UK, but they are both far more athletic than any of Duke's 2015-16 frontcourt members, and will be thrust into far more prominent roles in 2015-16, which gives them both a very good chance of cranking out far better stats. Ulis is also very quick and athletic, while of Duke's returnees only Grayson Allen could be fairly described as athletic at all.


I

.

I'm sorry but you lost me at Lee and Poythress are "far more athletic" than Brandon Ingram or Amile Jefferson, both of whom clearly are frontcourt players.

Not just more athletic but far more athletic.

As an aside, the Duke v. UK comparisons are omitting Sean Obi. He's not a returning player, he's not a freshman. And we haven't seen him play, so who knows how good he'll be at the ACC level. But he was pretty effective at a slightly lower level and he's had a year of practicing against and coaching by ACC folks. I can't see Obi as any more of a question mark than Marcus Lee.

Kedsy
05-17-2015, 09:50 PM
Poythress' role has shrunk each of his three years in the program and he's coming off an ACL tear. Lee has shown pretty much only athletic prowess and very little skill in his first 2 years. Your idea that their higher athletic ceiling may turn into good stats with more PT is possible but it is just as likely, with Poythress' injury and Lee's "rawness", that they don't develop into big-time players.

Of course it's possible. But whether Poythress's role was less in his sophomore and junior season than in his freshman season is not really relevant to his role next season. In 2014 and 2015, UK was absolutely stacked up front. But in 2013, Kentucky only had seven guys with a pulse (and after Noel got hurt, only six guys). So of course Poythress's role was greater in 2013 then it was in 2014 and 2015. Similarly, in 2016, Kentucky will once again be looking at basically seven guys who can play, so his role with grow again.

Same with Lee, who will be one of only two Kentucky players taller than 6'8 and one of only three players taller than 6'5 (with Poythress being one of the other two). Both guys will get all the run they can handle.

Kedsy
05-17-2015, 10:02 PM
I'm sorry but you lost me at Lee and Poythress are "far more athletic" than Brandon Ingram or Amile Jefferson, both of whom clearly are frontcourt players.

Not just more athletic but far more athletic.

As an aside, the Duke v. UK comparisons are omitting Sean Obi. He's not a returning player, he's not a freshman. And we haven't seen him play, so who knows how good he'll be at the ACC level. But he was pretty effective at a slightly lower level and he's had a year of practicing against and coaching by ACC folks. I can't see Obi as any more of a question mark than Marcus Lee.

Sorry, poor word choice. When I said "frontcourt," I meant interior. And I wasn't counting Brandon Ingram as an interior player. He strikes me as more of a perimeter player, though obviously I could be wrong about that. In any event, I didn't mean to refer to Brandon when I made my "more athletic" comment. From what I've seen of Lee and Poythress, I think they are far more athletic than Amile, though they may or may not be better basketball players.

I agree with you on Obi, though again the key is whether Coach K will play more than 7 guys. If Ingram plays PF and Obi gets big minutes, then if Coach K uses a 7-man rotation then both Jeter and Plumlee will be looking at limited minutes, and thus aren't a meaningful part of the comparison. So plug Obi in for one of them in the discussion, it doesn't really change the narrative (though if Coach K goes nine deep, it might change the narrative, as I mentioned in my earlier post). Also, Kentucky is bringing in Juco transfer Mychal Mulder, who is also neither a returning player nor a freshman. And he might be slightly more of a question mark than Sean Obi, but if so not much more of one.

tbyers11
05-17-2015, 10:36 PM
Of course it's possible. But whether Poythress's role was less in his sophomore and junior season than in his freshman season is not really relevant to his role next season. In 2014 and 2015, UK was absolutely stacked up front. But in 2013, Kentucky only had seven guys with a pulse (and after Noel got hurt, only six guys). So of course Poythress's role was greater in 2013 then it was in 2014 and 2015. Similarly, in 2016, Kentucky will once again be looking at basically seven guys who can play, so his role with grow again.

Same with Lee, who will be one of only two Kentucky players taller than 6'8 and one of only three players taller than 6'5 (with Poythress being one of the other two). Both guys will get all the run they can handle.

To me, Poythress' reduced role is totally relevant. 2015 was a mulligan as he got hurt in December. UK was stacked in 2014, but shouldn't a sophomore who was #8 RSCI be able to hold his own against similarly ranked freshman. Randle was a stud but Poythress was behind James Young and Cauley-Stein at SF/PF too. Sure, he'll get more minutes and therefore but up better counting stats but maybe (especially after an ACL injury) he'll just be a pretty good player and not a top level player. I actually think Poythress could be either your version or mine (mostly depending on he recovers from injury). It just seems to me that most prognosticators are automatically considering that he'll be top level and I think that is a BIG assumption.

Lee, OTOH, will get more minutes but I don't think he'll be more than an a hyper-athletic PF next year who may be very good defensively but will bring little on the offensive end but dunks and put-backs. If everything breaks right for UK that might be all they need. But that is also a big if and is why I think UK should be in the 6-10 range preseason rather than 2-3.

itshoopsbabee
05-17-2015, 11:04 PM
I agree about Paige - even if he proves that last year's dip was due to injury, I think he's already shown that SG and not PG is not his ideal position, and he's obviously too small for that in the NBA.

However, UNC might have an entire starting lineup of guys who get drafted in the NBA, something I imagine very few teams can say. So even though none of them are individually top-end talent like Winslow or Towns or whoever, they're collectively very talented, and it's been shown plenty of times that you can win a national championship with a bunch of guys who are good enough to get drafted or play but not star in the NBA (for example, our own 2010 team). Of course, that was true last year too, but I think the extra year of experience will help them a lot, just as it did with our 2010 guys.

The X factor, as Kedsy notes, is Tokoto. I'm of the opinion that his defensive value will be offset by better offense by whoever replaces him, and the net result from the Tokoto departure will be neutral or maybe even addition by subtraction. Obviously, that's not guaranteed, and my being wrong there would go a long way to showing whether UNC is being accurately rated or not.

This UNC team reminds me of a worse version of the 2011-2012 UNC squad that had the following draft-able talent:
- Harry Barnes - #7 overall
- Kendall Marshall - #13 overall
- John Henson - #14 overall
- Tyler Zeller - #17 overall
- Four-player mean: ~13
That was a very good squad with an Elite Eight run and a 32-6 overall record.

BUT, I don't think this 2015-6 UNC squad will compare talent-wise based on the projections from NBAdraft.net:
- Justin Jackson - #19
- Brice Johnson - #24
- Marcus Paige #60
- Three-player mean: ~34

Draftexpress has a much more, ahem, optimistic projection:
- Justin Jackson - #20
- Kennedy Meeks - #23 (really? I mean, really?)
- Theo Pinson - #24 (ibid)
- Brice Johnson - #27
- Marcus Paige #40
- Five-player mean: ~27

Just don't think this UNC team has the horsepower to replicate a 32-6 and an elite Eight run...especially with ol Roy being 4 years closer to retirement and without Dean and Gut.

gep
05-17-2015, 11:41 PM
I agree with you on Obi, though again the key is whether Coach K will play more than 7 guys. If Ingram plays PF and Obi gets big minutes, then if Coach K uses a 7-man rotation then both Jeter and Plumlee will be looking at limited minutes, and thus aren't a meaningful part of the comparison. So plug Obi in for one of them in the discussion, it doesn't really change the narrative (though if Coach K goes nine deep, it might change the narrative, as I mentioned in my earlier post). Also, Kentucky is bringing in Juco transfer Mychal Mulder, who is also neither a returning player nor a freshman. And he might be slightly more of a question mark than Sean Obi, but if so not much more of one.

I think in 2014-2015, Coach K has "learned" some different things (as he's always said, if he's not continuiously learning, he's ready to leave the game). He's "learned" that zone can work... and that an 8-man rotation can work well too. So I think if the players "fit", an 8-man rotation is very likely. And who knows... he just might say that "9 works" (kinda like "8 is enough"). :cool:

Olympic Fan
05-17-2015, 11:52 PM
I disagree. You don't have to make that assumption at all. Duke's class is ranked so high in large part because of the high quantity of good-to-excellent recruits we have coming in. If the recruiting services only looked at UK's top two or three newcomers and compared them to Duke's top two or three newcomers, I think the two groups would be about even, with maybe a slight edge for Kentucky.


I obviously disagree with almost everything in your post, but allow me to focus on this comment. Kentucky's top 2-3 newcomers are even or slightly ahead of Duke's top 2-3?

We don't have the final rsci yet, so let's use ESPN's rankings at the moment. Kentucky's top three recruits are No. 2 Labiessere, No. 13 Briscoe and No. 42 Matthews. Duke's top three are No. 3 Ingram, No. 11 Jeter and No. 17 Thornton. That's even? And that ignores No. 24 Luke Kennard, who clearly outperformed Briscoe at the Hoop Summit. I agree that neither Vankrovic nor Robinson is going to be a factor next season. But Duke's four top 25 recruits are alone likely to have significantly more impact next season than Kentucky's two top 25 and one top 50 recruit.

Now Duke also adds Sean Obi, the second best freshman rebounder in the country two yearsago, while Kentucky also adds Mychal Muldar, a four-star shooting guard, who ranks as the No. 13 juco prospect in the country. That's great. At one time juco players made a huge impact in the era when the NCAA enforced strict college entry requirements. That hasn't been the case for years -- I ask you, how many jucos have had a major impact on top teams in the last decade?

A year ago, Cinmeon Bowers, the No. 1 juco in the country averaged less than 10 points a game for Auburn. You might have noticed Shane Henry, last year's No. 6 juco prospect ... he averaged 2.6 points and 2.7 rebounds a game for Virginia Tech. Kadeem Allen, the nation's No. 2 juco prospect, redshirted at Arizona.

I just bring this up to suggest that jucos rarely have a huge impact -- and Muldar, rated much lower than Bowers or Henry can hardly be rated as an impact addition.

I did screwup and type Ingram when I meant to type Thornton. But in every ranking I've seen so far, Thornton has been ranked higher this year than Ulis was last year -- not a lot higher, but consistently higher. Ulis does have a year as a backup point guard, but I don't see the evidence that he's a more talented player.

I repeat, Duke's four-man core is better than Kentucky's three-man core; Duke's top recruits are ranked higher than Kentucky's top recruits.

There is no justification for ranking Kentucky ahead of Duke at this point.

PS I actually do think Poythress has gotten a bad deal at Kentucky. He's a natural power forward who has been forced to play wing forward his last two years. The problem is that he will probably be asked to play out of position again this year -- the truth is that power forward is the natural position for two of Kentucky's three returning veterans. If he plays PF, then Lee is reduced to a backup (which is probably where he belongs). But there's not a swing forward on the roster -- if Poythress plays PF, then Cal is committed to a three-guard lineup, which isn't terrible, except he's only got four guards on the roster,

Kedsy
05-17-2015, 11:55 PM
But that is also a big if and is why I think UK should be in the 6-10 range preseason rather than 2-3.

This last I agree with. I have already said I don't think Kentucky should be ranked as high as #2.


I think in 2014-2015, Coach K has "learned" some different things (as he's always said, if he's not continuiously learning, he's ready to leave the game). He's "learned" that zone can work... and that an 8-man rotation can work well too. So I think if the players "fit", an 8-man rotation is very likely. And who knows... he just might say that "9 works" (kinda like "8 is enough"). :cool:

I do think this is possible. I have raised this question several times in various threads. And I hope it happens. But I don't think we can count on it.

Kedsy
05-18-2015, 12:54 AM
We don't have the final rsci yet, so let's use ESPN's rankings at the moment. Kentucky's top three recruits are No. 2 Labiessere, No. 13 Briscoe and No. 42 Matthews.

Disagree. Kentucky's third most important newcomer is Mychal Mulder.


I just bring this up to suggest that jucos rarely have a huge impact -- and Muldar, rated much lower than Bowers or Henry can hardly be rated as an impact addition.

My guess is you're wrong about this, but obviously we won't know until they start playing games.

However, I would like to point out that Chris Jones was a Juco transfer, and before he was dismissed from Louisville he was having a major impact. And that wasn't so many years ago (he started at Louisville before the 2013-14 season). Carrick Felix had a pretty big impact at Arizona State, starting in 2010-11. And those are just off the top of my head.


And that ignores No. 24 Luke Kennard, who clearly outperformed Briscoe at the Hoop Summit.

Yes, it ignores Kennard, which it should since you counted Jeter as one of Duke's top three newcomers and we were only counting three. Also, performance in one game sounds like a rather shortsighted way to evaluate players.

And yes, it ignores Obi, for the same reason.


But in every ranking I've seen so far, Thornton has been ranked higher this year than Ulis was last year -- not a lot higher, but consistently higher. Ulis does have a year as a backup point guard, but I don't see the evidence that he's a more talented player.

Since they were similarly ranked coming out of high school, and Ulis has a year of college experience under his belt, I think it's easy to argue that Ulis has a matchup advantage over Thornton. Again, we won't know how much of an advantage, or whether in fact Derryck is better, until the games begin.


I repeat, Duke's four-man core is better than Kentucky's three-man core; Duke's top recruits are ranked higher than Kentucky's top recruits.

There is no justification for ranking Kentucky ahead of Duke at this point.

Well, I guess I'll repeat a few things, too. First, there's a difference between saying you think one team is better than another, and saying "there's no justification" for believing the opposite. In this case, with both teams being so reliant on newcomers, there's really no way to say with any degree of certainty which team will be better.

But there's plenty of plausible justification for either team. You keep saying Duke's returnees are better than Kentucky's, but your primary evidence seems to be that Duke's returnees played more minutes in larger roles (in essence because UK's team was deeper). You also keep noting Duke's recruiting class is ranked higher than Kentucky's, without taking rotation length into account.

So, again, it seems clear that Duke will have superior depth to Kentucky next year. It remains to be seen if Coach K will utilize it.

BUT, if you assume both teams use seven man rotations, the comparison is:

Labissiere, Poythress, Lee, Ulis, Briscoe, Mulder, Matthews
vs.
Ingram, Jefferson, Plumlee*, Thornton, Allen, M Jones, Kennard

* -- OR Jeter OR Obi -- if we're assuming a 7-man rotation, then two really good players will have minor roles for Duke, which of course would minimize our depth advantage over Kentucky.


I think reasonable minds can differ about which of the above rosters will be better. To me, they seem pretty close. I might give UK a slight edge, primarily because I think Poythress and Lee have more room to break out in larger roles than Jefferson and Plumlee*. But whether you agree with that or not, to look at the above rosters and say there's no possible justification for Kentucky seems a bit crazy to me.

tbyers11
05-18-2015, 07:41 AM
A year ago, Cinmeon Bowers, the No. 1 juco in the country averaged less than 10 points a game for Auburn. You might have noticed Shane Henry, last year's No. 6 juco prospect ... he averaged 2.6 points and 2.7 rebounds a game for Virginia Tech. Kadeem Allen, the nation's No. 2 juco prospect, redshirted at Arizona.

I just bring this up to suggest that jucos rarely have a huge impact -- and Muldar, rated much lower than Bowers or Henry can hardly be rated as an impact addition.




Disagree. Kentucky's third most important newcomer is Mychal Mulder.

My guess is you're wrong about [his impact], but obviously we won't know until they start playing games.

However, I would like to point out that Chris Jones was a Juco transfer, and before he was dismissed from Louisville he was having a major impact. And that wasn't so many years ago (he started at Louisville before the 2013-14 season). Carrick Felix had a pretty big impact at Arizona State, starting in 2010-11. And those are just off the top of my head.


When Mulder signed I was curious about how good of a player he likely will be and did some research a la Olympic Fan.
According to 247 sports (http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=JuniorCo llege) he is the #17 overall JUCO player and 5th best SG, behind SG that committed to Auburn, West Virginia, Arizona St (x2). That doesn't scream impact to me.

Historically over the previous 3 seasons, there were only a handful of JUCO players that have made a big impact on Power 5 teams. Perusing the top 50 lists for 2014 and 2013 and the top 23 (all there was) for 2012, the only names that jump out at me were: Gary Payton, Jr (#11, 2014, Oregon St), Stefan Moody (#31, 2014, Ole Miss), Chris Jones (#2, 2013, Louisville), Delon Wright (#26, 2013, Utah), Cleanthony Early (#3, 2012, Wichita St), and Marshall Henderson (#6, 2012, Ole Miss).

That's 6 players out of 123 that made a big impact. Rankings are obviously not perfect (see Delon Wright and Stefan Moody) and none of this suggests that Mulder couldn't have a Chris Jones type season (Note: Jones' big year this year was also his 2nd year at Louisville. He was nothing special his first year), but historical precedent suggests that it is not likely.

jipops
05-18-2015, 08:47 AM
Are you seriously suggesting that because on one occasion UNC went from 8-8 to national champions when returning its entire team, then any time ever that UNC returns most or all of its team they should be pre-season #1 and national title favorites? If so, no offense, but that's ridiculous.

Not only that, as others have pointed out, the grossly underachieving 2004 UNC team was a MUCH better team than the overachieving 2015 UNC team. Even more importantly, the 2004 UNC team lost nobody and added the #7 recruit in the country (the 2nd highest rated recruit that actually attended college). The 2015 UNC team lost its most athletic and best defensive player and is adding nobody of consequence.

Nope, not suggesting some direct cause and effect. But seems prudent to point out some similarities. Just as it is ridiculous to base this as an argument for pre-season #1 it is ridiculous to use this as an argument against it.

And yes, there are differences, which is why I said "mostly" the same roster. 2015 unc may have also underachieved to an extent yet is still quite talented. And I think losing Tokoto could end up being a net positive. He couldn't shoot, turned the ball over a lot and apparently wasn't doing a lot for team chemistry. Granted losing him on defense could hurt but the team being a year older may also help. And yes, they didn't add anyone, but Pinson was out for the key stretch of the season and now they'll have him back healthy. I'm not suggesting 2015 unc is going to be as good as 2005. But in looking at the potential field for '15-'16 it is not surprising at all to me that unc would be labeled favorites by many writers and I don't see how it would be shocking to anyone else.

Kedsy
05-18-2015, 11:31 AM
And I think losing Tokoto could end up being a net positive. He couldn't shoot, turned the ball over a lot and apparently wasn't doing a lot for team chemistry.

Tokoto was UNC's third-best shooter from three-point range (35.5%). Jackson, who people seem to think can shoot, shot 28.9% from three. Pinson shot 30.8% from three. Tokoto's eFG% and true shooting percentage were both significantly better than Pinson's.

Tokoto's TOs were high (22.6 to%), but were in the same ballpark as Pinson's (20.4%), Britt's (19.7%), and Berry's (19.0%). His assist/turnover ratio (1.9/1) was also in the same ballpark as the others (Pinson, 2.2/1; Berry 2.1/1; Jackson, 1.8/1; Britt, 1.5/1).

I think he'll be missed a lot more than some people are saying.


But in looking at the potential field for '15-'16 it is not surprising at all to me that unc would be labeled favorites by many writers and I don't see how it would be shocking to anyone else.

I'm not shocked. Appalled maybe, but not shocked.

Kedsy
05-18-2015, 11:39 AM
That's 6 players out of 123 that made a big impact. Rankings are obviously not perfect (see Delon Wright and Stefan Moody) and none of this suggests that Mulder couldn't have a Chris Jones type season (Note: Jones' big year this year was also his 2nd year at Louisville. He was nothing special his first year), but historical precedent suggests that it is not likely.

OK. I hope you're right. If Mulder's a stiff then Kentucky's starting five (Labissiere, Lee, Poythress, Ulis, Briscoe) will be playing a lot of minutes next season.

What that means for the comparison is I think that starting five is probably a little better than Duke's, but Duke's bench is WAY better. At this point, until we see how good all the newcomers are on both teams, I think you can make a reasonable argument for either team. They should probably both be in the #5 to #7 range.

Wander
05-18-2015, 11:55 AM
Tokoto was UNC's third-best shooter from three-point range (35.5%). Jackson, who people seem to think can shoot, shot 28.9% from three. Pinson shot 30.8% from three. Tokoto's eFG% and true shooting percentage were both significantly better than Pinson's.

Tokoto's TOs were high (22.6 to%), but were in the same ballpark as Pinson's (20.4%), Britt's (19.7%), and Berry's (19.0%). His assist/turnover ratio (1.9/1) was also in the same ballpark as the others (Pinson, 2.2/1; Berry 2.1/1; Jackson, 1.8/1; Britt, 1.5/1).

I think he'll be missed a lot more than some people are saying.


Why is Tokoto's eFG% "significantly better" than Pinson's (45 vs 41.9), but Tokoto's turnovers "in the same ballpark" as Berry's (22.8 vs 18.5)?

Aside from getting some assists, Tokoto sucked on offense. He sucked at shooting - both actual jump shooting and shot selection - and turned the ball over way too much. It's a fair criticism of UNC preseason rankings to point out that he'll be missed on defense more than people are accounting for, but he certainly won't be missed on offense.

roywhite
05-18-2015, 12:05 PM
Why is Tokoto's eFG% "significantly better" than Pinson's (45 vs 41.9), but Tokoto's turnovers "in the same ballpark" as Berry's (22.8 vs 18.5)?

Aside from getting some assists, Tokoto sucked on offense. He sucked at shooting - both actual jump shooting and shot selection - and turned the ball over way too much. It's a fair criticism of UNC preseason rankings to point out that he'll be missed on defense more than people are accounting for, but he certainly won't be missed on offense.

Somewhat of an overstatement about his offense IMO; his shooting improved somewhat, still not very good. He was very good at running fast and dunking, not exactly refined skills, but still useful, especially if a given NBA team relies on fast breaks and transition. His best quality IMO was his ability to defend well, and then turn loose balls or turnovers into run-outs and scores.

CDu
05-18-2015, 12:18 PM
Somewhat of an overstatement about his offense IMO; his shooting improved somewhat, still not very good. He was very good at running fast and dunking, not exactly refined skills, but still useful, especially if a given NBA team relies on fast breaks and transition. His best quality IMO was his ability to defend well, and then turn loose balls or turnovers into run-outs and scores.

Agreed. Tokoto wasn't a good shooter, but he was not as godawful as he had been previously.

One of the big keys to UNC's season will be how well Jackson and Pinson step up in the absence of Tokoto. Bot have the potential to surpass Tokoto's contributions.

The other keys will be the health/rebound of Paige and the improvement of Berry (and Roy's commitment to him over Britt).

Olympic Fan
05-18-2015, 12:24 PM
OK. I hope you're right. If Mulder's a stiff then Kentucky's starting five (Labissiere, Lee, Poythress, Ulis, Briscoe) will be playing a lot of minutes next season.

What that means for the comparison is I think that starting five is probably a little better than Duke's, but Duke's bench is WAY better. At this point, until we see how good all the newcomers are on both teams, I think you can make a reasonable argument for either team. They should probably both be in the #5 to #7 range.

I still disagree -- that starting five you name -- with two power forwards, a center and two points -- is fairly non-functional. Poythress is just not a small forward. Lee is more unproven than Sean Obi.

I have no problem with starting two points guards (seems I've seen that work occasionally), but it just emphasizes that Kentucky has no wing players of note ... that lineup also leaves Cal without a single backup in the post.

I think much more likely that they'll go with a lineup that starters with Labissiere at center (if he's eligible), Poythress at PF (if he's recovered enough to play), Ulis and Briscoe with either Muldar or Matthews. That does give them Lee or the Muldar/Matthews non-starter off the bench.

I don't see where that's better than a potential Duke lineup of Jeter, Jefferson, Ingram, Allen and Thornton. Both starting lineups have three first-year players and the cumulative ranjkings of both fives are similar. Of course, Duke has a much better bench with Obi and MP3 in the post, Matt Jones and Luke Kennard in the backcourt. Hmm, one more stud and K could platoon!

Overall, you miss my point. I am not arguing that Duke is clearly or substantially better than Kentucky -- too many unproven young guys on both sides to make that determination. But I do insist that ON PAPER, there's no justification for ranking Kentucky so much higher going into the season than Duke. If they were Kentucky at 8th and Duke at 9th, I would disagree, but not say anything. But Kentucky 3 and Duke 9 just does not make sense.

Duvall
05-18-2015, 12:30 PM
Overall, you miss my point. I am not arguing that Duke is clearly or substantially better than Kentucky -- too many unproven young guys on both sides to make that determination. But I do insist that ON PAPER, there's no justification for ranking Kentucky so much higher going into the season than Duke. If they were Kentucky at 8th and Duke at 9th, I would disagree, but not say anything. But Kentucky 3 and Duke 9 just does not make sense.

Well, unless you think that all the top ten teams are roughly equivalent. Which is pretty much what Luke Winn* said:


This is also a preseason without a clear No. 1 team, which makes it ripe for over-optimism tinged with delusion. There are many promising-but-flawed national championship candidates; the number depends on how far you're willing to stretch your imagination.

* Remember Luke Winn? This is a thread about Luke Winn.

Wander
05-18-2015, 12:32 PM
Somewhat of an overstatement about his offense IMO; his shooting improved somewhat, still not very good.



Agreed. Tokoto wasn't a good shooter, but he was not as godawful as he had been previously.


Considering his shooting percentage somehow dropped significantly from his previous season, I think this is pretty open for debate.

jipops
05-18-2015, 12:52 PM
Tokoto was UNC's third-best shooter from three-point range (35.5%). Jackson, who people seem to think can shoot, shot 28.9% from three. Pinson shot 30.8% from three. Tokoto's eFG% and true shooting percentage were both significantly better than Pinson's.

Tokoto's TOs were high (22.6 to%), but were in the same ballpark as Pinson's (20.4%), Britt's (19.7%), and Berry's (19.0%). His assist/turnover ratio (1.9/1) was also in the same ballpark as the others (Pinson, 2.2/1; Berry 2.1/1; Jackson, 1.8/1; Britt, 1.5/1).

I think he'll be missed a lot more than some people are saying.

I'm not shocked. Appalled maybe, but not shocked.

Jackson certainly ended the season a much better shooter than how he began the season. I'm going to go on a hunch that he'll make a substantially greater % of his 3's in '15-'16 than 28.9%. We got a smaller sample from Pinson, a player who was much more highly regarded out of HS (#15 RSCI) than Tokoto (#57 RSCI). Also, you're comparing the turnover percentage of a junior to those of 3 freshmen.

Perimeter shooting and defense are certainly still question marks for unc. But those question marks may not be as large now.

Hey I'm appalled too, but probably for somewhat of a different reason.

jipops
05-18-2015, 01:15 PM
Agreed. Tokoto wasn't a good shooter, but he was not as godawful as he had been previously.

One of the big keys to UNC's season will be how well Jackson and Pinson step up in the absence of Tokoto. Bot have the potential to surpass Tokoto's contributions.

The other keys will be the health/rebound of Paige and the improvement of Berry (and Roy's commitment to him over Britt).

I agree this is very key as well. There were some noted odd substitution patterns with Britt. Maybe Berry will have improved enough to put a halt to this. I hope not:)

CDu
05-18-2015, 01:21 PM
Considering his shooting percentage somehow dropped significantly from his previous season, I think this is pretty open for debate.

I disagree. Yes, his FG% dropped, but I'd argue that that's a function of being asked to take more jumpshots. It's easy to shot a high percentage when all you shoot are dunks/layups.

I'd argue that Tokoto's actual shooting (i.e., from anywhere outside of 10 feet) got substantially better last year. His free throw shooting went from 38.5% as a frosh to 50% as a soph to 61.5% as a junior; his 3pt% went from 9.1% as a frosh to 22.2% as a soph to 37.5% as a junior. I just don't think the evidence suggests he got worse as a shooter last year.

Kedsy
05-18-2015, 01:32 PM
Overall, you miss my point. I am not arguing that Duke is clearly or substantially better than Kentucky -- too many unproven young guys on both sides to make that determination. But I do insist that ON PAPER, there's no justification for ranking Kentucky so much higher going into the season than Duke. If they were Kentucky at 8th and Duke at 9th, I would disagree, but not say anything. But Kentucky 3 and Duke 9 just does not make sense.

Well, OK, I did miss your point. As I said earlier in the thread, I also think Kentucky at #2 and Duke at #9 doesn't make much sense and I suggested a couple times that if Kentucky was rated #5 and Duke #7, nobody really could argue with it.

But when you say, "There is no justification for ranking Kentucky ahead of Duke at this point" (as you did in an earlier post), your point is easy to miss. You made no qualification (like you did in this post with the "so much higher") and based on your words and tone it didn't appear you'd even entertain the idea of UK #8 and Duke #9. In your words, nobody could possibly rate Kentucky higher than Duke at this point in the pre-season. I have merely attempted to point out that indeed it was possible to believe Kentucky will be a little better than Duke.

Kedsy
05-18-2015, 01:38 PM
Why is Tokoto's eFG% "significantly better" than Pinson's (45 vs 41.9), but Tokoto's turnovers "in the same ballpark" as Berry's (22.8 vs 18.5)?

Well, for one thing, the source I consulted (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/north-carolina/joel-berry-ii) lists Berry's to% as 19.0%, not 18.5%. But I'll grant you I may have exaggerated when I said Tokoto's shooting was "signifiantly" better than Pinson's. It was better, though, so I don't see the "addition by subtraction" arguments when it comes to replacing Tokoto's superior defense with Pinson, who shoots even worse and turns the ball over almost as much.

Wander
05-18-2015, 01:51 PM
Well, for one thing, the source I consulted (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/north-carolina/joel-berry-ii) lists Berry's to% as 19.0%, not 18.5%. But I'll grant you I may have exaggerated when I said Tokoto's shooting was "signifiantly" better than Pinson's. It was better, though, so I don't see the "addition by subtraction" arguments when it comes to replacing Tokoto's superior defense with Pinson, who shoots even worse and turns the ball over almost as much.

If Roy just plugs Pinson directly into Tokoto's role with no other adjustments, I agree with you. What I suspect will happen - or at least what I think should happen - is that Tokoto's minutes get spread more evenly to a combination of Jackson, Berry, and Pinson, giving UNC more minutes in a small-ball lineup and more minutes with Paige off the ball. I would start Berry, Paige, Jackson, Johnson, and Meeks. That would have problems defensively but would I think be better enough offensively to make up for that.

flyingdutchdevil
05-18-2015, 02:05 PM
If Roy just plugs Pinson directly into Tokoto's role with no other adjustments, I agree with you. What I suspect will happen - or at least what I think should happen - is that Tokoto's minutes get spread more evenly to a combination of Jackson, Berry, and Pinson, giving UNC more minutes in a small-ball lineup and more minutes with Paige off the ball. I would start Berry, Paige, Jackson, Johnson, and Meeks. That would have problems defensively but would I think be better enough offensively to make up for that.

UNC was the 10th best offensive team in the country last year (kenpom). With another year's experience, a healthy Marcus Paige, and more chemistry with the soon-to-be-sophs, UNC will be a force offensively.

But there is one element that I think they will really miss offensively that Tokoto was amazing at: passing. JP Tokoto averaged 5.9 assists per 40 min at UNC. As an SF who didn't handle the ball that much. To put that in perspective, our very own Tyus Jones averaged 6.6 assists per 40 min for a Duke team that had plenty of offensive prowess. Tokoto is an elite passer, especially at the 3. It's probably the biggest attribute that no one really talks about in his game.

Defensively, UNC is going to be poor again. Tokoto was by far their best defender. I think Brice Johnson is okay, and Meeks is just so big it's tough to score around him (pun intended). Paige and the rest of the guards are just really subpar.

CDu
05-18-2015, 02:11 PM
UNC was the 10th best offensive team in the country last year (kenpom). With another year's experience, a healthy Marcus Paige, and more chemistry with the soon-to-be-sophs, UNC will be a force offensively.

But there is one element that I think they will really miss offensively that Tokoto was amazing at: passing. JP Tokoto averaged 5.9 assists per 40 min at UNC. As an SF who didn't handle the ball that much. To put that in perspective, our very own Tyus Jones averaged 6.6 assists per 40 min for a Duke team that had plenty of offensive prowess. Tokoto is an elite passer, especially at the 3. It's probably the biggest attribute that no one really talks about in his game.

Defensively, UNC is going to be poor again. Tokoto was by far their best defender. I think Brice Johnson is okay, and Meeks is just so big it's tough to score around him (pun intended). Paige and the rest of the guards are just really subpar.

Actually, I think Paige is a quite good defender. He's not nearly at Tokoto's level, but I would say he was UNC's second-best defender. Definitely a better defender than Johnson, for example.

I think Pinson and Jackson have the ability to be lockdown defenders as well.

That said, I definitely agree that Tokoto's value defensively will be hard to replace.

FerryFor50
05-18-2015, 02:27 PM
Actually, I think Paige is a quite good defender. He's not nearly at Tokoto's level, but I would say he was UNC's second-best defender. Definitely a better defender than Johnson, for example.

I think Pinson and Jackson have the ability to be lockdown defenders as well.

That said, I definitely agree that Tokoto's value defensively will be hard to replace.

I'd also say they will miss Tokoto's ability to pass. He was underrated as a passer from the wing.

I think it will be one of those classic "won't miss him till he's gone" scenarios.

CDu
05-18-2015, 02:36 PM
I'd also say they will miss Tokoto's ability to pass. He was underrated as a passer from the wing.

I think it will be one of those classic "won't miss him till he's gone" scenarios.

I think it's hard to say. For example, Tokoto may or may not be as good a passer as Berry (a PG who got limited run last year as a frosh). It could be that splitting Tokoto's minutes between Berry (a talented young PG) and Pinson (a talented young athletic wing) more than offsets the loss of Tokoto. Or it could be that those guys don't develop and Tokoto's all-around game is sorely missed.

This all gets back to the crux of the issue:
- Can more time for Berry, Pinson, and Jackson more than offset the loss of Tokoto?
- Can Paige return to being a 1st-Team All-ACC and even All-American caliber player once healthy?

If you don't think either of those will be the case, you probably don't buy UNC as anything more than a lower-end-of-the-top-10 caliber of team. If you think both of those can/will happen, then viewing them as a top-3 team doesn't seem so unreasonable.

Kfanarmy
05-18-2015, 02:48 PM
...and in 2005 the team was so dedicated to winning that they blew off their academics for the whole year.

let's not sell them short. They were pretty dedicated to blowing off academics for a lot of years.

Olympic Fan
05-18-2015, 03:51 PM
I think it's hard to say. For example, Tokoto may or may not be as good a passer as Berry (a PG who got limited run last year as a frosh). It could be that splitting Tokoto's minutes between Berry (a talented young PG) and Pinson (a talented young athletic wing) more than offsets the loss of Tokoto. Or it could be that those guys don't develop and Tokoto's all-around game is sorely missed.

Interesting to look at the assist-per-minute rate (to offset the fact that Berry and Pinson played less minutes than Tokoto).

Tokoto averaged one assist every 6.8 minutes, which was actually the best on the team (Paige, who had seven more assists than Tokoto, also had 157 more minutes, so his assist average was one every 7.4 minutes). Berry averaged one assist every 8.6 minutes ... Pinson averaged one assist every 8.1 minutes. And the inestimable Nate Britt averaged one assist every 10.2 minutes.

By that measure, Tokoto was the most effective distributor on the team. Think about that -- a wing forward was actually a better distributor than any of UNC's nominal point guards.

He was also UNC's second-most effective 3-point shooter -- his 37.5 rate trailed Paige (39.5), but was ahead of Britt (36.6), Berry (35.4), Jackson (30.4) and Pinson (26.9).

Throw in the fact that he was the team's best defender and I think it's easy to make the case that Tokoto will be missed more than most think -- UNC's best distributor, best defender and second-best 3-point shooter.

Now, it's possible someone like Berry might up his game, but when I think of Berry, I compare him to Quinn Cook, a similar rated point guard prospect, who, like Berry, arrived in college coming off a major high school injury. Cook was limited as a freshman, playing just 387 minutes (10 less than Berry last year). But Cook's freshman assist rate was one assist every 6.1 minutes ... a pretty good sign that he was going to be an effective point guard. Cook' 3.5 assist-to-turnover rate was much better than Berry's 2.2 assist-to-turnover rate.

NSDukeFan
05-18-2015, 08:21 PM
I don't see where that's better than a potential Duke lineup of Jeter, Jefferson, Ingram, Allen and Thornton. Both starting lineups have three first-year players and the cumulative ranjkings of both fives are similar. Of course, Duke has a much better bench with Obi and MP3 in the post, Matt Jones and Luke Kennard in the backcourt. Hmm, one more stud and K could platoon!


could Jeter be a starter? I realize he is close to a top 10 recruit, so he is obviously talented, but I had him projected as the guy playing the ninth most minutes in my I have no clue of how much guys are going to play estimates. Back to the imaginary hypothetical drawing board?

MChambers
05-18-2015, 08:30 PM
could Jeter be a starter? I realize he is close to a top 10 recruit, so he is obviously talented, but I had him projected as the guy playing the ninth most minutes in my I have no clue of how much guys are going to play estimates. Back to the imaginary hypothetical drawing board?
Doesn't matter: this will finally be the year Duke plays 9 guys equal minutes. (Kedsy, stay out of this!)

NSDukeFan
05-18-2015, 08:41 PM
Doesn't matter: this will finally be the year Duke plays 9 guys equal minutes. (Kedsy, stay out of this!)

That's exciting. I heard it here first. You have me even more excited to think about minutes now. (Yes, I am one of those who enjoy endless discussions about minutes and lineups for the next year.)

Kedsy
05-18-2015, 10:08 PM
(Kedsy, stay out of this!)

:(:(:(

Saratoga2
05-19-2015, 08:17 AM
I'm looking forward to the seasonand this team coach K has put together. Coach K himself has shown a great ability to learn from his experiences and knows how to get the best from his players. He has also shown flexibility in his defensive sets in particular. Our power ranking for coaching should be #1.

As far as players are concerned, we are big, strong and deep on the front line if not quite as gifted as last year and we have three players there who have experience. In addition, we have a young player who should blossom over the season and become a go to guy as we roll into March.

The back court is full of gifted players who can handle and score. We are young there and it probably will take some time for some of these younger players to become a force, but the talent is there and we do have a couple of guys who have experienced the full gambit of play, including the championship.

I see our team becoming formidable and being in contention going into the tournament. I expect great things from them but will be satisfied with whatever they can accomplish. It doesn't matter if they are seen as a #9 or a #1 going in. We have a clean program and a very competitive one.

gumbomoop
05-19-2015, 09:52 AM
I lean toward "addition by subtraction" where Tokoto is concerned. His sour leaving reminds me that I don't remember ever seeing him smile. He probably did smile, but not a lot. Maybe he just had a passive, determined game face, but he didn't strike me as a player who was enjoying himself.

I'll guess his leaving may improve team chemistry a little, and probably not just because his minutes will be available.

flyingdutchdevil
05-19-2015, 10:33 AM
I lean toward "addition by subtraction" where Tokoto is concerned. His sour leaving reminds me that I don't remember ever seeing him smile. He probably did smile, but not a lot. Maybe he just had a passive, determined game face, but he didn't strike me as a player who was enjoying himself.

I'll guess his leaving may improve team chemistry a little, and probably not just because his minutes will be available.

I mean, Winslow didn't smile much either. Until we started dominating in the tournament. Before, he either had his stoic "Winslow face" or screamed like a wild man after an amazing play. I wouldn't hold that against Tokoto.

I like Tokoto. His transition game, passing, and defense will be missed. UNC may have better shooters on the floor without Tokoto, but he was their best "intangibles" guy.

roywhite
05-19-2015, 10:52 AM
I lean toward "addition by subtraction" where Tokoto is concerned. His sour leaving reminds me that I don't remember ever seeing him smile. He probably did smile, but not a lot. Maybe he just had a passive, determined game face, but he didn't strike me as a player who was enjoying himself.

I'll guess his leaving may improve team chemistry a little, and probably not just because his minutes will be available.

Team chemistry in Chapel Hill seems to be the main issue, and it remains very uncertain IMO.

UNC does have a very strong combination of talent and experience returning, a reasonable basis for a high preseason ranking. But are sanctions looming and how would this team react to being barred from the tournament? Is Ol' Roy in a good frame of mind, or "woe is me"? Which player takes the main leadership role -- I'm guessing Marcus Paige, but is that his nature? Can guys compete for minutes but maintain a good attitude?

High end prediction is somewhere near #1 during the season and a strong run in the NCAA Tournament, yet I could still see an ugly season with double-digit losses (again).

sagegrouse
05-19-2015, 10:54 AM
I mean, Winslow didn't smile much either. Until we started dominating in the tournament. Before, he either had his stoic "Winslow face" or screamed like a wild man after an amazing play. I wouldn't hold that against Tokoto.

I like Tokoto. His transition game, passing, and defense will be missed. UNC may have better shooters on the floor without Tokoto, but he was their best "intangibles" guy.

Winslow is one scary dude on the basketball court. Did I imagine it, but were players just getting out of his way?

sagegrouse
05-19-2015, 11:23 AM
He has an alternate view of next season with Duke and Ky. ranked together and Maryland #1 (this last is part of the public headline). He also thinks highly of Cal and Indiana, two teams not on Luke Winn's list.

Sage
'Totally consistent with the Fair Use doctrine'

CDu
05-19-2015, 11:58 AM
He has an alternate view of next season with Duke and Ky. ranked together and Maryland #1 (this last is part of the public headline). He also thinks highly of Cal and Indiana, two teams not on Luke Winn's list.

Sage
'Totally consistent with the Fair Use doctrine'

I tend to agree with his analysis, although I probably wouldn't include Wichita State in consideration for a true #1 (i.e., best team, which is not necessarily the team that compiles the most regular season wins). Kudos to him for acknowledging that Cal's recruiting class has to at least put them in the discussion. Especially if they happen to add Swanigan to the mix (has he officially decided where he'll play next year yet after de-committing to MSU?).

I think it is just too hard to say right now how good Duke and Kentucky will be. Basically nobody is returning a key cog offensively. There are guys with potential, but nobody is a proven commodity right now. And everyone will be taking on a bigger/different role than they previously had.

I might give UVa a little more credit than he did, seemingly listing them behind Duke and Kentucky. But honestly it's a tough call with all of these teams. I won't disparage any opinion regarding the top 7 or 8 teams.

EDIT: whoops, nevermind on Swanigan, he has apparently finally decided on Purdue.

gumbomoop
05-19-2015, 07:57 PM
I mean, Winslow didn't smile much either. Until we started dominating in the tournament. Before, he either had his stoic "Winslow face" or screamed like a wild man after an amazing play. I wouldn't hold that against Tokoto.

I like Tokoto. His transition game, passing, and defense will be missed. UNC may have better shooters on the floor without Tokoto, but he was their best "intangibles" guy..
Yes, it makes sense that many of his intangibles would be missed. But my intuition is that Winslow's game face was entirely different from Tokoto's sour puss. Winslow's game was hard-edged but thrilling, close to joyous. Tokoto's looked, to me, to be mostly joyless. Winslow never looked anything other than a happy camper. Tokoto never looked anything like a happy camper. Maybe he was a barrel of laughs at practice and in the locker room. That would surprise me.

OldPhiKap
05-19-2015, 09:00 PM
.
Yes, it makes sense that many of his intangibles would be missed. But my intuition is that Winslow's game face was entirely different from Tokoto's sour puss. Winslow's game was hard-edged but thrilling, close to joyous. Tokoto's looked, to me, to be mostly joyless. Winslow never looked anything other than a happy camper. Tokoto never looked anything like a happy camper. Maybe he was a barrel of laughs at practice and in the locker room. That would surprise me.

Yeah, but Quinn never looked like a happy camper until the coaches brought it to his attention in a somewhat forceful way. Bobby always looked pissed or ready to whine. Can't judge a book, and all that.

gumbomoop
05-19-2015, 11:43 PM
Yeah, but Quinn never looked like a happy camper until the coaches brought it to his attention in a somewhat forceful way. Bobby always looked pissed or ready to whine. Can't judge a book, and all that.

I'm unwilling to accept the Tokoto-Cook analogy. My point in previous post was that Tokoto looked, including body language, less than joyful. Quinn's look and body language never looked as bland as Tokoto's. Quinn was either -- and too often his first three seasons -- glum and frowning, or -- thank heavens almost always his final season -- excited, ecstatic, totally involved. Did Tokoto ever actually look like he was enjoying himself?

You're right about can't, [friendly amendment] necessarily, judge a book by its cover, but my take is that Tokoto's body language, more than just facial expression, was often negative. I think he felt underappreciated for his, yes, valuable, contributions, including by the cheesy whiners. Pretty regularly the whiners groaned when Tokoto shot from the field. And we do know, don't we, that his leaving was surprising and sour.

On the larger point -- how much will Tokoto's leaving keep the Heels from improving -- I'll guess there will be steady improvement from Jackson, Berry, Pinson, and Hicks, and that the Heels will be more consistent, a better team. They'll deservedly be preseason consensus top 3-4. Though, as others have pointed out, there are no clear candidates to dominate, and Duke, among others, might go deeper in the NCAAT than the Heels, Hoos, Terps, Jayhawks, etc. It's pretty much wide open, and we're playing with house money.

We're gold.

DukieInBrasil
05-20-2015, 06:57 AM
I agree that Tokoto's contributions will be missed more than anticipated, i have no idea how big his distractions were, but he was a solid player for UNC. Maybe i'm missing something, but aside from Paige 2 years ago, i have not been so impressed with any UNC player they currently have as to think they should be a dominant team. When Paige was healthy, his knack for knocking down clutch shots was beyond impressive. Last year he wasn't healthy, and was certainly not as good as before.
As for Kentucky, i don't see why they got so much love from Winn. I don't doubt they'll be good, but they have too many question marks to be considered even top 5. Duke has plenty of ??? as well, but also returns a core set of players that should be exciting given the potential for expanded roles (+Obi, whose one season at Rice was quite impressive). Allen, for example, could very well be a double digit scorer. Amile could come close to being a double-double player. For all the grief i gave Matt Jones last year, he still ended up with pretty solid stats, and if his improvement from So. to Jr. is anywhere as close to the growth he showed form Fr. to So., then he could also be a double digit scorer, in addition to being an admirable defender. Even MP3 showed admirable improvement from So. to Jr. year, and could be a 5&5 player. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Duke gets 45+ppg from its returning players.
Can it be November already?