MBB Dork Polls/Stats: 2016-17 Edition

[Troublemaker]

Matt Norlander ‏@MattNorlander (https://twitter.com/MattNorlander) 3h3 hours ago (https://twitter.com/MattNorlander/status/790330647780925440)
KenPom’s 2016-17 rankings are live. Key to remember that Ken’s system admittedly doesn’t work out the kinks for the first month, at least.


http://kenpom.com/

[Kedsy]

Matt Norlander ‏@MattNorlander (https://twitter.com/MattNorlander) 3h3 hours ago (https://twitter.com/MattNorlander/status/790330647780925440)
KenPom’s 2016-17 rankings are live. Key to remember that Ken’s system admittedly doesn’t work out the kinks for the first month, at least.


http://kenpom.com/

Looks like he re-did his ratings again and changed past years retroactively (compare what was on his page six months ago (http://web.archive.org/web/20160509093041/http://kenpom.com/) to what's there now (http://kenpom.com/index.php?y=2016)). Good news is our 2016 defense improved from 107th to 86th!

[BD80]

Looks like he re-did his ratings again and changed past years retroactively (compare what was on his page six months ago (http://web.archive.org/web/20160509093041/http://kenpom.com/) to what's there now (http://kenpom.com/index.php?y=2016)). Good news is our 2016 defense improved from 107th to 86th!

That's concrete evidence of successful off-season coaching!

[JasonEvans]

I know it is early, but it is still impressive that we are tied for #1 in Strength of Schedule and also tied for #1 in Luck. A lucky team that plays a tough sked... not bad!

-Jason " ;) "Evans

[DavidBenAkiva]

I was noticing the number of ACC teams in the top of the rankings.

#1 Overall (Duke)
4 of the Top 10 (Add in Virginia, UNC, and Louisville)
7 of the Top 25 (Add in Syracuse, Clemson, and Miami)
10 of the Top 40 (Add in NC State, Virginia Tech, and Florida State)
11 of the Top 50 (Add in Notre Dame)
12 of the Top 51 (Pitt is #51)

There are other conferences with multiple teams in the top 50, of course. Here's the count:

Big 12: 8
B1G: 7
Big East: 7
AAC: 3
PAC 12: 3
SEC: 3
West Coast Conference: 2

[Ichabod Drain]

Duke has the number one offense and is eighteenth in defense. I expect the offense to still be top 5 at the end of the year. If our defense is still in the top 20 then we have a really good shot. This team will be able to fill it up all year, the question will be if we can stop other teams from doing the same.

Also and FYI for people who like Kenpom a lot, there is a Kenpom APP that works really well. It's not quite as robust as the actual site but it has probably 75% on the info and is easy to view and sort through.

[DoubleBlue]

Then there's the College Basketball Ranking Composite by Massey Ratings which shows the average of over 50 rating systems. The current page shows last year's final composite and will switch to the current year once the season gets underway. There are links to each of the individual ratings sites at the top. Click on the school names to see the game schedule and results for each team. I've found this to be helpful throughout the season especially when the major polls (AP, USA Today, ESPN and RPI) are conflicting. Of course the conmposite is steadier and less prone to week-to-week emotional bias or perceived favoritisms. http://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

[Troublemaker]

Looks like he re-did his ratings again and changed past years retroactively (compare what was on his page six months ago (http://web.archive.org/web/20160509093041/http://kenpom.com/) to what's there now (http://kenpom.com/index.php?y=2016)). Good news is our 2016 defense improved from 107th to 86th!

Good catch! His blog explains the change here (http://kenpom.com/blog/ratings-methodology-update/). There's a lot of boring stuff in there but I'm excited about his last paragraph where he says he intends to determine site-specific home court advantage numbers. That's something I've wanted somebody to study statistically for awhile now. Where do Cameron Indoor, Allen Field House, etc really rank in home court advantage?

[Troublemaker]

SI releases their full computer projections (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/11/01/preseason-every-team-ranked-top-25-duke-kansas-kentucky)

Duke is #1 with projected #1 offense and #11 defense

[MChambers]

If this team has the #11 defense, I think we'll all be very happy.

[flyingdutchdevil]

If this team has the #11 defense, I think we'll all be very happy.

Could not agree more. #11 is pretty amazing, given our heavy involvement of freshman in the rotation (arguably at least 50% of the rotation) and select returning players not known for their defense.

[Ichabod Drain]

Still #1 in Kenpom... just saying.

[JasonEvans]

Still #1 in Kenpom... just saying.

Funny quirk to Kenpom -- right now, Kansas has the 10th toughest SOS. I was sorta floored by this as they have played Duke (#1) and Indiana (#13) thus far. I mean, how much tougher could anyone's first couple games be?

The #2 team is Marist, who have played Duke (#1) and Rhode Island (#31). So, why are they ahead of Kansas in SOS? Because Kansas's two games were both on neutral floors while poor Marist had to play both games on the road. Makes sense and really shows how significant a disadvantage it is to play on the road.

The toughest schedule so far belongs to William & Mary. They have played Bridgewater (DIII team) and at Louisville. Even though KenPom says W&M is 1-1, I don't think he counts the Bridgewater game in their stats. It would seem that playing Louisivlle on the road is tougher than Duke and Rhode Island on the road or Duke and Indiana in neutral sites.

-Jason "all of this will sort out nicely in the next week or two" Evans

[Troublemaker]

Luke Winn's first Power Rankings of the season (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/11/17/power-rankings-villanova-kentucky-north-carolina)

(Note: I'll link Winn's weekly power rankings in this thread because they are usually stats-heavy.)

Some nice praise for Kennard, who Winn calls Duke's "offensive MVP" so far. There's a video in the Duke section showing various plays of Kennard operating in Duke's Horns set, which Winn refers to as an "A set"

[uh_no]

Still #1 in Kenpom... just saying.

you would expect very minimal change in such a tight game with a team that kenpom rates so highly....a 10-20 point loss could possibly have been enough to knock us down a peg.

[Ichabod Drain]

you would expect very minimal change in such a tight game with a team that kenpom rates so highly...a 10-20 point loss could possibly have been enough to knock us down a peg.

It's not so much the win/loss of a game, more in how you actually perform. We still had the #1 offense and our defense is still relatively the same. If we had given up 1.25 ppp and still lost by two I would have expected a larger change in our defensive efficiency rating.

[uh_no]

It's not so much the win/loss of a game, more in how you actually perform. We still had the #1 offense and our defense is still relatively the same. If we had given up 1.25 ppp and still lost by two I would have expected a larger change in our defensive efficiency rating.

sure, but we would have had a bump in offense after scoring 1.22 ppp against a defense that normally gives up .9, meaning our overall rating probably wouldn't have been hugely affective given that the rankings are strictly additive now, instead of being pythagorean.

[Isaac Sours]

Luke Winn's first Power Rankings of the season (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/11/17/power-rankings-villanova-kentucky-north-carolina)

(Note: I'll link Winn's weekly power rankings in this thread because they are usually stats-heavy.)

Some nice praise for Kennard, who Winn calls Duke's "offensive MVP" so far. There's a video in the Duke section showing various plays of Kennard operating in Duke's Horns set, which Winn refers to as an "A set"

thanks for posting that. I really like Winn's work, he's thorough and well-spoken. the gifs embedded in the story are a nice touch.

[Troublemaker]

With Syracuse continuing to inch on up the Kenpom rankings, the ACC currently has 5 of the top 8 teams. Crazy.

[JasonEvans]

With Syracuse continuing to inch on up the Kenpom rankings, the ACC currently has 5 of the top 8 teams. Crazy.

9 days later and the ACC still has a crazy high Pomeroy rating. We have the top 3 teams (Duke, Virg, UNC) and 5 of the top 9 (Lou #7, Syr #9).

Generally, the top 40 teams in Pomeroy's rankings make the field. In addition to the 5 teams in the top 10, the ACC also has Miami (#26), Notre Dame (#29), Clemson (#33), FSU (#36), and Va Tech (#39) in good shape to make the dance if the tourney were today. That's 10 teams and it does not even include NC State, a team that many expect to be fairly strong in the league as the season moves along.

-Jason "Duke #1 in offense, Virginia #1 in defense... clash of the titans Feb 15 in Charlottesville" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

9 days later and the ACC still has a crazy high Pomeroy rating. We have the top 3 teams (Duke, Virg, UNC) and 5 of the top 9 (Lou #7, Syr #9).

Generally, the top 40 teams in Pomeroy's rankings make the field. In addition to the 5 teams in the top 10, the ACC also has Miami (#26), Notre Dame (#29), Clemson (#33), FSU (#36), and Va Tech (#39) in good shape to make the dance if the tourney were today. That's 10 teams and it does not even include NC State, a team that many expect to be fairly strong in the league as the season moves along.

-Jason "Duke #1 in offense, Virginia #1 in defense... clash of the titans Feb 15 in Charlottesville" Evans

just thought I'd update -- as of Nov. 30, the ACC still has the top three teams in the rankings, but it's No. 1 Virginia, No. 2 Duke and No. 3 UNC. Virginia has Kenpom's No. 1 defense, Duke has the No. 1 offense (and No. 17 defense).

Louisville is No. 7, but Syracuse has dropped out of the top 10 (down to 17).

[Wahoo2000]

just thought I'd update -- as of Nov. 30, the ACC still has the top three teams in the rankings, but it's No. 1 Virginia, No. 2 Duke and No. 3 UNC. Virginia has Kenpom's No. 1 defense, Duke has the No. 1 offense (and No. 17 defense).

Louisville is No. 7, but Syracuse has dropped out of the top 10 (down to 17).

Is there a definitive answer on when his rankings become relevant to the current season only? And also when they don't rely on any of his preseason data (regarding expected play from recruits and/or transfers)? I've heard everything from "after 10 games" to "late Dec/early Jan" to "about halfway through conference play".


EDIT/ADDENDUM: Interesting that the gap in adjusted eff margin between #1 and #5 is less than half the size of the gap between #5 and #6.

[SCMatt33]

Is there a definitive answer on when his rankings become relevant to the current season only? And also when they don't rely on any of his preseason data (regarding expected play from recruits and/or transfers)? I've heard everything from "after 10 games" to "late Dec/early Jan" to "about halfway through conference play".


EDIT/ADDENDUM: Interesting that the gap in adjusted eff margin between #1 and #5 is less than half the size of the gap between #5 and #6.

It definitely extends into late January, at least as of 2012, which is when the most recent KenPom blog post I could find (http://kenpom.com/blog/preseason-ratings-why-weight/) regarding that subject was posted. It also mentioned that the ratings still had 2-3 games worth of weight around Christmas.

[JasonEvans]

Virginia's close win at home over a less than great Ohio St squad drops them from #1 to #3 in the Kenpom ratings (their D feel out of the top spot too, with Louisville taking over as the most efficient defensive team in the land). Villanova is now #2. Some team with a bunch of injured freshmen is back at #1.

[Siat]

It definitely extends into late January, at least as of 2012, which is when the most recent KenPom blog post I could find (http://kenpom.com/blog/preseason-ratings-why-weight/) regarding that subject was posted. It also mentioned that the ratings still had 2-3 games worth of weight around Christmas.

KenPom answered this earlier this week on his Twitter (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy/status/803482507907723264): "It's always 73 days from the start of the season. This season that is January 23rd."

[Olympic Fan]

FWIW: Duke is back at No. 1 in KenPom -- ahead of No. 2 Villanova and No. 3 Virginia.

I was also looking at Maine -- it is, according to Pomeroy, the weakest opponent we play this season -- by far. We play six games against teams outside the top 150:

340 -- Maine
272 -- App State -- W 93-58
238 -- Marist -- W 94-49
195 -- Boston College
183 -- Grand Canyon -- W 96-61
166 -- UNLV

Amazing how similar the scores against the three bottom feeders that we've played. I expect the Maine score to be similar,

Upcoming games with Tennessee State and Elton are better -- they are both top 150 teams.

Duke plays its last 15 games (after the BC game) against top 100 teams -- 12 of them against teams currently in the top 50.

[riverside6]

Just wanted to add that my Game Sim site only looks at this season's data, updated daily. We just choose not to post a poll for the first 4-6 weeks of the season instead of posting something that is based on some hybrid of this season and prior season's data.

Game Sim's rankings here: http://www.ncaagamesim.com/rankings.asp

[subzero02]

Just wanted to add that my Game Sim site only looks at this season's data, updated daily. We just choose not to post a poll for the first 4-6 weeks of the season instead of posting something that is based on some hybrid of this season and prior season's data.

Game Sim's rankings here: http://www.ncaagamesim.com/rankings.asp

Maine is rated much higher although still fairly low in your rankings... #257 compared to #340 on kenpom

[JasonEvans]

Upcoming games with Tennessee State and Elton are better -- they are both top 150 teams.

Wait a sec... are we playing Elton 1-on-5 or has he been cloned. He's older and retired from the NBA at this point, but I bet he can still bang with Duke's big men.

http://www.somosbasket.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/elton-brand-e1460405188254-385x260.jpg http://media.philly.com/images/070712-elton-brand-400.jpg

[vick]

And in individual dork polls, Kenpom's player of the year (http://kenpom.com/kpoy.php) stat is now live. It's subscribers only, but as of right now, nationally, Luke is #4, Grayson #5, and Amile #6!

[uh_no]

And in individual dork polls, Kenpom's player of the year (http://kenpom.com/kpoy.php) stat is now live. It's subscribers only, but as of right now, nationally, Luke is #4, Grayson #5, and Amile #6!

giles/bolden/tatum 1-2-3!

and Matt DPOY

or they should be.

[Troublemaker]

After a dominating performance like that, it's nice to check in with KenPom.

O is still #1 and D is up to #14.

Duke is the top team and our O rank and D rank are both higher than #2 team Villanova's.

[Olympic Fan]

After a dominating performance like that, it's nice to check in with KenPom.

O is still #1 and D is up to #14.

Duke is the top team and our O rank and D rank are both higher than #2 team Villanova's.

the other thing I check are his projections. He just flipped Duke at Louisville from a one-point loss to a one-point win. If you go down his projections individually, he has Duke losing at Virginia and at UNC -- and finishing the regular season 28-3 (16-2 ACC).

But his overall projection is 26-5 (14-4 ACC) ... that's actually one game better (both overall and conference) than it was before the UNLV game.

[MChambers]

Ahead of UNCheat, behind only the Mountaineers:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Ahead of UNCheat, behind only the Mountaineers:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/

Link no worko

[Indoor66]

Link worked for me on my desktop but does not work for me on my phone.

[MChambers]

Link no worko

Works fine for me. Don't know why you're having trouble, unless your browser thinks USA Today is too low brow.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Works fine for me. Don't know why you're having trouble, unless your browser thinks USA Today is too low brow.

*frowns* could be my phone mojo

[Reilly]

WVU 15th in AP poll, but #1 in SRS, and #2 in NRtg:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2017-ratings.html

Nice to see Duke top 10 in defensive Rtg (points allowed per 100 possessions).

[uh_no]

WVU 15th in AP poll, but #1 in SRS, and #2 in NRtg:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2017-ratings.html

Nice to see Duke top 10 in defensive Rtg (points allowed per 100 possessions).

the fact that UWV is #1 exhibits a flaw of sagarin, at least at this point in the year. Yes they're a good team...they have a great win against virginia away...that's a really good win.

but much of their ranking is due to blowing out cupcakes. They have one of the worst SOS in the country (331/351)...on their stellar resume is

35 point win over #319 VMI
53 point win over #311 Western Carolina
47 point win over #225 manhattan
59 point win over #152 New hampshire
41 point win over #344 mississippi valley

The wisconsin effect is in full effect there. Yes they're a good, potentially really good team...but their resume at this point is based almost entirely on beating virginia and running up the score against, well, everyone.

[juise]

Heels fall from #3 to #6 in KenPom after surviving against the Vols.

[Ichabod Drain]

Heels fall from #3 to #6 in KenPom after surviving against the Vols.

They have looked very unimpressive without Berry. Hope he is back by Saturday as it should be a good game against UK with him. Kentucky probably rolls if Berry doesn't play.

[Indoor66]

They have looked very unimpressive without Berry. Hope he is back by Saturday as it should be a good game against UK with him. Kentucky probably rolls if Berry doesn't play.

They might also roll if he does. 😭😈😎

[English]

Duke now has three players in the top-10 KenPom POY race. With his performance against UNLV, Grayson has jumped up to #10, while Amile holds steady at #3 and Luke stands pat at #4.

Absolute glut of talent on this squad. Just amazing.

[mr. synellinden]

Duke now has three players in the top-10 KenPom POY race. With his performance against UNLV, Grayson has jumped up to #10, while Amile holds steady at #3 and Luke stands pat at #4.

Absolute glut of talent on this squad. Just amazing.

Meanwhile there are three other guys on the team who are likely to be lottery picks (one who hasn't played yet) and another who would likely be a first round pick if he left after this season. Yes, an amazing glut of talent.

[DukieInBrasil]

Meanwhile there are three other guys on the team who are likely to be lottery picks (one who hasn't played yet) and another who would likely be a first round pick if he left after this season. Yes, an amazing glut of talent.

who are the "three other guys" you refer to? Tatum and Giles are 2 of them, i assume. Jackson and Bolden would be the other 2 options. From what i've seen so far, Jackson looks more like a lottery pick than Bolden. Bolden may just not have recovered his form after the mysterious lower leg injury, but in the 2 games against relatively decent teams (FL and UNLV) Bolden has looked lost and ineffective (FL) or decent-enough yet mistake prone (UNLV).
It's definitely far too early to write anyone off, particularly one who is still on the comeback trail after an injury. What i like about Bolden is that he has shown a knack for blocking shots without compromising his defensive positioning. Sometimes he doesn't position himself well and gets called for fouls, but he's had several really nice "hands up" blocked shots so far.

[COYS]

who are the "three other guys" you refer to? Tatum and Giles are 2 of them, i assume. Jackson and Bolden would be the other 2 options. From what i've seen so far, Jackson looks more like a lottery pick than Bolden. Bolden may just not have recovered his form after the mysterious lower leg injury, but in the 2 games against relatively decent teams (FL and UNLV) Bolden has looked lost and ineffective (FL) or decent-enough yet mistake prone (UNLV).
It's definitely far too early to write anyone off, particularly one who is still on the comeback trail after an injury. What i like about Bolden is that he has shown a knack for blocking shots without compromising his defensive positioning. Sometimes he doesn't position himself well and gets called for fouls, but he's had several really nice "hands up" blocked shots so far.

I think Mr. Snellinden is going with the conventional wisdom of mock drafts in projecting Bolden as a potential lottery pick this season rather than his actual play. Frank Jackson has looked like a very talented player so far, but he hasn't shown too much in the way of point guard skills, which is pretty much a requirement for a 6-3 guard to find his way into the lottery. Meanwhile, Bolden, while potentially more of a long term project, has good mobility and excellent size and length for an NBA center. I suspect that we'll see him flash that potential in the coming games as he gets healthy and acclimated.

On the other hand, Jackson could continue to produce on the court while Bolden might struggle to find minutes with the return of Giles to full strength, so you never know.

[mr. synellinden]

I think Mr. Snellinden is going with the conventional wisdom of mock drafts in projecting Bolden as a potential lottery pick this season rather than his actual play. Frank Jackson has looked like a very talented player so far, but he hasn't shown too much in the way of point guard skills, which is pretty much a requirement for a 6-3 guard to find his way into the lottery. Meanwhile, Bolden, while potentially more of a long term project, has good mobility and excellent size and length for an NBA center. I suspect that we'll see him flash that potential in the coming games as he gets healthy and acclimated.

On the other hand, Jackson could continue to produce on the court while Bolden might struggle to find minutes with the return of Giles to full strength, so you never know.

Yes, exactly. The two draft projections I keep an eye on are DraftExpress and NBADraft.net. DE has Bolden at 16 (just outside the lottery) and ND has him at 12 (in the lottery). Interestingly, ND has Jackson at 17 and Allen at 26. AND Kennard at 32 - which means they project Duke as having six players among the top 32 picks in the draft. Bolden probably has to play better to merit being a lottery pick, but the point is the three players projected to be the highest drafted on the team are not among the top 10 KPOY rankings and are in addition to three Duke players who are in the top 10.

[DukieInBrasil]

Yes, exactly. The two draft projections I keep an eye on are DraftExpress and NBADraft.net. DE has Bolden at 16 (just outside the lottery) and ND has him at 12 (in the lottery). Interestingly, ND has Jackson at 17 and Allen at 26. AND Kennard at 32 - which means they project Duke as having six players among the top 32 picks in the draft. Bolden probably has to play better to merit being a lottery pick, but the point is the three players projected to be the highest drafted on the team are not among the top 10 KPOY rankings and are in addition to three Duke players who are in the top 10.

i must admit my vehement ignorance at draft projections this early in the season. Having 6 players in the top 32 projections is rather insane. I would have to assume that Amile has crept his way into the draft projections by now? Certainly seems like someone would be willing to take a 2nd round chance on him, seeing as how Lance Thomas is a legit player with a legit contract withe Knicks.

[ChillinDuke]

While most probably know that the ACC has had 4 teams consistently in the Top-10 on KenPom, if you look now the conference also has #24-#28. Sort of an odd but impressive occurrence.

Then VT shows up at #37. That's 10 in the Top 40.

Figured it was worth pointing out.

- Chillin

[wilson]

i must admit my vehement ignorance at draft projections this early in the season. Having 6 players in the top 32 projections is rather insane. I would have to assume that Amile has crept his way into the draft projections by now? Certainly seems like someone would be willing to take a 2nd round chance on him, seeing as how Lance Thomas is a legit player with a legit contract withe Knicks.Neither Draft Express nor nbadraft.net has Amile listed as of yet, but I would tend to agree with you that Amile's physical potential is greater than that of Lance Thomas at this juncture in his career.

[sammy3469]

Neither Draft Express nor nbadraft.net has Amile listed as of yet, but I would tend to agree with you that Amile's physical potential is greater than that of Lance Thomas at this juncture in his career.

The only reason Lance is in the NBA is that he developed an NBA 3-point shot that he consistently hits and has basically become a 3 and D guy. Unless Amile can do that, there's not many spots in the NBA for pure 4s anymore. Maybe he has the range and doesn't have to show it with this team, but unless a team wants to give him time in the D-league to try to develop one (which isn't an absurd idea given how mobile and strong he is). The big caveat to this is with the new CBA that type of arrangement might be appealing to clubs. He's one of the few players in college that has the physical gifts to be a stretch-y 4 in the NBA.

[wilson]

The only reason Lance is in the NBA is that he developed an NBA 3-point shot that he consistently hits and has basically become a 3 and D guy. Unless Amile can do that, there's not many spots in the NBA for pure 4s anymore. Maybe he has the range and doesn't have to show it with this team, but unless a team wants to give him time in the D-league to try to develop one (which isn't an absurd idea given how mobile and strong he is). The big caveat to this is with the new CBA that type of arrangement might be appealing to clubs. He's one of the few players in college that has the physical gifts to be a stretch-y 4 in the NBA.Very good point. Let's remember that Lance himself had the benefit of some fairly significant time in the D-League in Austin (as well as a stint playing in China) to hone these skills. Given what we know about Amile's work ethic, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to think that he could improve his jump-shooting game over time.

[Ichabod Drain]

The only reason Lance is in the NBA is that he developed an NBA 3-point shot that he consistently hits and has basically become a 3 and D guy. Unless Amile can do that, there's not many spots in the NBA for pure 4s anymore. Maybe he has the range and doesn't have to show it with this team, but unless a team wants to give him time in the D-league to try to develop one (which isn't an absurd idea given how mobile and strong he is). The big caveat to this is with the new CBA that type of arrangement might be appealing to clubs. He's one of the few players in college that has the physical gifts to be a stretch-y 4 in the NBA.

This is true but Lance Thomas only took one three pointer during his first three seasons in the league. He was able to stick around for quite a while without having that part of his game developed. Also Lance never had the rebounding ability that Amile has, which is something that is pretty consistently translated to the NBA.

[DukieInBrasil]

The only reason Lance is in the NBA is that he developed an NBA 3-point shot that he consistently hits and has basically become a 3 and D guy. Unless Amile can do that, there's not many spots in the NBA for pure 4s anymore. Maybe he has the range and doesn't have to show it with this team, but unless a team wants to give him time in the D-league to try to develop one (which isn't an absurd idea given how mobile and strong he is). The big caveat to this is with the new CBA that type of arrangement might be appealing to clubs. He's one of the few players in college that has the physical gifts to be a stretch-y 4 in the NBA.

It's true that Lance now has a pretty reliable 3pt shot, but he didn't have that in his bag when he first got interest from NBA squads. As pointed out, he worked his butt off to add that to his game. As such, he would not still be in the NBA if he hadn't developed it. And i think you're right about Amile, he'll have to add something to his game that we haven't seen so far at Duke to stay in the NBA, but i think he will get some interested looks irregardless ;-)

[throatybeard]

the fact that UWV is #1 exhibits a flaw of sagarin, at least at this point in the year. Yes they're a good team...they have a great win against virginia away...that's a really good win.

but much of their ranking is due to blowing out cupcakes. They have one of the worst SOS in the country (331/351)...on their stellar resume is

35 point win over #319 VMI
53 point win over #311 Western Carolina
47 point win over #225 manhattan
59 point win over #152 New hampshire
41 point win over #344 mississippi valley

The wisconsin effect is in full effect there. Yes they're a good, potentially really good team...but their resume at this point is based almost entirely on beating virginia and running up the score against, well, everyone.

ranking no worko

[uh_no]

the UK/UNC game dropped both teams defenses quite a bit. UK's defense is >2 pt/100 WORSE than it was yesterday. Don't let the fact that they're still sixth fool you, that's a massive drop for one game. I don't have the numbers, but I imagine the fall was slightly mitigated by the fact that their defense wasn't as highly ranked coming in.

UK gave up an adjusted 135 tonight. That's extremely poor for a team that had been predicted to give up about a 90.

In other news, UWV continued their wisconsin-like run of beating the snot out of terrible teams with a 57 point drubbing of #217 UMKC....Sagarin has them as the best team in the country by a healthy margin....ken pom says they have one of the weakest SOSes in the country (of note...BC's is worse...and they still only managed 5-5.....another 0-18 watch is in effect....). They have another couple cupcakes before they are forced to start playing real teams. expect the committee to frown upon this come seeding time....if they're even a tournament team once they have to play a real team (only slightly in jest...their performance against UVA is enough to suggest they'll probbaly be decent)b

[kshepinthehouse]

Then there's the College Basketball Ranking Composite by Massey Ratings which shows the average of over 50 rating systems. The current page shows last year's final composite and will switch to the current year once the season gets underway. There are links to each of the individual ratings sites at the top. Click on the school names to see the game schedule and results for each team. I've found this to be helpful throughout the season especially when the major polls (AP, USA Today, ESPN and RPI) are conflicting. Of course the conmposite is steadier and less prone to week-to-week emotional bias or perceived favoritisms. http://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

Hmm, I wonder who has the better predictor model, Massey or KenPom? Any thoughts from you stats guys out there?

[Troublemaker]

In other news, UWV continued their wisconsin-like run of beating the snot out of terrible teams with a 57 point drubbing of #217 UMKC...Sagarin has them as the best team in the country by a healthy margin...ken pom says they have one of the weakest SOSes in the country (of note...BC's is worse...and they still only managed 5-5...another 0-18 watch is in effect...). They have another couple cupcakes before they are forced to start playing real teams. expect the committee to frown upon this come seeding time...if they're even a tournament team once they have to play a real team (only slightly in jest...their performance against UVA is enough to suggest they'll probbaly be decent)b

Winning at UVA was huge and will protect them from being judged too harshly, imo. And WVU will benefit from playing in the Big 12, which will be rated by both RPI and other measures as a top-2 conference. If they win the Big 12, the Mountaineers will get a 1 or 2 seed, imo, despite perhaps playing a couple too many cupcakes in the non-conf.


Hmm, I wonder who has the better predictor model, Massey or KenPom? Any thoughts from you stats guys out there?

Probably Massey since Massey aggregates other computer rankings, including KenPom's.

[kshepinthehouse]

Winning at UVA was huge and will protect them from being judged too harshly, imo. And WVU will benefit from playing in the Big 12, which will be rated by both RPI and other measures as a top-2 conference. If they win the Big 12, the Mountaineers will get a 1 or 2 seed, imo, despite perhaps playing a couple too many cupcakes in the non-conf.



Probably Massey since Massey aggregates other computer rankings, including KenPom's.

I wonder if the aggregates are included in the predictor model or if the aggregates are just for the rankings.

[DoubleBlue]

Hmm, I wonder who has the better predictor model, Massey or KenPom? Any thoughts from you stats guys out there?

If you scroll to the bottom http://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm you will see a row labeled 'correlation to concensus' which rates how close each rating system is to the 'concensus average' of each of the 351 teams in the table. The rating systems are listed from highest (left) to lowest (right), so currently the best rating system is 'B Wilson Empirical' with a 992 (out of 1000) rating, followed by 'Massey' and 'Donchess Inference' at 987. 'Pomeroy' (KenPom) is 16th out of 45 with a 971 correlation to concensus, which is still pretty good.

There's also a 'Top 25 Cor to Con' which rates how close each rating system is to the 'concensus average' of only the Top 25 teams rated. In this, 'Donchess Inference' is the best at 942, followed by 'D1A Sports' at 941 and 'Baker Bradley-Terry' at 930. 'Massey' is 4th at 915 and 'Pomeroy' is 6th at 845. So overall, at this time, Massey is slightly better than KenPom... according to this statistical analysis, which by the way, is done by Massey.

Having done some statistics before, I can say that it is possible to force a model to conform to a dataset with a high correlation, but it is quite another to have it accurately predict future results. A high correlation could simply reflect how well the model has been 'tweaked' to match the data, rather than how good it is empirically. I have no affiliation to any of these rating systems.

[Troublemaker]

I wonder if the aggregates are included in the predictor model or if the aggregates are just for the rankings.

Oh, my bad. You weren't referring to the link upthread of Massey's composite rankings (aggregated rankings). You're looking at his predictor (point spread) page (http://www.masseyratings.com/pred.php?s=cb&sub=11590).

I have no clue who's predicting these games better between Massey and KenPom. I do remember studying how KenPom performed vs the spread a few years ago and concluding that KenPom is better than 50/50 but not good enough to overcome the vig, i.e. he was around 51% when you need 52.4% to break even. Haven't studied Massey, but I doubt he would beat the vig, either.

[uh_no]

If you scroll to the bottom http://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm you will see a row labeled 'correlation to concensus' which rates how close each rating system is to the 'concensus average' of each of the 351 teams in the table. The rating systems are listed from highest (left) to lowest (right), so currently the best rating system is 'B Wilson Empirical' with a 992 (out of 1000) rating, followed by 'Massey' and 'Donchess Inference' at 987. 'Pomeroy' (KenPom) is 16th out of 45 with a 971 correlation to concensus, which is still pretty good.

There's also a 'Top 25 Cor to Con' which rates how close each rating system is to the 'concensus average' of only the Top 25 teams rated. In this, 'Donchess Inference' is the best at 942, followed by 'D1A Sports' at 941 and 'Baker Bradley-Terry' at 930. 'Massey' is 4th at 915 and 'Pomeroy' is 6th at 845. So overall, at this time, Massey is slightly better than KenPom... according to this statistical analysis, which by the way, is done by Massey.

Having done some statistics before, I can say that it is possible to force a model to conform to a dataset with a high correlation, but it is quite another to have it accurately predict future results. A high correlation could simply reflect how well the model has been 'tweaked' to match the data, rather than how good it is empirically. I have no affiliation to any of these rating systems.

As evidenced by this past november.....

[kAzE]

Here's their latest "BPI" rankings, in which they make a big deal out of how UCLA has surpassed us as the #1 offensive team in the country:

http://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/127563/duke-stays-no-1-in-bpi-but-uclas-offense-makes-its-mark

It's kind of entertaining to see how much they try to push their own formulas when there are so many obviously better alternatives . . . .

Hey ESPN, how's that QBR working out for you? :)

[uh_no]

Here's their latest "BPI" rankings, in which they make a big deal out of how UCLA has surpassed us as the #1 offensive team in the country:

http://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/127563/duke-stays-no-1-in-bpi-but-uclas-offense-makes-its-mark

It's kind of entertaining to see how much they try to push their own formulas when there are so many obviously better alternatives . . . .

Hey ESPN, how's that QBR working out for you? :)

they account for injuries, which is something KP used to not do, and I thought he might have started to try to do it, but i'm not sure.

[Olympic Fan]

Here's their latest "BPI" rankings, in which they make a big deal out of how UCLA has surpassed us as the #1 offensive team in the country:


And after tonight's offensive disaster against Tennessee State, Pomeroy now has UCLA as the No. 1 offensive team too. Kenpom has Villanova No. 2 and Duke drops to No. 3 in offensive efficiency.

But Pomeroy does still have Duke No. 1 overall.

[Skitzle]

And after tonight's offensive disaster against Tennessee State, Pomeroy now has UCLA as the No. 1 offensive team too. Kenpom has Villanova No. 2 and Duke drops to No. 3 in offensive efficiency.

But Pomeroy does still have Duke No. 1 overall.

Duke also moved up to 11 from 14 (I think) in defense.

Only two teams are top 10 in Defense and Offense: UK and Virginia

Top 20 in off and defense:
UK
Virginia
Duke
Villanova * Undefeated
Kansas
North Carolina
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Baylor * Undefeated
Gonzaga * Undefeated

These numbers of course don't matter. Duke went from something like 65th to 12th in Defense during the 2015 NCAA tournament.

[Indoor66]

Meaningless numbers. Way too small sample size.

[TexHawk]

Only two teams are top 10 in Defense and Offense: UK and Virginia


+Kansas, at 4/10.

I find the spreads between the rankings to be the most interesting part of this, and it's not something Kenpom shows very well, imo. For example, KU is #10 in AdjD at 92.5 per 100, Duke is right behind at 92.6. If either team improves by 1 point per 100 (assuming nothing else changes), they would hop all the way to #4, but would still be over 4 p/100 behind #1 Louisville. In fact, Louisville is ahead of #2 UVA by over 1.5 in AdjD, while UCLA and Villanova are tied for #1 in AdjO. If you go by the rankings only, somone might think UCLA is a better offensive team, when the difference likely comes down to hundredths of a point.


These numbers of course don't matter. Duke went from something like 65th to 12th in Defense during the 2015 NCAA tournament.

Did we ever get a definitive ruling on this? Doesn't a long tournament run pretty much guarantee a massive bump, since you are only playing good teams? What was the ranking pre-tournament?

[DukieInBrasil]

+Kansas, at 4/10.

I find the spreads between the rankings to be the most interesting part of this, and it's not something Kenpom shows very well, imo. For example, KU is #10 in AdjD at 92.5 per 100, Duke is right behind at 92.6. If either team improves by 1 point per 100 (assuming nothing else changes), they would hop all the way to #4, but would still be over 4 p/100 behind #1 Louisville. In fact, Louisville is ahead of #2 UVA by over 1.5 in AdjD, while UCLA and Villanova are tied for #1 in AdjO. If you go by the rankings only, somone might think UCLA is a better offensive team, when the difference likely comes down to hundredths of a point.
Did we ever get a definitive ruling on this? Doesn't a long tournament run pretty much guarantee a massive bump, since you are only playing good teams? What was the ranking pre-tournament?

you could theoretically go down during the tournament if you gave up more than the expected points to each opponent, but that would mean that your offensive efficiency would climb a lot too because you would be scoring more than the expected points, by quite a bit. This is the reverse of what usually happens, as most teams sacrifice offense for defense during the tournament.

[Kedsy]

Did we ever get a definitive ruling on this? Doesn't a long tournament run pretty much guarantee a massive bump, since you are only playing good teams? What was the ranking pre-tournament?

Duke's pre-tournament Pomeroy defensive ranking in 2015 was #57. We ended #12.

[Ichabod Drain]

Duke's pre-tournament Pomeroy defensive ranking in 2015 was #57. We ended #12.

I believe it's changed since he re-did the way his efficiency is shown. Pre-tourny data now has Duke at 37.

[Kedsy]

I believe it's changed since he re-did the way his efficiency is shown. Pre-tourny data now has Duke at 37.

Where did you find pre-tournament Pomeroy from 2015 (or any other year)?

[uh_no]

Where did you find pre-tournament Pomeroy from 2015 (or any other year)?

it's a paid feature.

[Ichabod Drain]

Where did you find pre-tournament Pomeroy from 2015 (or any other year)?


it's a paid feature.

Yea, best $20 I spend every year. Or at least the $20 I get the most mileage out of every year.

[Wahoo2000]

Question for the more KPom-knowledgeable posters:

What other things besides the "four factors" go into ranking each team's O Eff and D Eff? I'm assuming there's SOMETHING else in his formula since right now, Louisville is listed as the #1 AdjDE, and UVA is #2, yet UVA is ranked ahead of Louisville in each of the defensive "4 factors" -
eFG% - UVA #3, Lou #7
TO% - UVA #11, Lou #34
OR% - UVA #19, Lou #149
FTrate - UVA #76, Lou #193

Thanks in advance to whatever KPom-guru is able to give some insight into whatever I'm missing.


Addendum/separate note:
WVu is having a HISTORIC year w/r/t turnovers. Not too surprisingly, they're #1 in the country at defensive turnover rate (they force more turnovers per possession adjusted for strength of schedule than anyone in the nation). The really shocking part is that they're #3 nationally in OFFENSIVE turnover rate (commit the 3rd FEWEST turnovers per possession adjusted for strength of schedule when they're on offense). If they're able to maintain that level of play, they're going to have one of the more remarkable turnover margins in NCAA history, possibly end up as a top 5 team, and maybe (MAYBE) end Kansas' run of B12 regular season titles.

[uh_no]

afaik for factors has nothing to do with the adjusted efficiences. the only thing that matters is how many points you scored in each possession of each game you played and how good the opposition was.

four factors helps you understand why the numbers are what they are, but aren't directly used to make the ranking

[JasonEvans]

If they're able to maintain that level of play, they're going to have one of the more remarkable turnover margins in NCAA history, possibly end up as a top 5 team, and maybe (MAYBE) end Kansas' run of B12 regular season titles.

Baylor, who beat Oklahoma in a laugher today, may have something to say about that B12 streak.

[vick]

Question for the more KPom-knowledgeable posters:

What other things besides the "four factors" go into ranking each team's O Eff and D Eff? I'm assuming there's SOMETHING else in his formula since right now, Louisville is listed as the #1 AdjDE, and UVA is #2, yet UVA is ranked ahead of Louisville in each of the defensive "4 factors" -
eFG% - UVA #3, Lou #7
TO% - UVA #11, Lou #34
OR% - UVA #19, Lou #149
FTrate - UVA #76, Lou #193

Thanks in advance to whatever KPom-guru is able to give some insight into whatever I'm missing.

uh_no is correct that the four factors don't directly feed into the ratings, but it would be very, very unusual for a team to have better numbers on all four factors but a worse "raw" efficiency rating. And in fact, UVa's "raw" defensive efficiency is significantly better than Louisville's (79.9 vs. 86.2). It's the adjustments for strength of schedule and (presumably) preseason rating that are keeping Louisville's ranking above UVa's right now.

[JasonEvans]

It's the adjustments for strength of schedule and (presumably) preseason rating that are keeping Louisville's ranking above UVa's right now.

As I am sure you know, the weight given to preseason rating diminishes with each game played. It is probably very small at this point. Additionally, I would think that UVA had a better preseason defensive ranking than Louisville so, if anything, whatever bit of preseason rating is left in the rankings probably helps the Cavs, not hurts them.

That said, the quality of Lousiville's schedule far exceeds Virginia's and they deserve a nice bunch for playing that D against those teams.

-Jason "they are both truly great defensive clubs -- who is best is sorta a silly argument at the moment" Evans

[Billy Dat]

I think it was Grant Wahl or Luke Winn of SI who posited that the eventual NCAA champ is usually top 15 in both KenPom offense and defense. Granted, the champ usually winds up there due to a solid NCAA run, but it's fun to look for contenders as the season wears on.

As the regular season gets into its last month, the chatter about "no super teams" has grown stronger as the tournament seems as wide open as ever. The narrative is tending toward, "The Freshmen are great, but experience will win the trophy this year" (translation - Duke and Kentucky not as good as advertised, Kansas/UNC/Villanova/Gonzaga are)

The only teams top 15 in both KenPom categories right now are:
Gonzaga (4,4), Virginia (15,3), Nova (6,14)

[COYS]

I think it was Grant Wahl or Luke Winn of SI who posited that the eventual NCAA champ is usually top 15 in both KenPom offense and defense. Granted, the champ usually winds up there due to a solid NCAA run, but it's fun to look for contenders as the season wears on.

As the regular season gets into its last month, the chatter about "no super teams" has grown stronger as the tournament seems as wide open as ever. The narrative is tending toward, "The Freshmen are great, but experience will win the trophy this year" (translation - Duke and Kentucky not as good as advertised, Kansas/UNC/Villanova/Gonzaga are)

The only teams top 15 in both KenPom categories right now are:
Gonzaga (4,4), Virginia (15,3), Nova (6,14)

This definitely refers to pre-Tourney numbers. There are quite a few cases of champions starting the tournament outside the top 15 in both categories, including Duke 2015 and both of the recent UCONN champions. If you expand it to include all the teams that make it to the Final Four, the number of exceptions becomes even bigger.

[Wahoo2000]

This definitely refers to pre-Tourney numbers. There are quite a few cases of champions starting the tournament outside the top 15 in both categories, including Duke 2015 and both of the recent UCONN champions. If you expand it to include all the teams that make it to the Final Four, the number of exceptions becomes even bigger.

I thought Duke 2015 was well inside the top 10 in off eff. Just needed to pick up the D to run to the title (which they did).

[Billy Dat]

This definitely refers to pre-Tourney numbers. There are quite a few cases of champions starting the tournament outside the top 15 in both categories, including Duke 2015 and both of the recent UCONN champions. If you expand it to include all the teams that make it to the Final Four, the number of exceptions becomes even bigger.

UConn didn't even climb that high despite winning the title. I don't know where they were pre-NCAAs, but here's where they wound up after winning the title:

2011 - Final Ken Pom Rank = 10, Offense = 20, Defense = 15
2014 - 15, 39, 10

Pretty amazing. Almost every other recent champ has ended up as KenPom's #1 ranked overall team.

[Wahoo2000]

UConn didn't even climb that high despite winning the title. I don't know where they were pre-NCAAs, but here's where they wound up after winning the title:

2011 - Final Ken Pom Rank = 10, Offense = 20, Defense = 15
2014 - 15, 39, 10

Pretty amazing. Almost every other recent champ has ended up as KenPom's #1 ranked overall team.

That 2014 UConn team has to be the overall weakest team (based on regular season results) to ever win the tourney. Not sure if even 'Nova over Georgetown compares. What an incredible run they went on.

[Billy Dat]

That 2014 UConn team has to be the overall weakest team (based on regular season results) to ever win the tourney. Not sure if even 'Nova over Georgetown compares. What an incredible run they went on.

Yeah...painful...although it shows how much I can't stand Kentucky to say that I was pulling hard for that UConn team. It helped that Calhoun was gone, didn't want him keeping pace with K in the title race.

Your Hoos have jumped up to that top 15 in both categories for the second year in a row. Handsome Tony is on everyone's best coach list. I hope the Final Four breakthrough comes before the "Why can't UVA make the Final Four?" articles start up. Luckily you've got Mark Few/Gonzaga and Sean Miller/AZ giving you some air cover on that score.

[Reilly]

That 2014 UConn team has to be the overall weakest team (based on regular season results) to ever win the tourney. Not sure if even 'Nova over Georgetown compares. What an incredible run they went on.

Final SRS numbers

2014 UConn ended up #20 in SRS. (Duke was #6)
1985 Villanova ended up #23 in SRS: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/1985-ratings.html (Duke was #4)

[COYS]

I thought Duke 2015 was well inside the top 10 in off eff. Just needed to pick up the D to run to the title (which they did).

You are correct. I worded that poorly. I meant that 2015 Duke did not fit the requirement of being in the top 15 in both categories heading into the NCAAT.

[sagegrouse]

This definitely refers to pre-Tourney numbers. There are quite a few cases of champions starting the tournament outside the top 15 in both categories, including Duke 2015 and both of the recent UCONN champions. If you expand it to include all the teams that make it to the Final Four, the number of exceptions becomes even bigger.


I thought Duke 2015 was well inside the top 10 in off eff. Just needed to pick up the D to run to the title (which they did).

I hope everyone recognizes that this is idle discussion. The brilliant Pomeroy (I mean it!) has come up with two well-conceived scalar measures of team performance, based totally on past results. It is amazing they do as well as they do, but his measures are mere indices, and one-thousandth as complicated as reality -- trend lines, injuries, match-ups and a bunch of others factors are not captured.

And, of course, no measure can figure out the outcome of random variation -- let's see, the plus/minus on 50 field goals attempts (std. deviation) is about eight points (50 pct., one-third three-pointers).

[Wahoo2000]

Your Hoos have jumped up to that top 15 in both categories for the second year in a row. Handsome Tony is on everyone's best coach list. I hope the Final Four breakthrough comes before the "Why can't UVA make the Final Four?" articles start up. Luckily you've got Mark Few/Gonzaga and Sean Miller/AZ giving you some air cover on that score.

I have to say, I've been somewhat floored by our efficiency numbers this year (top 3 on both KenPom and Sagarin). Especially after losing Nichols, I really thought we were at best a 20-10 type of team. Just shocked at the level of performance in what was supposed to be a rebuilding year even BEFORE Nichols was suspended. The craziest part is we haven't even really had any one person step up and become a go-to-guy. Perrantes is SLIGHTLY improved from last year, but only slightly. Nobody else on the team would even be mentioned as an all-conference (even 3rd team) type of player. Everything we've accomplished has just really been a total team effort. 10 man rotation, with different guys stepping up seemingly every night.

I'm not TOO worried about the tournament. If we keep cranking out top 10ish teams year in and year out, it'll happen eventually. I lose a lot more sleep (figuratively) thinking about Bennett going to the NBA. I really don't think he'll leave for another college job.

[vick]

I have to say, I've been somewhat floored by our efficiency numbers this year (top 3 on both KenPom and Sagarin). Especially after losing Nichols, I really thought we were at best a 20-10 type of team. Just shocked at the level of performance in what was supposed to be a rebuilding year even BEFORE Nichols was suspended. The craziest part is we haven't even really had any one person step up and become a go-to-guy. Perrantes is SLIGHTLY improved from last year, but only slightly. Nobody else on the team would even be mentioned as an all-conference (even 3rd team) type of player. Everything we've accomplished has just really been a total team effort. 10 man rotation, with different guys stepping up seemingly every night.

I'm not TOO worried about the tournament. If we keep cranking out top 10ish teams year in and year out, it'll happen eventually. I lose a lot more sleep (figuratively) thinking about Bennett going to the NBA. I really don't think he'll leave for another college job.

I think Wilkins has a shot. Dork stats like win shares (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&year_min=2017&year_max=2017&class_is_fr=Y&class_is_so=Y&class_is_jr=Y&class_is_sr=Y&force%3Aclass_is=1&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&conf_id=acc&games_type=C&order_by=ws) definitely say so, and even that Devon Hall should be in the conversation, although I doubt he will be.

[CDu]

I hope everyone recognizes that this is idle discussion. The brilliant Pomeroy (I mean it!) has come up with two well-conceived scalar measures of team performance, based totally on past results. It is amazing they do as well as they do, but his measures are mere indices, and one-thousandth as complicated as reality -- trend lines, injuries, match-ups and a bunch of others factors are not captured.

And, of course, no measure can figure out the outcome of random variation -- let's see, the plus/minus on 50 field goals attempts (std. deviation) is about eight points (50 pct., one-third three-pointers).

I agree. But to be fair to Pomeroy, he isn't the one pushing the idea that "you need to be top-whatever in both offense and defense to win the title." He is quite aware of the probabilistic nature of it all. He does an analysis of his model predictions for the tournament based on examining how closely his win probabilities aligned with results (how often did 60% favorites win; how often did 70% favorites win; what about 50/50 games). It is other people noticing the "connection." But as others have said, the "connection" is based on post-tourney results, which will inherently include that team's tourney run. And as others have said, even that "connection" isn't foolproof. Teams have won despite not making the criteria. Teams easily making the criteria have flamed out early.

What the Pomeroy measures do somewhat well is identify which teams would seem best suited to do well in the tournament. But once you get into a six-game, single-elimination tourney, there is a lot of randomness at play. So even the best teams stand a reasonably high chance of losing each game after their opening game.

[CDu]

I have to say, I've been somewhat floored by our efficiency numbers this year (top 3 on both KenPom and Sagarin). Especially after losing Nichols, I really thought we were at best a 20-10 type of team. Just shocked at the level of performance in what was supposed to be a rebuilding year even BEFORE Nichols was suspended. The craziest part is we haven't even really had any one person step up and become a go-to-guy. Perrantes is SLIGHTLY improved from last year, but only slightly. Nobody else on the team would even be mentioned as an all-conference (even 3rd team) type of player. Everything we've accomplished has just really been a total team effort. 10 man rotation, with different guys stepping up seemingly every night.

I'm not TOO worried about the tournament. If we keep cranking out top 10ish teams year in and year out, it'll happen eventually. I lose a lot more sleep (figuratively) thinking about Bennett going to the NBA. I really don't think he'll leave for another college job.

You guys don't have a ton of guys with gawdy numbers, but that is partially a function of pace of play and partially a function of Bennett playing an incredibly deep rotation (10 guys averaging double-digit minutes). If any of Shayok (21 mpg), Guy (17 mpg), or Hall (26 mpg) was getting Allen's or Kennard's minutes (especially if combined with Duke's pace of play), they would definitely be in the All-ACC mix.

But part of what has made UVa effective is that you guys are SO deep with efficient shooters. Everyone has a TS% above 50%. All but Shayok have an eFG% above 50%. Four guys shoot above 40% from 3. And you guys are veterans. Hall, Shayok, and Wilkins are juniors. Salt is a third-year sophomore. Perrantes is a senior. Thompson is a fourth-year junior. Over half your regulars have 3+ years in college. That helps.

And, of course, Bennett is a great coach. But I don't think you guys are as bereft of talent as your post or the counting stats might suggest.

[Troublemaker]

I'm not TOO worried about the tournament. If we keep cranking out top 10ish teams year in and year out, it'll happen eventually. I lose a lot more sleep (figuratively) thinking about Bennett going to the NBA. I really don't think he'll leave for another college job.

Agreed on the Final Four (and even a national title). I've written before that it's basically just a numbers game; keep contending year after year after year, and eventually you'll break through.

As for the NBA, I wouldn't worry too much about that. The Pack Line was invented by his father, and so I think there's familial pride there to win a national championship with his family's system and shove it in the face of all the people who have criticized it as being bad for basketball and/or unable to win the big one. But then, could he leave AFTER winning a title? Maybe, but...

...I'm not sure the system translates to the NBA. In college, with the 3-pt line at 20'9", it's physically possible for UVA's players to park themselves at ~16' (the "pack line") and then close out to 3-pt shooters who are passed the ball on kickouts. In the NBA, with shooters shooting from 23'9" (and frankly even farther out, as guys like Curry and Lillard have popularized the deep 3), it's not physically possible to give a good closeout going from 16' to 24'. You basically would end up giving up wide-open 3s "one pass away" on drives, which is a cardinal sin. Plus, defensive 3-seconds could wreak havoc, too.

[duketaylor]

"The only teams top 15 in both KenPom categories right now are:
Gonzaga (4,4), Virginia (15,3), Nova (6,14)"

I'd argue for UVA, somewhat unbiased I am. Should've beaten 'Nova and Zags play week sked. Talking with an unc fan today we agreed UVA is quite dangerous; we questioned if they can score enough. Defense is no issue for the 'Hoos.

Granted no favorites at this point, but I kinda think Az. and Oregon are showing something as well as Fla. Lots of games left!!

[superdave]

"The only teams top 15 in both KenPom categories right now are:
Gonzaga (4,4), Virginia (15,3), Nova (6,14)"

I'd argue for UVA, somewhat unbiased I am. Should've beaten 'Nova and Zags play week sked. Talking with an unc fan today we agreed UVA is quite dangerous; we questioned if they can score enough. Defense is no issue for the 'Hoos.

Granted no favorites at this point, but I kinda think Az. and Oregon are showing something as well as Fla. Lots of games left!!

I have been in the camp for the last few years that Virginia is built for the regular season, not the tournament. They can exert their will on teams, but when a team game-plans for them or pushes them off what they want to do (speeding up the game, for example), Virginia struggles. They also have never had a that one elite player, a top 10 recruit, that puts them on another level. We had it with Grant Hill, Luol Deng, Justise Winslow, and those guys carried the team on both ends for stretches.

[budwom]

I have been in the camp for the last few years that Virginia is built for the regular season, not the tournament. They can exert their will on teams, but when a team game-plans for them or pushes them off what they want to do (speeding up the game, for example), Virginia struggles. They also have never had a that one elite player, a top 10 recruit, that puts them on another level. We had it with Grant Hill, Luol Deng, Justise Winslow, and those guys carried the team on both ends for stretches.

I kind of feel that way about Gonzaga...solid team, but I'd like our chances vs them in the tournament...

[uh_no]

I have been in the camp for the last few years that Virginia is built for the regular season, not the tournament. They can exert their will on teams, but when a team game-plans for them or pushes them off what they want to do (speeding up the game, for example), Virginia struggles. They also have never had a that one elite player, a top 10 recruit, that puts them on another level. We had it with Grant Hill, Luol Deng, Justise Winslow, and those guys carried the team on both ends for stretches.

playing fewer possessions also means you have fewer chances to exert your superior efficiency. This "law of small numbers" means both your and your opponents output have increased deviation relative to the number of points. This makes sense since standard deviations add as sqrt(a^2+b^2), and that value must necessarily be less than a+b (by the triangle inequality).

In laymens terms, it's easier for your opponent to get hot (or you go cold) for a small number of possessions than more....so virginia opens them up to losing games to lesser opponents by playing slow.

The flip side to this is that it's quite possible that their efficiency is so high BECAUSE they play slow, and it would decrease if they played faster....but the fact remains that under their current scheme, they open themselves up to fluke losses.

[DukieInBrasil]

I have been in the camp for the last few years that Virginia is built for the regular season, not the tournament. They can exert their will on teams, but when a team game-plans for them or pushes them off what they want to do (speeding up the game, for example), Virginia struggles. They also have never had a that one elite player, a top 10 recruit, that puts them on another level. We had it with Grant Hill, Luol Deng, Justise Winslow, and those guys carried the team on both ends for stretches.

Winslow was just outside the top 10 at 13. He played a lot better than many of the top 10 recruits, but that's a different story. Jahlil otoh was #1 in that class and Tyus was #7, according to RSCI.

[NSDukeFan]

Winslow was just outside the top 10 at 13. He played a lot better than many of the top 10 recruits, but that's a different story. Jahlil otoh was #1 in that class and Tyus was #7, according to RSCI.

He would have fit in very well at Virginia as that is Bennett's motto: Win slow.

[Wahoo2000]

playing fewer possessions also means you have fewer chances to exert your superior efficiency. This "law of small numbers" means both your and your opponents output have increased deviation relative to the number of points. This makes sense since standard deviations add as sqrt(a^2+b^2), and that value must necessarily be less than a+b (by the triangle inequality).

In laymens terms, it's easier for your opponent to get hot (or you go cold) for a small number of possessions than more...so virginia opens them up to losing games to lesser opponents by playing slow.

The flip side to this is that it's quite possible that their efficiency is so high BECAUSE they play slow, and it would decrease if they played faster...but the fact remains that under their current scheme, they open themselves up to fluke losses.

Nailed it. If we sped up significantly, I don't think we'd be nearly as effective. I think as we recruit better athletes, you'll see us move up slightly in tempo. Never to be top-half, but maybe just not at the VERY bottom. Also of interest is as the shot clock is shortened, the variance in tempo between the slowest teams and the middle of the pack teams is decreasing. That's something else that can "narrow the gap" in variance between us and "most teams".

What's funny though is that I don't think any of our postseason losses are really attributable to the pace, and I wouldn't call any a fluke except maybe Syracuse, and that had way more to do with our just straight getting tight than anything else. Our other postseason losses over the last few years came to UNC (twice, and they were very good both years) and MSU (also twice, and also very good both times - once as the odds on tourney favorite, and once when they went to the final four).

[House P]

I think it was Grant Wahl or Luke Winn of SI who posited that the eventual NCAA champ is usually top 15 in both KenPom offense and defense. Granted, the champ usually winds up there due to a solid NCAA run, but it's fun to look for contenders as the season wears on.

...

The only teams top 15 in both KenPom categories right now are:
Gonzaga (4,4), Virginia (15,3), Nova (6,14)

I remember hearing something along these lines as well. There may have been a time period (2002-2008?) when this "rule" was true based on post-tourney rankings, but there are a lot of exceptions if you use pre-tourney rankings.

KenPom now has pre-tourney ranking on his site going back to 2002. In that time

8 of 15 NCAA Champions were ranked in the top 15 in pre-tourney offensive and defensive efficiency
4 of 15 NCAA Runners-up were ranked in the top 15 in pre-tourney offensive and defensive efficiency
16 of 60 Final Four teams overall were ranked in the top 15 in pre-tourney offensive and defensive efficiency. That includes just 4 of 30 teams which made the Final Four but lost in the semi-finals.


Here is a full list of the pre-tourney rankings of NCAA Champs and Runners-up since 2002. KenPom seems to frequently tweak his methodology, so the rankings below are based on his current methodology.




NCAA Champ
Off Rank
Def Rank
Overall


2002
Maryland
5
11
3


2003
Syracuse
16
33
20


2004
Connecticut
14
7
5


2005
North Carolina
4
6
2


2006
Florida
14
18
6


2007
Florida
1
14
2


2008
Kansas
1
3
1


2009
North Carolina
1
39
3


2010
Duke
4
5
2


2011
Connecticut
22
25
16


2012
Kentucky
2
6
1


2013
Louisville
17
1
2


2014
Connecticut
58
12
25


2015
Duke
3
37
6


2016
Villanova
15
7
5






Runner-up
Off Rank
Def Rank
Overall


2002
Indiana
28
7
9


2003
Kansas
17
3
2


2004
Georgia Tech
20
5
6


2005
Illinois
2
8
1


2006
UCLA
19
15
11


2007
Ohio St.
8
8
3


2008
Memphis
22
1
3


2009
Michigan St.
34
9
14


2010
Butler
48
18
22


2011
Butler
34
72
45


2012
Kansas
13
7
4


2013
Michigan
2
66
9


2014
Kentucky
19
35
20


2015
Wisconsin
1
16
2


2016
North Carolina
4
13
4

[Troublemaker]

Duke is back in Luke Winn's Power Rankings (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/02/16/power-rankings-gonzaga-villanova-kansas-baylor-oregon) with our improved play, although our blurb in this column was uninteresting. It was just some video of Luke receiving handoffs in the Horns set.

Wisconsin's blub was pretty cool, though.

[uh_no]

our defense has fallen off the face of a cliff after two games.

after syracuse, we were up at #25. We're now sitting at #49.

On the flip side, the offense has crept up to effectively at parity with the best in the nation. This is despite grayson's lackluster play, and almost assuredly helped by the nutso numbers that jayson is putting up.

[Billy Dat]

ESPN College Hoops Quant, John Gasaway, posts a weekly Tuesday personal blog post - "Tuesday Truths". Yesterday he led with Duke:

https://johngasaway.com/2017/02/28/tuesday-truths-penultimate-edition/

He compares 2015 and 2017 and sees the primary divergence(s):

"One issue is shot volume, or, more specifically, offensive rebounding. Another is rim defense."

[Kedsy]

ESPN College Hoops Quant, John Gasaway, posts a weekly Tuesday personal blog post - "Tuesday Truths". Yesterday he led with Duke:

https://johngasaway.com/2017/02/28/tuesday-truths-penultimate-edition/

He compares 2015 and 2017 and sees the primary divergence(s):

"One issue is shot volume, or, more specifically, offensive rebounding. Another is rim defense."

He's not wrong about offensive rebounding. I've harped on this before, but I think it's a very interesting stat:

Duke top ten offensive rebounding teams (since stat began to be kept in 1987):

1999: 44.3% (final game)
1990: 40.9% (final game)
2010: 40.6% (champ)
1988: 40.5% (Final Four)
1998: 39.7% (Elite Eight)
1992: 39.5% (champ)
2004: 39.2% (Final Four)
1996: 38.3% (1st round exit)
1994: 38.0% (final game)
1991: 38.0% (champ)

Only one "false positive" out of 10, and 8 of our 11 Final Fours since 1987 (plus one "shouldabeen" Final Four in 1998).

Duke bottom ten offensive rebounding teams since 1987 (including this season, so far):

2013: 28.8% (Elite Eight)
2006: 30.9% (Sweet 16)
2017: 32.4% (???)
2016: 32.9% (Sweet 16)
2008: 34.0% (2nd round exit)
2002: 34.5% (Sweet 16)
2012: 34.7% (1st round exit)
2011: 35.1% (Sweet 16)
2014: 35.2% (1st round exit)
2015: 35.8% (champ)

Two first round exits from high seeds, one second round exit from a high seed (after a 1 point win over Belmont in the first round), three unexpectedly early exits from really good teams (2002, 2006, 2011), and last year's somewhat flawed Sweet 16 team. Plus the 2013 team's Elite Eight and 2015's championship (albeit with just the 10th worst offensive rebounding performance, much better than this year's team).

It looks like a pretty good indicator of Duke post-season success.

The good news is there is some room for hope here. Our two top offensive rebounders this season (among players with more than 100 total minutes) are Harry (17.2%) and Marques (11.4%). Amile's OR% is only 9.7%, but presumably that's at least in part due to his injury (his previous OR percentages were 12.8% as a freshman, 14.8% as a sophomore, 13.8% as a junior, and 17.7% in his truncated senior season). So, if Amile heals and gets back to his career form and if Harry and/or Marques get more minutes, our offensive rebounding percentage will almost certainly rise. Of course it's anybody's guess whether (a) it would rise to the level that would make Duke an elite quality team; and/or (b) Amile can get healthy; and/or (c) Harry and/or Marques can get more minutes without harming the team in other areas; and/or (d) Coach K actually decides to play Harry and/or Marques more minutes.

[Billy Dat]

@GaryParrishCBS 7m7 minutes ago
Three schools currently have a college basketball-best 10 top-50 RPI wins. They are:
Butler
Villanova
Duke

[bob blue devil]

@GaryParrishCBS 7m7 minutes ago
Three schools currently have a college basketball-best 10 top-50 RPI wins. They are:
Butler
Villanova
Duke

thanks to mr. parrish for providing a stat every dork will acknowledge has limited usefulness. but, what they hay, go duke!

[Kedsy]

ESPN College Hoops Quant, John Gasaway, posts a weekly Tuesday personal blog post - "Tuesday Truths". Yesterday he led with Duke:

https://johngasaway.com/2017/02/28/tuesday-truths-penultimate-edition/

He compares 2015 and 2017 and sees the primary divergence(s):

"One issue is shot volume, or, more specifically, offensive rebounding. Another is rim defense."

So, I took another crack at this, to see how much effect the differences Gasaway points out really have:

He used only conference numbers for some reason so, doing the same, the difference between 36.9% OR% (2015) and 31.8% OR% (2017) comes out to 1.7 fewer offensive rebounds per game, which assuming 1.2 points per possession, would mean we score two fewer points per game due to a lack of offensive rebounding. If you take full season numbers, that would drop to 1.0 fewer offensive rebounds per game and 1.2 fewer points per game.

On defense, again using conference numbers, the difference in our opponents' two-point shooting percentage gives our opponents 1.4 more 2-point makes per game, or 2.8 points per game. For the season, that drops to 0.81 more 2-point makes, or 1.62 points per game.

So, overall, without looking at things the 2017 team does better than the 2015 team (for example, this year's team on defense has forced opponents to shoot a lower 3-point make percentage than the 2015 team, which in conference games comes out to 0.45 fewer 3-point makes per game, or 1.36 points, which takes away half the difference caused by 2-point percentage), the two factors he names have cost us almost 5 points per game in conference play. Since we've lost three conference games by 5 points or less, that would seem to be significant, though only if you assume we'd still be better this season at, e.g., opponents' three-point shooting percentage.

I conclude the differences are real but if we can get healthy those differences will shrink to the point of not being all that important when it comes to our tournament chances.

[CDu]

The NCAA tourney draw could get REALLY interesting if we beat UNC on Saturday. Here is how the two teams' resumes stack up right now:

Duke: 23-7, 11-6 in ACC, SOS #23, RPI #13, KenPom #15, 5-3 vs RPI top-25, 10-5 vs RPI top-100, one bad loss (NC St)
UNC: 24-6, 13-4 in ACC, SOS #22, RPI #5, KenPom #3, 4-3 vs RPI top-25, 9-4 vs RPI top-100, no bad losses (technically speaking, obviously the drubbing by Ga Tech is bad, but doesn't show up on the resume as anything but an okay loss)

If we win, both teams would be 24-7 (UNC's win over Chaminade doesn't count). We'd have virtually identical SOS, very similar RPI, but Duke would be 6-3 vs RPI top-25 compared with UNC's 4-4, and 11-5 vs RPI top-100 compared with UNC's 9-5. And we'd have the head-to-head sweep.

You'd think both team's resumes would be such that there would be little to no difference in the conventional-wisdom seedings right now. Right? Well, no. Lunardi suggests we are a #4 (perhaps moving up to a #3 after the FSU win), whereas UNC is still a #1.

Bottom line: if we beat UNC this weekend, I think it would be hard to justify UNC as a clear #1, and it would be really hard to justify us as anywhere below a 3.

[flyingdutchdevil]

The NCAA tourney draw could get REALLY interesting if we beat UNC on Saturday. Here is how the two teams' resumes stack up right now:

Duke: 23-7, 11-6 in ACC, SOS #23, RPI #13, KenPom #15, 5-3 vs RPI top-25, 10-5 vs RPI top-100, one bad loss (NC St)
UNC: 24-6, 13-4 in ACC, SOS #22, RPI #5, KenPom #3, 4-3 vs RPI top-25, 9-4 vs RPI top-100, no bad losses (technically speaking, obviously the drubbing by Ga Tech is bad, but doesn't show up on the resume as anything but an okay loss)

If we win, both teams would be 24-7 (UNC's win over Chaminade doesn't count). We'd have virtually identical SOS, very similar RPI, but Duke would be 6-3 vs RPI top-25 compared with UNC's 4-4, and 11-5 vs RPI top-100 compared with UNC's 9-5. And we'd have the head-to-head sweep.

You'd think both team's resumes would be such that there would be little to no difference in the conventional-wisdom seedings right now. Right? Well, no. Lunardi suggests we are a #4 (perhaps moving up to a #3 after the FSU win), whereas UNC is still a #1.

Bottom line: if we beat UNC this weekend, I think it would be hard to justify UNC as a clear #1, and it would be really hard to justify us as anywhere below a 3.

Agreed with what you said. But I think the ACC Tournament holds more equity than ever better when it comes to seeding. If UNC wins the Tournament, they should be a #1 seed. If Duke wins (regardless of Duke-UNC game), I'd argue we are a #2 seed.

Worst case for UNC: They lose on Sat and the first game of the Tournament and become a borderline 3-seed.

Worst case for Duke: They lose on Sat and the first game of the Tournament and become a borderline 5-seed.

[uh_no]

@GaryParrishCBS 7m7 minutes ago
Three schools currently have a college basketball-best 10 top-50 RPI wins. They are:
Butler
Villanova
Duke

I don't think the argument was ever that duke can't beat good teams (which is what makes them as dangerous as anyone in the country). The issue is, flatly, that we don't beat them by enough, or with enough consistency, to be confident that we can be confident we will win the game when it comes.

Such a stat, as is suggested, has limited usefulness. It is likely that duke has one of the highest rop-50 RPI games in the country, and given you'd expect relatively equal teams to win against top-50 opponents at relatively the same %, more opportunities will naturally lead to more wins.

Second, given there's 3 teams at 10, there's probably a dozen or more at 9. There is little significance to that one game.

Third, RPI is a terrible metric to begin with, and there is an extensive KP article on how you can't make a terrible metric good by simply saying "wins against X" rather than observing X directly.

[DukieInBrasil]

The NCAA tourney draw could get REALLY interesting if we beat UNC on Saturday. Here is how the two teams' resumes stack up right now:

Duke: 23-7, 11-6 in ACC, SOS #23, RPI #13, KenPom #15, 5-3 vs RPI top-25, 10-5 vs RPI top-100, one bad loss (NC St)
UNC: 24-6, 13-4 in ACC, SOS #22, RPI #5, KenPom #3, 4-3 vs RPI top-25, 9-4 vs RPI top-100, no bad losses (technically speaking, obviously the drubbing by Ga Tech is bad, but doesn't show up on the resume as anything but an okay loss)

If we win, both teams would be 24-7 (UNC's win over Chaminade doesn't count). We'd have virtually identical SOS, very similar RPI, but Duke would be 6-3 vs RPI top-25 compared with UNC's 4-4, and 11-5 vs RPI top-100 compared with UNC's 9-5. And we'd have the head-to-head sweep.

You'd think both team's resumes would be such that there would be little to no difference in the conventional-wisdom seedings right now. Right? Well, no. Lunardi suggests we are a #4 (perhaps moving up to a #3 after the FSU win), whereas UNC is still a #1.

Bottom line: if we beat UNC this weekend, I think it would be hard to justify UNC as a clear #1, and it would be really hard to justify us as anywhere below a 3.

The ACC-T complicates the Bottom Line picture further. If Duke wins on Saturday AND wins the ACC-T, Duke could make an outside argument for a #1 seed, but certainly no worse than a #2 seed. The #1 seed argument would rest on who we beat to get to win the ACC-T, ie if we beat the Holes again and 2 of UL, UVA, FSU, ND, VTech or Miami we'd have a good argument for a #1 seed. This argument is also somewhat contingent on how other potential #1 seeds finish the year.
Beat UNC and then not win the ACC-T and i think we could be a 2 thru 4 seed, depending on when the hypothetical loss in the ACC-T happens, ie. earlier loss would yield lower seed. However, if Duke loses vs UNC and loses the first ACC-T game, and we may be looking at a #5 seed.
Of course i'm pulling for 4 strait wins prior to the NCAA tournament!

[flyingdutchdevil]

The ACC-T complicates the Bottom Line picture further. If Duke wins on Saturday AND wins the ACC-T, Duke could make an outside argument for a #1 seed, but certainly no worse than a #2 seed. The #1 seed argument would rest on who we beat to get to win the ACC-T, ie if we beat the Holes again and 2 of UL, UVA, FSU, ND, VTech or Miami we'd have a good argument for a #1 seed. This argument is also somewhat contingent on how other potential #1 seeds finish the year.
Beat UNC and then not win the ACC-T and i think we could be a 2 thru 4 seed, depending on when the hypothetical loss in the ACC-T happens, ie. earlier loss would yield lower seed. However, if Duke loses vs UNC and loses the first ACC-T game, and we may be looking at a #5 seed.
Of course i'm pulling for 4 strait wins prior to the NCAA tournament!

I really think that ship has sailed. The Zags and Nova - correctly so - are basically guaranteed a 1-seed. Someone from the Big 12 is guaranteed a 1-seed (Hell, I'll happily put money that the Zags, Nova, and a Big 12 team is getting a one-seed). That last one seed is very tricky.

If UNC wins out, they deserve that 1-seed. If Arizona, Oregon, or UCLA win out (chances that one of them wins out is likely), then they are next in line for a 1-seed. If Baylor wins out, then I think they are next in line as well.

Basically, in order for Duke to get a 1-seed, they need to win out, Carolina has to have a crappy tournament, a non-Arizona/Oregon/UCLA team needs to win the Pac-12, and Baylor/WVU need to do poorly in the tournament.

That is a lot of "ifs", so I don't see Duke getting a 1-seed.

[DukieInBrasil]

I really think that ship has sailed. The Zags and Nova - correctly so - are basically guaranteed a 1-seed. Someone from the Big 12 is guaranteed a 1-seed (Hell, I'll happily put money that the Zags, Nova, and a Big 12 team is getting a one-seed). That last one seed is very tricky.

If UNC wins out, they deserve that 1-seed. If Arizona, Oregon, or UCLA win out (chances that one of them wins out is likely), then they are next in line for a 1-seed. If Baylor wins out, then I think they are next in line as well.

Basically, in order for Duke to get a 1-seed, they need to win out, Carolina has to have a crappy tournament, a non-Arizona/Oregon/UCLA team needs to win the Pac-12, and Baylor/WVU need to do poorly in the tournament.

That is a lot of "ifs", so I don't see Duke getting a 1-seed.

That's essentially no different than what i wrote. That's the inherent implication in "outside shot", as well as "contingent on how other potential #1 seeds finish".

[rasputin]

I really think that ship has sailed. The Zags and Nova - correctly so - are basically guaranteed a 1-seed. Someone from the Big 12 is guaranteed a 1-seed (Hell, I'll happily put money that the Zags, Nova, and a Big 12 team is getting a one-seed). That last one seed is very tricky.

If UNC wins out, they deserve that 1-seed. If Arizona, Oregon, or UCLA win out (chances that one of them wins out is likely), then they are next in line for a 1-seed. If Baylor wins out, then I think they are next in line as well.

Basically, in order for Duke to get a 1-seed, they need to win out, Carolina has to have a crappy tournament, a non-Arizona/Oregon/UCLA team needs to win the Pac-12, and Baylor/WVU need to do poorly in the tournament.

That is a lot of "ifs", so I don't see Duke getting a 1-seed.

I don't think Gonzaga gets a #1 if they stumble again, but that just opens the door for one of the Pac-12 teams to step into the 1 slot in the West.

[CDu]

If UNC wins out, they deserve that 1-seed. If Arizona, Oregon, or UCLA win out (chances that one of them wins out is likely), then they are next in line for a 1-seed. If Baylor wins out, then I think they are next in line as well.

Basically, in order for Duke to get a 1-seed, they need to win out, Carolina has to have a crappy tournament, a non-Arizona/Oregon/UCLA team needs to win the Pac-12, and Baylor/WVU need to do poorly in the tournament.

That is a lot of "ifs", so I don't see Duke getting a 1-seed.

This is exactly why I posted what I posted. There is no way on earth that UNC, with 2 more losses (even if their tourney loss is to us in the ACC Finals) should be in consideration for a 1 seed above us. In that scenario, we would have a better overall record, the same ACC record, 3 head-to-head wins of them, a notably better record against the top-25 and top-50, and WAY more quality road/neutral site wins.

If we win the UNC game and the ACC tournament, there should be absolutely no question that we should be the highest seeded ACC team in the NCAA tournament.

Now, if you want to argue that a Pac-12 team would get the spot over us and any other ACC team, sure. But there would be no reasonable argument for UNC being seeded ahead of Duke if we beat them again and go on to win the ACC tournament.

[mr. synellinden]

He's not wrong about offensive rebounding. I've harped on this before, but I think it's a very interesting stat:

Duke top ten offensive rebounding teams (since stat began to be kept in 1987):

1999: 44.3% (final game)
1990: 40.9% (final game)
2010: 40.6% (champ)
1988: 40.5% (Final Four)
1998: 39.7% (Elite Eight)
1992: 39.5% (champ)
2004: 39.2% (Final Four)
1996: 38.3% (1st round exit)
1994: 38.0% (final game)
1991: 38.0% (champ)

Only one "false positive" out of 10, and 8 of our 11 Final Fours since 1987 (plus one "shouldabeen" Final Four in 1998).

Duke bottom ten offensive rebounding teams since 1987 (including this season, so far):

2013: 28.8% (Elite Eight)
2006: 30.9% (Sweet 16)
2017: 32.4% (???)
2016: 32.9% (Sweet 16)
2008: 34.0% (2nd round exit)
2002: 34.5% (Sweet 16)
2012: 34.7% (1st round exit)
2011: 35.1% (Sweet 16)
2014: 35.2% (1st round exit)
2015: 35.8% (champ)

Two first round exits from high seeds, one second round exit from a high seed (after a 1 point win over Belmont in the first round), three unexpectedly early exits from really good teams (2002, 2006, 2011), and last year's somewhat flawed Sweet 16 team. Plus the 2013 team's Elite Eight and 2015's championship (albeit with just the 10th worst offensive rebounding performance, much better than this year's team).

It looks like a pretty good indicator of Duke post-season success.

The good news is there is some room for hope here. Our two top offensive rebounders this season (among players with more than 100 total minutes) are Harry (17.2%) and Marques (11.4%). Amile's OR% is only 9.7%, but presumably that's at least in part due to his injury (his previous OR percentages were 12.8% as a freshman, 14.8% as a sophomore, 13.8% as a junior, and 17.7% in his truncated senior season). So, if Amile heals and gets back to his career form and if Harry and/or Marques get more minutes, our offensive rebounding percentage will almost certainly rise. Of course it's anybody's guess whether (a) it would rise to the level that would make Duke an elite quality team; and/or (b) Amile can get healthy; and/or (c) Harry and/or Marques can get more minutes without harming the team in other areas; and/or (d) Coach K actually decides to play Harry and/or Marques more minutes.

Great post. I've always felt that offensive rebounding was a key factor in the NCAA tournament and one of the reasons why Michigan St. seems to exceed expectations often. I'd be curious to see the same analysis for MSU to see if there is a correlation between their tourney success and their OR% from year to year.

[Kedsy]

I really think that ship has sailed. The Zags and Nova - correctly so - are basically guaranteed a 1-seed. Someone from the Big 12 is guaranteed a 1-seed (Hell, I'll happily put money that the Zags, Nova, and a Big 12 team is getting a one-seed). That last one seed is very tricky.

If UNC wins out, they deserve that 1-seed. If Arizona, Oregon, or UCLA win out (chances that one of them wins out is likely), then they are next in line for a 1-seed. If Baylor wins out, then I think they are next in line as well.

Basically, in order for Duke to get a 1-seed, they need to win out, Carolina has to have a crappy tournament, a non-Arizona/Oregon/UCLA team needs to win the Pac-12, and Baylor/WVU need to do poorly in the tournament.

That is a lot of "ifs", so I don't see Duke getting a 1-seed.

First, Gonzaga is #11 in the RPI right now. If they lose in their league tourney they will absolutely not get a #1, and even if they win it, they might get shunted down to a #2 with their not-quite-good-enough RPI. Villanova will be a #1 if they win out, but if they don't then it's possible they drop to a #2 as well (not probable perhaps but certainly possible). If Baylor wins out, then that probably cancels the "guaranteed" Big 12 spot in your first sentence, meaning Baylor might get a #1 and non-Big-12-champion Kansas might get a #1, while both getting #1 would be possible but not probable. If Duke wins out, UNC won't get a #1 (because they'd have lost three times in a week and a half). In other words, we don't need both Duke to win out and "Carolina [to] have a crappy tournament."

If Duke wins out, there's certainly room. Sure, it's possible Gonzaga and a Pac 12 team (or a second Big 12 team) join Kansas and Villanova as the #1s, but it's also possible the committee decides to reward the winner of the best conference in college basketball. It's not nearly as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

[English]

First, Gonzaga is #11 in the RPI right now. If they lose in their league tourney they will absolutely not get a #1, and even if they win it, they might get shunted down to a #2 with their not-quite-good-enough RPI. Villanova will be a #1 if they win out, but if they don't then it's possible they drop to a #2 as well (not probable perhaps but certainly possible). If Baylor wins out, then that probably cancels the "guaranteed" Big 12 spot in your first sentence, meaning Baylor might get a #1 and non-Big-12-champion Kansas might get a #1, while both getting #1 would be possible but not probable. If Duke wins out, UNC won't get a #1 (because they'd have lost three times in a week and a half). In other words, we don't need both Duke to win out and "Carolina [to] have a crappy tournament."

If Duke wins out, there's certainly room. Sure, it's possible Gonzaga and a Pac 12 team (or a second Big 12 team) join Kansas and Villanova as the #1s, but it's also possible the committee decides to reward the winner of the best conference in college basketball. It's not nearly as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

It's exceedingly hard to fathom a situation in which the West Region does NOT have a PAC-12/Gonzaga 1-2 punch in some order. It's also tough to fathom--barring a total meltdown in the first games of the BigEast & BigXII, respectively--Nova missing the 1-seed in the East, and with KU's regular season dominance in the BigXII, them missing the 1-seed in the Midwest.

That leaves the 1-seed in the South. I'm of the opinion, worth every penny you've paid for it, that if Duke wins out, we get it. Things get interesting if the bad guys win on Saturday, but Louisville wins the ACCT. I'd suspect the Committee will reward unc with the 1-seed with a regular season conference champs and at least a trip to the ACCT finals. Otherwise, I could see Louisville getting the 1-seed if they win out and unc loses in the QF or SF.

[duke4ever19]

I just hope all this carnage leads to the ACC absolutely dominating in the NCAA tournament (with one notable exception).

[niveklaen]

I thought that they were announcing the top 16 teams (1-4 seeds) Saturday night this year - ie winning the ACC Tournament would not have even happened when the top seeds get announced?

[English]

I thought that they were announcing the top 16 teams (1-4 seeds) Saturday night this year - ie winning the ACC Tournament would not have even happened when the top seeds get announced?

That would be news to me...and would also preclude them from repeating their abhorrent 2-hour Selection Special that was so dreadful last year. Do you have a source for this?

[TexHawk]

That leaves the 1-seed in the South. I'm of the opinion, worth every penny you've paid for it, that if Duke wins out, we get it. Things get interesting if the bad guys win on Saturday, but Louisville wins the ACCT. I'd suspect the Committee will reward unc with the 1-seed with a regular season conference champs and at least a trip to the ACCT finals. Otherwise, I could see Louisville getting the 1-seed if they win out and unc loses in the QF or SF.

Would be interesting to see where Louisville, UNC, and Duke shake out if Duke is the ACC tournament champ, and Baylor is out there with 6 losses (and a Big12 tournament title).

Duke would have a tournament trophy, 2 wins over UNC, a reg season loss to Louisville (but avenged in the conference tournament).
UNC 2 losses to Duke, but a win over Louisville. (They would have an extra loss too.)
Louisville with a win and loss vs Duke, but a loss to UNC. They are currently #3 in the RPI.
Baylor would have a trophy, a likely Top 5 RPI, a noncon win over Louisville, and one less loss than the ACC champ.


That might open the door to one of the Pac12 teams. Or an SEC-champ UK (5 losses, head-to-head over the ACC regular season champ, loss to Louisville). Butler is also lurking... 10 Top 50 wins, including Nova (x2), Cincinnati, and Arizona.

[Kedsy]

Would be interesting to see where Louisville, UNC, and Duke shake out if Duke is the ACC tournament champ, and Baylor is out there with 6 losses (and a Big12 tournament title).

Duke would have a tournament trophy, 2 wins over UNC, a reg season loss to Louisville (but avenged in the conference tournament).
UNC 2 losses to Duke, but a win over Louisville. (They would have an extra loss too.)
Louisville with a win and loss vs Duke, but a loss to UNC. They are currently #3 in the RPI.
Baylor would have a trophy, a likely Top 5 RPI, a noncon win over Louisville, and one less loss than the ACC champ.


That might open the door to one of the Pac12 teams. Or an SEC-champ UK (5 losses, head-to-head over the ACC regular season champ, loss to Louisville). Butler is also lurking... 10 Top 50 wins, including Nova (x2), Cincinnati, and Arizona.

You think Butler is really in play for a possible #1 seed? And where do you see Kansas in your above hypothetical?

[kAzE]

Honestly, I don't even think we deserve a #1 seed if we win out at this point. Too many losses to teams we should have beat (NC State at home was the worst, but IMO, losing to Syracuse was a bad loss). I think a #2 might be our best case scenario now, and more likely a #3 or #4 . . .

[CDu]

Honestly, I don't even think we deserve a #1 seed if we win out at this point. Too many losses to teams we should have beat. I think a #2 might be our best case scenario now, and more likely a #3 or #4 . . .

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it ignores the rest of the country. But even more simply, what do you think is a reasonable seed or potential seed for UNC? Are they in play for a #1? Keep in mind that they have a whopping 1 fewer loss than we do. Louisville? Same thing. Baylor? Same thing. Arizona, UCLA, and Oregon have fewer losses but play in a crappier conference.

There is very possibly going to be a 6- or 7-loss team getting a 1 seed, and most certainly a couple of those teams getting a 2 seed. So why are our 7 losses (which would be better than UNC and as good as anyone outside of the three all-but-guaranteed 1 seeds Gonzaga/PAc-12 champ, Nova, KU) restricting us to a 3 or 4? What group of 6 or 7 loss teams are so clearly ahead of us right now in terms of resume?

[MChambers]

I just hope all this carnage leads to the ACC absolutely dominating in the NCAA tournament (with one notable exception).

I certainly agree with this, except that the exception is not notable at all, except for an NCAA scandal.

[mr. synellinden]

Honestly, I don't even think we deserve a #1 seed if we win out at this point. Too many losses to teams we should have beat (NC State at home was the worst, but IMO, losing to Syracuse was a bad loss). I think a #2 might be our best case scenario now, and more likely a #3 or #4 . . .

Assuming we win out, I think it would be based on: 1) the eye test - how did we play, how does our defense look, etc.: 2) the apparent health of GA and AJ - if they look close to 100%, that will be a factor; and 3) who wins and loses in other conference tournaments. What if USC ends up winning the PAC 12? What if Gonzaga loses again? What if Villanova loses early.

There is a path, but a lot would have to happen.

It's like the great scene in Vision Quest. It ain't the six minutes. It's what happens in that six minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzJcAV5xR0U

[TexHawk]

You think Butler is really in play for a possible #1 seed? And where do you see Kansas in your above hypothetical?

Not really, but they have a decent resume. Teamrankings has them as the 4th most likely to get a #1 (https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-tournament/bracketology/), though I don't buy that.

I think KU will lock in the #1 in the Midwest with just one win in the Big12 tournament, likely against Texas Tech or Oklahoma. If they win, they would likely play the winner of Iowa State/OSU on Friday, who are both tournament teams playing well. A loss there won't kill KU. Tbh, with a short bench, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to take a breather. KU really doesn't need 3 games in 3 days.

For the record, I am not optimistic about Stillwater this coming Saturday. Far better KU teams have lost there to far worse OSU teams. At 27-5, KU would have head-to-head wins over UK, Duke, Baylor (x2), a Top 5 RPI, and no real regional threats for that slot. I wouldn't sleep well the night before, but logically I don't see how the Pac12 *and* ACC champs could jump over us for the #1 slots in the Midwest and South. But I've been wrong before.

[wk2109]

Honestly, I don't even think we deserve a #1 seed if we win out at this point. Too many losses to teams we should have beat (NC State at home was the worst, but IMO, losing to Syracuse was a bad loss). I think a #2 might be our best case scenario now, and more likely a #3 or #4 . . .

How much of the losing would be forgiven based on Coach K's absence, though? If Duke wins out, it would be 27-7 (assuming a double bye in the ACC tournament), but 23-4 with K at the helm.

This article suggests that the committee will take Coach K's injury into account: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-selection-committee-has-unprecedented-task-of-judging-duke-without-coach-k/

What if Grayson is 100% healthy next week and dominates the ACC tournament (and Duke wins out)? Would the Miami loss (in which Grayson was out with injury) lose significance in the committee's eyes?

[CDu]

How much of the losing would be forgiven based on Coach K's absence, though? If Duke wins out, it would be 27-7 (assuming a double bye in the ACC tournament), but 23-4 with K at the helm.

This article suggests that the committee will take Coach K's injury into account: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-selection-committee-has-unprecedented-task-of-judging-duke-without-coach-k/

What if Grayson is 100% healthy next week and dominates the ACC tournament (and Duke wins out)? Would the Miami loss (in which Grayson was out with injury) lose significance in the committee's eyes?

All but one of our losses came without either a starter or coach out that will be available for the tourney:
Kansas: Tatum (Giles and Bolden too, but they have been -at best - rotation players)
Va Tech: Allen
FSU: Coach K, Jefferson
Louisville: Coach K, Jefferson
State: Coach K
Syracuse: all available (Allen not healthy, but the committee doesn't care unless you sit out)
Miami: Allen

[Kedsy]

Honestly, I don't even think we deserve a #1 seed if we win out at this point. Too many losses to teams we should have beat (NC State at home was the worst, but IMO, losing to Syracuse was a bad loss). I think a #2 might be our best case scenario now, and more likely a #3 or #4 . . .

#1 seeds with 6+ losses in last 20 seasons:

1997: UNC (6);
2000: Michigan St (7); Arizona (6);
2001: Illinois (7);
2003: Oklahoma (6); Texas (6);
2005: Washington (6); Duke (6);
2012: Michigan State (7);
2013: Indiana (6);
2014: Virginia (6);
2016: Virginia (7); Oregon (6); UNC (6);

So it's not like it never happens.

I didn't take the time to go through each team's schedule, but last season's Virginia team got a #1 with 7 losses, after finishing tied for 2nd in the ACC regular season, and not winning the ACC tournament, with losses to George Washington, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Florida State, none of which made the NCAA tournament and all but Florida State (#48) with worse Pomeroy rankings than Syracuse (#51) has now. In other words, a resume worse than what Duke would have if we win out.

[wk2109]

All but one of our losses came without either a starter or coach out that will be available for the tourney:
Kansas: Tatum (Giles and Bolden too, but they have been -at best - rotation players)
Va Tech: Allen
FSU: Coach K, Jefferson
Louisville: Coach K, Jefferson
State: Coach K
Syracuse: all available (Allen not healthy, but the committee doesn't care unless you sit out)
Miami: Allen

Yea, to state the obvious, this season has been incredibly marred with injuries and Grayson's suspension. However, perhaps one good thing about the injuries is that they've all been temporary -- or, at least, not season-ending. In terms of impressing the committee, Duke still has 4 (or 5) potential games to show that everyone's healthy and the team has put it all together.

If Duke can get a convincing road win at UNC with a healthy Amile, that could lessen the negative impact of the road FSU and Louisville losses. And like I said in my earlier post, if Grayson comes back fully healthy and shines in the ACC tournament, that could lessen the negative impact of the VA Tech and Miami losses (the committee says it takes absence due to suspension into account, presumably in the same way it takes absence due to injury into account, as demonstrated by its treatment of Syracuse/Jim Boeheim's suspension).

So, if Duke gets fully healthy and dominates the ACC tournament, I think it's certainly possible that Duke could get a #1 seed. The committee would get crushed for it, but it could make a reasonable argument that we're finally seeing the "real" Duke. (I think this is only realistic if Duke wins convincingly.) Of course, one counterargument would be that four-five games is too small a sample size.

Based on the seedings that the committee released a few weeks ago, it looks like the committee is weighing good wins more heavily than losses. If Duke wins out, including wins against, say, UVA, Louisville and UNC in the ACC tournament, and the committee discounts previous losses with missing players/K, why couldn't Duke have a #1 seed-worthy resume?

[BandAlum83]

Yea, to state the obvious, this season has been incredibly marred with injuries and Grayson's suspension. However, perhaps one good thing about the injuries is that they've all been temporary -- or, at least, not season-ending. In terms of impressing the committee, Duke still has 4 (or 5) potential games to show that everyone's healthy and the team has put it all together.

If Duke can get a convincing road win at UNC with a healthy Amile, that could lessen the negative impact of the road FSU and Louisville losses. And like I said in my earlier post, if Grayson comes back fully healthy and shines in the ACC tournament, that could lessen the negative impact of the VA Tech and Miami losses (the committee says it takes absence due to suspension into account, presumably in the same way it takes absence due to injury into account, as demonstrated by its treatment of Syracuse/Jim Boeheim's suspension).

So, if Duke gets fully healthy and dominates the ACC tournament, I think it's certainly possible that Duke could get a #1 seed. The committee would get crushed for it, but it could make a reasonable argument that we're finally seeing the "real" Duke. (I think this is only realistic if Duke wins convincingly.) Of course, one counterargument would be that four-five games is too small a sample size.

Based on the seedings that the committee released a few weeks ago, it looks like the committee is weighing good wins more heavily than losses. If Duke wins out, including wins against, say, UVA, Louisville and UNC in the ACC tournament, and the committee discounts previous losses with missing players/K, why couldn't Duke have a #1 seed-worthy resume?

It seems like Gary Parrish over at CBS is already starting the lobbying for us. He led his last CBS eye on college basketball podcast with what seemed like 10 minutes of "Duke has a better resume than people realize".

It. Had to do with the fact that no other team has more top 50 RPI wins (10) than Duke. Butler and Villanova also have 10.

He's softening the landscape for us!

He wouldn't put us in the Top 3 most likely to cut down the nets, just yet, but he did say we are certainly one team capable of it.

[mr. synellinden]

It seems like Gary Parrish over at CBS is already starting the lobbying for us. He led his last CBS eye on college basketball podcast with what seemed like 10 minutes of "Duke has a better resume than people realize".

It. Had to do with the fact that no other team has more top 50 RPI wins (10) than Duke. Butler and Villanova also have 10.

He's softening the landscape for us!

He wouldn't put us in the Top 3 most likely to cut down the nets, just yet, but he did say we are certainly one team capable of it.

Seth Davis (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/01/ncaa-tournament-national-title-contenders-kansas-unc-ucla-villanova) doesn't think we are one of the 8 teams that can win it all.

[jv001]

Seth Davis (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/01/ncaa-tournament-national-title-contenders-kansas-unc-ucla-villanova) doesn't think we are one of the 8 teams that can win it all.

Not speaking for Seth, but I believe he's discounting Grayson being close to 100% and I can understand his thinking. I also believe that there are no great teams and we should be able to beat any team in the tournament. It comes down to match ups. The teams that can take us off the dribble will cause us more trouble than say a big team. GoDuke!

[COYS]

It seems like Gary Parrish over at CBS is already starting the lobbying for us. He led his last CBS eye on college basketball podcast with what seemed like 10 minutes of "Duke has a better resume than people realize".

It. Had to do with the fact that no other team has more top 50 RPI wins (10) than Duke. Butler and Villanova also have 10.

He's softening the landscape for us!

He wouldn't put us in the Top 3 most likely to cut down the nets, just yet, but he did say we are certainly one team capable of it.

We've fared pretty well against KenPom's top 10, also. When we still didn't have Jayson, we lost by two points to Kansas. We lost by 9 @Louisville without Coach K and Amile. We handled Florida relatively easily at a neutral site. We beat UNC at home. And we bested UVA on the road. If we're able to get a win this weekend and then go on a run in the ACCT, we could add as many as three more wins against KenPom's top 10 to our resume (also, if we're able to go on such a run, it would probably mean that Grayson is recovering and playing well).

This season has been so crazy, I still feel like anything is possible. It's far more likely Grayson struggles to regain his health this season, limiting his effectiveness and lowering the team's ceiling. But it's also possible the relatively lengthy breaks between the FSU and UNC games followed by (hopefully) a double-bye in the ACCT gives him enough time to make a full recovery and we suddenly look like an elite team when the NCAAT starts.

[mr. synellinden]

Not speaking for Seth, but I believe he's discounting Grayson being close to 100% and I can understand his thinking. I also believe that there are no great teams and we should be able to beat any team in the tournament. It comes down to match ups. The teams that can take us off the dribble will cause us more trouble than say a big team. GoDuke!


We've fared pretty well against KenPom's top 10, also. When we still didn't have Jayson, we lost by two points to Kansas. We lost by 9 @Louisville without Coach K and Amile. We handled Florida relatively easily at a neutral site. We beat UNC at home. And we bested UVA on the road. If we're able to get a win this weekend and then go on a run in the ACCT, we could add as many as three more wins against KenPom's top 10 to our resume (also, if we're able to go on such a run, it would probably mean that Grayson is recovering and playing well).

This season has been so crazy, I still feel like anything is possible. It's far more likely Grayson struggles to regain his health this season, limiting his effectiveness and lowering the team's ceiling. But it's also possible the relatively lengthy breaks between the FSU and UNC games followed by (hopefully) a double-bye in the ACCT gives him enough time to make a full recovery and we suddenly look like an elite team when the NCAAT starts.

I agree with the takeaway from both of these that the key for us in March is going to be health. Against FSU, Amile looked as good as he has since the foot injury. And Grayson looked as hobbled as he has all season. If Grayson can get healthy between now and the start of the tournament, I would think that Duke would have as good a chance as anyone. If he doesn't (or if AJ regresses physically), I don't think we can win 6 in a row, and could definitely lose early.

[niveklaen]

That would be news to me...and would also preclude them from repeating their abhorrent 2-hour Selection Special that was so dreadful last year. Do you have a source for this?

I was wrong - I thought that because I saw a headline a few weeks back that the 'top 16 was being announced on Saturday' - but that headline was referring to the midseason top 16 the selection committee put out recently on a Saturday and not when/how the actual selections will be handed out.

[bluedev_92]

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it ignores the rest of the country. But even more simply, what do you think is a reasonable seed or potential seed for UNC? Are they in play for a #1? Keep in mind that they have a whopping 1 fewer loss than we do. Louisville? Same thing. Baylor? Same thing. Arizona, UCLA, and Oregon have fewer losses but play in a crappier conference.

There is very possibly going to be a 6- or 7-loss team getting a 1 seed, and most certainly a couple of those teams getting a 2 seed. So why are our 7 losses (which would be better than UNC and as good as anyone outside of the three all-but-guaranteed 1 seeds Gonzaga/PAc-12 champ, Nova, KU) restricting us to a 3 or 4? What group of 6 or 7 loss teams are so clearly ahead of us right now in terms of resume?

I completely agree. Also anyone can see that our conference schedule was more difficult than UNC's. Put Villanova in the ACC & tell me they wouldn't have at least 3-4 more losses, same with many of these teams. Hell, it took a last second tip-in from one of my son's high school classmates for Nova to beat Virginia in a home game!! Virginia, btw, controlled most all of that game... We don't give ourselves enough credit.

[DukeTrinity11]

Duke has 10 RPI top 50 wins and 5 Top 25 RPI wins but unfortunately 1 sub 100 RPI loss at home vs NC State, which honestly will be excused by the committee since Coach K wasn't there then and the fact that we finished out the season strong.

If Duke wins @ UNC and beats 3 of the ACC Top 6 en route to an ACCT win, Duke will be a #1 seed.

Duke will end up no lower than a 4 seed if we lose @ UNC and lose in the 1st Round of the ACCT. Our resume is simply too strong to be moved to the 5 seed line.

[English]

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/02/power-rankings-kansas-gonzaga-villanova-ucla

Some notables:

UNC appears at No. 5, same as last week, and in the description, Winn cites that for the scumbags to avoid another loss to Duke on Saturday, Justin Jackson needs ANYONE BUT MATT JONES to guard him. Jones held Jackson to 3pts on 1-of-6 as a primary or help defender. Jackson had 18pts when guarded by anyone else. Winn goes further providing video evidence of all Jackson's possessions defended by Jones, which is fun viewing.

In his write-up of Louisville at No. 8, one up from last week's No. 9, Winn provides his order of POY candidates (he has a vote) in which he cites that he included Donovan Mitchell over Luke Kennard. He elaborates that he included Mitchell because he's a two-way player and is efficient on offense while being a go-to defender for a plus defensive team, while Kennard is mostly offense. He does explicitly concede that Kennard is a worthy inclusion on the semifinalist list.

In his write-up of No. 11 Duke, same as last week, Winn goes into detail on how stark Frank Jackson's on/off splits are--when Jackson is in the game, Duke's offensive and defensive efficiencies are appreciably higher than when he's not. Those splits are even more eye-popping in the month of February. Major Takeaway: Frank needs to play as many minutes as he can handle.

[COYS]

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/02/power-rankings-kansas-gonzaga-villanova-ucla

Some notables:

UNC appears at No. 5, same as last week, and in the description, Winn cites that for the scumbags to avoid another loss to Duke on Saturday, Justin Jackson needs ANYONE BUT MATT JONES to guard him. Jones held Jackson to 3pts on 1-of-6 as a primary or help defender. Jackson had 18pts when guarded by anyone else. Winn goes further providing video evidence of all Jackson's possessions defended by Jones, which is fun viewing.

In his write-up of Louisville at No. 8, one up from last week's No. 9, Winn provides his order of POY candidates (he has a vote) in which he cites that he included Donovan Mitchell over Luke Kennard. He elaborates that he included Mitchell because he's a two-way player and is efficient on offense while being a go-to defender for a plus defensive team, while Kennard is mostly offense. He does explicitly concede that Kennard is a worthy inclusion on the semifinalist list.

In his write-up of No. 11 Duke, same as last week, Winn goes into detail on how stark Frank Jackson's on/off splits are--when Jackson is in the game, Duke's offensive and defensive efficiencies are appreciably higher than when he's not. Those splits are even more eye-popping in the month of February. Major Takeaway: Frank needs to play as many minutes as he can handle.

I love Luke Winn's insights. And both of these are awesome. Matt Jones' success guarding Justin Jackson is exhibit A for why bigger teams don't scare me as much as smaller teams. Matt is tailor made to guard bigger guys against whom he can use his strength and high IQ rather than smaller guards who can take him off the dribble. It's also a nice reminder of how effective Matt is on the defensive end, particularly off the ball.

The other insight about Frank is . . . astounding. I particularly love the part where Winn mentions that Frank appears to overdribble and dish out far too few assists to be an effective point guard, something I also have felt based off the eye test (though I haven't been displeased with his play). Yet the team has been far better with him in the game. The eye test isn't useless, but the the data over the entire ACC season indicates that Duke is better on both ends of the floor with Frank out there. I do wonder how much of that is correlated with the way the staff uses him off the bench. Basically, Frank is given a shorter leash compared to Luke or Grayson so if he's playing well, he gets to play longer, which would improve his efficiency numbers. However, if he is not playing well, he gets the hook faster before his poor play could put a dent in the team's overall play. Still, even considering that possibility, it really does seem like making Grayson Frank's backup until/if Grayson actually gets fully healthy would make the team significantly better.

[Billy Dat]

The other insight about Frank is . . . astounding.

It really is, I am interested in theories, like the one you offer, that debunk the analysis. Otherwise, it's tough to not advocate for more PT...although he obviously is already doing that with his play.

[MChambers]

Seth Davis (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/03/01/ncaa-tournament-national-title-contenders-kansas-unc-ucla-villanova) doesn't think we are one of the 8 teams that can win it all.

I think that's a good sign.

[Troublemaker]

It really is, I am interested in theories, like the one you offer, that debunk the analysis. Otherwise, it's tough to not advocate for more PT...although he obviously is already doing that with his play.

Frank might be the permanent starter, and we'll use Grayson off the bench for whatever he can offer in a particular game. Duke has a subscription to those play-by-play charting sites, too.

Thanks for the link, English. I'm glad Winn finally put in some effort for Duke's blurb. I've felt he's been somewhat underwhelming writing about us this season.

[jv001]

Frank might be the permanent starter, and we'll use Grayson off the bench for whatever he can offer in a particular game. Duke has a subscription to those play-by-play charting sites, too.

Thanks for the link, English. I'm glad Winn finally put in some effort for Duke's blurb. I've felt he's been somewhat underwhelming writing about us this season.

The posts on Frank has me thinking. Will the cheat bigs be so fired up and want to make some really big blocks(ala Jayson's) when and if our guards drive to the hoop? If so, I hope Frank and Luke are ready to pass the ball to one of our front court players. I really like the way Frank is playing right now. He adds some speed to our lineup that Grayson, Matt and Luke don't have. GoDuke!

[flyingdutchdevil]

Frank might be the permanent starter, and we'll use Grayson off the bench for whatever he can offer in a particular game. Duke has a subscription to those play-by-play charting sites, too.

Thanks for the link, English. I'm glad Winn finally put in some effort for Duke's blurb. I've felt he's been somewhat underwhelming writing about us this season.

Yeah. I'd vote for that.

We give up some playmaking, but that's really it in the Frank vs Hobbled Grayson. Even with a healthy Grayson, I think the novelty of Jackson and how to guard him makes him such a unique wild card.

Also, if Jackson can provide some defensive pressure - especially against quick guards - Duke will be in much better position to stop penetration.

Is this the "February" move that DBR fans have been hoping for?

SIDENOTE: I think Jackson is playing better because Amile isn't screaming at him anymore. Just my theory.

[pfrduke]

SIDENOTE: I think Jackson is playing better because Amile isn't screaming at him anymore. Just my theory.

Or Amile isn't screaming at him anymore because he's playing better.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Or Amile isn't screaming at him anymore because he's playing better.

Touche, my friend, touche! But Amile also isn't giving the refs the stink-eye anymore. His body language in the second half of ACC play has been soooooooo much better.

[Indoor66]

The only way that Frank starts over Grayson is if Grayson is still hobbled. A healthy or near healthy Grayson will, properly, start.

[BandAlum83]

The only way that Frank starts over Grayson is if Grayson is still hobbled. A healthy or near healthy Grayson will, properly, start.

I think I'm finally beginning to understand the concept of recency bias and its application in real-world situations. ;)

[Troublemaker]

Touche, my friend, touche! But Amile also isn't giving the refs the stink-eye anymore. His body language in the second half of ACC play has been soooooooo much better.

I think you've been harping on this too much. Duke is well-aware of which players they can coach hard and which players they have to take a lighter tone with.

I remember reading an offseason profile of Frank and his family, and Frank's father sounds like a total hardbooty. He would continuously destroy Frank in 1-on-1 games when Frank was growing up, never letting up, never taking it easy on Frank. Frank would yell at his dad, something like: "Old man, you can't let me win a game!" Frank would leave the court in frustration but always come back for more. That's someone you can coach hard, and I'm sure Frank's parents and even Frank himself made Duke aware that he could be yelled at and coached hard.

Incidentally, I do think Frank has improved. On film review, I don't see his teammates correcting his positioning on defense any more, which happened far too often earlier in the season. I take this to mean that he's comfortable in the scheme and knows his team defensive assignments now. "He's no longer a freshman," as the cliche goes.

[DukieInBrasil]

Yeah. I'd vote for that.

We give up some playmaking, but that's really it in the Frank vs Hobbled Grayson. Even with a healthy Grayson, I think the novelty of Jackson and how to guard him makes him such a unique wild card.

Also, if Jackson can provide some defensive pressure - especially against quick guards - Duke will be in much better position to stop penetration.

Is this the "February" move that DBR fans have been hoping for?

SIDENOTE: I think Jackson is playing better because Amile isn't screaming at him anymore. Just my theory.

i don't know, Hobbled Grayson has been pretty poor withe ball. One of the things that allowed Healthy Grayson to do a moderately good impression of a PG is that he was quite explosive, so that he could get the defender to back off him. Hobbled Grayson isn't explosive enough and as such defenders can get up on him and cause him to cough up the ball. Grayson isn't really that good of a ball-handler and needs space between himself and the defender to be effective. Hobbled Grayson can't get that space and hasn't been effective at all as a playmaker.

[COYS]

KenPom reformatted his site this year to include a column for efficiency margin (the difference between the adjusted offensive efficiency and adjusted defensive efficiency for a team). I'm glad he did this because it makes it easier to see how far apart teams are in the rankings or do things like go back in time and compare the dominance of a team relative to its competition in a given year (for example, the supposedly less talented 2010 Blue Devils were actually more dominant than the 2009 Tar Heels if we go off of efficiency margin . . . I'm just saying). While I was doing that, I noticed something interesting:

Duke's current efficiency margin of +23.96 (which is currently good enough for 15th) would be a top ten efficiency margin in every single other year in the KenPom era save for 2013. In some years, Duke would even rank as high as 4th or 5th. While KenPom doesn't really allow for comparing teams from different seasons, directly, I think it's worth noting that this is almost 2.5 points per 100 possessions better than last season, despite a similar rank in KenPom. Duke has actually performed like a typical Elite Eight caliber team for most of this season. It's just that there are a LOT of teams who fit that description this year. Given the potential that this team has left untapped (mostly through injury), it is perfectly valid to think that if Grayson's health improves and he can regain the form he had during the middle of the ACC season, that Duke could vault back into the ranks of the elite. By KenPom's reckoning, we are much closer to the elite level than any previous 15th ranked team has ever been. Despite all the chaos of this season, Duke is STILL within perfectly reasonable striking distance of having the statistical profile of an elite team. We really are better than we were last season.

None of this means anything if we don't actually win games (preferably tomorrow will be the start of a ten game winning streak to close out the season). But, I still find it interesting.