PDA

View Full Version : The misperceiving of a Common Misperception



mssembler
10-16-2007, 06:51 PM
An avid reader of Duke Basketball Rerport, I love the coverage of all things Duke from DBR. I must say that the recent post titled "A Common Misperception" simply holds no water. The argument relies on two separate premises, both of which are faulty: 1) That having a very talented player for only one year is of little benefit, if not of detriment, to the team and 2) Missed recruiting opportunities are actually beneficial because they clear room on the roster for other recruits. In dealing with the first premise, I must only site the recent example of Luol Deng and the benefit he brought us in his single season. While he certainly was missed in subsequent years, I think no one would claim that we would have been better off without him. Given the competitive state of college basketball, and the fact that a team might only get a single shot in a full decade, it seems logical that we should want to see our Devils at their strongest every year. This is especially true of a program that expects "rebuilding years" simply won't happen.
The second premise is circular and senseless. Why would it ever make sense to watch a great recruit go by to save space for the next best recruit? Wouldn't that particular slot be filled by a great one, and therefore a need be fulfilled? When does one in the bush surpass one in the hand?
Duke's recruitment of big men has struggled over the past few seasons. With Brian Zubek as the great hope of our post game this year, all I can hope for is GREAT improvement over last year. Otherwise, it may be another long season for Duke faithful.

VaDukie
10-16-2007, 06:56 PM
An avid reader of Duke Basketball Rerport, I love the coverage of all things Duke from DBR. I must say that the recent post titled "A Common Misperception" simply holds no water. The argument relies on two separate premises, both of which are faulty: 1) That having a very talented player for only one year is of little benefit, if not of detriment, to the team and 2) Missed recruiting opportunities are actually beneficial because they clear room on the roster for other recruits. In dealing with the first premise, I must only site the recent example of Luol Deng and the benefit he brought us in his single season. While he certainly was missed in subsequent years, I think no one would claim that we would have been better off without him. Given the competitive state of college basketball, and the fact that a team might only get a single shot in a full decade, it seems logical that we should want to see our Devils at their strongest every year. This is especially true of a program that expects "rebuilding years" simply won't happen.
The second premise is circular and senseless. Why would it ever make sense to watch a great recruit go by to save space for the next best recruit? Wouldn't that particular slot be filled by a great one, and therefore a need be fulfilled? When does one in the bush surpass one in the hand?
Duke's recruitment of big men has struggled over the past few seasons. With Brian Zubek as the great hope of our post game this year, all I can hope for is GREAT improvement over last year. Otherwise, it may be another long season for Duke faithful.



One year players (or those of similar talent) provide a tremendous lift for the season they enroll, but then they're gone. They may be the determining factor in getting an already good team over the hump, but they are not the basis to build consistency that Duke has become accustomed to.

And its no accident that teams that held the most freshmen talent last year (UNC, Ohio St.) ultimately lost to more experienced teams.

Oriole Way
10-16-2007, 07:15 PM
One year players (or those of similar talent) provide a tremendous lift for the season they enroll, but then they're gone. They may be the determining factor in getting an already good team over the hump, but they are not the basis to build consistency that Duke has become accustomed to.

And its no accident that teams that held the most freshmen talent last year (UNC, Ohio St.) ultimately lost to more experienced teams.

But those teams would have never made it that far without the freshmen talent to begin with. Afd don't you think the rest of the team that returns the following year is better off for having had that experience?

I agree with the oroginal poster, DBR's take is flawed. But their position is to be expected.

dkbaseball
10-16-2007, 07:43 PM
As a sports fan, the thrill for me has always been not so much in winning games as in team building. Seeing something solid and substantial put together and maintained over the long haul. The intrigue about getting a recruit is how he might develop over four years, and envisioning how the team might come together down the road. Signing one year players takes away that whole level of interest. It's like signing mercenaries on to fight a brief campaign. You can't really identify with such people as having shared the Duke experience.

In the instant case, I think we have two big men -- Zoubek and Thomas -- with solid potential and the likelihood of being four-year players. I'd much rather see how the staff can develop them over their careers than bring in some hired gun for a year to make a run at an NC, and have him take away their minutes and possibly their motivation.

Wander
10-16-2007, 08:30 PM
First of all, the Chronicle article was bad. And by bad, I mean terrible. Can we just hire Alex Fanaroff permanently as the sports writer? I hope it gets better during basketball season. DBR was right to call it out.

However, mssembler is right in that DBR goes a little over the top in trying to defend Duke. There is value to one year players. Ohio State last year is a great example. So is Deng - did Duke fall apart after Deng left? Now, I actually like Duke's philosophy of not pursuing guys who know they're only going to be here for a year, but to imply that one year guys can't bring value to a program is a little nuts.

Wander
10-16-2007, 08:33 PM
And its no accident that teams that held the most freshmen talent last year (UNC, Ohio St.) ultimately lost to more experienced teams.

What? Ohio State made it to the national title game! And they beat plenty of "more experienced" teams along the way.

VaDukie
10-16-2007, 09:40 PM
But those teams would have never made it that far without the freshmen talent to begin with. Afd don't you think the rest of the team that returns the following year is better off for having had that experience?

I agree with the oroginal poster, DBR's take is flawed. But their position is to be expected.

Returning players may not have had as much on-court time and thus less experience. The program is better off for having gone that far, but rather than rely on landing the rare elite freshmen who can take you over the top, you should build up a base of talent that offers more consistency.

This is not to say I wouldn't love for us to land a Luol Deng every year. But it's not realistic and it shouldn't be the focus of our recruiting.

jimmymax
10-16-2007, 11:34 PM
sure, i love the four year development of players that embody a (my) "team" -- but who wouldn't roll the dice with a hypothetcal lineup of oden, durant, melo, deng and throw in maggette 'cause i can't think of anyone else off hand.
for a while now it's been a different game with no guarantees. remember baseball before free agency? i think K does a pretty good job of carefully blending a mix of likely short timers with guys that will stick around. i'm OK with duke being a top 10 program every year with a chance to win it all rather than some bipolar team of prima donnas. there will always be a hurley or carawell to pull for plus the occasional exceptional guys like grant hill and elton brand.

OldPhiKap
10-17-2007, 09:37 AM
On his XM show last year, K mentioned that the freshman ban on NBA players was flawed. In his opinion, it should either extend to two years, or just let them go straight to the league. His argument was: what is an institution supposed to do with a kid who is only going to be there for a year?

It seems to me that you need a great blend of experience and explosive talent to make the FF. I don't know how you build a steady program, though, when you have folks jockeying for personal stats and photo ops in a team setting (Humphries, anyone?). In any event, as brilliant as I am, I have to begrudgingly admit that K might know just a smidge more about building a college basketball powerhouse than I. So I guess I might as well trust that he knows what he wants.

TampaDuke
10-17-2007, 09:54 AM
There is value to one year players.

Not to mention the indirect value of having an alum in the NBA and hopefully succeeding at that level. I have to believe that, down the road, that helps with recruiting, national perceptions, etc.

Of course, recruiting one and done players shouldn't be the sole focus of the program, but I agree it should be part of the strategy (at least for the right recruit). If we do happen to miss on one and he ends up at UNC, we can at least rest assured that he'll only be there for a year.

ACCBBallFan
10-17-2007, 01:25 PM
In the instant case, I think we have two big men -- Zoubek and Thomas -- with solid potential and the likelihood of being four-year players. I'd much rather see how the staff can develop them over their careers than bring in some hired gun for a year to make a run at an NC, and have him take away their minutes and possibly their motivation.

Not sure I would agree that Zoubek and Lance is the preferred option, but would disagree with those who say it is fatal.

I do agree that Monroe coming on board would have hindered ZoubLance's respective developments.

Really have to wait and see how well they play this year before deciding how much on an issue Duke's post presence will be, or not be given that they have two more years to develop even more after this season.

Given the current situation, best alternative appears to be to bring in a backup 5 or two in 2009 to take over for Zoubek when he graduates, and to allow Lance to play his more natural 4 position.

monkey
10-17-2007, 02:03 PM
I think one and done players degrade the University and the basketball team. Team members are intended to be first and foremost students. Someone who is known to be going only for one year (or is expected to go for only one year) isn't really interested in pursuing a degree or a Duke education, IMO, and I think it is antithetical to Duke general existence as an elite-caliber University.

I also think it is possible to feel this way and still be able to make exceptions for students where circumstances beyond their control forces an early departure (e.g., family hardship).

Whether or not players are generally good for other "programs" by bringing them in for a year is pretty much irrelevant to me.

feldspar
10-17-2007, 02:25 PM
I understand DBR's penchant for going out of their way to defend Duke at all times and in all things, but as was said, this article was a bit much.

The funniest part was the rationale of "if they didn't want to come to Duke, we didn't want them anyway."

johnb
10-17-2007, 04:09 PM
There are plenty of top 5 or 10 recruits who the coaches would love to coach but who couldn't/shouldn't come to Duke.

I'm not sure we ever had such a mystique that we could simply point at people, and they'd come running. But we still get a hugely disproportionate number of high school a-a's. Occasionally, those players will be lottery picks after 1 year. Sometimes they'll stick around, but generally people go once they become a top 10 player in college (by the way, many Duke saints stayed at least partly because they weren't projected as lottery picks until after their senior years).

Luol Deng is an absolute superstar as a person--anyone who says we shouldn't have recruited him is nuts (or should at least study his life for a while).

We missed on a few guys who were offered EVERYwhere. Gonna happen, and it always has, and we'll be fine.

Not that I wouldn't have liked to get Monroe. He would have helped Zoubs and Thomas by being tough in practice and would have helped us beat the big, athletic teams like Carolina. To say we wouldn't want him because he might have become an all-american and gone pro, you'd need to also say, "hey, too bad we got Brand, Dunleavy, Deng, Williams, Boozer, etc--think who might have showed up the next year if only there'd been some available PT."

jimmymax
10-17-2007, 05:46 PM
agreed -- the "if they didn't want to come to Duke, we didn't want them anyway" was the over the top statement.

not sure that "Team members are intended to be first and foremost students" holds much water wrt the majority of college athletes for whom it's clear when recruited will make high six to seven figure salaries at the next level. until the NFL & NBA have farm systems like MLB's, college will remain a stepping stone.

Uncle Drew
10-17-2007, 08:01 PM
Since Syracuse won it all with a freshman named Carmello as a leader, many schools have put more faith and effort into recruiting the one and done players. Now with the manditory one year rule and players have to go somewhere those players get even more heavy recruiting than they did when it was assumed they would go straight to the NBA.

You can site examples of teams improving for a season by bringing in the one and done players. OSU would not have made the Final Four without Odom and Texas was far better with Durrant. Yes the one year we had watching Deng we all know Duke was a better team THAT YEAR. But the time spent recruiting him and a player like Livingston in many ways was a waste and hurt Duke. Duke would not have been as good that one season without Deng. But perhaps other players taking up his minutes over the course of the season would have been more beneficial for Duke late that seasons and seasons after Deng left. Playing time usually equates to improvement in one form or another. That's not to say I'd rather be without McRoberts and Monroe and be forced to see if the remaining players can get better and fill the void. I think we all would like to have more bodies should performance not live up to expectations or injury occur.

A lot of the one and done guys will end up going to a Memphis, Ohio State or Maryland because they have no intentions of ever earning a degree and want to make that first semester as easy as possible. The one and dones who are most dangerous are ones like Wright last year for UNC who when applied to an already tallented team can make them even deeeper. Some would argue Wright took away from Hansblahblah's game, but I've never been a believer in addition by subtraction. I don't think Duke will be as good without McRoberts, but I hope his minutes given to the rest of the guys will equate to a March run. I don't think Wright leaving makes UNC better and I hope the players who get his minutes will struggle to fill his shoes all year.

It's great to get a guy who will stay for years, but when a player is labeled as a "project" like Boateng you also run the risk of transfer and frustration over playing time. You hope for a top 30 recruit who's game is most suited to college and stays four years. But the truth is to be a great team you need some NBA tallent and take the chance of them staying only a couple of years.

VaDukie
10-18-2007, 01:23 AM
What? Ohio State made it to the national title game! And they beat plenty of "more experienced" teams along the way.

Indeed they did, but where are they this year? All of their key guys are gone and they're starting over.

Not to mention that Ohio State's collection of freshmen talent was EXTREMELY rare with a once in a decade talent in Oden, a top 5 pick in Conley, and another first rounder in Cook. You think anyone is likely to assemble a similar collection of freshmen talent anytime soon?

And let's not pretend that Ohio State steamrolled its way through the tournament. It needed a last second three to make it to the sweet 16, and then a big comeback to overcome Tennessee.

We should pursue the top talent available, but we shouldn't think the only way to the promised land is through one and done players.

shadowfax336
10-19-2007, 12:04 PM
First of all I think the point of DBR's comment that "if they don't want to come here we don't want them" was that they believe Duke should be going after players who truly want to be here, who are excited about playing for Coach K, who care about the tradition, and have a personality that can deal with the fact that they will be going into every away gym as the enemy and the biggest game of the year.
Secondly, as far as the benefits of 1 year players go...
Florida 2007- a veteran team that had been around for a while, not all highly recruited out of high school
Florida 2006- see above, they were admittedly a younger team this year, but they had all still taken a year of sitting on the bench and developing before exploding onto the scene as sophomores
UNC 2005- another veteran team, pretty much all major players were juniors and seniors
UConn 2004- led by 2 stud seniors, Okafor and Gordon
'Cuse 2003 - Obviously the big exception here that gives everybody hope
this team was led by Carmelo Anthony, but the key thing to notice is that Syracuse was still a program with several 4 year players at various stages of development playing key roles around Carmelo (McNamera, Warrick, Keith Duaney etc)
Maryland 2002- A veteran team who had made the final 4 the year before had a lot of upperclassman talent (Dixon, Blake, etc)
Duke 2001- Battier, Williams, Dunleavy, James, Duhon, Boozer, etc... all multi year players several of them 4 year stars, this was not a one hit wonder team
MSU 2000- Mateen Cleaves, MoPete, lots of vets, a team built on experience

For the most part its experience and well built teams that win championships. Freshmen can be key parts of that, but its very rare that they are the driving force. And even in the glaring exception to that role, Melo was the key to a team that contained a lot of other talent that worked together pretty well.

shadowfax336
10-19-2007, 12:39 PM
Also as a more interesting point people have been talking about the effect on long term success as opposed to one season.
I went and took a look at the teams that have finished in the top 16 of the Final AP Poll the last 6 seasons. There was a very limited group that was in the final 16 4 or more times.
6- none
5-Duke, Kansas, Illinois, Pitt
4-UNC, Florida, Texas, Gonzaga Kentucky

So lets take a look at how these teams have done this

Duke- as has been well documented, Duke has mainly stuck to developing (very talented) 4 year players, with an occasional 1 or 2 and done type player (Deng, McRoberts, Magette, etc)
Kansas- Kansas at the beginning of this stretch was thriving with 2 4 year players, Hinrich and Collinson leading them, has since added a few more 1 or 2 year players and generally underachieved in the tourney since a certain coach changed his shade of blue, but has still been very consistently in the top 10
Illinois- Started out with a team led by very solid 4 year players in Dee Brown, Luther Head, and Deron Williams, started to fade last year due to losing out in recruiting wars, but still doing ok due to a solid system and good coaching
Pitt- I'm from Pittsburgh so I got to see first-hand as Ben Howland and Jamie Dixon built this team into a Juggernaut without any big name recruits. Their sucess has been built around a series of tough 4 year players who have bought into the system and played together well (Brandin Knight, Julius Page, Jaron Brown, Chevy Troutman, Aaron Gray, Ronald Ramon, Carl Krauser)

UNC- while freshman have helped them at points, they have only had 1 one and done player in recent years (Wright) and thats been the key to their sustained success

Florida- there were multiple teams here, but as a whole they've been lifted by veteran players, whether it was David Lee or Joakim Noah

Texas- everybody remembers Durant now, but the consistency has been built on guys like TJ Ford, LaMarcus Aldridge, etc, who stuck around and helped the team stay pretty consistently one of the best in the country for the past few years

Gonzaga- Adam Morrison, Blake Stepp, Derek Ravio, etc. This team has been built on a consistent flow of talent that sticks around.

Kentucky- Wow Tubby Smith must really have been slacking huh? Anyway, this is another team thats had a consistent flow of 3-4 year players (Rajon Rondo, Patrick Sparks, Tayshaun Prince, Chuck Hayes etc.)


Anyway, my point is, if we want the type of consistent greatness that Duke fans demand, it has been shown pretty clearly that the way to acheive that is by building a solid base with 4 year players and including one and done players at most as the final piece in a mostly completed puzzle

Carlos
10-19-2007, 01:52 PM
shadowfax -

I think you've overlooked Marvin Williams' one-and-done season where the Heels won the National Championship.

shadowfax336
10-19-2007, 02:42 PM
Solid point. I had forgotten. But once again, I'm not claiming that stud freshmen don't help, I'm saying they're good as the last piece to an otherwise mostly complete puzzle. UNC had Terry, May and Felton that year, and Williams was the last piece that pushed them over the top and made them unstoppable, not the guy who carried them there. Even last year when Oden and Conley played a huge role for OSU in a situation that as was pointed out above was really a once a decade type deal, they still were building off the remnants of the defending big 10 champions, not a bad place to start.

Wander
10-19-2007, 05:54 PM
Looking back at the successful teams in the past X number of years is an interesting way to look at it but it doesn't really work. You want to look at seasons where the NBA age limit is in place, and we've only had one year of that. The years before that aren't all that relevant to the discussion because the "freshman impacting the national scene" thing significantly changes with that rule.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you guys, but there's not enough of a sample size to draw conclusions here. We've had one team that made it to the Final Four based on the strength of their "one and dones," and three that used an older, more experienced group.