MBB: Will the 17-18 team be better than the 16-17 team?

[Troublemaker]

As a reminder, last season's team went 28-9, 11-7 ACC, ACC champs, 2-seed, Round of 32 exit, #14 kenpom

Will next season's team be better?

Assume:
* No other additions to the team. (I'll redo the poll if we add someone, but I don't think it will be necessary).
* No player on next season's team will ever be out more than 2 weeks with injury
* All players on next season's team will be available for the postseason

[atoomer0881]

As a reminder, last season's team went 28-9, 11-7 ACC, ACC champs, 2-seed, Round of 32 exit, #14 kenpom

Will next season's team be better?

Assume:
* No other additions to the team. (I'll redo the poll if we add someone, but I don't think it will be necessary).
* No player on next season's team will ever be out more than 2 weeks with injury
* All players will be available for the postseason

Curious, is up to each person what they consider "better"? If we win the ACC regular season, but don't win the ACC Tournament, or if we got a slightly lower seed but make it to a later round, is that considered better?

[NSDukeFan]

As a reminder, last season's team went 28-9, 11-7 ACC, ACC champs, 2-seed, Round of 32 exit, #14 kenpom

Will next season's team be better?

Assume:
* No other additions to the team. (I'll redo the poll if we add someone, but I don't think it will be necessary).
* No player on next season's team will ever be out more than 2 weeks with injury
* All players on next season's team will be available for the postseason

It may depend on your definition of better. I expect this year's team to have a better record and better NCAAT , but not as successful ACCT and not have as much talent, but have better health.

[Troublemaker]

Curious, is up to each person what they consider "better"? If we win the ACC regular season, but don't win the ACC Tournament, or if we got a slightly lower seed but make it to a later round, is that considered better?


It may depend on your definition of better. I expect this year's team to have a better record and better NCAAT , but not as successful ACCT and not have as much talent, but have better health.

Yes, you can go ahead and define "better" yourselves.

Some may just use the kenpom ranking. If 17-18 finishes #8 in kenpom, that beats #14.

Others will say we're going to have a better record and therefore a better team.

Others yet may vote based on who would win a 7-game series between 17-18 and 16-17.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I want all the players and coaches to stay healthy all year/season. If they stay healthy, we'll be better and more successful. If not, probably not. LGD GTHc!

[bob blue devil]

Yes, you can go ahead and define "better" yourselves.

Some may just use the kenpom ranking. If 17-18 finishes #8 in kenpom, that beats #14.

Others will say we're going to have a better record and therefore a better team.

Others yet may vote based on who would win a 7-game series between 17-18 and 16-17.

thanks. and by "kenpom ranking" do you mean the ordinal rank against the other rated teams or the absolute level of the kenpom rating? and when you refer to "record", are you including exhibitions? and for a "7-game series", what set of rules would they be played under and where would they be played? let's get on the same page.

[killerleft]

With the good health assumptions mentioned, I think we'll do better. But the ACC Championship was a thing of beauty, and will be hard to match. Wait, which way did I vote?:o

[flyingdutchdevil]

To me, that's what I predict.

But my expectations for last year's team was through the roof. And that didn't include Kennard being our #1 scorer. On paper, '16-'17 is sooooooo much better.

But next year's team actually has positions, which is nice. We have a PG. We have a starting C who is ginormous. The range of players who can play D is much better (last year, our range was shadow D to Matt Jones. A massive range).

Also, assuming no injuries, I think we'll be really good. I do not think we'll win the ACC, but we will finish in the top 4 and go to the second weekend of the tournament.

[elvis14]

I voted better mostly because our 16-17 season was derailed by injuries. The run in the ACC tournament was fun but the NCAA tournament was basically the worst possible outcome.

[79-77]

I think 17-18 will be better, mostly because of:

- Health -- last year was (I hope!) an outlier. That string of injuries also makes the comparison a bit unfair. Allen's effectiveness was quite limited for a number of stretches, the same was true, to a lesser extent, for Bolden, and Giles, who was compared to Chris Webber (!), wasn't able to get in shape in preseason or play more than 5 min per game during the season.

- Defense -- I know Jefferson and Jonesy were good-to-great defenders, but last year's team D was among the worst for a Duke team that I can remember. I think perimeter and interior D will each be substantially better.

- PG play -- Duval looks like the real deal.

[jipops]

I went with worse but there are still so many unknowns mostly due to heavy reliance on incoming freshmen. My basic premise is this:
1. We'll likely be just as bad on defense due to being a very young team
2. We may very well have fewer scoring options on offense (The scoring combination of Allen, Jackson, Kennard, Tatum, Jefferson is probably more potent than Allen, Duval, Trent, Carter, Bolden)
- side note: it is possible we may see better ball movement with fewer ball dominant players

Also, I think we'll be worse on the boards. Giles, Jefferson, and Tatum were very good rebounders for an overall sub-par to decent rebounding team. Bolden has not shown a knack for rebounding in traffic and we really don't know how Carter will be. Getting Bamba could change this a bit as well as premise #1

The 2 big variables are the college readiness of the incoming freshmen and... of course... health. One key injury could take us out of the ncaa tournament picture.

I expect to see a promising young team that develops throughout the season but hits plenty of bumps in the road. I'm counting on a double-digit loss season. How this team does in the tournament is a complete crap shoot, but it has to make it first. If it does, hopefully it won't have to face a Final Four caliber team in its home state in the early rounds.

[MCFinARL]

As a reminder, last season's team went 28-9, 11-7 ACC, ACC champs, 2-seed, Round of 32 exit, #14 kenpom

Will next season's team be better?

Assume:
* No other additions to the team. (I'll redo the poll if we add someone, but I don't think it will be necessary).
* No player on next season's team will ever be out more than 2 weeks with injury
* All players on next season's team will be available for the postseason

Well, okay, I probably should have read these assumptions before I voted, since injury questions were one of the main reasons I chose the wait-no fun option. Still, even allowing for that, it is so hard to predict the readiness of freshmen we will have to rely on, the level at which Bolden will be playing, the ability of other returning players to contribute, and the chemistry, or lack thereof, of a team without a solid core of players who already have a lot of experience playing with each other--this group, not hobbled by injuries, has the potential to do better than last year's team (glorious ACC tournament performance excepted), but I have no idea whether they will be able to realize that potential.

[Troublemaker]

CBS Sports is updating their "way too early" rankings as major offseason personnel additions/subtractions occur: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-late-recruiting-lifts-duke-to-no-6-in-top-25-and-one/

Duke is now ranked #6 after adding Duval.

Quote:

The new No. 6? That's Duke -- thanks to the mid-May commitment of Trevon Duval , a 6-foot-3 McDonald's All-American who will give Mike Krzyzewski an elite and natural point guard for the first time since Tyus Jones left campus following the 2015 NCAA Tournament. Duval's presence will allow Grayson Allen to play away from the ball, which is where he's most comfortable and effective. So now Allen can worry less about running a team and more about just scoring.

Yes, Duke will lack a deep bench. And that's not ideal. But, remember, the Blue Devils only had six players who averaged double-digit minutes on that 2015 team that finished 35-4 and won the national title. So Krzyzewski has done big things without great depth before. And it should surprise nobody if he does big things again.

[53n206]

I voted better mostly because our 16-17 season was derailed by injuries. The run in the ACC tournament was fun but the NCAA tournament was basically the worst possible outcome.

We just cannot have as many injuries (can we?), so I voted better.

[kAzE]

CBS Sports is updating their "way too early" rankings as major offseason personnel additions/subtractions occur: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-late-recruiting-lifts-duke-to-no-6-in-top-25-and-one/

Duke is now ranked #6 after adding Duval.

Quote:

The new No. 6? That's Duke -- thanks to the mid-May commitment of Trevon Duval , a 6-foot-3 McDonald's All-American who will give Mike Krzyzewski an elite and natural point guard for the first time since Tyus Jones left campus following the 2015 NCAA Tournament. Duval's presence will allow Grayson Allen to play away from the ball, which is where he's most comfortable and effective. So now Allen can worry less about running a team and more about just scoring.

Yes, Duke will lack a deep bench. And that's not ideal. But, remember, the Blue Devils only had six players who averaged double-digit minutes on that 2015 team that finished 35-4 and won the national title. So Krzyzewski has done big things without great depth before. And it should surprise nobody if he does big things again.

I still don't understand why they leave Javin DeLaurier complete out of that article. If Alex O'Connell and Jordan Goldwire are both "notable newcomers," then Javin is surely a "notable player expected to return."

[duke2x]

I chose Option 4.

I see more losses early against non-conference foes. The Champs Classic, Nike Tournament, ACC-B10 on the road are going to be tough, and we could be staring at 4 losses before Christmas. It's going to take a long time for the parts to gel. I see the potential for 15+ ACC wins given the schedule will be in Duke's favor if it stays the same. Only the Miami and VT road games scare me--look at our record in Chapel Hill in even years this millenium. We could be looking at those same 4 losses after the first UNC game.

[Wander]

I voted "worse," although that was based on comparing to last year's 2 seed in the NCAA tournament. If I was instead comparing to last year's kenpom ranking of 14, I would have voted "about the same." I expect the most likely outcome is in the 10-15 range with a 3 or 4 seed. But like I mentioned in a different thread, I think there's a ton of variance in that. If the freshman class ends up like the 2015 class, we could win the national title. If the freshmen are really bad at ACC-level defense, we could miss Matt and Amile a ton and finish outside the Top 25 entirely. Lots of possibilities realistically in play with teams this young IMO.

[Kedsy]

Here are some lists that may (or may not) shed some light on next year's prospects:

Duke teams with two or fewer upperclassmen playing 300+ minutes for the season in the RSCI era:


Year jr/sr fr/so top 15 top 25 top 35 top 100 NCAA finish
1999 2 6 4 8 9 9 2
2001 2 5 4 6 7 7 1
2004 2 5 5 6 7* 7* 4
2007 2 5 3 6 7 9* 64
2008 2 6 3 7 9 10* 32
2016 2 4 3 6 7 8 16
2018***** 1 6 4 5 6 8 ?


Duke teams with four or more top 15 recruits in the RSCI era:


Year jr/sr fr/so top 15 top 25 top 35 top 100 NCAA finish
1999 2 6 4 8 9 9 2
2001 2 5 4 6 7 7 1
2003** 4 4 4 6 8 9 16
2004 2 5 5 6 7* 7* 4
2006 4 3 4 6 6 9 16
2009 6 3 4 7 8 12 16
2015*** 4 5 4 6 8* 9* 1
2017 3 4 5 8 10 10 32
2018***** 1 6 4 5 6 8 ?


Duke teams with five or fewer top 25 recruits in the RSCI era:


Year jr/sr fr/so top 15 top 25 top 35 top 100 NCAA finish
2000 3 3 3 5 7 7 16
2002** 3 3 3 4 6 7 16
2005 6 1 3 5 6 7 16
2012**** 5 3 2 4 7 8 64
2013**** 5 3 2 4 6 8 8
2014**** 3 4 2 4 9 11 64
2018***** 1 6 4 5 6 8 ?


Duke teams with six or fewer top 35 recruits in the RSCI era:


Year jr/sr fr/so top 15 top 25 top 35 top 100 NCAA finish
2002** 3 3 3 4 6 7 16
2005 6 1 3 5 6 7 16
2006 4 3 4 6 6 9 16
2013**** 5 3 2 4 6 8 8
2018***** 1 6 4 5 6 8 ?


(for above four tables)
* - doesn't count players who transferred or were injured before Jan. 1
** - Dahntay Jones was ranked #98 out of high school but was obviously better by the time he played for Duke
*** - counts #12 Rasheed Sulaimon
**** - Seth Curry was unranked and Rodney Hood was ranked #27 out of high school but both were obviously better by the time they played for Duke
***** - rotation predicted; assumes we don't get Bamba


So, a mixed bag with regards to underclassmen vastly outnumbering upperclassmen in the rotation, looking reasonably good for having lots of top 15 recruits; and not so encouraging for teams lacking depth in the top 25 category.

Here are some more:

Duke teams that shot better than 38% from three (past 20 years):


Year NCAA 3pt% %threes
2013 8 39.9% 33.3%
1999 2 39.6% 30.5%
2014 64 39.5% 39.7%
2017 32 38.9% 38.3%
2006 16 38.8% 35.2%
2015 1 38.7% 33.4%
2010 1 38.5% 32.9%
2001 1 38.5% 41.8%
2016 16 38.5% 39.8%
2000 16 38.3% 34.2%
2007 64 38.1% 29.6%
2005 16 38.0% 39.8%


Duke teams that shot worse than 37% from three (past 20 years):


Year NCAA 3pt% %threes
2009 16 34.9% 35.0%
2002 16 36.3% 37.6%
2003 16 36.3% 33.9%
2004 4 36.4% 33.4%
1998 8 36.9% 32.4%


Duke teams for which three-pointers were more than 37% of total shots taken (last 20 years):


Year NCAA 3pt% %threes
2001 1 38.5% 41.8%
2016 16 38.5% 39.8%
2005 16 38.0% 39.8%
2014 64 39.5% 39.7%
2008 32 37.7% 39.2%
2012 64 37.1% 38.6%
2017 32 38.9% 38.3%
2002 16 36.3% 37.6%


Duke teams for which three-pointers were fewer than 34% of total shots taken (last 20 years):


Year NCAA 3pt% %threes
2007 64 38.1% 29.6%
1999 2 39.6% 30.5%
1998 8 36.9% 32.4%
2010 1 38.5% 32.9%
2013 8 39.9% 33.3%
2015 1 38.7% 33.4%
2004 4 36.4% 33.4%
2003 16 36.3% 33.9%


So, while all three Duke national champions during the period shot well from three, lots of less successful Duke teams did too. But the vast majority of Duke teams in the last 20 years that didn't take so many threes did well in the NCAA tournament. What this says to me is that even though we won't have so many shooters next season, we'll be OK providing only the good shooters take threes, even if it means fewer threes overall.

Two more:

Top 10 Duke offensive rebounding teams (since 1987):


Year OR% NCAA
1999 44.3% 2
1990 40.9% 2
2010 40.6% 1
1988 40.5% 4
1998 39.7% 8
1992 39.5% 1
2004 39.2% 4
1996 38.3% 64
1994 38.0% 2
1991 38.0% 1


Bottom 10 Duke offensive rebounding teams (since 1987):


Year OR% NCAA
2013 28.8% 8
2006 30.9% 16
2017 31.4% 32
2016 32.9% 16
2008 34.0% 32
2002 34.5% 16
2012 34.7% 64
2011 35.1% 16
2014 35.2% 64
2015 35.8% 1


So, though there've been a couple exceptions, Duke teams that are good at offensive rebounding generally perform MUCH better in the NCAA tournament. Combining this with the three-point shooting data, I conclude it might be a good thing that we'll be playing two bigs and probably won't have a stretch-four this coming season.

[Devilwin]

Starters:
Duval
Trent
Allen
Bolden
Carter

First off the bench:
Tucker
Now if we can get something out of the other guys, we will be ok. Just leery of starting three freshmen and an unproven sophomore. But the starting talent appears very fine. I voted wait and see...

[Indoor66]

Starters:
Duval
Trent
Allen
Bolden
Carter

First off the bench:
Tucker
Now if we can get something out of the other guys, we will be ok. Just leery of starting three freshmen and an unproven sophomore. But the starting talent appears very fine. I voted wait and see...

All the shiny new toys.

[Kedsy]

All the shiny new toys.

Which "old toys" did you think we should play with?

[uh_no]

Follow up question: How many of you that voted that this team would be better SWORE this year that you'd never be over-confident in incoming freshman before ever seeing them play a college game?

Duke has had a lot of monster recruiting classes, with varying degrees of working out. By (i'd guess) most metrics, last years team was completely middle of the road. Some good, some bad. And yet, an overwhelming majority of DBR is sure that this team will be better? That's like rolling a 7, and then betting the next number will be higher 66% of the time.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the optimism, but apparently the commitment to not over-hyping "new shiny" has lasted little more than a month.

Maybe this team will be better, maybe it won't.....but given past duke teams of this nature, I can't see how anyone can be particularly confident in either direction.

Questions I'd need to see answered before I could entertain thoughts that this team will be better:
1) is there anyone on this team who can play defense? We lost our two best defenders from a relatively mediocre defensive team. Our star freshman have traditionally not defended well.
2) is there anyone on this team who can rebound? We lost our best rebounder from a thoroughly mediocre rebounding team. This is concerning given the presumed starting center seems to have been a net negative in rebounding (I'm not sure I 100% agree, but kedsy has made strong arguments in the past)
3) Has grayson gotten over his ails? He's the only really experienced guy out there. Someone's gotta be the on the floor leader.

Reasons for optimism:
1) a "true" PG....Clearly teams can win without them, but it'll be nice to have. Seeing as we don't seem to play team defense well lately, having a guard who may be quicker will be nice.
2) fewer injuries....we can't have more, can we?
3) another 5 star forward. they seem to succeed in duke's system, especially on offense (jabari, brandon, justice, tatum).

[richardjackson199]

CBS Sports is updating their "way too early" rankings as major offseason personnel additions/subtractions occur: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-late-recruiting-lifts-duke-to-no-6-in-top-25-and-one/

Duke is now ranked #6 after adding Duval.

Quote:

The new No. 6? That's Duke -- thanks to the mid-May commitment of Trevon Duval , a 6-foot-3 McDonald's All-American who will give Mike Krzyzewski an elite and natural point guard for the first time since Tyus Jones left campus following the 2015 NCAA Tournament. Duval's presence will allow Grayson Allen to play away from the ball, which is where he's most comfortable and effective. So now Allen can worry less about running a team and more about just scoring.

Yes, Duke will lack a deep bench. And that's not ideal. But, remember, the Blue Devils only had six players who averaged double-digit minutes on that 2015 team that finished 35-4 and won the national title. So Krzyzewski has done big things without great depth before. And it should surprise nobody if he does big things again.

Thanks for posting that link. So if Parrish is right, once again Roy will have managed to convince what appeared to be a certain OAD to return to the cheats. I don't know how Roy does it. Bradley just won a natty and seemed hell-bent on hiring an agent. UNC may not even have a post-season next year. Of course this year's draft is deep and Bradley would likely be more certain of being first round next year, possibly lottery. I get it. (That type reasoning didn't slow down Frank, so hopefully he got a guarantee). I just don't get how the cheats keep dudes so much longer than their peers. Once again we out-recruit the hell out of Roy. And once again, they'll be better than us because dudes who might leave usually decide to return. Hopefully we'll continue to dominate them head-to-head anyway.

Of course maybe Gary Parrish saying that a guy is returning to school means the announcement he's leaving is imminent. :)

[arnie]

CBS Sports is updating their "way too early" rankings as major offseason personnel additions/subtractions occur: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-late-recruiting-lifts-duke-to-no-6-in-top-25-and-one/

Duke is now ranked #6 after adding Duval.

Quote:

The new No. 6? That's Duke -- thanks to the mid-May commitment of Trevon Duval , a 6-foot-3 McDonald's All-American who will give Mike Krzyzewski an elite and natural point guard for the first time since Tyus Jones left campus following the 2015 NCAA Tournament. Duval's presence will allow Grayson Allen to play away from the ball, which is where he's most comfortable and effective. So now Allen can worry less about running a team and more about just scoring.

Yes, Duke will lack a deep bench. And that's not ideal. But, remember, the Blue Devils only had six players who averaged double-digit minutes on that 2015 team that finished 35-4 and won the national title. So Krzyzewski has done big things without great depth before. And it should surprise nobody if he does big things again.

So Tony Bradley is expected to come back despite higher mock draft status than our Jackson. Roy's incentives for staying must be logarithmically increasing.

[NSDukeFan]

So Tony Bradley is expected to come back despite higher mock draft status than our Jackson. Roy's incentives for staying must be logarithmically increasing.

Incentives aren't necessarily increasing, but if the school work responsibilities are the same and pay and benefits are similar, what's the rush to go to the NBA?

[Troublemaker]

Follow up question: How many of you that voted that this team would be better SWORE this year that you'd never be over-confident in incoming freshman before ever seeing them play a college game?

Duke has had a lot of monster recruiting classes, with varying degrees of working out. By (i'd guess) most metrics, last years team was completely middle of the road. Some good, some bad. And yet, an overwhelming majority of DBR is sure that this team will be better? That's like rolling a 7, and then betting the next number will be higher 66% of the time.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the optimism, but apparently the commitment to not over-hyping "new shiny" has lasted little more than a month.

Is that the right lesson to take from last season, though? When healthy, Duke's highly-ranked freshmen have historically delivered. And let me add that when they've arrived with a defensive rep (Winslow, Derryck, Shelden, Battier, etc.), they've delivered defensively as freshmen as well. Last season, through a combination of injuries and not recruiting enough good defensive players, we didn't have the personnel to play good defense. In particular, we lacked size on the inside and someone who could reliably defend quick point guards. (It's also possible that Coach K is now a bad defensive coach, but I'd want to see him fail with a healthy team first before I conclude that.) I also believe, although some disagree, that the lack of a PG played a significant role in the disappointing season, even though it wasn't our biggest problem (injuries and lack of enough good defenders).

It's a long offseason, and I'm sure I'll get plenty of chances to go into detail in the upcoming months. But my initial thought is if they stay reasonably healthy, I like next season's personnel better. I think there's a better chance to play good defense with this group. I like the size, and I like that we have a point guard.

Also, why did you vote "roughly equal"? Your post is more consistent with "I want to see them play first." We don't know enough to predict "better" but we know enough to predict "roughly equal"?

[CDu]

Will we be better than last year's team? Hard to say. This year's team should have more top-end players than last year's team (Giles was unfortunately not the guy who earned the #1 recruit ranking at one point; Bolden wasn't either). But it will also have much less experience, and much less individual offensive brilliance.

I am excited about Having a PG, and I am excited about having a post scorer. I am nervous about defense, but hopeful that we will be better equipped at PG (Duval is an athletic specimen with great size and quickness) and on the glass (Jefferson and Giles were terrific individual rebounders, but we should be bigger this year by necessity). And I am hopeful that a healthy Bolden (a willing and capable hedge-and-recover guy and a shotblocker) and a willing Carter (a BIG body in the lane) will be effective.

I am also looking forward to seeing a healthy Allen return to his role as a gunner rather than trying to be a facilitator. If he can get back to where he was as a sophomore, things will be quite nice.

[Kedsy]

I think there's a better chance to play good defense with this group.

Here's why I'm hopeful we can play some D next season:

WINGSPAN
Marques Bolden, 7'6"
Wendell Carter, 7'3"
Javin DeLaurier, 7'0"
Trevon Duval, 6'9 1/2"
Gary Trent, 6'8 1/2"
(and if we somehow get Mohamed Bamba: 7'9")

All measurements are the most recent listed on DraftExpress.com.

[plimnko]

i'm not so worried which team is better. i'm hoping the 2017-18 team will be LUCKIER!! last year was just weird. i've never seen so much happen to so few.

[Ultrarunner]

Put me on the "Better" side of the ledger. The past is past, the future is wide open, and possibilities abound.

How long until the season starts?

[msdukie]

Better just means going better than 2-1 against UNC
Worse means going worse than 2-1 against UNC.

This isn't rocket science.

[NYBri]

No idea. Complete team turnover (except Grayson) as opposed to last year's injuries. Like I said, I haven't a clue, which speaks more about the OAD era than rooting for a college basketball team.

I will watch and I will cheer, but it is different. Not unlike when free agency struck baseball. You become more of a fan of the general manager than then players and the team. Recruiting is more important than skill development. Sigh.

[OldPhiKap]

Better just means going better than 2-1 against UNC
Worse means going worse than 2-1 against UNC.

This isn't rocket science.

My name is OPK, and I endorse this post.

[camion]

Let's see.

Assuming a healthy team:

Regular season - Better record.
ACC tournament - Worse, the ACC tourney is tougher to win than the first two rounds of the NCAA.
NCAA Tourney - Better, at least sweet sixteen.

[Olympic Fan]

So Tony Bradley is expected to come back despite higher mock draft status than our Jackson. Roy's incentives for staying must be logarithmically increasing.

Expected by whom (besides the Cheat faithful)?

From what I see and read and hear, the consensus is that when Bradley pulled out of the combine scrimmages, it was a sign that he was likely to stay.

Nothing guaranteed until he hires an agent or pulls out, but I think the majority of non-partisan expectations are that he stays in the draft.

He told a UNC reporter last weekend that he was waiting for a firm first-round commitment ... too bad he's not as well informed as some posters on this board who would tell him there is no such thing as a first round commitment.

[arnie]

Expected by whom (besides the Cheat faithful)?

From what I see and read and hear, the consensus is that when Bradley pulled out of the combine scrimmages, it was a sign that he was likely to stay.

Nothing guaranteed until he hires an agent or pulls out, but I think the majority of non-partisan expectations are that he stays in the draft.

He told a UNC reporter last weekend that he was waiting for a firm first-round commitment ... too bad he's not as well informed as some posters on this board who would tell him there is no such thing as a first round commitment.

Gary Parrish in the CBS link I responded to seems convinced Bradley will remain in high school another year. Hope you're right.

[MarkD83]

Gary Parrish in the CBS link I responded to seems convinced Bradley will remain in high school another year. Hope you're right.

Of course if there is any justice that high school might not be allowed to play in the post season next year.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Gary Parrish in the CBS link I responded to seems convinced Bradley will remain in high school another year. Hope you're right.

He would learn more there...

[Indoor66]

He would learn more there...

Yeah. He would have to go to real classes. 👿😈😍

[Troublemaker]

Moving these posts below into this more appropriate thread...


Given so many youngsters and roster turnover, I dunno how I would categorize Duke. I guess maintains feels more accurate than improves to me at this point, though certainly there is tremendous potential to improve and one could argue that the roster is better constructed (positions and player expectations) than last year's team.


As far as preseason predictions goes between last year's and this, Duke is by far in the "Declines". Of course that doesn't mean much, but if you were able to in theory pit this team's talent against last year's, I'd pick last year's 10 times out of 10. On paper, we were an absolute mammoth last season.


I would say last season's team had much better "on paper depth" but I think next season's "on paper starters" can match up well with last season's "on paper starters."


yup, last year our bench could beat up your bench, even if they didn't get to play.


Plus, we know how good last year's team actually was, so we don't need to talk about them "on paper". In the end they were a good team but nothing special, and for the coming season I think we will exceed their results, even if it's only because odds are we won't be as injury-riddled. I am firmly in the "Improves" camp.

I agree with brlftz. If healthy, we're going to have better big men next season and a better point guard situation (with Trevon starting and a senior Grayson playing PG when Trevon rests). That makes me confident we'll be a better team.

Not that player-by-player comparisons are all that meaningful, but they ARE fun offseason fodder. So...




2018 team
<=>
2017 team
Comment


PG
Duval
>>
2017 Allen
PG trueness and PG defense


SG
2018 Allen
>>
Kennard
defense


SF
Trent
>
MJones
the 3 in 3-and-D


PF / C
Carter
>
Jefferson
size/talent


C
2018 Bolden
>>
2017 Giles / Bolden
easily


PF / SF
DeLaurier / White
<<<
Tatum
but only need bench minutes from Javin/Jack


Perimeter Sub
Tucker
<<<
Jackson
Frank could and did start



Oh boy, I've made some controversial judgments, I'm sure. Will be back to defend them later.

But the basic idea is that the starters should be good, and we'll need some bench guys to come through.

[ncexnyc]

[QUOTE

Oh boy, I've made some controversial judgments, I'm sure. Will be back to defend them later.

But the basic idea is that the starters should be good, and we'll need some bench guys to come through.[/QUOTE]

Solid breakdown and the two areas that might generate any arguements are Trent vs Jones and Carter vs Jefferson.

Can Trent score enough 3's and play enough quality D to offset Matt's leadership and defensive ability?

Jefferson developed some decent moves around the basket by his final year, but Carter seems to be the total package offensively. As with Matt, the question is does what Carter brings to the table significantly offset what Jefferson gave us?

Leadership is clearly one of those intangibles that are so very hard to place one number on. So we'll just have to wait and see

[Wander]

Not that player-by-player comparisons are all that meaningful, but they ARE fun offseason fodder. So...




2018 team
<=>
2017 team
Comment


PG
Duval
>>
2017 Allen
PG trueness and PG defense


SG
2018 Allen
>>
Kennard
defense


SF
Trent
>
MJones
the 3 in 3-and-D


PF / C
Carter
>
Jefferson
size/talent


C
2018 Bolden
>>
2017 Giles / Bolden
easily


PF / SF
DeLaurier / White
<<<
Tatum
but only need bench minutes from Javin/Jack


Perimeter Sub
Tucker
<<<
Jackson
Frank could and did start



Oh boy, I've made some controversial judgments, I'm sure. Will be back to defend them later.

But the basic idea is that the starters should be good, and we'll need some bench guys to come through.

You're comparing last year's best or 2nd best player to this season's last guy off the bench. I think a better apples-to-apples comparison is:

Duvall (freshman) > Jones (senior)
Grayson (senior) > Grayson (junior)
Trent (freshman) < Kennard (sophomore)
Carter (freshman) < Tatum (freshman)
Bolden (sophomore) < Jefferson (senior)

So I think last year's starters will be better by a score of 3-2, even with injury stuff factored in.

[whereinthehellami]

You're comparing last year's best or 2nd best player to this season's last guy off the bench. I think a better apples-to-apples comparison is:

Duvall (freshman) > Jones (senior)
Grayson (senior) > Grayson (junior)
Trent (freshman) < Kennard (sophomore)
Carter (freshman) < Tatum (freshman)
Bolden (sophomore) < Jefferson (senior)

So I think last year's starters will be better by a score of 3-2, even with injury stuff factored in.

Duval (freshman) >> Jones (senior)
Grayson (senior) > Grayson (junior)
Trent (freshman) < Kennard (sophomore)
Carter (freshman) = Tatum (freshman)
Bolden (sophomore) < Jefferson (senior)

I'll play. I got Duval as a significant improvement at the PG spot. I think he makes the O smooth.

I liked Tatum but his production, which is replaceable, was not efficient. 45% from 2, 34% from 3, and 2.6 TOPG. Carter might not match the production but i'm hoping he will be more efficient.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7438&stc=1

and Jefferson would have been a more significant loss if he wasn't hobbled at the end of the year.

So, I got the overall team as slightly better this year than last year but i am hoping that the team plays better together this year. The trip to DR should help that process.

[kAzE]

Duval (freshman) >> Jones (senior)
Grayson (senior) > Grayson (junior)
Trent (freshman) < Kennard (sophomore)
Carter (freshman) = Tatum (freshman)
Bolden (sophomore) < Jefferson (senior)


I would add 2018 bench < 2017 bench.

Frank Jackson is better than anyone who will be coming off the bench in 2018.

[fraggler]

The real consideration, though is if this composition will result in a better team. Will a true point guard, Grayson at his natural position, and a real post presence be better than the glut of wings we had last year?

[Indoor66]

The real consideration, though is if this composition will result in a better team. Will a true point guard, Grayson at his natural position, and a real post presence be better than the glut of wings we had last year?

Bingo! If this team stays healthy it will be better than last year, for that reason alone. Additionally, analysis based on player to player comparison is, IMO, fools gold. We did not see last years team/players at their best due to injury. This years team is tabula rasa. They will fill the slate with their, hopefully, health play.

[CDu]

We will also be helped by the ACC being weaker next year. UNC, Louisville, FSU, and Notre Dame all suffered substantial losses, and most simply didn't recoup their losses. So even if we are only comparable in quality to last year, we should do better.

[dukelifer]

We will also be helped by the ACC being weaker next year. UNC, Louisville, FSU, and Notre Dame all suffered substantial losses, and most simply didn't recoup their losses. So even if we are only comparable in quality to last year, we should do better.

Notre Dame has a strong core- I suspect they will be pretty solid

[rsvman]

We will also be helped by the ACC being weaker next year. UNC, Louisville, FSU, and Notre Dame all suffered substantial losses, and most simply didn't recoup their losses. So even if we are only comparable in quality to last year, we should do better.

Yes, but underlying this and similar threads is the question of whether we'll do better in the NCAA tournament. A better regular season ACC record would be nice, to be sure, but if we don't get to the first weekend of the tournament, the doubts will linger.

[chriso]

Yes, but underlying this and similar threads is the question of whether we'll do better in the NCAA tournament. A better regular season ACC record would be nice, to be sure, but if we don't get to the first weekend of the tournament, the doubts will linger.

I think we lose more games and advance to at least the Sweet 16. Which I would prefer; as NCAA tournament success is really all most people outside the fan bases remember when all is said and done. It depends on how good the freshman are, how the sophs improve, and how healthy we are. We have a lot of question marks, but we have multiple guys who have the chance to step up. I'm excited.

[MarkD83]

Healthy Coach K (2018) > Coach K out with back injury

Senior in control Grayson (2018) > Lost control Grayson

It is amazing the thin line between very good and great. If Grayson is under control vs Elon maybe Duke wins at VT. If Coach K is healthy maybe Duke holds on vs NCSU. That would have put Duke at 13-5 (2nd place in regular season). The ACC tournament victory may have then given Duke a #1 seed etc...

So, I believe the two items above put 2018 over the top. I will also add that a true PG is a game changer (pun intended) for the 2018 Duke team.

[CDu]

Notre Dame has a strong core- I suspect they will be pretty solid

I don't think they will be bad by any means. I just don't think they will be quite as good as last year.

[Kedsy]

I think we lose more games and advance to at least the Sweet 16. Which I would prefer; as NCAA tournament success is really all most people outside the fan bases remember when all is said and done. It depends on how good the freshman are, how the sophs improve, and how healthy we are. We have a lot of question marks, but we have multiple guys who have the chance to step up. I'm excited.

I think there's almost no chance we lose more games and I also think there's almost no chance we don't advance further in the NCAA tournament.

I also think those who say the 2017 team had more talent than the 2018 team will have are correct.

[lotusland]

I think we lose more games and advance to at least the Sweet 16. Which I would prefer; as NCAA tournament success is really all most people outside the fan bases remember when all is said and done. It depends on how good the freshman are, how the sophs improve, and how healthy we are. We have a lot of question marks, but we have multiple guys who have the chance to step up. I'm excited.

I don't know how other folks evaluate success but I wouldn't trade and ACC championship for 1 more win in the NCAA tournament. It would have to be a final Four four for me to be more pleased.

[chriso]

I don't know how other folks evaluate success but I wouldn't trade and ACC championship for 1 more win in the NCAA tournament. It would have to be a final Four four for me to be more pleased.

I see your point. I probably should have said Elite 8 or Final Four. I just hate going out in the first weekend and it bothers me all offseason.

[Edouble]

Yes, but underlying this and similar threads is the question of whether we'll do better in the NCAA tournament. A better regular season ACC record would be nice, to be sure, but if we don't get to the first weekend of the tournament, the doubts will linger.

Do you mean if we don't get through the first weekend of the tournament? I seriously doubt we miss the NCAA tournament.

[drummerdevil]

I picked us improving. Here's why.

Last year's team looked better on paper, sure. We had two to four top ten talents, depending on whose list you use. We also had Grayson, Luke, Amile, Matt, etc. It looked like an unstoppable team. And yet, we didn't make it out of the first weekend.

Why did last year go off the rails? The first reason was all but one player missed at least one game due to injury. The second reason was we missed Coach K sorely for a large portion of the year and never gelled like, dare I say it, the eventual national champions? I hate them with all my heart and soul, but they won and we didn't because they gelled because they had their whole team and their coach all year.

Now, this year, we have almost the same level of talent. We have a senior Grayson with something to prove. We have Duval coming in, and if he's half the player I think he's going to be, he's going to be something special. I would also imagine K, Amile, Matt, and probably several NBA scouts have talked to Bolden about what he needs to do this year to be NBA-ready next year. I see him making sure to do those things as he wants to make it to the NBA. He wanted to go this year but he knew he wasn't ready. So he will be out to prove himself.

I see a lot of good things in Carter. I do think he'll be ready to put in work, and I think he'll be ready to help out this team. Also, if someone like Coach K has said the offense will run through you at a place like Duke, you must be something special. Carter has said this. I think Trent will be ready to contribute, although I actually have Tucker starting over him, as Tucker is the better shooter and K likes having multiple reliable shooters.

Finally, I think that, with K working his magic for the whole season, not just two thirds, and all the people who didn't quite make the rotation last year striving for a spot this year, I honestly think we have better chances of succeeding in the NCAA tournament this year than last year.

Sorry, I kind of went on a rant, and I wrote this quickly so there are probably some things wrong with it. Feel free to correct it. Just my $.01. (It's not worth $.02)

[Ian]

I think the reasonable answer is roughly the same.

Last year's team on paper was much better than this year's. But last year's team ended up finishing on the low end of the spectrum of possible outcomes, probably around the bottom 20 percentile of possible outcomes.. This year's team's 50 percentile will probably be around the same level of performance.

They can obvious do better than that, but they can also do a lot worse too.

I think many of the people who are saying 18 will be better are not really looking at the most likely outcome, but the "if this happens and that happens and everyone is healthy, etc" scenario which if it isn't the best case scenario at least is among the more favorable (ie top 25 percentile) scenarios.

[Troublemaker]

I think the reasonable answer is roughly the same.

Last year's team on paper was much better than this year's. But last year's team ended up finishing on the low end of the spectrum of possible outcomes, probably around the bottom 20 percentile of possible outcomes.. This year's team's 50 percentile will probably be around the same level of performance.

They can obvious do better than that, but they can also do a lot worse too.

I think many of the people who are saying 18 will be better are not really looking at the most likely outcome, but the "if this happens and that happens and everyone is healthy, etc" scenario which if it isn't the best case scenario at least is among the more favorable (ie top 25 percentile) scenarios.

Well, I could just as easily say the people picking '17 are down about how the season went and not thinking clearly about next season. Question: why do all the "way too early" preseason polls (that I linked to in another thread) have Duke as a top-6 team?

That said, I agree with your approach. What we all should be doing is picking the median outcome for Duke and not just assuming that all question marks about the team will be answered positively (or negatively). I just happen to believe the median outcome for the '18 team is a better team than last season's undersized inside and lacking speed/defense on the perimeter team. I also think Coach K '18 will be better than Coach K '17.

We need just one question to be answered positively, imo, to be better next season. Will top-10 freshmen Duval and Carter live up to their rankings like almost all uninjured top-10 freshmen at Duke have done in the past? If so, '18 will be better than '17.


You're comparing last year's best or 2nd best player to this season's last guy off the bench. I think a better apples-to-apples comparison is:

Duvall (freshman) > Jones (senior)
Grayson (senior) > Grayson (junior)
Trent (freshman) < Kennard (sophomore)
Carter (freshman) < Tatum (freshman)
Bolden (sophomore) < Jefferson (senior)

So I think last year's starters will be better by a score of 3-2, even with injury stuff factored in.

I think my schema is more apples to apples than yours because I compare PF/Cs to each other, PF/SFs to each other, etc. I'm taking into account player-types. It's just that next season's team will probably start two bigs while last season's team played smallball, which makes the comparison between the two teams tricky.

Still, even using your schema, I'll take Wendell > Jayson. I think Wendell is special, and we'll see if I'm right.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Still, even using your schema, I'll take Wendell > Jayson. I think Wendell is special, and we'll see if I'm right.

Wow. I thought Jayson was pretty elfing good. If Wendell is better...

[NSDukeFan]

Wow. I thought Jayson was pretty elfing good. If Wendell is better...

I agree. I thought Jayson was special. If Carter is as good or better, I will be pleased and impressed.

[SkyBrickey]

I expect this year's team to be better. Healthier. True PG. Better rebounding and interior defense. Probably not as good a 3 point shooting team, but Trent Jr and/or Tucker could join up with Allen to make this team very respectable from long range.

I think the pieces fit together better than last year. A big key will be the play of DeLaurier, Tucker, Vrank and others off the bench. Another key will be team defense - will this team commit to playing championship level team D. I think the raw talent is there to do it.

[camion]

I expect this year's team to be better. Healthier. True PG. Better rebounding and interior defense. Probably not as good a 3 point shooting team, but Trent Jr and/or Tucker could join up with Allen to make this team very respectable from long range.

I think the pieces fit together better than last year. A big key will be the play of DeLaurier, Tucker, Vrank and others off the bench. Another key will be team defense - will this team commit to playing championship level team D. I think the raw talent is there to do it.

I agree, particularly since we are unlikely to have as many broken pieces as we had last year. :)