PDA

View Full Version : One and Done Results



Hauerwas
05-21-2017, 03:33 PM
The front page article brought up the one and done era under K and since many of us are not huge fans I thought I'd research the actual results of this change in recruitment strategy since the end of the 2010 season.

For comparison sake, starting in 2011 Duke has one a total of 14 NCAA tournament games during the one and done era. In Comparison to other top flight teams and their victories in that same era
Kentucky: 23,
UNC: 21
Kansas: 18
Wisconsin: 18
Louisville: 16
Arizona 13
UConn: 13

On top of that, UNC has won 4 ACC regular season titles to Duke's zero, while Duke has been eliminated from the Tournament in the first weekend three times while Parker, Kyrie, Hood, Ingrim, Rivers, Giles, Tatum, Jackson et all have combined for about 7 tournament wins or so. That's a crap load of talent to combine to basically not see the second weekend but twice for all those names.

Thoughts?

G man
05-21-2017, 05:51 PM
Unfortunately I think the data speaks for itself. Can you imagine what the games played would look like without a national title sprinkled in? I don't mind the one and done but we need to find a way to get better results.

Olympic Fan
05-21-2017, 05:58 PM
Very selective facts. Just for perspective, let's add a few more. I'm not going to waste time doing everybody, but comparing Duke (one-and-done heavy) with UNC (no one and dones):

Overall record since 2011: Duke 213-51; UNC 202-60
ACC championships since 2011: Duke 2, UNC 1 (actually since Duke won titles in 2009 and 2010 also, Duke has win four of the last nine ACC titles)
Top 10 finishes since 2011: Duke 6, UNC 4
Head to head wins since 2011: Duke 11, UNC 4

I might argue that Duke's disappointing NCAA record has a lot to do with major injuries in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2017. In that time, UNC suffered a major injury to Kendall Marshall in 2012 that really hurt their NCAA chances (but since the injury didn't occur until the Sweet 16, not the same impact as Duke losing Kyrie Irving, Ryan Kelly (twice) or Amile Jefferson (twice)

And Duke has seen the second weekend four times (not twice) in your timeframe -- 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016.

Furniture
05-21-2017, 06:04 PM
The front page article brought up the one and done era under K and since many of us are not huge fans I thought I'd research the actual results of this change in recruitment strategy since the end of the 2010 season.

For comparison sake, starting in 2011 Duke has one a total of 14 NCAA tournament games during the one and done era. In Comparison to other top flight teams and their victories in that same era
Kentucky: 23,
UNC: 21
Kansas: 18
Wisconsin: 18
Louisville: 16
Arizona 13
UConn: 13

On top of that, UNC has won 4 ACC regular season titles to Duke's zero, while Duke has been eliminated from the Tournament in the first weekend three times while Parker, Kyrie, Hood, Ingrim, Rivers, Giles, Tatum, Jackson et all have combined for about 7 tournament wins or so. That's a crap load of talent to combine to basically not see the second weekend but twice for all those names.

Thoughts?

I think K should consider playing a deeper bench;-)

Bay Area Duke Fan
05-21-2017, 06:05 PM
Why does Coach K continue to concentrate his recruiting efforts on one-and-dones? Many fans don't like the excessive annual player turnover and would prefer watching "student-athletes" develop over 3-4 years. Results in NCAA and ACC tournaments aren't very impressive compared to other national powers. Might we see a change in approach with a new university president about to take office?

Dukehky
05-21-2017, 06:29 PM
Also, only last year did we have a team of one and dones and not do well.

Kyrie was the only one, Austin was the only one, Jabari was the only one, Ingram was the only one.

Losing in the first round with single one and done players is not indicative of the one and done phenomenon that people are talking about. Lots of teams have 1 really good freshman, and you want to have really good freshmen.

2015 we had more than 1 one and done but we only recruited one to be a one and done (Jahlil, the staff expected Winslow and Jones to be multi year guys until late in the year for Winslow and after the tournament for Tyus).

Last year was the first season in which we brought in more than one guy that was FOR SURE leaving, Giles and Tatum.

I don't think recruiting one and dones has been an issue with us. I think it's been injuries and bad matchups. Losing young players to transfer hasn't been super helpful either, just means we have to bring in more freshmen to field a team, but those new frosh are not usually elite freshmen talents.

2015 set us back because we didn't expect to lose Tyus, they started going hard at Ingram once Justise started playing better. We tried to adjust by bringing in Thornton but that didn't work out because his dad is crazy, which set us back for this year. This year probably hurt a little bit too with the unexpected departure of Jackson, but I think the staff was prepared to lose Grayson, and instead of losing Grayson, we lost Luke. They're not the same player, but for recruiting purposes, they kind of are.

It's really clear by the recruiting patterns that the staff has started to implement especially for the class of 2018, that they are looking to return to classes that are filled in with more kids who are likely to be around for longer, mixed in with maybe 1 or 2 for sure one and dones. This year's class, I think we were trying to tread water a little bit because we're going to lose Carter (unless he really likes college or something because he talked an awful lot about academics), and we're going to lose Duval. I don't expect Trent to bounce, but I didn't expect Frank to leave either. I don't know who, but it's possible someone transfers out, we are bringing in 7 freshmen, which means some of them aren't every going to play, and kids want to play.

I mean, you can complain about one and dones all you want. But we are not UK, we don't recruit 5 kids whose intention it is to leave after a year, we had a great season in 2015 and kids took advantage, and then last year we got a little unlucky with Frank and Luke (even though we were lucky that they were both really good players). There's always something to be said about having a pro on the floor though. Like, last year, let's say we didn't want the one and dones, and we decided to pursue Dedric Lawson, who was ranked 38 in the class, we would have been in a whole heap of trouble.

The way we've been running the team, it's also really hard to recruit those lower ranked kids. Like, I'm shocked that O'Connell and Tucker were so adamant about coming to Duke. They would have been key players if not starters on the vast majority of other teams in the country next year. That's not to say that won't happen at Duke, but our track record lately has not been super great for non-elite level freshmen.

The last non-five star player I remember getting key minutes as a freshman was Tyler Thornton, and he wouldn't have sniffed the court had Kyrie not gotten hurt. Even Grayson, a McD's AA five star who was like low twenties in ranking got real spotty minutes as a freshmen. Javin Delaurier was high thirties in one of the best recruiting classes ever and he played what, 68 minutes this year? Kids want to play, and kids that know they are 4 year players aren't going to play as freshmen and they are going to get recruited over. Just kind of the way of the world right now. Not everyone can get lucky and have their 5 star players be bad their first two years and stay 3/4 years, and have those players be juniors and seniors in the same year and win a title.

ipatent
05-21-2017, 06:33 PM
The front page article brought up the one and done era under K and since many of us are not huge fans I thought I'd research the actual results of this change in recruitment strategy since the end of the 2010 season.

For comparison sake, starting in 2011 Duke has one a total of 14 NCAA tournament games during the one and done era. In Comparison to other top flight teams and their victories in that same era
Kentucky: 23,
UNC: 21
Kansas: 18
Wisconsin: 18
Louisville: 16
Arizona 13
UConn: 13

On top of that, UNC has won 4 ACC regular season titles to Duke's zero, while Duke has been eliminated from the Tournament in the first weekend three times while Parker, Kyrie, Hood, Ingrim, Rivers, Giles, Tatum, Jackson et all have combined for about 7 tournament wins or so. That's a crap load of talent to combine to basically not see the second weekend but twice for all those names.

Thoughts?

The numbers would be even worse had the '15 team not had things fall into place with the defense and Winslow's shooting getting markedly better late in the season.

Troublemaker
05-21-2017, 08:14 PM
Why does Coach K continue to concentrate his recruiting efforts on one-and-dones? Many fans don't like the excessive annual player turnover and would prefer watching "student-athletes" develop over 3-4 years. Results in NCAA and ACC tournaments aren't very impressive compared to other national powers. Might we see a change in approach with a new university president about to take office?

Coach K probably doesn't believe any disappointing results in recent seasons have much to do with recruiting OADs. I'm dubious that it's a major factor as well.

In any case, he is also recruiting multi-year guys.

ipatent
05-21-2017, 09:30 PM
Coach K probably doesn't believe any disappointing results in recent seasons have much to do with recruiting OADs. I'm dubious that it's a major factor as well.

In any case, he is also recruiting multi-year guys.

Coach K built his reputation by beating more talented teams coaching up four-year players to play as a unit. Younger fans should watch the '86 team on YouTube. It was a thing of beauty. He lost some of the edge he had over other coaches when he embraced one-and-dones, because it takes even a great coach a few years to get a team to play like that.

Eight miles down the road, Roy Williams has danced around NCAA sanctions and parlayed his lack of four year players into 11 tournament wins in two years. Roy has gotten his kids to stay, while Duke has been having a bad run of luck with players like Thornton not willing to wait for their place in the spotlight and Jackson/Tyus Jones leaving before expected.

I think the point guard position has become even more critical in the OAD era. I'd look to have a four year PG on the team at all times who is willing to play behind the one and dones but good enough to keep an inexperienced team cohesive when he's on the floor.

That's not to say the OAD strategy has been a total flop, it did yield a championship. Who knows what next year's team will bring? At least there will be a true PG and clearly defined roles.

wavedukefan70s
05-21-2017, 09:44 PM
Coach K built his reputation by beating more talented teams coaching up four-year players to play as a unit. Younger fans should watch the '86 team on YouTube. It was a thing of beauty. He lost some of the edge he had over other coaches when he embraced one-and-dones, because it takes even a great coach a few years to get a team to play like that.

Eight miles down the road, Roy Williams has danced around NCAA sanctions and parlayed his lack of four year players into 11 tournament wins in two years. Roy has gotten his kids to stay, while Duke has been having a bad run of luck with players like Thornton not willing to wait for their place in the spotlight and Jackson/Tyus Jones leaving before expected.

I think the point guard position has become even more critical in the OAD era. I'd look to have a four year PG on the team at all times who is willing to play behind the one and dones but good enough to keep an inexperienced team cohesive when he's on the floor.

That's not to say the OAD strategy has been a total flop, it did yield a championship. Who knows what next year's team will bring? At least there will be a true PG and clearly defined roles.

Spot on in my opinion.

Kedsy
05-21-2017, 09:49 PM
The front page article brought up the one and done era under K and since many of us are not huge fans I thought I'd research the actual results of this change in recruitment strategy since the end of the 2010 season.

For comparison sake, starting in 2011 Duke has one a total of 14 NCAA tournament games during the one and done era. In Comparison to other top flight teams and their victories in that same era
Kentucky: 23,
UNC: 21
Kansas: 18
Wisconsin: 18
Louisville: 16
Arizona 13
UConn: 13

On top of that, UNC has won 4 ACC regular season titles to Duke's zero, while Duke has been eliminated from the Tournament in the first weekend three times while Parker, Kyrie, Hood, Ingrim, Rivers, Giles, Tatum, Jackson et all have combined for about 7 tournament wins or so. That's a crap load of talent to combine to basically not see the second weekend but twice for all those names.

Thoughts?

Well, my first thought is that you're using the above data to somehow support the idea that one-and-dones can't win tournament games and the team on your list with the most tourney wins is Kentucky.


Why does Coach K continue to concentrate his recruiting efforts on one-and-dones? Many fans don't like the excessive annual player turnover and would prefer watching "student-athletes" develop over 3-4 years. Results in NCAA and ACC tournaments aren't very impressive compared to other national powers. Might we see a change in approach with a new university president about to take office?

I thought this was a parody post (and I apologize for the rest of this post if it actually is parody), but now I think you really mean it. "Change in approach with a new university president about to take office"? That's flabbergasting on so many levels.

Coach K is going to continue to recruit the best players he can for as long as he's here. And for those who don't like that, check back in with me after he's gone. As for UNC's success, if Arkansas hadn't blown a decent lead in the last couple minutes in the Round of 32, would those "many fans" even be talking about this?

Finally, does anyone really think the best strategy is to recruit guys in the 50s to 90s and supplement those with a few top recruits who inexplicably decide to stay three or four years? The first part of that doesn't work for most teams who are forced to do it (because they can't successfully get the better recruits), at least not consistently, and the second part is both unpredictable and unsustainable.

After an injury-riddled season, Duke lost to a lesser team in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. So what? In a one-and-done tournament, teams lose -- and in my opinion, that's pretty much the only lesson to be learned here.

Furniture
05-21-2017, 10:22 PM
After an injury-riddled season, Duke lost to a lesser team in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. So what? In a one-and-done tournament, teams lose -- and in my opinion, that's pretty much the only lesson to be learned here.
Now that is what I call SPOT ON!!

sagegrouse
05-21-2017, 10:28 PM
Well, my first thought is that you're using the above data to somehow support the idea that one-and-dones can't win tournament games and the team on your list with the most tourney wins is Kentucky.



I thought this was a parody post (and I apologize for the rest of this post if it actually is parody), but now I think you really mean it. "Change in approach with a new university president about to take office"? That's flabbergasting on so many levels.

Coach K is going to continue to recruit the best players he can for as long as he's here. And for those who don't like that, check back in with me after he's gone. As for UNC's success, if Arkansas hadn't blown a decent lead in the last couple minutes in the Round of 32, would those "many fans" even be talking about this?

Finally, does anyone really think the best strategy is to recruit guys in the 50s to 90s and supplement those with a few top recruits who inexplicably decide to stay three or four years? The first part of that doesn't work for most teams who are forced to do it (because they can't successfully get the better recruits), at least not consistently, and the second part is both unpredictable and unsustainable.

After an injury-riddled season, Duke lost to a lesser team in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. So what? In a one-and-done tournament, teams lose -- and in my opinion, that's pretty much the only lesson to be learned here.

The other point I would make is the omission of 2010 in the analysis. Three of the top five NBA picks were freshmen -- Wall, Favors and Cousins -- and 2010's inclusion would add six tournament wins to the Duke total. And, although Kentucky won three games, Wisconsin and Kansas won only one game, Louisville lost its only game, and --- UNC, UConn and Zona did not make the tournament.

OldPhiKap
05-21-2017, 10:35 PM
Small sample size. And with last year's injuries, can't draw much from that.

A group of one-and-done players means greater risk, greater reward. A poker player would say: a greater variance style.

For better or worse, it's the current state of reality. Are we supposed to pass on top 20 players because they may (or likely will) leave early? Don't see how or why we would do that.

I miss the days of four-year, or even three-year, star players. But I also miss vinyl albums, prog rock, and the day's when I could eat pizza without expanding my waist. Times change. "Chaos killed the dinosaurs."

Hauerwas
05-21-2017, 10:38 PM
Well, my first thought is that you're using the above data to somehow support the idea that one-and-dones can't win tournament games and the team on your list with the most tourney wins is Kentucky.

The point is that while Uk has gone all in on the one and done recruitment while others have abstained for the most part, only kentucky has had real success in the tournament with this risky strategy. Whether it's K's defense, or lack of a true point guard, or the inability to blend the new guys with the old, K has honestly failed in comparison to both Cal's one and done system, as well as failing to Roy's system of signing lower level talent, keeping that talent, and developing old teams that know how to win in March.

Jabari had no clue how to win a game in March, it was pitiful. Austin Rivers, seriously. Then this year with Tatum, Giles, Jackson, et al we get embarrassed by an SEC team that got hot, and were of course themselves older and tougher and knew "how to win". K's one and done's don't seem to know how to win, how to play defense, or how to understand the value of roles. everyone's a scorer, everyone's playing for draft stock and not competing to fill a need that the team has. Just doesn't feel much like Duke basketball these days.

rsvman
05-21-2017, 10:40 PM
Let's not forget that the Cheaters win over Arkansas was also aided and abetted by an egregious missed call.

Oh, and that Kentucky was also ahead by five with about 2.5 minutes remaining and managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by double-teaming Pinson (of all people) while leaving Maye (one of only two guys on the team that could be effective from outside that night) wide.freaking.open. The NCAA tournament is a crapshoot.

As for ACC titles, the schedule was very unbalanced. We won the actual ACC title, by the way. Not anciently, but this very year. Less than three months ago. How quickly people forget.

Hauerwas
05-21-2017, 10:46 PM
After an injury-riddled season, Duke lost to a lesser team in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2017. So what? In a one-and-done tournament, teams lose -- and in my opinion, that's pretty much the only lesson to be learned here.

Yes, the point is this has become the pattern. 4 years in close succession we lose to double digit seed teams and fail to advance to Sweet 16. That level of NCAA tournament failure doesn't show up in any other sample size during the K era. This is an unprecedented string of early exits, and what else can one "blame" it on than the one and done recruitment strategy?

The better question is, where does K go from here? Does he double down and take a hybrid approach. This year's decisions forced him to take a hybrid approach and I believe it will be a successful strategy for years to come. Grabe 1-2 5 stars, fill them with 3 4 stars, and meld them with who is left to form a real team with some sustainability, depth, and experience.

This rinse and repeat crap is like getting struck by lightening, it works maybe 1 in 10 times.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-21-2017, 11:00 PM
This rinse and repeat crap is like getting struck by lightening, it works maybe 1 in 10 times.

How does getting struck by lightening work one out of ten times again?

OldPhiKap
05-21-2017, 11:00 PM
Yes, the point is this has become the pattern. 4 years in close succession we lose to double digit seed teams and fail to advance to Sweet 16. That level of NCAA tournament failure doesn't show up in any other sample size during the K era. This is an unprecedented string of early exits, and what else can one "blame" it on than the one and done recruitment strategy?

The better question is, where does K go from here? Does he double down and take a hybrid approach. This year's decisions forced him to take a hybrid approach and I believe it will be a successful strategy for years to come. Grabe 1-2 5 stars, fill them with 3 4 stars, and meld them with who is left to form a real team with some sustainability, depth, and experience.

This rinse and repeat crap is like getting struck by lightening, it works maybe 1 in 10 times.

I will take a national championship once every ten years. That is a sick average for almost every non-spoiled fan base in the nation.

I understand the point, but not sure what you are advocating. Who have we passed on that we should have recruited? Who did we accept upon whom we should have passed?

We have won two national championships in the last eight years. So, K doesn't know what he's doing all of a sudden?

NYBri
05-21-2017, 11:03 PM
Don't like OAD, but that's where the game is. :cool:

Edouble
05-21-2017, 11:28 PM
Why does Coach K continue to concentrate his recruiting efforts on one-and-dones? Many fans don't like the excessive annual player turnover and would prefer watching "student-athletes" develop over 3-4 years. Results in NCAA and ACC tournaments aren't very impressive compared to other national powers. Might we see a change in approach with a new university president about to take office?

You've got to be kidding, Do you remember what happened the last time a new university president took office? Coach K entertained an $8 million/year offer from the Lakers just to remind the new guy who is in charge.


Let's not forget that the Cheaters win over Arkansas was also aided and abetted by an egregious missed call.

Oh, and that Kentucky was also ahead by five with about 2.5 minutes remaining and managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by double-teaming Pinson (of all people) while leaving Maye (one of only two guys on the team that could be effective from outside that night) wide.freaking.open. The NCAA tournament is a crapshoot.

Every NCAA Champion has to survive a few scares. Look at our 2001 team in the Final Four against Maryland. Gordon Hayward's shot in 2010. I don't like these kinds of excuses.


Well, my first thought is that you're using the above data to somehow support the idea that one-and-dones can't win tournament games and the team on your list with the most tourney wins is Kentucky.

The point is that while Uk has gone all in on the one and done recruitment while others have abstained for the most part, only kentucky has had real success in the tournament with this risky strategy. Whether it's K's defense, or lack of a true point guard, or the inability to blend the new guys with the old, K has honestly failed in comparison to both Cal's one and done system, as well as failing to Roy's system of signing lower level talent, keeping that talent, and developing old teams that know how to win in March.

Jabari had no clue how to win a game in March, it was pitiful. Austin Rivers, seriously. Then this year with Tatum, Giles, Jackson, et al we get embarrassed by an SEC team that got hot, and were of course themselves older and tougher and knew "how to win". K's one and done's don't seem to know how to win, how to play defense, or how to understand the value of roles. everyone's a scorer, everyone's playing for draft stock and not competing to fill a need that the team has. Just doesn't feel much like Duke basketball these days.

You forgot the part where first he misses on higher level talent. Also, Roy signs some high level talent. He just drags his players through the Carolina system that slows their development.


Small sample size. And with last year's injuries, can't draw much from that.

A group of one-and-done players means greater risk, greater reward. A poker player would say: a greater variance style.

For better or worse, it's the current state of reality. Are we supposed to pass on top 20 players because they may (or likely will) leave early? Don't see how or why we would do that.

I miss the days of four-year, or even three-year, star players. But I also miss vinyl albums, prog rock, and the day's when I could eat pizza without expanding my waist. Times change. "Chaos killed the dinosaurs."

"Day's" doesn't take an apostrophe, otherwise: spot on.


Yes, the point is this has become the pattern. 4 years in close succession we lose to double digit seed teams and fail to advance to Sweet 16. That level of NCAA tournament failure doesn't show up in any other sample size during the K era. This is an unprecedented string of early exits, and what else can one "blame" it on than the one and done recruitment strategy?

The better question is, where does K go from here? Does he double down and take a hybrid approach. This year's decisions forced him to take a hybrid approach and I believe it will be a successful strategy for years to come. Grabe 1-2 5 stars, fill them with 3 4 stars, and meld them with who is left to form a real team with some sustainability, depth, and experience.

This rinse and repeat crap is like getting struck by lightening, it works maybe 1 in 10 times.

This is so confusing. You ask if Coach K will elect to take a hybrid approach (minus the question mark), then state that he is actually forced to. How is the hybrid approach doubling down? How exactly do you fill a five star with a four star anyway? What does "meld them with who is left" mean? So the number five through eight rotation players are just some random dudes that we find at the C.I.?

Hauerwas
05-21-2017, 11:38 PM
This is so confusing. You ask if Coach K will elect to take a hybrid approach (minus the question mark), then state that he is actually forced to. How is the hybrid approach doubling down? How exactly do you fill a five star with a four star anyway? What does "meld them with who is left" mean? So the number five through eight rotation players are just some random dudes that we find at the C.I.?

I mistyped and meant to say "Does he double down for one and done's or concede a hybrid approach like this year once he missed on Knox. Sorry for my error, I would assume an average reader would have recognized that error and self-corrected but the level of grace on this site is in direct opposition to the high desire to judge and castigate.

Do you really think the one and done era has been successful? If so, how and why? The numbers don't lie, the early exits don't lie, the greatest overhyped team in program history lost 9 games and got destroyed by a 7 seed from the SEC. How could anyone look at these results and say they don't deserve to be critiqued.

Kedsy
05-21-2017, 11:50 PM
Yes, the point is this has become the pattern. 4 years in close succession we lose to double digit seed teams and fail to advance to Sweet 16.

We only lost to double-digit seeds twice in that span, not four times.


That level of NCAA tournament failure doesn't show up in any other sample size during the K era.

Also not correct. We failed to make the Sweet 16 in 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1997.


This is an unprecedented string of early exits, and what else can one "blame" it on than the one and done recruitment strategy?

My point was you don't have to "blame" it on anything. Sometimes teams lose in the NCAA tournament -- the losses usually aren't connected or related from one year to another.


The numbers don't lie, the early exits don't lie, the greatest overhyped team in program history lost 9 games and got destroyed by a 7 seed from the SEC. How could anyone look at these results and say they don't deserve to be critiqued.

A better question might be, how can someone look at the 2016-17 Duke team's incredible string of injuries and misfortune and still feel the need to find some alternative explanation for the losses?

Olympic Fan
05-22-2017, 12:29 AM
I'm really excited about having a one-and-one dominated team next year.

Anything can happen, but right now it looks like we'll start three OAD type freshmen (Carter, Duval and Trent)

The only other time that happened was 2015 ... and it resulted in a national title. FWIW, the three OAD starters that season were ranked 1-7-13 in he RSCI. The three starters for next season are ranked 4-5-7 by ESPN (the final RSCI is not out yet). So these three OADs are ranked higher as prospects than the 2015 trio.

In 2011 -- we started zero OAD freshmen (Irving off the bench)

In 2012 -- we started one OAD freshman (Rvers)

In 2013 -- we started zero OAD freshmen (we started one freshman, but Suliamon was a four-year player)

In 2014 -- we started one OAD freshman (Parker)

In 2015 -- we started three OAD freshmen (Okafor, Jones and Winslow) -- and won the national title

In 2016 -- we started one OAD freshman (Ingram ... Thornton started 20 games, but he was not a OAD freshman)

In 2017 -- we started one OAD freshman (Tatum ... Giles and Jackson were OAD, but started just 22 games between them; technically they were not starters)

Looks to me like the full-out OAD approach works better than the so-called "hybrid" approach. And to go back to the NCAA stats in the original OP, the all-out OAD approach has certainly worked for Kentucky.

Anyway, I'll be excited to see our first OAD dominated team since 2015.

As you say, "The numbers don't lie"

Kedsy
05-22-2017, 01:09 AM
Jabari had no clue how to win a game in March, it was pitiful.

Actually, the 2014 team won three games in March and got to the ACC tournament final. Another inaccuracy on your part.

BD80
05-22-2017, 06:31 AM
How does getting struck by lightening work one out of ten times again?

I would have a bunker to hide in during thunderstorms ... and wear Depends for when I heard any noise that sounded like thunder.

dukelifer
05-22-2017, 07:04 AM
I mistyped and meant to say "Does he double down for one and done's or concede a hybrid approach like this year once he missed on Knox. Sorry for my error, I would assume an average reader would have recognized that error and self-corrected but the level of grace on this site is in direct opposition to the high desire to judge and castigate.

Do you really think the one and done era has been successful? If so, how and why? The numbers don't lie, the early exits don't lie, the greatest overhyped team in program history lost 9 games and got destroyed by a 7 seed from the SEC. How could anyone look at these results and say they don't deserve to be critiqued.

I suppose it comes down to the definition of success. First - Duke did not get destroyed by SC. It was an 8 point loss of a game that Duke was leading by 7 at the half. Duke remains a relevant basketball program - and has provided many entertaining moments in the past 6 years including a NC. Kansas - a team that dominates the Big 12 every year has not won a NC in that period and have only been to one FF. Is that the success you seek? Kentucky has been to 3 FF but has only won once. Not sure if the KY fan base is satisfied but some Duke fans would prefer that resume. College basketball has changed a lot in the past decade. The little private school Duke still hangs with the big public schools year after year. That is still worth appreciating. When K retires- Duke may struggle to maintain its place in the basketball universe. Relevancy can disappear very quickly.

COYS
05-22-2017, 07:20 AM
I think the biggest weakness in the OP's analysis is that Duke struggled relative to expectations this year not because we were too reliant on one and done recruits, but because one of our talented one and done recruits WASN'T able to play at full speed. Harry never got his legs under him after his surgeries and so we didn't get the type of contribution one would expect from possibly the most talented player in the class. We had plenty of veterans this season. As much as people have lamented the lack of experienced upper classmen, we had seniors Matt and Amile plus junior returning All American Grayson. The team was plenty experienced. However, we needed Harry to play like a potential number one pick to be the dominant team we thought we would be, and we needed the rest of the team to be healthy.

Anyway, Duke probably would have been better this year if we had been able to rely more heavily on OAD talent.

OldPhiKap
05-22-2017, 07:31 AM
I think the biggest weakness in the OP's analysis is that Duke struggled relative to expectations this year not because we were too reliant on one and done recruits, but because one of our talented one and done recruits WASN'T able to play at full speed. Harry never got his legs under him after his surgeries and so we didn't get the type of contribution one would expect from possibly the most talented player in the class. We had plenty of veterans this season. As much as people have lamented the lack of experienced upper classmen, we had seniors Matt and Amile plus junior returning All American Grayson. The team was plenty experienced. However, we needed Harry to play like a potential number one pick to be the dominant team we thought we would be, and we needed the rest of the team to be healthy.

Anyway, Duke probably would have been better this year if we had been able to rely more heavily on OAD talent.

Building on this, the four things that strike me as the reasons we did not go farther than we did:

1. Harry's injury -- he never got up to speed and in the flow of his teammates.
2. Marques' injury -- same.
3. Point guard play, or lack thereof.
4. Playing SC in SC for a road tourney game, with Tar Heels packing the building.

As COYS notes, we had plenty of experience last year. The number of OADs had little impact by the time we got to March, unless you want to blame early injuries to them.

Of all the things about which I may criticize K, recruiting ain't one of them.

NSDukeFan
05-22-2017, 07:31 AM
I mistyped and meant to say "Does he double down for one and done's or concede a hybrid approach like this year once he missed on Knox. Sorry for my error, I would assume an average reader would have recognized that error and self-corrected but the level of grace on this site is in direct opposition to the high desire to judge and castigate.

Do you really think the one and done era has been successful? If so, how and why? The numbers don't lie, the early exits don't lie, the greatest overhyped team in program history lost 9 games and got destroyed by a 7 seed from the SEC. How could anyone look at these results and say they don't deserve to be critiqued.
I think the whole problem is in the bolded point. In my opinion, the coaching staff did an amazing job, and got lucky with Amile being available for a fifth year, in building as close to a perfect team as possible last year. The team had great upperclassmen in Amile, a guy who was averaging a double double before injuries the previous year, Grayson, the returning best player in college basketball and another returning starter who also had experience starting on a national championship team. Of course, those other two upperclassmen also had championship experience. Add to that a pair of highly rated sophomores, in Kennard and Jeter, who had shown promise in their freshman year. The team also included another less highly regarded sophomore , in Vrankovic, who is almost 7' tall and the son of a former NBA player. The staff added an awesome recruiting class to this fantastic returning and experienced talent. This recruiting class included a generational talent and the top player in the class, a fantastic pure scorer at small forward, the top centre in the class and a very highly rated athletic guard. This was perfect roster construction 101. Unfortunately, injuries derailed the year and the team got upset in the second round on the virtual road against a team rounding into form. It also hurts because after UNC came too close to winning the year before, this was a year that Duke was so obviously more talented than them, but they ended up with a better year. That's the way things work sometimes and unfortunately clouds our judgement about everything.

We only lost to double-digit seeds twice in that span, not four times.



Also not correct. We failed to make the Sweet 16 in 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1997.



My point was you don't have to "blame" it on anything. Sometimes teams lose in the NCAA tournament -- the losses usually aren't connected or related from one year to another.



A better question might be, how can someone look at the 2016-17 Duke team's incredible string of injuries and misfortune and still feel the need to find some alternative explanation for the losses?
Unfortunately, with all the injuries, the team never could develop into the team we hoped, but was so talented, they were still able to have a good season and great ACCT.

Troublemaker
05-22-2017, 09:51 AM
How could anyone look at these results and say they don't deserve to be critiqued.

Are we allowed to critique your presumption that any disappointing result since 2011 can be placed at the feet of OADs? How do you explain that the team with the most OADs had the best result? (Read Olympic Fan's post). The sample of 7 seasons (2011-2017) is small, and 2015 is hugely problematic for your presumption. Could there be any other reasons why certain seasons have had disappointing endings over that 7-year period? Moreover, could the explanation be a combination of factors instead of just one thing? Why has Kentucky had so much success with OADs - what is the difference between Duke and Kentucky over that period? Finally, in the 7 seasons PRIOR to the "OAD era," how does Duke stack up with the rest of college basketball then? Any disappointing endings in that period?

Dukehky
05-22-2017, 10:01 AM
I'm really excited about having a one-and-one dominated team next year.

Anything can happen, but right now it looks like we'll start three OAD type freshmen (Carter, Duval and Trent)

The only other time that happened was 2015 ... and it resulted in a national title. FWIW, the three OAD starters that season were ranked 1-7-13 in he RSCI. The three starters for next season are ranked 4-5-7 by ESPN (the final RSCI is not out yet). So these three OADs are ranked higher as prospects than the 2015 trio.

In 2011 -- we started zero OAD freshmen (Irving off the bench)

In 2012 -- we started one OAD freshman (Rvers)

In 2013 -- we started zero OAD freshmen (we started one freshman, but Suliamon was a four-year player)

In 2014 -- we started one OAD freshman (Parker)

In 2015 -- we started three OAD freshmen (Okafor, Jones and Winslow) -- and won the national title

In 2016 -- we started one OAD freshman (Ingram ... Thornton started 20 games, but he was not a OAD freshman)

In 2017 -- we started one OAD freshman (Tatum ... Giles and Jackson were OAD, but started just 22 games between them; technically they were not starters)

Looks to me like the full-out OAD approach works better than the so-called "hybrid" approach. And to go back to the NCAA stats in the original OP, the all-out OAD approach has certainly worked for Kentucky.

Anyway, I'll be excited to see our first OAD dominated team since 2015.

As you say, "The numbers don't lie"

Do you mean Irving came off the bench in the NCAA Tournament? Because before the season even started, K was on record saying Kyrie was our best player, and I certainly remember him starting every game to start the season and would be shocked to find out differently.

elvis14
05-22-2017, 10:02 AM
The point is that while Uk has gone all in on the one and done recruitment while others have abstained for the most part, only kentucky has had real success in the tournament with this risky strategy. Whether it's K's defense, or lack of a true point guard, or the inability to blend the new guys with the old, K has honestly failed in comparison to both Cal's one and done system, as well as failing to Roy's system of signing lower level talent, keeping that talent, and developing old teams that know how to win in March.
.

Others have not abstained for the most part. When a team heavily recruits one and done players (goes all out on them) but doesn't land them at all, that's not abstaining, that's losing recruiting battles.


Yes, the point is this has become the pattern. 4 years in close succession we lose to double digit seed teams and fail to advance to Sweet 16. That level of NCAA tournament failure doesn't show up in any other sample size during the K era. This is an unprecedented string of early exits, and what else can one "blame" it on than the one and done recruitment strategy?


It's simple and obvious. As others have mentioned, our issue has been injuries, not a OAD strategy. One thing that makes it seem like we are OAD heavy is the surprise exits of Jones and Jackson (and D.Thornton). Even Justise wasn't expected to be a OAD. IMHO, losing Derryck was huge. Had he stayed and made the usual Sophomore jump, I think we are more complete team (of course with all the injuries it just didn't matter).

I really like what we have done this offseason. First we recruited the best players in the country, most of which intend to be OAD. We landed 3 of those guys, two of which are expected to be OAD and one who is possibly a OAD. At the same time, we brought in 3 players who are not expected to be OAD and will give us depth and logevity. Last year, we brought in White, Delaurier who were clearly not OAD. Bolden and Jackson who were possibly OAD but not really expected to go and Giles and Tatum who were clearly OAD. That's actually a good balance.

I know we are all sickened by UNCheat buying their way into the tournament the last two years and being successful but as their recruiting woes continue, their time is almost up. They were able to buy time by having guys like Hicks and Jackson stay longer than normal (as in they were the highest ranked Sr/Jr in the nation, I think). Pick your reason: pro UNCheat - they love their team, or anti-UNCheat - they don't progress enough. Hicks was ranked 14 and Jackson 9 and it took them 4/3 years to make it to the NBA (heck Pinson was ranked 16). If Bradley leaves for the NBA, they'll only have a couple of top 30 players and the talent drain will catch up with them. Hopefully, as they start to drop, the NCAA drops the hammer (vacating wins, losing scholarships, post-season bans...all the stuff that should have already happened). Point being, they've been lucky and have a model that's not sustainable (if they want to be a top 5 program like us).

pfrduke
05-22-2017, 11:03 AM
Over the course of the last 7 seasons (since that seems to be what everyone uses as the benchmark for our "one-and-done era"), the following schools have a) won a national championship, b) been to at least one other Elite 8, and c) been to at least two other Sweet 16s:

Kentucky
Louisville
Duke
North Carolina

Over the course of the last 7 seasons, the following power conference schools have better records than Duke's 203-51:

Kansas (214-45)
Kentucky (214-50)
Arizona (204-51)

Over the course of the last 7 seasons, the following schools have been ranked in the final (post-tournament) coaches poll each year:

Kansas (lowest 17, highest 2)
Duke (lowest 18, highest 1)
Wisconsin (lowest 23, highest 2)

So, maybe we're not doing so bad?

We have unquestionably had bad results in the NCAA tournament in 3 of those 7 years. But I'm not sure we should use those 3 losses as an indictment for an entire 7 years of program history that pretty much any other program in country would kill for (Kentucky doesn't trade with us; UNC doesn't either (an extra final four); UConn probably doesn't because 2 titles, but they've also been a bit of a wasteland the past three seasons; Louisville would have been a close call but I think the sanctions season means they would want to trade; Villanova definitely trades (easy to forget, but last year's title was their only trip past the first weekend in this 7-year span); Kansas is a really interesting question, but they might trade their past 7 years with ours to get the championship; everyone else I think is a no brainer).

DukieInBrasil
05-22-2017, 11:04 AM
It's simple and obvious. As others have mentioned, our issue has been injuries, not a OAD strategy. One thing that makes it seem like we are OAD heavy is the surprise exits of Jones and Jackson (and D.Thornton). Even Justise wasn't expected to be a OAD. IMHO, losing Derryck was huge. Had he stayed and made the usual Sophomore jump, I think we are more complete team (of course with all the injuries it just didn't matter).

I really like what we have done this offseason. First we recruited the best players in the country, most of which intend to be OAD. We landed 3 of those guys, two of which are expected to be OAD and one who is possibly a OAD. At the same time, we brought in 3 players who are not expected to be OAD and will give us depth and logevity. Last year, we brought in White, Delaurier who were clearly not OAD. Bolden and Jackson who were possibly OAD but not really expected to go and Giles and Tatum who were clearly OAD. That's actually a good balance.


I am in the camp that thinks that Thornton would have made a huge difference to this past year's team. I don't really think he was a "pure" PG, nor do i think he was an overly exceptional talent, nor with spectacular handles and other superlatives people might toss around. He was however, a good player. And a guard with good ballhandling skills, lots of speed and decent to above average defense. And all of that was just the description of his Fr. year. I am also of the camp that believes he would have made a reasonable improvement upon his Fr. season, even if not a "jump". I also believe that experience matters, and as a So. Derryck would have the experience necessary to provide some stability in the backcourt, perhaps allowing Grayson more time off to heal properly. He may not have been a starter, but he would have been able to provide some positives. However, who's to say the injury bug would have left him alone???
I am also of the opinion that having an experienced, fast, decent defender would have enhanced our backcourt defense substantially. Had DT been on the team, the likelihood that we win the KU game and at least one or 3 others (VT, NCSU, Miami) goes up, and likely our seed in the tourney. However, vs. KU, it was our inability to limit Azuibuike on the boards that did us in, not the backcourt. Vs VT Grayson's absence really hurt us, so maybe DT's presence would have helped eliminate that deficiency. Our second half collapse vs NCSU may have been staved off by a better than average defender being able to thwart Dennis Smith from destroying us. Without those losses, Duke probably gets a 2 seed, with an outside shot at a 1 seed.
It's really a shame that DT allowed somebody to convince him to leave b/c last year's team could have really used someone like him. Even if last year's team retained DT and never landed Frank Jackson, i think the results from last year would have been more impressive. So even though we didn't recruit FJ withe expectation that he would be OAD, Duke really got the short end of the stick from DT ditching the team for no logical reason b/c A) we only got one year from him, leaving us with an unforeseen hole at the PG position and B) we also got only 1 season from FJ who a) played better than expected and b) also graded out exceptionally well in the combine. Had DT stayed AND we had landed FJ perhaps subheading a) wouldn't have happened, but subheading b) would not have been affected by DT's presence.
I don't think this has much impact on the OAD recruiting philosophy, other than to say: some guys aren't recruited to be OAD but leave after 1 season anyway b/c they went to the draft or transferred. Both occurrences have downside consequences, but DT's transfer in particular caused multiple problems for this past year's team.

Kedsy
05-22-2017, 11:33 AM
Without those losses, Duke probably gets a 2 seed, with an outside shot at a 1 seed.

I don't understand. With those losses, didn't we get a 2 seed with an outside shot at a 1 seed?

I am in the camp that thinks sophomore Derryck Thornton would have been only marginally better (if at all) than freshman Frank Jackson, and if we'd had both on the team then one of them wouldn't have played so much. So I don't think losing Derryck had much of an effect on last year's team or record.

Wander
05-22-2017, 11:53 AM
This is a subject where you can twist statistics to make any case you want. You can show that our teams with OADs didn't do so great as far as tournament and ACC championship success, and you can also reasonably argue that the OADs weren't the cause of the problems those teams had. The only thing that's clear is that there's not a magic formula for national championships, and you can win titles with or without OADs.

So, I'm not sure which is better, or even if one is better, with respect to NCAA tournament success. I will say that I'd selfishly enjoy having less focus on OADs. But that is subjective, and I can see why other people (especially NBA fans) would equally or more enjoy having a big focus on the best talents no matter how long they stay.

Indoor66
05-22-2017, 12:03 PM
tI will say that I'd selfishly enjoy having less focus on OADs. But that is subjective, and I can see why other people (especially NBA fans) would equally or more enjoy having a big focus on the best talents no matter how long they stay.

I am with you on this. I get tired of the emphasis on individual oriented success rather than team success. Frankly, I do not much care about the professional prospects or earning capacity of an eighteen year old as a point of importance in the future of Duke Basketball. I care about Duke Basketball.

Jeffrey
05-22-2017, 12:13 PM
I also miss vinyl albums

You shouldn't. Some of the best vinyl and turntables are being made today. Digital will never equal analog.

sagegrouse
05-22-2017, 12:17 PM
This is a subject where you can twist statistics to make any case you want. You can show that our teams with OADs didn't do so great as far as tournament and ACC championship success, and you can also reasonably argue that the OADs weren't the cause of the problems those teams had. The only thing that's clear is that there's not a magic formula for national championships, and you can win titles with or without OADs.

So, I'm not sure which is better, or even if one is better, with respect to NCAA tournament success. I will say that I'd selfishly enjoy having less focus on OADs. But that is subjective, and I can see why other people (especially NBA fans) would equally or more enjoy having a big focus on the best talents no matter how long they stay.

It seems like K has shifted strategy this year, with the recruitment of Jordan Goldwire and Alex O'Connell, players that will likely be around for four years. Even Jordan Tucker projects as a multi-year player (although we would have taken would-be one-and-done Kevin Knox).

Seems like a rational reaction, and the higher turnover enables us to take five or six players a year and staying within the scholarship limit of 13.

DukieInBrasil
05-22-2017, 12:20 PM
I don't understand. With those losses, didn't we get a 2 seed with an outside shot at a 1 seed?

I am in the camp that thinks sophomore Derryck Thornton would have been only marginally better (if at all) than freshman Frank Jackson, and if we'd had both on the team then one of them wouldn't have played so much. So I don't think losing Derryck had much of an effect on last year's team or record.

Agh!!! your relentless pursuit of facts is so annoying!!!! I meant to delete part of that and just write "we'd likely get a 1 seed". I'm not sure we were really an outside shot as a 1 seed last year, although we did get a technically favorable location as a #2, which actually ended up being an extremely unfavorable location, even if it didn't have any affect on the actual game (although maybe it did).
My comment made no reference to whether i think So. DT would have been better than Fr. FJ, and i don't think he would have been. I just think he would have brought something different to the table than Frank did, and that diversity would have been good for the team. As a Fr. DT's PG ability was somewhat better than FJ's, and history indicates that Fr. improve, so it's impossible not to believe that So. DT would have provided somewhat of an improvement at PG than what he gave as a Fr. I think that would have improved the team somewehat. So we'll have to disagree on that. But you're right, having them both would mean that their PT would have been impacted, but probably would have also reduced the need to play LK so much (dude played 38+ minutes in a game far too often), or Grayson when he was injured.

Matches
05-22-2017, 01:44 PM
Such a strange and circular argument. Under the present system (which Duke did not design and does not control), recruiting the top players means recruiting guys who may only stay 1-2 years. Most of the best players are gone after 1-2 years. If you want to get the best talent that's what you have to deal with.

We're two seasons removed from winning a national championship with a team that relied heavily on three OAD players. Every point we scored in the 2nd half of the title game was scored by a freshman. If your analysis of our results in the OAD era includes the phrase "excluding the year we won the national championship", please just stop.

A handful of guys (e.g. Tatum, Okafor) are mortal locks to be OAD players. But most of the time it's not that certain. The coaching staff doesn't know exactly how long players will stay. The staff has to assume that any highly-rated recruit is a flight risk, and keep a steady pipeline of those players incoming. The notion of mixing in lower-rated recruits sounds great on paper (and K does this exact thing) except that most of those guys don't work out, and even when they do they rarely become guys who can be major contributors to elite teams. Don't let a timely shot against Kentucky fool you - Luke Maye is a role player and that's all he'll ever be. Valuable to his team? Sure, no doubt. But you don't go to Final Fours with a team full of Luke Mayes. You've got to have stars too, and since those guys turn over rapidly you've got to have a steady stream of them.

The 2017 NCAA Title isn't more meaningful or more indicative of the right path to success than the 2015 NCAA Title. They're equally meaningful.

pfrduke
05-22-2017, 02:19 PM
Such a strange and circular argument. Under the present system (which Duke did not design and does not control), recruiting the top players means recruiting guys who may only stay 1-2 years. Most of the best players are gone after 1-2 years. If you want to get the best talent that's what you have to deal with.

Even over what has been defined as our one-and-done era, (2011-present) there has been a dramatic rise in the number of freshmen declaring for the draft. In 2011, when Kyrie came out, there were 9 (and only 7 of those played D-1 basketball*). It was also 9 in 2012, and 8 in 2013. Then things started to take an uptick, going from 11 in 2014 to 14 in 2015 and 16 in 2016. This year there are 25 (at least at the moment; a few could still come back, but 19 have signed with agents). It's really hard to avoid recruiting one-and-done talent when 1/4 of the top 100 declare for the draft.

Moreover, in addition to the 16 freshmen who declared in 2016, there are currently 34 sophomores with their names in the draft (again, some can pull out). So 50 kids - essentially half of the top 100 (recognizing that not all early entrants were top 100 HS recruits) - are at least testing the waters within two years of arriving on campus. How, in that environment, is a program supposed to reliably find the players who will be a) good enough to compete for national championships while b) not looking to leave for the NBA within 2 years?

Maybe there will be a course correction - after all, the NBA draft is not getting bigger, so there is at least a theoretical ceiling as to how many freshmen can declare - and future years will have draft pools that look more like 2011-2013 with single-digit freshman early entrants. But barring a course correction, there's a good bet that well regarded recruits are not going to be on campus for four years.

All of this is to say I agree with where your post started - I'm not sure our recent roster composition has reflected a shift in Duke's recruiting focus as much as it has reflected a shift in the path to professional basketball for post-HS players. We can't look at our recruiting efforts in a vacuum, but only in the context of the environment in which we are recruiting.

*Roscoe Davis played at Midland Junior College; Enes Kanter sat out a year at Kentucky.

ChillinDuke
05-22-2017, 03:12 PM
<snip>
How, in that environment, is a program supposed to reliably find the players who will be a) good enough to compete for national championships while b) not looking to leave for the NBA within 2 years?

<snip>

Well, when you put it that way, it isn't.

Great context. Great post.

- Chillin

lotusland
05-22-2017, 03:14 PM
It seems like K has shifted strategy this year, with the recruitment of Jordan Goldwire and Alex O'Connell, players that will likely be around for four years. Even Jordan Tucker projects as a multi-year player (although we would have taken would-be one-and-done Kevin Knox).

Seems like a rational reaction, and the higher turnover enables us to take five or six players a year and staying within the scholarship limit of 13.

I agree. I think the roster rounded out nicely in the end. I'd be happier if Jeter and/or Frank stayed but it's water under the bridge now. Now if we get to enjoy 2020/2021 with Senior captains Jordan, Jordan and Alex I'll be a happy guy. Injuries. Foul trouble and normal opportunities will hopefully allow Jack, Javin and Vrank some meaningful PT this year. If they improve enough over the summer, one of Jack or Javin will likely be in the rotation.

niveklaen
05-22-2017, 04:09 PM
I think that criticizing a OAD heavy approach by pointing to years with just 1 OAD player does not make much sense. Getting only 1 OAD player a year does not have a good track record. Getting 3+ OAD players does. Since you can't 'know' who will be OAD in advance - and because you get a certain amount of reverse causation where more guys go OAD because they turned out good enough to win a title - it makes sense to look at it in terms of the player's recruit ranking.

From 07-16 there were 7 teams that had 3 top 16 recruits in a class - 5 UK, 1 Duke, 1 UNC. Two of those teams - UK 12 and Duke 15 - won titles their freshman years. A third team won a title when that freshman class became juniors - UNC. Not sure if they should count, so its either 3 of 7 3+ top 16 classes resulting in titles or its 2 of 6. The other 4 teams lost in the title game, final 4, elite 8, and NIT - UK's injury plagued 2013 squad. So top 16 superclasses go to the final 4 67% (or 71% if you count UNC) of the time and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the net to include top 20 players, there have been 9 teams that had 3+ top 20 recruits in a class (add 1 UK (final 4) and 1 Kansas(elite 8)) - with that bigger net the super classes are either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 in generating titles. So top 20 superclasses go to the final 4 62% (or 67% if you count UNC) and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the timeframe to include 2017, there are 2 more superclasses so we would be at either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 titles for top 16 classes and 3 of 11 or 2 of 10 for top 20 classes, again with only injury plagued teams failing to make the elite 8.

Bottom line: superclasses result in final 4 appearances more than half of the time.

Here is the data by year:

17: UK 4 top 15 - elite 8, Duke 4 top 16 - round of 32 - injury plagued team
16: Kansas 3 top 20, 2 top 16 - elite 8
15: Duke 3 top 16 - title, UK 4 top 20, 2 top 16 - final 4
14: UK 6 top 16 !?! - runner up
13: UK 3 top 16 - NIT - injury plagued team
12: UK 3 top 7 - title
11: UK 3 top 10 - final 4
10: UK 3 top 16 - elite 8
9: none
8: none
7: UNC 3 top 8 - title as juniors

(Note - Players ranked 17-20 go OAD less than 10% of the time and are 4 year players 45% of the time so they really should not be included in a OAD model either...)

Hauerwas
05-22-2017, 04:54 PM
I realize there is more to all of this, but if you would have told any of us in 2010 that we would land Jabari Parker, Austin Rivers, Kyrie Irving, Rodney Hood, Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Luke Kennard, Brandon Ingrim, Chase Jeter, and Frank Jackson and STILL never advance beyond the Sweet 16 with all that talent, and have a total of what, 5 NCAA tourny wins would anyone think this was a successful strategy?

Can we at least be honest to say the One and Done era has been a mixed bag, that it seems even K has struggled to find the right balance in the recruiting and team cohesiveness? I am convinced that 2015 is a pure outlier simply because Jones, Okafor, and Winslow, were far ahead mentally and physically from any other class we've recruited. Those dudes were men as freshmen. Maybe we can duplicate that again in 2017-18 and beyond, it just seems we are not being honest with ourselves if we just give a pass to this strategy without questioning the long term implications on the program and it's short term results.

OldPhiKap
05-22-2017, 05:03 PM
I realize there is more to all of this, but if you would have told any of us in 2010 that we would land Jabari Parker, Austin Rivers, Kyrie Irving, Rodney Hood, Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Luke Kennard, Brandon Ingrim, Chase Jeter, and Frank Jackson and STILL never advance beyond the Sweet 16 with all that talent, and have a total of what, 5 NCAA tourny wins would anyone think this was a successful strategy?

Can we at least be honest to say the One and Done era has been a mixed bag, that it seems even K has struggled to find the right balance in the recruiting and team cohesiveness? I am convinced that 2015 is a pure outlier simply because Jones, Okafor, and Winslow, were far ahead mentally and physically from any other class we've recruited. Those dudes were men as freshmen. Maybe we can duplicate that again in 2017-18 and beyond, it just seems we are not being honest with ourselves if we just give a pass to this strategy without questioning the long term implications on the program and it's short term results.

So now that your original premise was shown to be incorrect, you're switching to say that we should stop recruiting 5-stars? Including two players who were severely limited by injuries (Irving, Giles), and a transfer (Hood)?

Some would start to question the motives here. Just sayin'.

DukieInBrasil
05-22-2017, 05:14 PM
So now that your original premise was shown to be incorrect, you're switching to say that we should stop recruiting 5-stars? Including two players who were severely limited by injuries (Irving, Giles), and a transfer (Hood)?

Some would start to question the motives here. Just sayin'.

To be fair, that's not what was said. Don't attack the idea that you've created for him/her.
Including Hood in the OP was a weird inclusion b/c he was a transfer. Changing the goalposts is also not a good argument strategy.
I think it's fine for hauerwas to question whether the strategy is a good one. I don't think they are doing a good job of justifying their position.

ipatent
05-22-2017, 05:16 PM
So now that your original premise was shown to be incorrect, you're switching to say that we should stop recruiting 5-stars? Including two players who were severely limited by injuries (Irving, Giles), and a transfer (Hood)?

Some would start to question the motives here. Just sayin'.

How many players had to underperform relative to expectations when they were recruited for Jefferson to be the only reliable inside player last year? Not just Giles. Add Bolden, Jeter and of course Obi.

With competent point guard play Giles, etc. would have looked better (he can catch and dunk almost as well as a Plumlee), but winning the ACC Tourney and taking two of three from the eventual national champs wasn't a bad year given that perfect storm. Villanova fans have more to cry about for last year, IMO.

OldPhiKap
05-22-2017, 05:25 PM
To be fair, that's not what was said.

I guess I came to that conclusion because the list conveniently excludes Grayson, Winslow, Jones, Okafor, Quinn, as well as all of the big recruits on the 2010 team. Seems like some serious cherry-picking to me. But if I misread the post, my bad.

We've won two national championships in the last eight years. A cherry-picked argument that our recruiting is faulty seems, well, trollish when added with comments to the effect that we "are not being honest with ourselves." No offense to anyone, of course.

Hauerwas
05-22-2017, 05:26 PM
So now that your original premise was shown to be incorrect, you're switching to say that we should stop recruiting 5-stars? Including two players who were severely limited by injuries (Irving, Giles), and a transfer (Hood)?

Some would start to question the motives here. Just sayin'.

How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

cato
05-22-2017, 05:40 PM
How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

Your premise is that Duke's recruiting strategy is "at fault" for producing only one NCAA title since 2010, with relative lack of success the other years. Your premise is incorrect, in that you have not identified which recruiting strategy would have yielded more than one NCAA title and greater tournament success in the other years.

pfrduke
05-22-2017, 05:46 PM
How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

From 2003-2009 (7 years) we won 13 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES (capitalized for consistency). That was done with a recruiting methodology that generally eschewed one-and-done players (Deng was it) and focused on 3-4 year contributors. It's not clear why you draw such a strong line between our post-season outcomes and our recruiting philosophy.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-22-2017, 05:47 PM
I realize there is more to all of this, but if you would have told any of us in 2010 that we would land Jabari Parker, Austin Rivers, Kyrie Irving, Rodney Hood, Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Luke Kennard, Brandon Ingrim, Chase Jeter, and Frank Jackson and STILL never advance beyond the Sweet 16 with all that talent, and have a total of what, 5 NCAA tourny wins would anyone think this was a successful strategy?


I see no reasoning for excluding 2015 when we won 6 NCAA tournament games, other than that it weakens your argument.

ipatent
05-22-2017, 05:56 PM
From 2003-2009 (7 years) we won 13 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES (capitalized for consistency). That was done with a recruiting methodology that generally eschewed one-and-done players (Deng was it) and focused on 3-4 year contributors. It's not clear why you draw such a strong line between our post-season outcomes and our recruiting philosophy.

We were spoiled from 1986-1994, no doubt. Think of all the early exits from the likes of KU, interspersed with the 2008??? title run.

elvis14
05-22-2017, 05:56 PM
How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

You have the cause incorrect. You are saying that because of our recruiting strategy and specifically OAD players that we have underperformed. If you read through this thread you will notice that quite a few people have listed the correct cause: injuries. It's not the OAD players that have been the issue, it's the injuries. This last year is the most obvious example. In fact the last 2 years (Amile, both years) have been badly derailed by injuries.

Others have also pointed out that we only have a few years where we have more than 1 OAD and I'm willing to bet that if you look at those teams, it won't be the OAD player who was the weak link (unless they were injured like Kyrie).

sagegrouse
05-22-2017, 06:21 PM
How is the original premise incorrect? In 7 years we've won 14 NCAA TOURNAMENT GAMES. 14. If you are happy with that then fine. Go in peace, but I'm sure K and staff are frustrated about it.

In eight years we have won 20, including two national championships. Plus three ACC titles.

For nine years we feasted on the NCAA tournament (seven final fours from 1986 through 1994) and didn't do much in the ACC -- three championships. Then we had an incredible stretch in the ACC, winning 10 championships from 1999 through 2011, but "only" had four final fours. Success is not foreordained.

In recent years, I thought we "shoulda" made the Final Four in 2011, except that Arizona made two phenomenally lucky shots, perfectly guarded, at the end of the first half that made the margin six points instead of 12 and the Cats were pumped up and came out on a roll in the second half.

Against Louisville in 2013 in the Elite Eight -- that was the Kevin Ware game, where a key L'ville player suffered a compound fracture of the leg in front of the players, the crowd and the national TV audience. That game was unique in CBB history, and who knows how it affected the outcome (although Louisville won the NC).

This year we "coulda" advanced, except that South Carolina decided to play hoops in the physical manner of its bar-bouncer coach, and the refs, for whatever reason, let the Gamecocks get away with it, even though the rules had been changed to allow greater player movement. Then, an offensively challenged team got really hot, after bricking it up in the first half. We had a highly imperfect team this year, but there was hope.

One-and-done tournaments can be really cruel. Ask #1 seed Temple about Duke in 1988 or #1 seed Georgetown in 1989 or UConn in 1990 or #1 seed Purdue in 1994. And, then there was the other Laettner game.

COYS
05-22-2017, 07:09 PM
I think that criticizing a OAD heavy approach by pointing to years with just 1 OAD player does not make much sense. Getting only 1 OAD player a year does not have a good track record. Getting 3+ OAD players does. Since you can't 'know' who will be OAD in advance - and because you get a certain amount of reverse causation where more guys go OAD because they turned out good enough to win a title - it makes sense to look at it in terms of the player's recruit ranking.

From 07-16 there were 7 teams that had 3 top 16 recruits in a class - 5 UK, 1 Duke, 1 UNC. Two of those teams - UK 12 and Duke 15 - won titles their freshman years. A third team won a title when that freshman class became juniors - UNC. Not sure if they should count, so its either 3 of 7 3+ top 16 classes resulting in titles or its 2 of 6. The other 4 teams lost in the title game, final 4, elite 8, and NIT - UK's injury plagued 2013 squad. So top 16 superclasses go to the final 4 67% (or 71% if you count UNC) of the time and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the net to include top 20 players, there have been 9 teams that had 3+ top 20 recruits in a class (add 1 UK (final 4) and 1 Kansas(elite 8)) - with that bigger net the super classes are either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 in generating titles. So top 20 superclasses go to the final 4 62% (or 67% if you count UNC) and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the timeframe to include 2017, there are 2 more superclasses so we would be at either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 titles for top 16 classes and 3 of 11 or 2 of 10 for top 20 classes, again with only injury plagued teams failing to make the elite 8.

Bottom line: superclasses result in final 4 appearances more than half of the time.

Here is the data by year:

17: UK 4 top 15 - elite 8, Duke 4 top 16 - round of 32 - injury plagued team
16: Kansas 3 top 20, 2 top 16 - elite 8
15: Duke 3 top 16 - title, UK 4 top 20, 2 top 16 - final 4
14: UK 6 top 16 !?! - runner up
13: UK 3 top 16 - NIT - injury plagued team
12: UK 3 top 7 - title
11: UK 3 top 10 - final 4
10: UK 3 top 16 - elite 8
9: none
8: none
7: UNC 3 top 8 - title as juniors

(Note - Players ranked 17-20 go OAD less than 10% of the time and are 4 year players 45% of the time so they really should not be included in a OAD model either...)

I'm quoting this post because it deserves a lot more attention. Super recruiting classes that include three or more top 16 players have excellent track records, barring injuries.

Newton_14
05-22-2017, 07:36 PM
I realize there is more to all of this, but if you would have told any of us in 2010 that we would land Jabari Parker, Austin Rivers, Kyrie Irving, Rodney Hood, Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Luke Kennard, Brandon Ingrim, Chase Jeter, and Frank Jackson and STILL never advance beyond the Sweet 16 with all that talent, and have a total of what, 5 NCAA tourny wins would anyone think this was a successful strategy?

Can we at least be honest to say the One and Done era has been a mixed bag, that it seems even K has struggled to find the right balance in the recruiting and team cohesiveness? I am convinced that 2015 is a pure outlier simply because Jones, Okafor, and Winslow, were far ahead mentally and physically from any other class we've recruited. Those dudes were men as freshmen. Maybe we can duplicate that again in 2017-18 and beyond, it just seems we are not being honest with ourselves if we just give a pass to this strategy without questioning the long term implications on the program and it's short term results.

Can you at least be honest and stop ignoring/dismissing the role injuries played? Oly, PFRDuke, Nikaleen, have shown us the cold hard facts in real, non-cherry picked data, that your argument with cherry-picked data is incorrect.

We live in strange times with College Hoops. I hate the OAD Era and miss the era when all but the Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson's of the world stayed 4 years and most of the early entry star guys left only after their Junior year or in the case of Isiah Thomas & Magic at least stayed 2 years. Trust me no one hates this era more than me but it is the current landscape as we know it. Maybe it will implode at some point and change to something new but for now it is what it is. I am a staunch Duke supporter and will continue to be. I want Coach recruiting the best players who are Duke type kids period. If 1 or 4 of them become OAD so be it. And I'm not going to bad mouth or hate on the kids that leave, even when it's a case like Frank Jackson where I believe he is making a bad decision. It's his and his families decision to make. Not mine.


I personally don't believe a 19yr old kid is mentally ready or mature enough to manage that type money, and live the lifestyle NBA players live playing in 3 to 5 cities per week with a thousand down time hours where they have to find something to pass the time. I think it's a recipe for disaster. I also don't believe they are physically ready nor have the basketball savy and IQ needed yet for NBA hoops, but again, it is what it is. This is where we are at. I applaud our coaching staff for the recruiting accomplishments the past 7 years. It's been incredible. I hope they can sustain it.

My only gripe is the short player rotation that runs off the kids that want to stay 4 years but that's a whole nuther tree to climb...

ipatent
05-22-2017, 08:11 PM
I'm quoting this post because it deserves a lot more attention. Super recruiting classes that include three or more top 16 players have excellent track records, barring injuries.

I agree it was a good point. In Duke's case, things will rarely come together for a OAD dominated team as they did in '15, but also won't fall apart as they did last year. Somewhere in-between most years. Not a big enough sample yet to project how many years between titles on average.

Point guards are more important than ever in the OAD era. Probably no '15 title if Tyus Jones didn't have a Hurley-like knack for hitting key shots...not the freshman Hurley, either.

DangerDevil
05-22-2017, 09:09 PM
I realize there is more to all of this, but if you would have told any of us in 2010 that we would land Jabari Parker, Austin Rivers, Kyrie Irving, Rodney Hood, Harry Giles, Jayson Tatum, Luke Kennard, Brandon Ingrim, Chase Jeter, and Frank Jackson and STILL never advance beyond the Sweet 16 with all that talent, and have a total of what, 5 NCAA tourny wins would anyone think this was a successful strategy?

Can we at least be honest to say the One and Done era has been a mixed bag, that it seems even K has struggled to find the right balance in the recruiting and team cohesiveness? I am convinced that 2015 is a pure outlier simply because Jones, Okafor, and Winslow, were far ahead mentally and physically from any other class we've recruited. Those dudes were men as freshmen. Maybe we can duplicate that again in 2017-18 and beyond, it just seems we are not being honest with ourselves if we just give a pass to this strategy without questioning the long term implications on the program and it's short term results.

Hypothetically let's say that the facts support your argument that Coach K's/Duke's recruiting strategy is flawed in the OAD era.

1) What do you propose is a better strategy?

2) How much better does our record need to be over the next eight years to not be another "mixed bag" like the 238 wins and 2 NCAA titles of the past 8 seasons?

Wander
05-22-2017, 09:28 PM
Hypothetically let's say that the facts support your argument that Coach K's/Duke's recruiting strategy is flawed in the OAD era.

1) What do you propose is a better strategy?


I'm not the OP, but I will answer. I think the OP has made a number of faulty statements that have been corrected, but I think some people are going too far in the opposite direction in their responses.

My middle-ground answer: I would not recruit players who knew with complete certainty that they would be OAD. I would still recruit 5 star guys, including those who were considering leaving after one year if their draft stock is high, and understand that realistically some number of them would in fact leave. But it doesn't seem to me to be an efficient use of resources to focus on guys who you know for 100.000% sure are only going to be around for one year.

DangerDevil
05-22-2017, 09:39 PM
I'm not the OP, but I will answer. I think the OP has made a number of faulty statements that have been corrected, but I think some people are going too far in the opposite direction in their responses.

My middle-ground answer: I would not recruit players who knew with complete certainty that they would be OAD. I would still recruit 5 star guys, including those who were considering leaving after one year if their draft stock is high, and understand that realistically some number of them would in fact leave. But it doesn't seem to me to be an efficient use of resources to focus on guys who you know for 100.000% sure are only going to be around for one year.

So if LeBron or Kobe were coming along with the current set of rules and had to go to college for a year, you wouldn't want them?

Matches
05-23-2017, 09:27 AM
My middle-ground answer: I would not recruit players who knew with complete certainty that they would be OAD. I would still recruit 5 star guys, including those who were considering leaving after one year if their draft stock is high, and understand that realistically some number of them would in fact leave. But it doesn't seem to me to be an efficient use of resources to focus on guys who you know for 100.000% sure are only going to be around for one year.

Fair enough - so we're talking about Tatum, Giles, Ingram, Okafor, Parker, Rivers & Irving? I suppose there's room to quibble about whether some of those were 100% certain to leave but all of them definitely planned to.

I dunno... I have lots of discomfort with the OAD setup and how it plays with the idea of amateurism and contrasts with the university's academic mission. But I'm not sorry any of those guys came to Duke; nor do I feel we wasted resources on any of them. Other than this past season we were never maxed out on scholarships so it's not like they took a space away from a more serious student. They all seemed like pretty good guys - I know some don't care for Rivers but he was never in trouble off the court or anything like that. They all made their respective teams better other than maybe Giles who was injured. Maybe there's an argument to be made that they stalled development of other players or caused guys to transfer out - could be something to that - but one could also posit that some of those lesser talents benefited from practicing against elite talent every day.

The OAD thing still makes me a little queasy, to be sure. I wish it wasn't the system. But given that it is (and that's of course beyond K's control), we seem to have adapted to it very well. K has done a good job identifying guys who are good fits for however long they're here (again, YMMV re Rivers). I think our on-court results would have been significantly worse had those guys not come to Duke. Maybe that's not the most important metric, and that's fair - but since it was the OP's metric it seems like fair game.

Kedsy
05-23-2017, 04:29 PM
Bottom line: superclasses result in final 4 appearances more than half of the time.

Niveklaen's excellent post seems to show that teams with the most talent usually win. But those clamoring for more experience have a point, too, don't they? I guess the answer to this is teams with the most basketball ability usually win, which is a combination of talent and experience. So I decided to take my model for predicting Coach K's rotation and attempt to apply it here.

To remind everyone of the rules (which I've modified slightly from my previously stated rules in order to evaluate everyone, down to walk-ons):

Players start with the following "score," based on recruiting rank:

top 10: 1 point
11 to 20: 2 points
21 to 35: 3 points
36 to 150: 4 points
151 to 250: 5 points
250+ scholarship: 6 points
walk-on: 7 points

Each year a player is in the program (or another program if a transfer in) lowers the player's score by 0.5 points. Transfers in get a bonus 0.5 point off. Then I took individual minutes played as a percentage of overall team minutes and multiplied it by individual score, giving me a table for each season in the RSCI era that looks like this:



2017 GP Min 7400 score team score
Luke Kennard 37 1314 17.76% 2.5 0.444 176.05
Grayson Allen 34 1007 13.61% 2.0 0.272
Jayson Tatum 29 966 13.05% 1.0 0.131
Frank Jackson 36 896 12.11% 2.0 0.242
Amile Jefferson 35 1039 14.04% 1.0 0.140
Matt Jones 37 1216 16.43% 1.5 0.246
Harry Giles 26 300 4.05% 1.0 0.041
Chase Jeter 16 238 3.22% 1.5 0.048
Marques Bolden 24 157 2.12% 2.0 0.042
Antonio Vrankovic 13 101 1.36% 4.5 0.061
Jack White 10 61 0.82% 5.0 0.041
Javin DeLaurier 12 85 1.15% 3.0 0.034
Justin Robinson 6 10 0.14% 6.5 0.009
Nick Pagliuca 5 8 0.11% 5.5 0.006
Brennan Besser 1 2 0.03% 6.5 0.002
Sean Obi 0 0 0.00% 2.0 0.000


Since rank is multiplied by minutes, this at least partially takes injuries into account (since injured players play fewer minutes), and also takes into account high-ranked players not living up to their ranking (for the same reason). It doesn't really take into account that players might outplay their ranking (in fact, in some ways it punishes the team score for that), but with some notable exceptions I'm OK with that. For example, Luke Kennard was an incredibly prolific scorer in high school -- presumably his ranking was #21 instead of, say, #9, because of his relative lack of athleticism and defensive ability. The fact that Luke played so many minutes last season was great for offense and not so great for defense, which had mixed results for the team and possibly reflected his recruiting ranking accurately. In any event, I couldn't think of a way around this.

Taking all 21st century Duke teams' scores and sorting them lowest (best) to highest (worst), we get this:



Year Score NCAAT
2001 111.19 1
2004 120.70 4
2006 123.50 16
2009 127.76 16
2002 132.85 16
2010 138.01 1
2008 142.33 32
2011 148.61 16
2000 154.09 16
2003 155.17 16
2005 158.90 16
2015 168.87 1
2017 176.05 32
2007 178.38 64
2013 183.29 8
2014 185.19 64
2012 188.23 64
2016 204.66 16


Not surprisingly, our three first round exits are in the bottom five. Perhaps a little surprisingly (but maybe not, considering everything), our 2017 team's score is 6th worst. Very surprisingly, our 2015 national champion's score is 7th worst, though that might be explained by a change in the times. Many college teams have been hit with their top players leaving early, and thus if this concept were applied across college basketball, the scores over the past 10 years would be worse all over than they were in the 10 years before that. And with that in mind, it's worth noting that the 2015 team is the 2nd best Duke score since we started importing one-and-dones (after 2011, a team with two seniors who were top 20 recruits out of high school). Having said all that, four of the top five Duke scores are before the "one-and-done era" started in 2007, and the top seven scores (and 10 of the top 11) are all before Duke got involved in the one-and-done game.

Does that mean the people who say Duke shouldn't recruit one-and-dones are right? I don't think so. The following table expands the table above, adding columns for how many non-freshmen were on the roster who out of high school were top 20 and top 10 recruits:



Year Score NCAAT non-fr top 20 non-fr top 10
2001 111.19 1 4 3
2004 120.70 4 4 2
2006 123.50 16 3 1
2009 127.76 16 4 2
2002 132.85 16 4 3
2010 138.01 1 3 1
2008 142.33 32 4 1
2011 148.61 16 4 1
2000 154.09 16 1 1
2003 155.17 16 2 1
2005 158.90 16 3 1
2015 168.87 1 1* 0
2017 176.05 32 1 0
2007 178.38 64 3 1
2013 183.29 8 2 0
2014 185.19 64 1 0
2012 188.23 64 2 0
2016 204.66 16 0 0


* the one non-freshman top 20 recruit on the 2015 team was Rasheed Sulaimon, who was not on the roster for the second half of the season or the post-season.

Gives an entirely different interpretation to the data, doesn't it? Five of the top six had multiple top 10 recruits who stayed multiple years, and the top 11 all had at least one non-freshman top 10 recruit, while only one of the bottom seven scores had one (2007 -- Josh McRoberts). The top eight scores all had three or more non-freshman top 20 recruits, while just two of the bottom ten had as many as three (2005 and 2007).

The problem is that top 10 guys don't stay multiple years anymore, so that model can no longer work (except maybe in Chapel Hill). Recruiting lesser players -- as some in this thread appear to be advocating -- won't work, either. A team of all seniors who were all rated in the 50s as recruits would be by far the worst score on the above charts (250.00). A team of all top ten freshmen would be the best (100.00). So it seems to me, if your top-rated players aren't going to stick around, Coach K's recruiting strategy is the best possible under the circumstances.

I have 18 seasons worth of raw data on this, which I can post separately if anybody's interested in seeing it. Just let me know.

niveklaen
05-23-2017, 04:57 PM
Niveklaen's excellent post seems to show that teams with the most talent usually win. But those clamoring for more experience have a point, too, don't they? I guess the answer to this is teams with the most basketball ability usually win, which is a combination of talent and experience. So I decided to take my model for predicting Coach K's rotation and attempt to apply it here.

To remind everyone of the rules (which I've modified slightly from my previously stated rules in order to evaluate everyone, down to walk-ons):

Players start with the following "score," based on recruiting rank:

top 10: 1 point
11 to 20: 2 points
21 to 35: 3 points
36 to 150: 4 points
151 to 250: 5 points
250+ scholarship: 6 points
walk-on: 7 points

Each year a player is in the program (or another program if a transfer in) lowers the player's score by 0.5 points. Transfers in get a bonus 0.5 point off. Then I took individual minutes played as a percentage of overall team minutes and multiplied it by individual score, giving me a table for each season in the RSCI era that looks like this:



2017 GP Min 7400 score team score
Luke Kennard 37 1314 17.76% 2.5 0.444 176.05
Grayson Allen 34 1007 13.61% 2.0 0.272
Jayson Tatum 29 966 13.05% 1.0 0.131
Frank Jackson 36 896 12.11% 2.0 0.242
Amile Jefferson 35 1039 14.04% 1.0 0.140
Matt Jones 37 1216 16.43% 1.5 0.246
Harry Giles 26 300 4.05% 1.0 0.041
Chase Jeter 16 238 3.22% 1.5 0.048
Marques Bolden 24 157 2.12% 2.0 0.042
Antonio Vrankovic 13 101 1.36% 4.5 0.061
Jack White 10 61 0.82% 5.0 0.041
Javin DeLaurier 12 85 1.15% 3.0 0.034
Justin Robinson 6 10 0.14% 6.5 0.009
Nick Pagliuca 5 8 0.11% 5.5 0.006
Brennan Besser 1 2 0.03% 6.5 0.002
Sean Obi 0 0 0.00% 2.0 0.000


Since rank is multiplied by minutes, this at least partially takes injuries into account (since injured players play fewer minutes), and also takes into account high-ranked players not living up to their ranking (for the same reason). It doesn't really take into account that players might outplay their ranking (in fact, in some ways it punishes the team score for that), but with some notable exceptions I'm OK with that. For example, Luke Kennard was an incredibly prolific scorer in high school -- presumably his ranking was #21 instead of, say, #9, because of his relative lack of athleticism and defensive ability. The fact that Luke played so many minutes last season was great for offense and not so great for defense, which had mixed results for the team and possibly reflected his recruiting ranking accurately. In any event, I couldn't think of a way around this.

Taking all 21st century Duke teams' scores and sorting them lowest (best) to highest (worst), we get this:



Year Score NCAAT
2001 111.19 1
2004 120.70 4
2006 123.50 16
2009 127.76 16
2002 132.85 16
2010 138.01 1
2008 142.33 32
2011 148.61 16
2000 154.09 16
2003 155.17 16
2005 158.90 16
2015 168.87 1
2017 176.05 32
2007 178.38 64
2013 183.29 8
2014 185.19 64
2012 188.23 64
2016 204.66 16


Not surprisingly, our three first round exits are in the bottom five. Perhaps a little surprisingly (but maybe not, considering everything), our 2017 team's score is 6th worst. Very surprisingly, our 2015 national champion's score is 7th worst, though that might be explained by a change in the times. Many college teams have been hit with their top players leaving early, and thus if this concept were applied across college basketball, the scores over the past 10 years would be worse all over than they were in the 10 years before that. And with that in mind, it's worth noting that the 2015 team is the 2nd best Duke score since we started importing one-and-dones (after 2011, a team with two seniors who were top 20 recruits out of high school). Having said all that, four of the top five Duke scores are before the "one-and-done era" started in 2007, and the top seven scores (and 10 of the top 11) are all before Duke got involved in the one-and-done game.

Does that mean the people who say Duke shouldn't recruit one-and-dones are right? I don't think so. The following table expands the table above, adding columns for how many non-freshmen were on the roster who out of high school were top 20 and top 10 recruits:



Year Score NCAAT non-fr top 20 non-fr top 10
2001 111.19 1 4 3
2004 120.70 4 4 2
2006 123.50 16 3 1
2009 127.76 16 4 2
2002 132.85 16 4 3
2010 138.01 1 3 1
2008 142.33 32 4 1
2011 148.61 16 4 1
2000 154.09 16 1 1
2003 155.17 16 2 1
2005 158.90 16 3 1
2015 168.87 1 1* 0
2017 176.05 32 1 0
2007 178.38 64 3 1
2013 183.29 8 2 0
2014 185.19 64 1 0
2012 188.23 64 2 0
2016 204.66 16 0 0


* the one non-freshman top 20 recruit on the 2015 team was Rasheed Sulaimon, who was not on the roster for the second half of the season or the post-season.

Gives an entirely different interpretation to the data, doesn't it? Five of the top six had multiple top 10 recruits who stayed multiple years, and the top 11 all had at least one non-freshman top 10 recruit, while only one of the bottom seven scores had one (2007 -- Josh McRoberts). The top eight scores all had three or more non-freshman top 20 recruits, while just two of the bottom ten had as many as three (2005 and 2007).

The problem is that top 10 guys don't stay multiple years anymore, so that model can no longer work (except maybe in Chapel Hill). Recruiting lesser players -- as some in this thread appear to be advocating -- won't work, either. A team of all seniors who were all rated in the 50s as recruits would be by far the worst score on the above charts (250.00). A team of all top ten freshmen would be the best (100.00). So it seems to me, if your top-rated players aren't going to stick around, Coach K's recruiting strategy is the best possible under the circumstances.

I have 18 seasons worth of raw data on this, which I can post separately if anybody's interested in seeing it. Just let me know.

It wont let me spork you. Just know that I am in awe.

OldPhiKap
05-23-2017, 05:00 PM
Niveklaen's excellent post seems to show that teams with the most talent usually win. But those clamoring for more experience have a point, too, don't they? I guess the answer to this is teams with the most basketball ability usually win, which is a combination of talent and experience. So I decided to take my model for predicting Coach K's rotation and attempt to apply it here.

To remind everyone of the rules (which I've modified slightly from my previously stated rules in order to evaluate everyone, down to walk-ons):

Players start with the following "score," based on recruiting rank:

top 10: 1 point
11 to 20: 2 points
21 to 35: 3 points
36 to 150: 4 points
151 to 250: 5 points
250+ scholarship: 6 points
walk-on: 7 points

Each year a player is in the program (or another program if a transfer in) lowers the player's score by 0.5 points. Transfers in get a bonus 0.5 point off. Then I took individual minutes played as a percentage of overall team minutes and multiplied it by individual score, giving me a table for each season in the RSCI era that looks like this:



2017 GP Min 7400 score team score
Luke Kennard 37 1314 17.76% 2.5 0.444 176.05
Grayson Allen 34 1007 13.61% 2.0 0.272
Jayson Tatum 29 966 13.05% 1.0 0.131
Frank Jackson 36 896 12.11% 2.0 0.242
Amile Jefferson 35 1039 14.04% 1.0 0.140
Matt Jones 37 1216 16.43% 1.5 0.246
Harry Giles 26 300 4.05% 1.0 0.041
Chase Jeter 16 238 3.22% 1.5 0.048
Marques Bolden 24 157 2.12% 2.0 0.042
Antonio Vrankovic 13 101 1.36% 4.5 0.061
Jack White 10 61 0.82% 5.0 0.041
Javin DeLaurier 12 85 1.15% 3.0 0.034
Justin Robinson 6 10 0.14% 6.5 0.009
Nick Pagliuca 5 8 0.11% 5.5 0.006
Brennan Besser 1 2 0.03% 6.5 0.002
Sean Obi 0 0 0.00% 2.0 0.000


Since rank is multiplied by minutes, this at least partially takes injuries into account (since injured players play fewer minutes), and also takes into account high-ranked players not living up to their ranking (for the same reason). It doesn't really take into account that players might outplay their ranking (in fact, in some ways it punishes the team score for that), but with some notable exceptions I'm OK with that. For example, Luke Kennard was an incredibly prolific scorer in high school -- presumably his ranking was #21 instead of, say, #9, because of his relative lack of athleticism and defensive ability. The fact that Luke played so many minutes last season was great for offense and not so great for defense, which had mixed results for the team and possibly reflected his recruiting ranking accurately. In any event, I couldn't think of a way around this.

Taking all 21st century Duke teams' scores and sorting them lowest (best) to highest (worst), we get this:



Year Score NCAAT
2001 111.19 1
2004 120.70 4
2006 123.50 16
2009 127.76 16
2002 132.85 16
2010 138.01 1
2008 142.33 32
2011 148.61 16
2000 154.09 16
2003 155.17 16
2005 158.90 16
2015 168.87 1
2017 176.05 32
2007 178.38 64
2013 183.29 8
2014 185.19 64
2012 188.23 64
2016 204.66 16


Not surprisingly, our three first round exits are in the bottom five. Perhaps a little surprisingly (but maybe not, considering everything), our 2017 team's score is 6th worst. Very surprisingly, our 2015 national champion's score is 7th worst, though that might be explained by a change in the times. Many college teams have been hit with their top players leaving early, and thus if this concept were applied across college basketball, the scores over the past 10 years would be worse all over than they were in the 10 years before that. And with that in mind, it's worth noting that the 2015 team is the 2nd best Duke score since we started importing one-and-dones (after 2011, a team with two seniors who were top 20 recruits out of high school). Having said all that, four of the top five Duke scores are before the "one-and-done era" started in 2007, and the top seven scores (and 10 of the top 11) are all before Duke got involved in the one-and-done game.

Does that mean the people who say Duke shouldn't recruit one-and-dones are right? I don't think so. The following table expands the table above, adding columns for how many non-freshmen were on the roster who out of high school were top 20 and top 10 recruits:



Year Score NCAAT non-fr top 20 non-fr top 10
2001 111.19 1 4 3
2004 120.70 4 4 2
2006 123.50 16 3 1
2009 127.76 16 4 2
2002 132.85 16 4 3
2010 138.01 1 3 1
2008 142.33 32 4 1
2011 148.61 16 4 1
2000 154.09 16 1 1
2003 155.17 16 2 1
2005 158.90 16 3 1
2015 168.87 1 1* 0
2017 176.05 32 1 0
2007 178.38 64 3 1
2013 183.29 8 2 0
2014 185.19 64 1 0
2012 188.23 64 2 0
2016 204.66 16 0 0


* the one non-freshman top 20 recruit on the 2015 team was Rasheed Sulaimon, who was not on the roster for the second half of the season or the post-season.

Gives an entirely different interpretation to the data, doesn't it? Five of the top six had multiple top 10 recruits who stayed multiple years, and the top 11 all had at least one non-freshman top 10 recruit, while only one of the bottom seven scores had one (2007 -- Josh McRoberts). The top eight scores all had three or more non-freshman top 20 recruits, while just two of the bottom ten had as many as three (2005 and 2007).

The problem is that top 10 guys don't stay multiple years anymore, so that model can no longer work (except maybe in Chapel Hill). Recruiting lesser players -- as some in this thread appear to be advocating -- won't work, either. A team of all seniors who were all rated in the 50s as recruits would be by far the worst score on the above charts (250.00). A team of all top ten freshmen would be the best (100.00). So it seems to me, if your top-rated players aren't going to stick around, Coach K's recruiting strategy is the best possible under the circumstances.

I have 18 seasons worth of raw data on this, which I can post separately if anybody's interested in seeing it. Just let me know.

But what happens if the train leaves Chicago until 2:17, instead of Sheboygan at 4?

(Otherwise, stunning work -- thanks!)

sagegrouse
05-23-2017, 05:20 PM
Kedsy:

Great post!

It seems to me that each year's team is swimming in a different fish tank, where the other teams also vary in talent and experience. As many have noted, including you, there are more one-and-dones today than in 2001. Over the seventeen seasons you cover, do you have any thoughts about trends in the competition?

Sage

Jeffrey
05-23-2017, 05:30 PM
Taking all 21st century Duke teams' scores and sorting them lowest (best) to highest (worst), we get this:



Year Score NCAAT
2001 111.19 1
2004 120.70 4
2006 123.50 16
2009 127.76 16
2002 132.85 16
2010 138.01 1
2008 142.33 32
2011 148.61 16
2000 154.09 16
2003 155.17 16
2005 158.90 16
2015 168.87 1
2017 176.05 32
2007 178.38 64
2013 183.29 8
2014 185.19 64
2012 188.23 64
2016 204.66 16



Does your analysis say, of the last 18 teams, the last 6 teams have been among the 7 worst? Clearly, the tournament record is relatively poor. Does your analysis imply we need to send K packing?

niveklaen
05-23-2017, 05:32 PM
Kedsy:

Great post!

It seems to me that each year's team is swimming in a different fish tank, where the other teams also vary in talent and experience. As many have noted, including you, there are more one-and-dones today than in 2001. Over the seventeen seasons you cover, do you have any thoughts about trends in the competition?

Sage

I am not Kedsy, but I will chime in on this question. Among top 25 RSCI recruits each year saw the following number of OAD players:

07 - 8
08 - 12
09 - 5
10 - 8
11 - 7
12 - 7
13 - 7
14 - 7
15 - 16
16 - 8

There really has not been an increase in top 25 guys going OAD, just one recent year that was a super outlier. Before 07 you had straight to the NBA guys...

Kedsy
05-23-2017, 05:42 PM
Does your analysis imply we need to send K packing?

Huh?

Jeffrey
05-23-2017, 05:44 PM
I think that criticizing a OAD heavy approach by pointing to years with just 1 OAD player does not make much sense. Getting only 1 OAD player a year does not have a good track record. Getting 3+ OAD players does. Since you can't 'know' who will be OAD in advance - and because you get a certain amount of reverse causation where more guys go OAD because they turned out good enough to win a title - it makes sense to look at it in terms of the player's recruit ranking.

From 07-16 there were 7 teams that had 3 top 16 recruits in a class - 5 UK, 1 Duke, 1 UNC. Two of those teams - UK 12 and Duke 15 - won titles their freshman years. A third team won a title when that freshman class became juniors - UNC. Not sure if they should count, so its either 3 of 7 3+ top 16 classes resulting in titles or its 2 of 6. The other 4 teams lost in the title game, final 4, elite 8, and NIT - UK's injury plagued 2013 squad. So top 16 superclasses go to the final 4 67% (or 71% if you count UNC) of the time and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the net to include top 20 players, there have been 9 teams that had 3+ top 20 recruits in a class (add 1 UK (final 4) and 1 Kansas(elite 8)) - with that bigger net the super classes are either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 in generating titles. So top 20 superclasses go to the final 4 62% (or 67% if you count UNC) and only fail to make the elite 8 when plagued by injury.

If you expand the timeframe to include 2017, there are 2 more superclasses so we would be at either 3 of 9 or 2 of 8 titles for top 16 classes and 3 of 11 or 2 of 10 for top 20 classes, again with only injury plagued teams failing to make the elite 8.

Bottom line: superclasses result in final 4 appearances more than half of the time.

Here is the data by year:

17: UK 4 top 15 - elite 8, Duke 4 top 16 - round of 32 - injury plagued team
16: Kansas 3 top 20, 2 top 16 - elite 8
15: Duke 3 top 16 - title, UK 4 top 20, 2 top 16 - final 4
14: UK 6 top 16 !?! - runner up
13: UK 3 top 16 - NIT - injury plagued team
12: UK 3 top 7 - title
11: UK 3 top 10 - final 4
10: UK 3 top 16 - elite 8
9: none
8: none
7: UNC 3 top 8 - title as juniors

(Note - Players ranked 17-20 go OAD less than 10% of the time and are 4 year players 45% of the time so they really should not be included in a OAD model either...)

So, with 3 top 10 recruits in 2018, odds are in our favor we play in the Final Four?

Jeffrey
05-23-2017, 05:45 PM
Huh?

Obviously, failed humor. Please respond to the first question. It was sincere.

Newton_14
05-23-2017, 05:49 PM
The problem is that top 10 guys don't stay multiple years anymore, except for those that attend unCheat. so that model can no longer work (except maybe in Chapel Hill). Recruiting lesser players -- as some in this thread appear to be advocating -- won't work, either. A team of all seniors who were all rated in the 50s as recruits would be by far the worst score on the above charts (250.00). A team of all top ten freshmen would be the best (100.00). So it seems to me, if your top-rated players aren't going to stick around, Coach K's recruiting strategy is the best possible under the circumstances.

.

Fixed it for you partner...:cool:

Kedsy
05-23-2017, 06:15 PM
Kedsy:

Great post!

It seems to me that each year's team is swimming in a different fish tank, where the other teams also vary in talent and experience. As many have noted, including you, there are more one-and-dones today than in 2001. Over the seventeen seasons you cover, do you have any thoughts about trends in the competition?

Sage

A few years ago, I stumbled upon an ESPN classic showing of Duke's 2002 team. I was amazed at how good the team was -- I remembered them as really good but not that good. But maybe I shouldn't have been surprised; every guy in our starting five was a non-freshman, future NBA player. That just doesn't happen today.

I think the overall trend isn't just about one-and-dones, though. It's about roster turnover, of which one-and-dones are only a part, along with transfers (which are up), as well as two-and-dones and three-and-dones (which I perceive are up, but I haven't done the research). It's really hard for anyone to hold on to their top talent for more than a year or two, which inevitably is going to lower the overall level of competition.

Kedsy
05-23-2017, 06:21 PM
Does your analysis say, of the last 18 teams, the last 6 teams have been among the 7 worst?

Yes, assuming my model accurately assesses basketball ability, in the absolute sense our last six teams (2012 to 2017) have been among the seven Duke teams with the least basketball ability (as opposed to raw talent) over the last 18 seasons. How those teams fared in a relative sense, to the rest of college basketball, I have no idea. The amount of data to be culled to make that assessment is way beyond my attention span.

Jeffrey
05-23-2017, 07:05 PM
Yes, assuming my model accurately assesses basketball ability, in the absolute sense our last six teams (2012 to 2017) have been among the seven Duke teams with the least basketball ability (as opposed to raw talent) over the last 18 seasons. How those teams fared in a relative sense, to the rest of college basketball, I have no idea. The amount of data to be culled to make that assessment is way beyond my attention span.

Well, we certainly know how the last six teams (2012 to 2017) fared in the NCAAT; 33% lost their first game and 50% lost during the first weekend. That appears to support your models assessment.

niveklaen's theory, "superclasses result in final 4 appearances more than half of the time", explains our one final four. It also makes next season look very hopeful!

Kedsy
05-23-2017, 10:09 PM
My little exercise also allows you to play "what if" games with injuries. For example, suppose Jayson had played every game and Harry had been fully healthy, changing the 2017 team table to something like the following:



2017 GP Min 7400 score team score
Luke Kennard 37 1014 13.70% 2.5 0.343 158.68
Grayson Allen 34 1007 13.61% 2.0 0.272
Jayson Tatum 37 1166 15.76% 1.0 0.158
Frank Jackson 36 696 9.41% 2.0 0.188
Amile Jefferson 35 1039 14.04% 1.0 0.140
Matt Jones 37 1016 13.73% 1.5 0.206
Harry Giles 37 1000 13.51% 1.0 0.135
Chase Jeter 16 198 2.68% 1.5 0.040
Marques Bolden 24 157 2.12% 2.0 0.042
Antonio Vrankovic 13 11 0.15% 4.5 0.007
Jack White 10 31 0.42% 5.0 0.021
Javin DeLaurier 12 45 0.61% 3.0 0.018
Justin Robinson 6 10 0.14% 6.5 0.009
Nick Pagliuca 5 8 0.11% 5.5 0.006
Brennan Besser 1 2 0.03% 6.5 0.002
Sean Obi 0 0 0.00% 2.0 0.000


The team's total score would have gone from 176.05 to 158.68, putting 2017 ahead of 2015.

I did the same thing for 2011, assuming a full season for Kyrie Irving, and that team moves from 148.61 to 132.39, just ahead of the 2002 team (and also ahead of 2010) and into the top five of the period. If you assume Ryan Kelly had never been injured in 2013, that team's rating moves from 183.29 to 169.61, just a tiny bit behind the 2015 team.

So, for those who say injuries don't matter so much, this would seem to negate that idea. Obviously injuries are part of the game, but put me in the camp that says if we'd avoided major injuries in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016, and (especially) 2017, this whole thread might not exist.

Furniture
05-24-2017, 12:44 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/DukeMBB/status/867189409350811649/video/1

Not where buckets are concerned.

This one is "the Chapel shot".

6 years ago today.

I guess most people's favorite quote will be at the end!

Kedsy
05-24-2017, 12:55 AM
niveklaen's theory, "superclasses result in final 4 appearances more than half of the time", explains our one final four. It also makes next season look very hopeful!

FWIW, if Gary Trent ends up in the RSCI top ten, then next season's team will probably end up in the 150 to 160 range, probably a little better than 2015.

ipatent
05-24-2017, 10:13 AM
My little exercise also allows you to play "what if" games with injuries. For example, suppose Jayson had played every game and Harry had been fully healthy, changing the 2017 team table to something like the following:



2017 GP Min 7400 score team score
Luke Kennard 37 1014 13.70% 2.5 0.343 158.68
Grayson Allen 34 1007 13.61% 2.0 0.272
Jayson Tatum 37 1166 15.76% 1.0 0.158
Frank Jackson 36 696 9.41% 2.0 0.188
Amile Jefferson 35 1039 14.04% 1.0 0.140
Matt Jones 37 1016 13.73% 1.5 0.206
Harry Giles 37 1000 13.51% 1.0 0.135
Chase Jeter 16 198 2.68% 1.5 0.040
Marques Bolden 24 157 2.12% 2.0 0.042
Antonio Vrankovic 13 11 0.15% 4.5 0.007
Jack White 10 31 0.42% 5.0 0.021
Javin DeLaurier 12 45 0.61% 3.0 0.018
Justin Robinson 6 10 0.14% 6.5 0.009
Nick Pagliuca 5 8 0.11% 5.5 0.006
Brennan Besser 1 2 0.03% 6.5 0.002
Sean Obi 0 0 0.00% 2.0 0.000


The team's total score would have gone from 176.05 to 158.68, putting 2017 ahead of 2015.

I did the same thing for 2011, assuming a full season for Kyrie Irving, and that team moves from 148.61 to 132.39, just ahead of the 2002 team (and also ahead of 2010) and into the top five of the period. If you assume Ryan Kelly had never been injured in 2013, that team's rating moves from 183.29 to 169.61, just a tiny bit behind the 2015 team.

So, for those who say injuries don't matter so much, this would seem to negate that idea. Obviously injuries are part of the game, but put me in the camp that says if we'd avoided major injuries in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016, and (especially) 2017, this whole thread might not exist.

Interesting, but part of the game. If David Henderson had fresh legs we probably would have won in '86. Parks was fighting a bum ankle in the '94 final. Dean lost half of his potential best backcourt when Kenny Smith got hurt.

Jeffrey
05-24-2017, 10:49 AM
I did the same thing for 2011, assuming a full season for Kyrie Irving, and that team moves from 148.61 to 132.39, just ahead of the 2002 team (and also ahead of 2010) and into the top five of the period.

FWIW, if Gary Trent ends up in the RSCI top ten, then next season's team will probably end up in the 150 to 160 range, probably a little better than 2015.

I think your model is solid. I wonder if it could be slightly improved by placing position factors on top 10 recruits? IMO, K's system benefits most from a highly ranked PG. IMO, a full season of Kyrie would have made a great difference.

niveklaen
05-24-2017, 10:59 AM
Kedsy - I'd love to see UNC's 2005 and 2009 title teams score in your model. IIRC they each had multiple top 10 juniors whose adjusted scores would be negative in your system - it would not surprise me if their scores approached zero as a result.

Jeffrey
05-24-2017, 11:13 AM
Kedsy - I'd love to see UNC's 2005 and 2009 title teams score in your model. IIRC they each had multiple top 10 juniors whose adjusted scores would be negative in your system - it would not surprise me if their scores approached zero as a result.

No surprise, UNC even figured out a way to rig Kedsy's model.

ipatent
05-24-2017, 11:32 AM
Kedsy - I'd love to see UNC's 2005 and 2009 title teams score in your model. IIRC they each had multiple top 10 juniors whose adjusted scores would be negative in your system - it would not surprise me if their scores approached zero as a result.

The freshman year results of the 2005 core would definitely not affirm the model!

niveklaen
05-24-2017, 11:45 AM
No surprise, UNC even figured out a way to rig Kedsy's model.

this is my estimate for UNC 09:

UNC 09 min 7600 score
Hansbrough 1029 13.53 -0.5 -6.77
Lawson 1048 13.79 0 0
Ellington 1155 15.2 0 0
Green 1040 13.68 0.5 6.84
Deon Thompson 943 12.41 3 37.23
Davis 716 9.42 1 9.42
Graves 224 2.95 3 8.85
Zeller 117 1.54 2 3.08
Frasor 662 8.71 1.5 13.07
Drew 364 4.79 4 19.16
end of bench 327 4.3 4 17.2
108.08

don't know how to post charts legibly...

niveklaen
05-24-2017, 12:04 PM
My estimate for UNC 05:

UNC 08 7400
May 992 13.40540541 -0.5 -6.702702703
McCants 856 11.56756757 -0.5 -5.783783784
Jawad Williams 888 12 0.5 6
Felton 1142 15.43243243 -0.5 -7.716216216
Marvin Williams 800 10.81081081 1 10.81081081
Manuel 808 10.91891892 1.5 16.37837838
Scott 604 8.162162162 2.5 20.40540541
Noel 627 8.472972973 2.5 21.18243243
54.57432432

Kedsy
05-24-2017, 12:45 PM
My estimate for UNC 05:



UNC 05 7400
May 992 13.40540541 -0.5 -6.702702703
McCants 856 11.56756757 -0.5 -5.783783784
Jawad Williams 888 12 0.5 6
Felton 1142 15.43243243 -0.5 -7.716216216
Marvin Williams 800 10.81081081 1 10.81081081
Manuel 808 10.91891892 1.5 16.37837838
Scott 604 8.162162162 2.5 20.40540541
Noel 627 8.472972973 3.0 25.49891
the rest 683 9.2297 4.0 36.9189
team score: 96.8097



Roy's propensity for playing the end of his bench can tend to drag down a team's rating in this system, though even so, 96.81 is still better than anything Duke put up in the last 18 years.

Kedsy
05-24-2017, 01:17 PM
My estimate for UNC 05:

UNC 08 7400
May 992 13.40540541 -0.5 -6.702702703
McCants 856 11.56756757 -0.5 -5.783783784
Jawad Williams 888 12 0.5 6
Felton 1142 15.43243243 -0.5 -7.716216216
Marvin Williams 800 10.81081081 1 10.81081081
Manuel 808 10.91891892 1.5 16.37837838
Scott 604 8.162162162 2.5 20.40540541
Noel 627 8.472972973 2.5 21.18243243
54.57432432

I just realized your list was wrong. May, McCants, Felton, and Noel were all juniors, not seniors. So the correct chart would look like this:



UNC 05 7400
May 992 13.41 0 0.00
McCants 856 11.57 0 0.00
J Williams 888 12.00 0.5 6.00
Felton 1142 15.43 0 0.00
M Williams 800 10.81 1 10.81
Manuel 808 10.92 1.5 16.38
Scott 604 8.16 2.5 20.41
Noel 627 8.47 3 25.42
the rest 683 9.23 4 36.92
team score: 115.93


So the team score would be 115.93, which is really good, but still behind Duke's 2001 team (111.19). (Phew!)

MarkD83
05-24-2017, 01:55 PM
top 10: 1 point
11 to 20: 2 points
21 to 35: 3 points
36 to 150: 4 points
151 to 250: 5 points
250+ scholarship: 6 points
walk-on: 7 points

Each year a player is in the program (or another program if a transfer in) lowers the player's score by 0.5 points.

So if I read this right and use Coach K's 8 man rotation and assume equal minutes for everyone; 4 seniors and 4 juniors that came in as 21 to 35 rated would be 4 at 1.5 and 4 at 2.0. The team score would be 175.

That is better than 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 and comparable to 2015 if you play seniors more....

I will also add that this hypothetical team might also play some "killer" team D....So "Why OADs?"

cato
05-24-2017, 02:11 PM
top 10: 1 point
11 to 20: 2 points
21 to 35: 3 points
36 to 150: 4 points
151 to 250: 5 points
250+ scholarship: 6 points
walk-on: 7 points

Each year a player is in the program (or another program if a transfer in) lowers the player's score by 0.5 points.

So if I read this right and use Coach K's 8 man rotation and assume equal minutes for everyone; 4 seniors and 4 juniors that came in as 21 to 35 rated would be 4 at 1.5 and 4 at 2.0. The team score would be 175.

That is better than 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 and comparable to 2015 if you play seniors more...

I will also add that this hypothetical team might also play some "killer" team D...So "Why OADs?"

I still don't get it. How do you construct this roster of 4 seniors and 4 juniors rated 21 - 35? Which 2018 and 2019 prospects Duke is currently looking at would result in the perfectly constructed roster in 2022?

MarkD83
05-24-2017, 02:24 PM
I still don't get it. How do you construct this roster of 4 seniors and 4 juniors rated 21 - 35? Which 2018 and 2019 prospects Duke is currently looking at would result in the perfectly constructed roster in 2022?

I am just trying to give some context to the numbers. If this were pre OADS and everyone stayed 4 years the team numbers would be in the 170s. This is just like the last 6-7 teams where Duke has had a lot of OADs, so hypothetically it is hard to judge the effects of OADs with this analysis. I do like the analysis but you can get to the 170 number many different ways.

Kedsy
05-24-2017, 03:14 PM
top 10: 1 point
11 to 20: 2 points
21 to 35: 3 points
36 to 150: 4 points
151 to 250: 5 points
250+ scholarship: 6 points
walk-on: 7 points

Each year a player is in the program (or another program if a transfer in) lowers the player's score by 0.5 points.

So if I read this right and use Coach K's 8 man rotation and assume equal minutes for everyone; 4 seniors and 4 juniors that came in as 21 to 35 rated would be 4 at 1.5 and 4 at 2.0. The team score would be 175.

That is better than 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 and comparable to 2015 if you play seniors more...

I will also add that this hypothetical team might also play some "killer" team D...So "Why OADs?"

You're missing several things.

First of all, your number is off because despite Coach K's short rotation, more people play than just the top eight. For example, the 2017 team's top 8 scored an aggregate of 156.45, significantly better than the 175 of your hypothetical top 8. It was only after adding players 9 to 15 (including walk-ons) that the total team score increased to 176.05. Using that same rate of increase, the team score for your hypothetical team would be 190 to 195, or the 2nd worst score in the last 18 years.

Second, we begin to recruit these guys often years before they commit. There are only 15 guys each year between 21 and 35, and you have to get four a year for your plan to work, so you have to target a lot more than that, which leaves you little margin for error. If one or two of the guys you get become good enough to go pro early between the beginning of their junior year of high school and the end of their sophomore year of college, what do you do? Because if that happens you won't be able to have your magic four-seniors-four-juniors lineup. Then what?

Third, and perhaps most importantly, if every year your rotation consisted of four seniors and four juniors, then your freshmen and sophomores (who would also have to be in the 21 to 35 range) either wouldn't come to Duke (knowing they wouldn't play) or would transfer out, probably at an even higher rate than they do now. Which of course would mean that you'd have your "dream" lineup of four seniors and four juniors at most once or twice before your whole system fell apart.

So, that's "why OADs."

MarkD83
05-24-2017, 04:20 PM
Kedsy. Thanks for the clarification. This actually helps to quickly assess other teams. Scores less than 170 probably can't be achieved without top 10 recruits so only a few teams can get some of dukes lowest scores

Kedsy
05-24-2017, 04:38 PM
Kedsy. Thanks for the clarification. This actually helps to quickly assess other teams. Scores less than 170 probably can't be achieved without top 10 recruits so only a few teams can get some of dukes lowest scores

Right, a combination of top 10 freshman and upperclass top 20 recruits is probably best, but both of those are really hard to get.

Top 20 upperclassmen might be harder than top 10 recruits, at least using Duke's experience. In the past four seasons, the only junior or senior we've had who was a top 20 recruit was Rasheed Sulaimon in 2015, and he left the team halfway through the season so we didn't have him come tourney-time. Since Duke started trafficking in one-and-dones in 2011, we've had eight top 10 recruits and only five top 20 upperclassmen (Singler and Smith in 2011, Kelly and Mason Plumlee in 2012 and 2013, Sulaimon in 2015).

kmspeaks
05-24-2017, 09:22 PM
Interesting, but part of the game. If David Henderson had fresh legs we probably would have won in '86. Parks was fighting a bum ankle in the '94 final. Dean lost half of his potential best backcourt when Kenny Smith got hurt.

Of course injuries are part of the game. I think the point is that injuries, which are beyond the control of the coaching staff, have contributed to the "disappointing tournament results" just as much if not more than the chosen recruiting strategies.

Olympic Fan
05-24-2017, 11:33 PM
Of course injuries are part of the game. I think the point is that injuries, which are beyond the control of the coaching staff, have contributed to the "disappointing tournament results" just as much if not more than the chosen recruiting strategies.

I was thinking about the injury impact.

Duke has obviously been on a tough run as far as injuries go -- from 2011 through 2012 trough 2013 through 2016 and 2017. That';s a tough seven year run with five seasons seriously impacted by injuries.

I think it's unusual, but not necessarily unique. Go back 40 years when Dean Smith was in his heyday at North Carolina.

In 1976, UNC dominated the ACC (11-1) and spent the entire year in the top five nationally. UNC was upset in the ACC finals by Virginia, but the real blow came in the off-week before the NCAA Tournament. Sophomore All-American Phil Ford went home to Rocky Mount, played in a pickup game and sprained his ankle. He was well below par as UNC opened the NCAA Tournament against No. 6 Alabama (no seeding in those days).

In 1977, UNC went through a season much like Duke just endured. Olympic center Tom LeGarde was lost at midseason. All-American Walter Davis broke a finger during the ACC Tournament. Phil Ford suffered an elbow injury. UNC still win the ACC (regular season and tournament) and reached the NCAA title game, where they lost a thriller to Marquette. No question they win easily with a healthy team.

In 1978, UNC won the ACC regular season, but All-American Mike O'Koren suffered a severe ankle injury late in the season and was still hobbling when UNC lost its NCAA opener to San Francisco.

In 1979, UNC tied for the regular season and won the ACC Tourney and was reasonably healthy when they lost to Penn on Black Sunday (it was Duke that was crippled that day, playing without Bender and Dennard and with Gminski sick with food poisoning).

In 1980, UNC has several injuries, but the worst was the absence of freshman forward James Worthy, out the last month of the season with a broken leg. The Heels lost their NCAA opener to Texas A&M in triple OT.

That's four times in five years that UNC lost its NCAA opener ... and four times that UNC came up short -- largely due to crippling injuries. Very much like the streak we have been suffering though.

UNC was healthy in 1981 and 1982, when they went 1-1 in the NCAA title game. They were healthy in 1983 when UNC lost to Georgia in the East Regional finals.

But 1984 was almost exactly the same for UNC as 2011 was for Duke. Through most of the season, UNC was undefeated and was one of the two or three most impressive teams I ever saw. Then freshman point guard Kenny Smith broke his wrist and UNC slipped a notch. Smith returned, but his return seemed to disrupt the team, which lost to Indiana in the Sweet 16. Duke followed the same path in 2011 when Kyrie Irving's toe injury ruined what might have been the best Duke team ever. It was still pretty good without hum, winning the ACC title. His return for the NCAA Tournament seemed to disrupt the team and like UNC in 1984, Duke lost in the Sweet 16.

Back in the late '70s, you heard many of the same complaints about Dean that we're hearing about Coach K now. But in both cases, the NCAA slump was far more explainable by the unfortunately string of injuries than by anything the coach did or didn't do.

I agree with Kedsy -- if Duke had remained reasonably healthy over the last seven years, this thread would not exist. It's not one-and-done recruiting that has hurt Due ... its untimely injuries.

CoachJ10
05-25-2017, 12:12 AM
Would this thread exist if UNC had not been in the title game 2 years in a row?

elvis14
05-25-2017, 01:42 PM
Would this thread exist if UNC had not been in the title game 2 years in a row?

I would think so, yes. It's not about how the Cheaters down the road are doing. Yes, it's sickening that they were able to hold players back enough to buy time and win but this thread is about Duke and how we are doing with our OAD players.

Kedsy
05-25-2017, 01:57 PM
I would think so, yes. It's not about how the Cheaters down the road are doing. Yes, it's sickening that they were able to hold players back enough to buy time and win but this thread is about Duke and how we are doing with our OAD players.

I'm with CoachJ10 on this. It's true this thread is ostensibly about Duke, it's really about UNC playing two championship games in a row with veteran teams while our young teams have floundered.

English
05-25-2017, 02:24 PM
I'm with CoachJ10 on this. It's true this thread is ostensibly about Duke, it's really about UNC playing two championship games in a row with veteran teams** while our young teams have floundered.

**Even though these heel teams have played heavy minutes with players consistently ranked higher than Duke players who have left early for the League (e.g., Justin Jackson, Theo Pinson, Isaiah Hicks), who in other programs, are likely to be long gone.

Recency bias is strong in this thread.

ipatent
05-25-2017, 03:59 PM
Of course injuries are part of the game. I think the point is that injuries, which are beyond the control of the coaching staff, have contributed to the "disappointing tournament results" just as much if not more than the chosen recruiting strategies.

Absolutely, and how could I have forgotten Robert Brickey in the '89 Seton Hall game.

Tough for the sports quants to analyze Duke's injuries over the years versus other top programs, but several potential titles could have swung in the balance.

Wander
05-25-2017, 06:04 PM
Tough for the sports quants to analyze Duke's injuries over the years versus other top programs, but several potential titles could have swung in the balance.

I guess, but I think for Duke, everything sort of balances out. Duke probably has the number of titles that we "deserve." Injuries decimated our season last year... but we were also very fortunate with health in 2010. We were probably the best team in 1999, but also needed a miracle shot in 1992. 2011 to me felt more like a regular upset where the inferior team shoots the lights out rather than anything injury related. We've won the championship more than 25% of the time we've been in the Final Four. And so on. Contrast that to say, UConn/Arizona, who have had way more/less tournament success than they probably should.

The only other thing I'll say is that injuries and the OAD stuff aren't necessarily completely disconnected. Giles gets majorly injured and you've basically wasted all your basketball resources because he's gone. Jefferson gets injured and you know he's coming back as a great player to be an important part of the team. That's part of why I think the most efficient tactic might be to keep recruiting 5 star talent, but not the guys who you know with 100% certainty would only be there one year.

Olympic Fan
05-25-2017, 07:07 PM
That's part of why I think the most efficient tactic might be to keep recruiting 5 star talent, but not the guys who you know with 100% certainty would only be there one year.

Except that our last championship was built around a guy that we were 100 percent sure was OAD. Sure, we had two more five stars that weren't locks to be OAD that did after we won our title. But going into the season, he through Winslow was maybe 50-50 and Tyus was less than that. Frank Jackson was nowhere close to a certain OAD ... heck, this time last year, Bolden was a better bet to go OAD. I KNOW that he never thought Corey Maggette or Luol Deng were OAD when he signed them.

I think that K has recruited seven players that he knew when he recruited them that they were 100 percent OAD or close to it:

Kyrie Irving (and even he, I'm not sure was a certain OAD when he signed in the fall of 2009 ... he was a lock OAD when he got here in the summer of 2010)
Austin Rivers
Jabari Parker
Jahlil Okafor
maybe Brandon Ingram
Jayson Tatum
Harry Giles

Of that group, Irving got hurt, but was a GREAT player. Giles didn't contribute much, but the other five were all major contributors. If I had the power to go back in time and change things, the only one I might have not have recruited was Giles.

We have two pretty certain OADs in the incoming class -- Carter and Duval. Let's see how they do. (Note: Trent is possible, but I don't think he's regarded as a certain OAD at the moment).

But I disagree with your point -- I hope he keeps recruiting sure-fire OADs -- Bagley and/or Williamson for next year would be nice.

sagegrouse
05-25-2017, 07:15 PM
I guess, but I think for Duke, everything sort of balances out. Duke probably has the number of titles that we "deserve." Injuries decimated our season last year... but we were also very fortunate with health in 2010. We were probably the best team in 1999, but also needed a miracle shot in 1992. 2011 to me felt more like a regular upset where the inferior team shoots the lights out rather than anything injury related. We've won the championship more than 25% of the time we've been in the Final Four. And so on. Contrast that to say, UConn/Arizona, who have had way more/less tournament success than they probably should.

The only other thing I'll say is that injuries and the OAD stuff aren't necessarily completely disconnected. Giles gets majorly injured and you've basically wasted all your basketball resources because he's gone. Jefferson gets injured and you know he's coming back as a great player to be an important part of the team. That's part of why I think the most efficient tactic might be to keep recruiting 5 star talent, but not the guys who you know with 100% certainty would only be there one year.

Man, you are much more tlerant of the past than I am:


Duke lost in 1964 because we had a tough emotional Friday night semi against Cazzie Russell and Michigan -- then had a 24-hour turn-around to play UCLA, which had an easier route.
Duke failed to win in 1966 'cuz Bob Verga had the flu and scored only four points against Kentucky.
Duke was the best team in 1986, and had some tough luck against Louisville.
Duke shoulda won in 1994 -- we had Arkansas locked down in a tie game, and Scotty Thurman got an open shot off a fluke play.
Duke shoulda won EASILY in 1999, and I still don't know why we didn't.
In 2004 we played in the worst-officiated Final Four game in recorded history. It hurt both teams, but it hurt Duke more than UConn (all three Duke centers fouled out on ticky-tack calls and there was an egregious non-call on JJ's drive in the last minute).



I'll stop now, but I think we should have 11 titles.

Olympic Fan
05-25-2017, 07:39 PM
Man, you are much more tlerant of the past than I am:


Duke lost in 1964 because we had a tough emotional Friday night semi against Cazzie Russell and Michigan -- then had a 24-hour turn-around to play UCLA, which had an easier route.
Duke failed to win in 1966 'cuz Bob Verga had the flu and scored only four points against Kentucky.
Duke was the best team in 1986, and had some tough luck against Louisville.
Duke shoulda won in 1994 -- we had Arkansas locked down in a tie game, and Scotty Thurman got an open shot off a fluke play.
Duke shoulda won EASILY in 1999, and I still don't know why we didn't.
In 2004 we played in the worst-officiated Final Four game in recorded history. It hurt both teams, but it hurt Duke more than UConn (all three Duke centers fouled out on ticky-tack calls and there was an egregious non-call on JJ's drive in the last minute).



I'll stop now, but I think we should have 11 titles.

I will say that, yes, we had some near misses and, yes, we had some close calls in years we won. But in my lifetime, I think injuries cost us most in (in order of likelihood of title):

-- 2011: K said he thought that team could have been unbeaten if Kyrie doesn't get hurt. I agree.

-- 1966: No question Duke beats Kentucky with a healthy Verga. The title game against Texas Western would have been epic, but Duke had a better ball-handling team than Kentucky (which they proved in two routs of UCLA), a big man to match up with Lattin and with Flournoy hurt, Texas Western had nobody to guard Jack Marin. I like Duke's chances.

-- 1989: It was the combination of the loss of Brickey and the foul trouble to Laettner that cost Duke the semifinal game to Seton Hall. A healthy Brickey and Duke wins that game and IMHO beats Michigan two nights later

-- 2004: For all the officiating gaffes, we forget that Chris Duhon was playing that Final Four with cracked ribs (suffered in the ACC title game). A healthy Duhon makes a big difference in the semis with UConn and, of course, the winner of that game was a lock to beat Georgia Tech in the finals.

-- 2013: Duke was the best team in the country in November and December -- undefeated against the toughest schedule in the country (including a neutral court win over Louisville). The injury to Ryan Kelly spoiled that. And even after he returned, Duke was not the same team (as evidenced in the Elite Eight loss to Louisville).

-- 1979: I know the loss was in the round of 32, but that Duke team was a perfect balance of talent and experience -- almost the same team that played in the title game in 1978. But they were without Bender and Dennard and Gminski played through a bout of food poisoning -- and Duke still took St. John's to the wire. Win thay game and they cruise to the FF, where they could easily have prevented the Magic-Bird showdown.

There are other years where injuries hurt (2012, 2016, 2017), but except maybe 2017, I'm not sure any of those teams would have won it all, although they would have gone deeper.

PS Sage, I don't know if I'd call Thurman's shot an "open" shot ... Tony Lang is in his face -- the joke is that the only reason he didn't block it was that he clipped his nails before the game. It was a remarkable (lucky") shot at a key moment ... answered by a (unlucky) 3 by Chris Collins that rimmed out. But I don't blame injuries for that loss ... or 64 or 99 or 86.

Wander
05-25-2017, 08:11 PM
Except that our last championship was built around a guy that we were 100 percent sure was OAD. Sure, we had two more five stars that weren't locks to be OAD that did after we won our title. But going into the season, he through Winslow was maybe 50-50 and Tyus was less than that. Frank Jackson was nowhere close to a certain OAD ... heck, this time last year, Bolden was a better bet to go OAD. I KNOW that he never thought Corey Maggette or Luol Deng were OAD when he signed them.


Yeah, I recognize that OADs would still happen, like all the examples you cite. But I suspect you could mitigate some of the downsides of the OAD model (like the injury risk) by only recruiting guys who are open to leaving after one year, but not 100% locked into that idea.

You're right that 2015 is the obvious response to my strategy, but I'm not ceding that national championship. I think my team would still have had a great chance to win the national championship. You wouldn't have Okafor, but it's not as simple as just deleting him from the team - you'd have a different freshman big man AND a sophomore big man from the previous year instead of Jabari Parker (and, in theory, possibly a senior from 2012 replacing Austin Rivers, though for the sake of the argument I'll assume whoever replaced him would have gone pro by 2015 anyway).

Wander
05-25-2017, 08:13 PM
Man, you are much more tlerant of the past than I am:


Duke lost in 1964 because we had a tough emotional Friday night semi against Cazzie Russell and Michigan -- then had a 24-hour turn-around to play UCLA, which had an easier route.
Duke failed to win in 1966 'cuz Bob Verga had the flu and scored only four points against Kentucky.
Duke was the best team in 1986, and had some tough luck against Louisville.
Duke shoulda won in 1994 -- we had Arkansas locked down in a tie game, and Scotty Thurman got an open shot off a fluke play.
Duke shoulda won EASILY in 1999, and I still don't know why we didn't.
In 2004 we played in the worst-officiated Final Four game in recorded history. It hurt both teams, but it hurt Duke more than UConn (all three Duke centers fouled out on ticky-tack calls and there was an egregious non-call on JJ's drive in the last minute).



I'll stop now, but I think we should have 11 titles.

You're only considering one side of the argument, though. If you give Duke the 1999 title because they were the best team in the regular season, you have to take away the 1991 title for the same reason.

ipatent
05-25-2017, 09:00 PM
I will say that, yes, we had some near misses and, yes, we had some close calls in years we won. But in my lifetime, I think injuries cost us most in (in order of likelihood of title):

-- 2011: K said he thought that team could have been unbeaten if Kyrie doesn't get hurt. I agree.

-- 1966: No question Duke beats Kentucky with a healthy Verga. The title game against Texas Western would have been epic, but Duke had a better ball-handling team than Kentucky (which they proved in two routs of UCLA), a big man to match up with Lattin and with Flournoy hurt, Texas Western had nobody to guard Jack Marin. I like Duke's chances.

-- 1989: It was the combination of the loss of Brickey and the foul trouble to Laettner that cost Duke the semifinal game to Seton Hall. A healthy Brickey and Duke wins that game and IMHO beats Michigan two nights later

-- 2004: For all the officiating gaffes, we forget that Chris Duhon was playing that Final Four with cracked ribs (suffered in the ACC title game). A healthy Duhon makes a big difference in the semis with UConn and, of course, the winner of that game was a lock to beat Georgia Tech in the finals.

-- 2013: Duke was the best team in the country in November and December -- undefeated against the toughest schedule in the country (including a neutral court win over Louisville). The injury to Ryan Kelly spoiled that. And even after he returned, Duke was not the same team (as evidenced in the Elite Eight loss to Louisville).

-- 1979: I know the loss was in the round of 32, but that Duke team was a perfect balance of talent and experience -- almost the same team that played in the title game in 1978. But they were without Bender and Dennard and Gminski played through a bout of food poisoning -- and Duke still took St. John's to the wire. Win thay game and they cruise to the FF, where they could easily have prevented the Magic-Bird showdown.

There are other years where injuries hurt (2012, 2016, 2017), but except maybe 2017, I'm not sure any of those teams would have won it all, although they would have gone deeper.

PS Sage, I don't know if I'd call Thurman's shot an "open" shot ... Tony Lang is in his face -- the joke is that the only reason he didn't block it was that he clipped his nails before the game. It was a remarkable (lucky") shot at a key moment ... answered by a (unlucky) 3 by Chris Collins that rimmed out. But I don't blame injuries for that loss ... or 64 or 99 or 86.

I'd put 1994 and Park's ankle at #3. Michigan had the basketball gods on its side in 1989.

sagegrouse
05-25-2017, 10:33 PM
You're only considering one side of the argument, though. If you give Duke the 1999 title because they were the best team in the regular season, you have to take away the 1991 title for the same reason.
Wander, you assume I am prepared to be reasonable. Of course, not. I am not giving up any of our five championships.

Kindly,
Sage

Olympic Fan
05-25-2017, 11:44 PM
I'd put 1994 and Park's ankle at #3. Michigan had the basketball gods on its side in 1989.

Actually, Parks had a sore knee that he suffered while playing 40 minutes in the semifinal win over Florida.

He ended up playing 30 minutes against Arkansas (which was exactly his season average) and finished with 14 points (exactly his season average) and 7 reboundfs (slightly less than his 8.4 average).

I don't remember his knee being much of a factor in the title game, although I suppose you can project that he does better than his season average without the sore knee. And a little better from Parks and Duke wins.

When you mention ankle, are you sure you are not confusing that with the 1993 NCAA loss to Cal? Cherokee suffered a severe ankle injury late in the first half and didn't play in the second half of that narrow loss. That team obviously goes farther with a healthy Parks, but I don't think they win it all. Of course, what do I know -- here's a nice bit of trivia -- the '93 Duke team is the first Duke team to beat the national champion (a 14-point victory over UNC in Cameron).

Since then we've beaten 2002 Maryland, 2005 UNC, 2013 Louisville and 2017 UNC (the first time we beat the national champs twice)

ipatent
05-26-2017, 08:03 AM
Actually, Parks had a sore knee that he suffered while playing 40 minutes in the semifinal win over Florida.

He ended up playing 30 minutes against Arkansas (which was exactly his season average) and finished with 14 points (exactly his season average) and 7 reboundfs (slightly less than his 8.4 average).

I don't remember his knee being much of a factor in the title game, although I suppose you can project that he does better than his season average without the sore knee. And a little better from Parks and Duke wins.

You may be right about the knee. Duke should have had a matchup advantage at his position in that game... he seemed fine but a few more baskets and rebounds could have made a difference.

chriso
05-26-2017, 08:34 AM
Wander, you assume I am prepared to be reasonable. Of course, not. I am not giving up any of our five championships.

Kindly,
Sage

Interesting thread. I remember watching the '99 game with my dad. End of the game Langdon dribbles up and trips or something. I kneel down in front of the tv, hands on head, wondering why Avery didn't take the last shot. That one still hurts. :)

CDu
05-26-2017, 10:22 AM
-- 2013: Duke was the best team in the country in November and December -- undefeated against the toughest schedule in the country (including a neutral court win over Louisville). The injury to Ryan Kelly spoiled that. And even after he returned, Duke was not the same team (as evidenced in the Elite Eight loss to Louisville).

The 2013 example is a bit misleading. Yes, we played a very tough schedule to start that year. But the win over Louisville was without their starting center and future NBA starter Gorgui Dieng. Dieng was back when we met in the Elite-8.

Now, if you want to mention that Seth Curry was playing on a bum shin all season, that's probably fair. But I don't know that we were actually better than Louisville that year.

rsvman
05-26-2017, 10:34 AM
The 2013 example is a bit misleading. Yes, we played a very tough schedule to start that year. But the win over Louisville was without their starting center and future NBA starter Gorgui Dieng. Dieng was back when we met in the Elite-8.

Now, if you want to mention that Seth Curry was playing on a bum shin all season, that's probably fair. But I don't know that we were actually better than Louisville that year.

I think the gruesome injury that happened in the Elite Eight game against Louisville had the somewhat counterintuitive effect of giving Louisville an edge in that game. We were playing well and were ahead of them at the time, as I recall. You might surmise that a season-ending injury to a starter should hurt the team, but in my opinion what happened is that it galvanized the team and made them play harder and more together. It also seemed to almost unite a portion of the audience. None of this is quantifiable, but it almost seemed that Louisville was "willed to win" by the injury.

Would we have won the game if the injury had not occurred? Dunno. But I feel like we would have had a better chance.

English
05-26-2017, 10:59 AM
I think the gruesome injury that happened in the Elite Eight game against Louisville had the somewhat counterintuitive effect of giving Louisville an edge in that game. We were playing well and were ahead of them at the time, as I recall. You might surmise that a season-ending injury to a starter should hurt the team, but in my opinion what happened is that it galvanized the team and made them play harder and more together. It also seemed to almost unite a portion of the audience. None of this is quantifiable, but it almost seemed that Louisville was "willed to win" by the injury.

Would we have won the game if the injury had not occurred? Dunno. But I feel like we would have had a better chance.

Major co-sign on this. That was the very stark sense I got during the game, as well. Plus, we were playing very well to that point, and the pause in the game coupled with the intense emotion accompanying the injury served to suck all of the rhythm and momentum out of the game (again, to that point, Duke's advantage).

Another unshakable sense I had during that game, post-injury, was that I cared slightly less about the outcome because I felt so badly for Kevin Ware. Anywho, a really bizarre fluke injury and circumstance.

cato
05-26-2017, 02:57 PM
Yeah, I recognize that OADs would still happen, like all the examples you cite. But I suspect you could mitigate some of the downsides of the OAD model (like the injury risk) by only recruiting guys who are open to leaving after one year, but not 100% locked into that idea.

You're right that 2015 is the obvious response to my strategy, but I'm not ceding that national championship. I think my team would still have had a great chance to win the national championship. You wouldn't have Okafor, but it's not as simple as just deleting him from the team - you'd have a different freshman big man AND a sophomore big man from the previous year instead of Jabari Parker (and, in theory, possibly a senior from 2012 replacing Austin Rivers, though for the sake of the argument I'll assume whoever replaced him would have gone pro by 2015 anyway).

But Tyus and Justise were tied up with Jah. Seems reasonable to me that recruits who aren't quite good enough to be sure-fire OAD want to play with the best kids in their class.

Olympic Fan
05-26-2017, 03:19 PM
But Tyus and Justise were tied up with Jah. Seems reasonable to me that recruits who aren't quite good enough to be sure-fire OAD want to play with the best kids in their class.

Absolutely ...

Actually, Okafor and Tyus Jones were a package deal -- the one real package deal we've seen in recent years.

Winslow was not that strong, but he definitely wanted to play with Okafor and Jones.

So, no Okafor means no Jones ... and probably no Winslow.

And no championship in 2015.

PS Wander, I'm curious. If we pass on Parker in 2013, just what multi-year big man do you see us signing who could have done as much as a sophomore as Okafor did as a freshman? The top big man in that class who didn't go OAD was Dakari Johnson, who went to Kentucky and came off the bench for two seasons, never averaging more than 6.4 points or 4.9 rebounds.

Wander
05-26-2017, 05:34 PM
PS Wander, I'm curious. If we pass on Parker in 2013, just what multi-year big man do you see us signing who could have done as much as a sophomore as Okafor did as a freshman?

No one - you're right that we would not be as good without Okafor, no question. My contention is that we still may have won the national championship anyway even by taking a downgrade to, for example, a sophomore Isaiah Hicks and a freshman Domantas Sabonis. I don't see a single NCAA tournament game that we couldn't have won without him - Jefferson was better than Okafor against Wisconsin, and we could have lost any single player and still beaten Michigan State. And our defense would have been better overall (sidenote: this is something I was completely wrong about a couple years ago - I thought the criticism of Okafor's defense was over the top and everyone would look back and think it was idiotic that he wasn't drafted #1, but he's been completely exposed). We would probably just need to avoid Kentucky in the bracket (which we, of course, did anyway).

You guys have made some good points, so I'll revise my earlier statement and say I'm not opposed to making exceptions for specific situations. I forgot about the Tyus-Jahlil package deal, so fair point. But I would rather those situations be the exception and not the rule. Going after these guys every single year leaves us too prone to injuries and wasted resources from fluky upsets IMO.

ipatent
05-26-2017, 08:40 PM
I don't see a single NCAA tournament game that we couldn't have won without him -

He drew a lot of attention even if the performance wasn't overwhelming.


Going after these guys every single year leaves us too prone to injuries and wasted resources from fluky upsets IMO.

I think that can be mitigated to some extent by not wasting scholarships and having quality four year backups at key position like point guard.

Kedsy
05-26-2017, 11:59 PM
I think that can be mitigated to some extent by not wasting scholarships and having quality four year backups at key position like point guard.

How many lesser regarded (outside the top 35) point guards have become stars at the college level? Some, but not many, and even fewer that would be willing to come to Duke and not play for a couple years (i.e., accept that they're recruited to be "four year backups").

The idea that we should recruit guys at any position (especially PG) that are (a) willing to sit as underclassmen; and (b) able to star as upperclassmen is kind of a pipe dream. There are few, if any, such players, and the ones who meet both requirements are almost impossible to spot in high school.

ipatent
05-27-2017, 07:11 AM
How many lesser regarded (outside the top 35) point guards have become stars at the college level? Some, but not many, and even fewer that would be willing to come to Duke and not play for a couple years (i.e., accept that they're recruited to be "four year backups").

The idea that we should recruit guys at any position (especially PG) that are (a) willing to sit as underclassmen; and (b) able to star as upperclassmen is kind of a pipe dream. There are few, if any, such players, and the ones who meet both requirements are almost impossible to spot in high school.

K kept the success from the Alarie/Dawkins class going with players who were under the national radar. Kevin Strickland, John Smith, Robert Brickey (I think) weren't on the Street & Smith All American teams (~top 25) back then. Neither was David Henderson. Some kids like that might not want to play behind one and dones, but being on the Duke roster and getting a Duke degree is nothing to sniff at.. it might entice the ones we need.

Kedsy
05-27-2017, 07:59 AM
K kept the success from the Alarie/Dawkins class going with players who were under the national radar. Kevin Strickland, John Smith, Robert Brickey (I think) weren't on the Street & Smith All American teams (~top 25) back then. Neither was David Henderson. Some kids like that might not want to play behind one and dones, but being on the Duke roster and getting a Duke degree is nothing to sniff at.. it might entice the ones we need.

I think recruiting was very different in the mid-80s than it is now. And I don't believe that there are many (if any) kids capable of being a starting PG at Duke who are willing to be "four year backups" in case we need them. Also, the vast majority of "under the radar" kids don't work out (that's why they were under the radar in the first place). For every player like Kevin Strickland or Robert Brickey, there are several more like Marty Pocius or George Burgin.

The kind of recruit who is willing to be a four-year backup is someone like Jordan Goldwire, who Coach K did recruit a few weeks ago. But (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think he's the sort of player (outside the top 300) you had in mind.

ipatent
05-28-2017, 05:46 PM
Getting back to injuries, add John Smith breaking his hand in the Rhode Island game in '88, prior to the game against Mark Macon and Temple. Forgot about that until I googled him.

The '88 team was one of my favorites, under-rated in its contributions to program history as it started the skein of final four appearances with three players in the rotation who weren't highly recruited, but plenty athletic and played within themselves.

niveklaen
05-31-2017, 11:16 AM
I think recruiting was very different in the mid-80s than it is now. And I don't believe that there are many (if any) kids capable of being a starting PG at Duke who are willing to be "four year backups" in case we need them. Also, the vast majority of "under the radar" kids don't work out (that's why they were under the radar in the first place). For every player like Kevin Strickland or Robert Brickey, there are several more like Marty Pocius or George Burgin.

The kind of recruit who is willing to be a four-year backup is someone like Jordan Goldwire, who Coach K did recruit a few weeks ago. But (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think he's the sort of player (outside the top 300) you had in mind.

Are there no more Melchioni's or McClure's or tyler thornton's? They were recruited to be 4 year backups but they were also all top 150 players. and they are all much more recent than those guys from the 80's...

English
05-31-2017, 11:18 AM
Are there no more Melchioni's or McClure's or tyler thornton's? They were recruited to be 4 year backups but they were also all top 150 players. and they are all much more recent than those guys from the 80's...

Yeah, and Steph Curry wasn't recruited by a single ACC program. It's fun to use outliers to prove a point.

I suspect, if the Duke program success was resting on consistently finding and relying upon players in the 50-150 range who were recruited to be 4-year backups, the bar we're arguing over would be much lower.

Kedsy
05-31-2017, 12:06 PM
Are there no more Melchioni's or McClure's or tyler thornton's? They were recruited to be 4 year backups but they were also all top 150 players. and they are all much more recent than those guys from the 80's...

First thing, McClure was ranked #71, which is not that far off from where Alex O'Connell is ranked (or Jordan Tucker, for that matter), so there you go. Melchionni and T Thornton were outside the top 100 but inside the top 150, but recently Coach K has chosen to recruit Antonio Vrankovic, Jack White, and Jordan Goldwire, all outside the top 235, so maybe these days there aren't as many top 150 kids willing to sit on the end of Duke's bench as one might think.

Second, Melchionni, McClure, and T Thornton were very different, qualitatively, from Strickland and Brickey (probably Smith too), that were brought up by the previous poster.

Finally, Lee Melchionni was one thing, as the sixth-most-highly regarded recruit in his class, but it may not be coincidence that the years McClure and T Thornton played major roles included 2007, 2012, and 2014.

There's nothing wrong with recruiting one or two "four year backups" and hoping they become more. But it's undeniable that a team of top 25 recruits, even if they're all freshman, is going to have a better chance of win/loss success than a team of all top 150 recruits, even if they're all seniors. The people around here who claim to be against one-and-dones are really pining for the days that you could keep top 10 guys around for multiple seasons and top 20 guys for four years, and you could keep the top 35 guys on the bench until you needed them as upperclassmen. But (perhaps sadly) those days are long gone.

ipatent
05-31-2017, 12:13 PM
so maybe these days there aren't as many top 150 kids willing to sit on the end of Duke's bench as one might think.

Hopefully not because they all think a pro future is realistic.

Kedsy
05-31-2017, 01:27 PM
Finally, Lee Melchionni was one thing, as the sixth-most-highly regarded recruit in his class...

Just to clarify, I meant sixth-most-highly regarded recruit in his six-man Duke recruiting class.


Hopefully not because they all think a pro future is realistic.

Probably not, though White and Vrankovic might have a chance to play pro ball in Australia and Europe, respectively.

But if Duke is getting 230+ guys because we can't get 100 to 150 guys (and I'm not saying that's true -- it also might be because Coach K sees something in Antonio, Jack, and Jordan G that he likes better than the 100 to 150 guys he looked at), it's probably because these days the mid-major opportunities appear more attractive to such recruits. Maybe these kids would rather play big minutes at, e.g., Butler or Wichita State than sit on the very end of Duke's bench.

ipatent
05-31-2017, 01:51 PM
Melchionni was a legacy recruit, like Clay Buckley.

Kedsy
05-31-2017, 01:56 PM
Melchionni was a legacy recruit, like Clay Buckley.

And Alex O'Connell. Though Clay Buckley was "High Honorable Mention" All America in Street and Smith's. He was a decent recruit in his own right.

ipatent
05-31-2017, 02:14 PM
And Alex O'Connell. Though Clay Buckley was "High Honorable Mention" All America in Street and Smith's. He was a decent recruit in his own right.

He was, and he played some.

I've been watching the 1989 Seton Hall game and noticed that K was noticeably more liberal about using his bench back then. Even freshman Brian Davis saw a few minutes in that game.

Kedsy
05-31-2017, 03:11 PM
He was, and he played some.

I've been watching the 1989 Seton Hall game and noticed that K was noticeably more liberal about using his bench back then. Even freshman Brian Davis saw a few minutes in that game.

Not really. K played a 7.5 man rotation that season, just like in 2012 and 2014, among other seasons. Brian Davis played in that Final Four game because (a) Robert Brickey got hurt and didn't play at all in the second half; and (b) we were losing big.

Clay Buckley played 141 minutes in 1988-89 (the most minutes of any season in his career), not much more than Antonio Vrankovic played in 2016-17 (101 total minutes).

ipatent
05-31-2017, 03:20 PM
Not really. K played a 7.5 man rotation that season, just like in 2012 and 2014, among other seasons. Brian Davis played in that Final Four game because (a) Robert Brickey got hurt and didn't play at all in the second half; and (b) we were losing big.

Clay Buckley played 141 minutes in 1988-89 (the most minutes of any season in his career), not much more than Antonio Vrankovic played in 2016-17 (101 total minutes).

http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=1988-89

sagegrouse
05-31-2017, 03:21 PM
Not really. K played a 7.5 man rotation that season, just like in 2012 and 2014, among other seasons. Brian Davis played in that Final Four game because (a) Robert Brickey got hurt and didn't play at all in the second half; and (b) we were losing big.

Clay Buckley played 141 minutes in 1988-89 (the most minutes of any season in his career), not much more than Antonio Vrankovic played in 2016-17 (101 total minutes).

My best Clay Buckley story: his father Jay was my classmate. At one of our reunions when Clay was a student, a somewhat tipsy alum went up to Clay and said (seriously): "Jay, you haven't changed a bit."

niveklaen
05-31-2017, 03:40 PM
Yeah, and Steph Curry wasn't recruited by a single ACC program. It's fun to use outliers to prove a point.

I suspect, if the Duke program success was resting on consistently finding and relying upon players in the 50-150 range who were recruited to be 4-year backups, the bar we're arguing over would be much lower.

I did not pick outliers. I picked 3 guys in the 50-150 range recruited by Duke who became serviceable backups as upperclassmen, I did not cherry pick the best random low ranked recruit to go anywhere other than a blue blood in the last 30 years. I don't think that it is unrealistic at all to pick up one guy a year in the 50-150 range and I don't think that it is unrealistic to think that that sort of player could be a serviceable backup as an upperclassman. If you think that I am cherry picking, please find 3 duke recruits ranked 50-150 in the last 20 years who were not serviceable backups as upperclassmen.

...and how is that a lower recruiting bar than picking up a sub 200 recruit? In what world is a sub 200 recruit better than a 50-150 range recruit?

niveklaen
05-31-2017, 03:53 PM
First thing, McClure was ranked #71, which is not that far off from where Alex O'Connell is ranked (or Jordan Tucker, for that matter), so there you go. Melchionni and T Thornton were outside the top 100 but inside the top 150, but recently Coach K has chosen to recruit Antonio Vrankovic, Jack White, and Jordan Goldwire, all outside the top 235, so maybe these days there aren't as many top 150 kids willing to sit on the end of Duke's bench as one might think.

Second, Melchionni, McClure, and T Thornton were very different, qualitatively, from Strickland and Brickey (probably Smith too), that were brought up by the previous poster.

Finally, Lee Melchionni was one thing, as the sixth-most-highly regarded recruit in his class, but it may not be coincidence that the years McClure and T Thornton played major roles included 2007, 2012, and 2014.

There's nothing wrong with recruiting one or two "four year backups" and hoping they become more. But it's undeniable that a team of top 25 recruits, even if they're all freshman, is going to have a better chance of win/loss success than a team of all top 150 recruits, even if they're all seniors. The people around here who claim to be against one-and-dones are really pining for the days that you could keep top 10 guys around for multiple seasons and top 20 guys for four years, and you could keep the top 35 guys on the bench until you needed them as upperclassmen. But (perhaps sadly) those days are long gone.

Kedsy, I missed the word 'starting' from your post. I agree that we should not expect 50-150 ranked players to be starters as seniors and when they are, its a bad sign for the team - I am a big fan of TT, but I would have much rather watched him play 15mpg behind a Tyus level player than have to rely on him as a starter. Allow me to retroactively refocus/narrow my thought - instead of recruiting 1 200+ guy every year, I think we can/should get 1ish 50-150 guy a year to be a quality backup as an upperclassman to our OADs and 2AD guys.

CDu
05-31-2017, 03:58 PM
I did not pick outliers. I picked 3 guys in the 50-150 range recruited by Duke who became serviceable backups as upperclassmen, I did not cherry pick the best random low ranked recruit to go anywhere other than a blue blood in the last 30 years. I don't think that it is unrealistic at all to pick up one guy a year in the 50-150 range and I don't think that it is unrealistic to think that that sort of player could be a serviceable backup as an upperclassman. If you think that I am cherry picking, please find 3 duke recruits ranked 50-150 in the last 20 years who were not serviceable backups as upperclassmen.

...and how is that a lower recruiting bar than picking up a sub 200 recruit? In what world is a sub 200 recruit better than a 50-150 range recruit?

The issue isn't that guys in the 50-150 range can't be serviceable backups for 4 years. It's that they often don't want to be serviceable backups for 4 years. Olek Czyz didn't like sitting the bench, so he transferred to Nevada. Michael Thompson left for Northwestern as a soph. Jamal Boykin left after 2 years too. Alex Murphy (technically in the 40s, but you get the idea) left.

Melchionni was a bit of an exception to the rule: his dad was a Duke player. Marshall and Miles Plumlee were too: they had family ties to the program.

It would be great to get guys in the 50-150 range that decide to stay 4 years, even if they are backups. But it's becoming harder and harder to keep those next-tier guys around in this day and age.

Kedsy
05-31-2017, 04:18 PM
http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=1988-89

Thanks for that. Here's pretty much the same story, from 2009: http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/season-stats.php?season=2008-09

But "raw" minute lists don't really tell the story, do they? Here's a chart, showing the number of players who played more than 10 minutes in Duke games after January 1 that were decided by fewer than 20 points:



Year 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg
2017 6 14 1 6.76
2016 1 18 3 0 6.09
2015 1 9 8 2 6.55
2014 2 8 6 1 7.35
2013 6 10 2 6.78
2012 1 10 9 2 7.55
2011 6 9 5 6.95
2010 2 5 8 6 6.86
2009 1 4 10 4 1 7.00
2008 3 5 8 3 7.58
2007 1 3 11 2 6.82
2006 4 17 0 6.81
2005 6 14 0 6.70
2004 3 14 1 6.89
2003 3 17 2 1 7.04
2002 8 3 0 6.27
2001 8 8 0 6.50
2000 11 5 0 6.31
1999 2 7 2 7.00
1998 0 9 4 7.31
1997 1 9 7 1 7.44
1996 4 13 1 6.83
1995 1 8.00
1994 8 14 0 6.64
1993 7 8 4 6.84
1992 10 9 5 6.79
1991 0 13 0 4 7.47
1990 1 11 9 7.38
1989 1 9 7 7.35
1988 3 12 6 2 7.30
1987 3 11 6 1 7.24
1986 2 16 4 1 7.22
1985 10 7 2 6.58
1984 8 12 1 6.67
1983 2 6 5 1 7.36
1982 7 5 4 1 6.94
1981 7 6 3 1 6.88


As you can see, the distribution in 1989 looks almost identical to 2014. Overall, while individual seasons (e.g., 2016) may be outliers, basically K's been pretty consistent throughout his Duke career when it comes to playing his bench. Comparing the seven year stretch from 1986 to 1992 (an average of 7.23 players with 10+ minutes in close games) to the seven year stretch from 2008 to 2014 (7.15 such players), he played a very slightly longer rotation in the '80s, but not longer enough to mean much. Plus his teams immediately before and immediately after the 1986 to 1992 stretch played fewer guys; I'd say it was more of a roster-related difference than any change in philosophy.


My best Clay Buckley story: his father Jay was my classmate. At one of our reunions when Clay was a student, a somewhat tipsy alum went up to Clay and said (seriously): "Jay, you haven't changed a bit."

That's pretty funny. I believe Jay lived near Philadelphia during Clay's college years (as did I); I had quite a few interesting conversations with Jay during flights to Duke games. He seemed like a good guy.

niveklaen
05-31-2017, 04:24 PM
The issue isn't that guys in the 50-150 range can't be serviceable backups for 4 years. It's that they often don't want to be serviceable backups for 4 years. Olek Czyz didn't like sitting the bench, so he transferred to Nevada. Michael Thompson left for Northwestern as a soph. Jamal Boykin left after 2 years too. Alex Murphy (technically in the 40s, but you get the idea) left.

Melchionni was a bit of an exception to the rule: his dad was a Duke player. Marshall and Miles Plumlee were too: they had family ties to the program.

It would be great to get guys in the 50-150 range that decide to stay 4 years, even if they are backups. But it's becoming harder and harder to keep those next-tier guys around in this day and age.

I see the source of my error here - I was relying on the draftexpress recruiting history for Duke, but that excludes players who transferred (listing them at the last school they played for instead of the first) so I was not seeing the half of the 50-150 guys who transferred. Stupid of me.

acknowledging my error, let me try a different tack. I don't think that Duke as a team is particularly hurt by having half our 50-150 project players transfer and I don't think that shifting to 200+ ranked players who will stick around will help much. I think what hurts is having so many guys ranked 11-50 transfer that really hurts. These are guys who we believe would be good starters as upperclassmen like QCook and Amile were to complement the sure fire OAD top 10 recruits. Instead E.Williams, Murphy, Silent G, Semi, DT, and Jeter have all bailed. Those 'should be great starters as upperclassmen' guys transferring is what kills us. I do not know what the solution to those guys bailing is. I don't think giving up on top 10 talent is the answer and I don't think that shifting to 50-150 talent is the answer either. I don't know the answer to that question but that is the question that really needs to be answered.

Kedsy
05-31-2017, 04:43 PM
The issue isn't that guys in the 50-150 range can't be serviceable backups for 4 years. It's that they often don't want to be serviceable backups for 4 years. Olek Czyz didn't like sitting the bench, so he transferred to Nevada. Michael Thompson left for Northwestern as a soph. Jamal Boykin left after 2 years too. Alex Murphy (technically in the 40s, but you get the idea) left.

Melchionni was a bit of an exception to the rule: his dad was a Duke player. Marshall and Miles Plumlee were too: they had family ties to the program.

It would be great to get guys in the 50-150 range that decide to stay 4 years, even if they are backups. But it's becoming harder and harder to keep those next-tier guys around in this day and age.

I agree with your point, but I also think we can draw a line, somewhere between 50 and 75, where it's no longer true. At some point, a player knows what he signs up for, and doesn't expect big minutes and thus doesn't leave when those minutes don't materialize. Of the 12 players who transferred from Duke in the RSCI era (not counting Sulaimon and Obi, who graduated), only three were outside the top 50 as recruits: Jamal Boykin (#60); Olek Czyz (#66); and Andre Sweet (#136, but reportedly failed out). In the same time period, we had nine recruits outside the top 50 who didn't leave (counting White and Vrankovic but not counting 2017-18 freshmen). So, if a 50+ player signs on, he usually knows what to expect and stays four years.

But I still agree with your point, because I think one reason we don't get so many guys in the 40 to 75 range is because those guys don't want to be four-year backups, and they're afraid they will be at a place like Duke (again not including 2017-18 freshmen, we've only had six guys in that range since the RSCI was invented in 1998, and three of those six transferred).

Jeffrey
06-01-2017, 10:21 AM
My best Clay Buckley story: his father Jay was my classmate. At one of our reunions when Clay was a student, a somewhat tipsy alum went up to Clay and said (seriously): "Jay, you haven't changed a bit."

Did your wife take your drink?

ChillinDuke
06-01-2017, 01:38 PM
The issue isn't that guys in the 50-150 range can't be serviceable backups for 4 years. It's that they often don't want to be serviceable backups for 4 years. Olek Czyz didn't like sitting the bench, so he transferred to Nevada. Michael Thompson left for Northwestern as a soph. Jamal Boykin left after 2 years too. Alex Murphy (technically in the 40s, but you get the idea) left.

Melchionni was a bit of an exception to the rule: his dad was a Duke player. Marshall and Miles Plumlee were too: they had family ties to the program.

It would be great to get guys in the 50-150 range that decide to stay 4 years, even if they are backups. But it's becoming harder and harder to keep those next-tier guys around in this day and age.

Yeah, what gets lost a lot in these discussions is that a lot of these kids in the 100s understand that their chances at playing pro ball are slim to none. So they want to "go out with a bang" and actually play the sport that they love so dearly and may come to end soon.

It's not really that hard to understand, frankly. I did the same thing when I realized my basketball playing days were nearly over (in high school) - I chose not to play on my varsity team and ride the bench in favor of playing in a church league, even though the level of play was clearly worse.

Sometimes people just want to enjoy things at the expense of accolades/achievement. It's not the only consideration, but it's one piece of the decision-making process (and probably significantly so in many cases).

- Chillin

hallcity
06-01-2017, 08:50 PM
From Adam Kilgore:
"Adam Silver on the age-limit rule: 'We all agree we need to make a change. ... My sense is, it's not working for anyone.'"

So, do something about it!

sagegrouse
06-01-2017, 09:06 PM
From Adam Kilgore:
"Adam Silver on the age-limit rule: 'We all agree we need to make a change. ... My sense is, it's not working for anyone.'"

So, do something about it!

It's provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and, therefore, can only be modified with the approval of the players association and the NBA.

ipatent
06-01-2017, 09:14 PM
Yeah, what gets lost a lot in these discussions is that a lot of these kids in the 100s understand that their chances at playing pro ball are slim to none. So they want to "go out with a bang" and actually play the sport that they love so dearly and may come to end soon.

It's not really that hard to understand, frankly. I did the same thing when I realized my basketball playing days were nearly over (in high school) - I chose not to play on my varsity team and ride the bench in favor of playing in a church league, even though the level of play was clearly worse.

Sometimes people just want to enjoy things at the expense of accolades/achievement. It's not the only consideration, but it's one piece of the decision-making process (and probably significantly so in many cases).

- Chillin

It's a good point, but there must be some serious students out there who see as desirable a free ride for a Duke degree and a chance at a ring or two.

Atlanta Duke
06-01-2017, 11:27 PM
It's provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and, therefore, can only be modified with the approval of the players association and the NBA.

One apparent possibility discussed in this WaPo article on Silver's comments would be modifying CBA to delay entry into NBA until age 20 but allowing entry into developmental league at 18

Silver said the NBA believes the age limit should be raised to 20, which would force players to spend at least two seasons in college. The union pushed for the limit to be lowered to 18...

Silver said the NBA is “looking at” the idea of allowing 18-year-old players to enter its developmental league. Currently, each developmental league team can sign two players to a “two-way” contract, but 18-year-olds are not presently eligible to sign them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/06/01/adam-silver-wants-to-blow-up-the-nbas-age-limit-rule/?utm_term=.4367dc0dacd3

Cannot see the NBA agreeing with the union and going back to the pre-2006 system of high school players being drafted directly into the NBA.

ipatent
06-02-2017, 09:18 AM
The Lebrons and the Kobes should be able to play right away. If a few years in college isn't sacrosanct for women's tennis players and golfers, why should it be in a hyper-revenue sport?

Players drafted on pure potential who could use physical development and seasoning should be able to play for a few years in college. Why not let them be drafted with the others and put signing bonuses into some type of limited access account that could be used give them a stipend, emergencies and fly their relatives in for games and so forth? Two years minimum, with procedures to ensure plenty of notice to the college program as to when they leave. This would all be do-able if both the players association and NBA management accepts that a healthy college game is good for the league and the D League is never going to cut in much to its market share.

Amateur status has already been plenty compromised by the Olympics and other ways. Players with no interest in education could still go to the D-League instead of college.

ChillinDuke
06-02-2017, 09:40 AM
It's a good point, but there must be some serious students out there who see as desirable a free ride for a Duke degree and a chance at a ring or two.

Yeah, I'm sure there are a few. But I bet the pool is small.

My assumption is that before a kid opted to go that route, he would probably consider a free ride to, say, Yale and a chance to get them to the NCAAT.

If a kid understands he's not going pro, I'm not sure a ring is all that appealing to him, especially if he wouldn't materially participate in the games that lead to the ring. I'm sure there are some, but you also have to identify them in the depths of the 100s rankings.

- Chillin

niveklaen
06-02-2017, 04:17 PM
The Lebrons and the Kobes should be able to play right away. If a few years in college isn't sacrosanct for women's tennis players and golfers, why should it be in a hyper-revenue sport?

Players drafted on pure potential who could use physical development and seasoning should be able to play for a few years in college. Why not let them be drafted with the others and put signing bonuses into some type of limited access account that could be used give them a stipend, emergencies and fly their relatives in for games and so forth? Two years minimum, with procedures to ensure plenty of notice to the college program as to when they leave. This would all be do-able if both the players association and NBA management accepts that a healthy college game is good for the league and the D League is never going to cut in much to its market share.

Amateur status has already been plenty compromised by the Olympics and other ways. Players with no interest in education could still go to the D-League instead of college.

But that does not solves the NBA's concern which is to avoid the prisoner's dilemma of drafting 18yr old kids. setting up a college draft and stash plan would be great for colleges and maybe great for the players (have not thought about it from their perspective enough yet), but it is terrible for GMs. Some GM would have taken Barnes or JMM first as highschoolers, watched them struggle for 2 years at UNC, and been stuck with them when they were 20. GMs want to see the kids play against college level competition before being allowed to draft them so they can have better info when they draft them.

ipatent
06-02-2017, 08:45 PM
But that does not solves the NBA's concern which is to avoid the prisoner's dilemma of drafting 18yr old kids. setting up a college draft and stash plan would be great for colleges and maybe great for the players (have not thought about it from their perspective enough yet), but it is terrible for GMs. Some GM would have taken Barnes or JMM first as highschoolers, watched them struggle for 2 years at UNC, and been stuck with them when they were 20. GMs want to see the kids play against college level competition before being allowed to draft them so they can have better info when they draft them.

There's truth in that. Another reason is the NCAA doesn't want anything to do with kids who have or had agents. The prisoner's dilemma you identified might be mitigated to some extent by the plan also allowing the teams to draft existing freshmen and sophomores and letting them stay in school. That would give the NBA teams some flexibility, and could also make for really interesting draft strategy.

Bluedog
06-02-2017, 09:56 PM
The Lebrons and the Kobes should be able to play right away. If a few years in college isn't sacrosanct for women's tennis players and golfers, why should it be in a hyper-revenue sport?
.

Women's tennis players and golfers don't get GUARANTEED multi million dollar contracts based on potential, though. There's no investment in them from teams/leagues. They only get paid if they produce results and it's a pittance compared to NBA players. There are only like 20 American women that make more than $200k a year in tennis AND they have $100k+ in travel expenses that they have to pay for out of pocket (unlike US sports leagues where the teams pay the travel expenses). So, basically, it may be like 1 American tennis player every 5 years (coming out of high school or college) even makes a decent living playing tennis. The NBA would be paying 5-10 players EVERY year millions. So, they have 40x the number of players that would be coming out of high school and they pay them 20x more, meaning they're expending 800 times (which is honestly a conservative estimate) as much as professional women's tennis for implementing a change to allow high schoolers to be drafted. Not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Not saying I disagree at all with allowing high schoolers get drafted, simply stating that the comparisons to some other sports don't hold water because the situations are not even in the same atmosphere and how contacts work in the NBA are based on expected performance rather than actual performance, so teams/league shoulders the risk rather than the player himself.

Neals384
06-05-2017, 11:58 AM
Do teams with One 'n Done's get better results in the NCAA Tourney? Perhaps a bit a data can help.

Based on some arbitrary choices, I collected data from 2006 to 2017.
1nD is any freshman selected in the first round of the NBA draft. (For 2017, 1nDs are based on DraftExpress mock draft; Frank J. and UNC's Bradley are second rounders who do not count.)

NCAA teams were included in the 12 year dataset if they:
Ever made the final four
or Had two or more 1nDs over the 12 year period.

34 teams were selected, who had, collectively, 90 1nD players. 34 teams times 12 years gave me 408 datapoints. Vacated wins were not counted, e.g. Memphi's '08.

Here are the results. The first table shows the number of teams making the NCAA tourney, the number of NCAA tourney wins, the number making the final four, and the number of champions. The second table shows percentages: given the number of 1nDs, what percent made the tourney, and for those making the tourney, what was the average number of tourney wins, the chance of making the final four, and the chance of winning it all.



1nDs
Count
NCAA Tourney
NCAA Wins
FF’s
Champs


0
341
219
402
37
10


1
52
36
62
5
0


2
8
6
9
1
0


3
6
6
26
4
2


4
1
1
3
0
0


Total
408
268
502
47
12


Any 1nD
67
49
100
10
2


3 or more
7
7
29
4
2






1nDs
Count
NCAA Tourney
NCAA Wins
FF’s
Champs


0
341
64.2%
1.84
16.9%
4.6%


1
52
69.2%
1.72
13.9%
0.0%


2
8
75.0%
1.50
16.7%
0.0%


3
6
100.0%
4.33
66.7%
33.3%


4
1
100.0%
3.00
0.0%
0.0%


Total
408
65.7%
1.87
17.5%
4.5%


Any 1nD
67
73.1%
2.04
20.4%
4.1%


3 or more
7
100.0%
4.14
57.1%
28.6%



Conclusions: teams with 1 or 2 1nDs fared no better than than the average of our 34 team group. Teams with 3 or 4 1nDs had vastly improved results. Go Duke '18!

Bluedog
06-05-2017, 12:44 PM
Conclusions: teams with 1 or 2 1nDs fared no better than than the average of our 34 team group. Teams with 3 or 4 1nDs had vastly improved results. Go Duke '18!

Interesting analysis for sure and thanks for putting it together, but I don't think the sample size for 2 or greater 1nDs is large enough statistically. Considering the randomness of NCAA tournament results to begin with, having only 8, 6, and 1 examples of 2, 3, and 4 1nDs on a team respectively is likely not enough to draw any statistically relevant conclusions. Couple that with the fact that doing well in the NCAA tournament likely has a positive correlation with encouraging freshman to be 1nD and the confounding factors further make the analysis dicey. Basically, it seems that teams with really good players do better in the tournament on average, but that can be freshmen or seniors, or something in between.

Kedsy
06-05-2017, 01:11 PM
Vacated wins were not counted, e.g. Memphi's '08.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for doing this. Though I would say that for this sort of analysis, not counting vacated wins doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. You're trying to measure how well teams with OADs play, right? If that's what you're trying to find, it doesn't seem relevant to me if one of those OADs was recruited improperly.




1nDs
Count
NCAA Tourney
NCAA Wins
FF’s
Champs


0
341
64.2%
1.84
16.9%
4.6%


1
52
69.2%
1.72
13.9%
0.0%


2
8
75.0%
1.50
16.7%
0.0%


3
6
100.0%
4.33
66.7%
33.3%


4
1
100.0%
3.00
0.0%
0.0%


Total
408
65.7%
1.87
17.5%
4.5%


Any 1nD
67
73.1%
2.04
20.4%
4.1%


3 or more
7
100.0%
4.14
57.1%
28.6%




This table confuses me. I may not understand what you're measuring here, but it would seem to me the calculations should look like this (differences bolded):



1nDs
Count
NCAA Tourney
NCAA Wins
FF’s
Champs


0
341
64.2%
1.18
10.9%
2.9%


1
52
69.2%
1.19
9.6%
0.0%


2
8
75.0%
1.13
12.5%
0.0%


3
6
100.0%
4.33
66.7%
33.3%


4
1
100.0%
3.00
0.0%
0.0%


Total
408
65.7%
1.23
11.5%
2.9%


Any 1nD
67
73.1%
1.49
14.9%
3.0%


3 or more
7
100.0%
4.14
57.1%
28.6%




Conclusions: teams with 1 or 2 1nDs fared no better than than the average of our 34 team group. Teams with 3 or 4 1nDs had vastly improved results. Go Duke '18!

Well, first of all, if what I think the calculations should be is correct, it looks like teams with "Any 1nD" actually do perform a little better than those in your group that had zero OADs, although whether the difference is statistically significant, I have no idea.

More importantly, I wonder if the sample you chose isn't skewed. By excluding teams that didn't make the Final Four, which are much more numerous than those that did, aren't you stacking the deck a little? Since there are so few OADs each year (compared to the total number of players), by necessity a lot of teams made the Final Four that didn't have OADs, and those teams by definition have at least 4 NCAA wins and made the Final Four and had at least a shot at the championship, over a relatively short span of years.

Even if the advantage to the OAD teams isn't statistically significant (i.e., the two groups perform equivalently), doesn't your study suggest that having an OAD puts you right up there with the most elite teams of the time period? If true, that alone says something.

niveklaen
06-05-2017, 02:02 PM
Interesting analysis for sure and thanks for putting it together, but I don't think the sample size for 2 or greater 1nDs is large enough statistically. Considering the randomness of NCAA tournament results to begin with, having only 8, 6, and 1 examples of 2, 3, and 4 1nDs on a team respectively is likely not enough to draw any statistically relevant conclusions. Couple that with the fact that doing well in the NCAA tournament likely has a positive correlation with encouraging freshman to be 1nD and the confounding factors further make the analysis dicey. Basically, it seems that teams with really good players do better in the tournament on average, but that can be freshmen or seniors, or something in between.

The sample size is what it is, but I did similar work using top 16 ranked players instead of players who actually went 1AD and the results were virtually identical.

Neals384
06-06-2017, 10:13 AM
More importantly, I wonder if the sample you chose isn't skewed. By excluding teams that didn't make the Final Four, which are much more numerous than those that did, aren't you stacking the deck a little? Since there are so few OADs each year (compared to the total number of players), by necessity a lot of teams made the Final Four that didn't have OADs, and those teams by definition have at least 4 NCAA wins and made the Final Four and had at least a shot at the championship, over a relatively short span of years.

Well, the idea was to compare teams with 1nDs to, say Wisconsin, not with Appalatian State. To answer the question, "does recruiting 1nDs help overall program success?," we must compare teams that are in some top level peer group. So I specifically wanted a subset of teams that are capable of competing at the highest level. And besides, 34 teams was a lot less work than 300.

Kedsy
06-06-2017, 11:12 AM
Well, the idea was to compare teams with 1nDs to, say Wisconsin, not with Appalatian State. To answer the question, "does recruiting 1nDs help overall program success?," we must compare teams that are in some top level peer group. So I specifically wanted a subset of teams that are capable of competing at the highest level. And besides, 34 teams was a lot less work than 300.

Sure, I get that, and I'm certainly not asking you to conduct a survey of 300 teams. Though I'm not talking about Appalachian State, either. I guess what I'm saying is you're putting teams like Washington on one side of the ledger (a team that gets OADs but not much else), but not putting corresponding teams like, say, Wake Forest on the other side. Or even Virginia, which has been great without OADs but hasn't fared so well in the NCAAT.