MBB Off-season Thread

[kAzE]

Here's a somewhat intriguing ESPN article with preseason offense and defense ratings, rating Duke 14th overall, with the #2 offense, but just the 106th best defense: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20163677/surprise-experienced-wichita-state-shockers-top-summer-bpi-update

I wasn't sure where to put this, and didn't think it deserved it's own thread, so I thought that it may be a good idea to just have a general off-season thread (like the FB thread) rather than discuss the 2017-18 team in bits an pieces in various other threads.

Basically, the "experts" over at ESPN think we're going to have the worst defense we've had in the entire KenPom era (since 2002). They also rate us as just the 4th best team in the ACC, behind Louisville, Notre Dame, and Virginia. We all know how credible ESPN's internal metrics are (RIP QBR), so I think it's natural to take these ratings with a large chunk of salt. Still, it's enough to raise an eyebrow. I wonder what they based these ratings on.

[kAzE]

I wonder what they based these ratings on.

Slight addendum to my previous post. I missed this little qualifier:

"Keep in mind that preseason BPI describes the current strength of a team, and is not a prediction of how a team will ultimately end up."

This makes a tiny bit more sense. I could definitely see us having a disastrous defense at the start of the season, but one that improves to acceptable levels over time.

[Troublemaker]

This little snippet about Wichita St being #1 probably helps explain Duke's ranking:

...so the Shockers are bringing almost everyone relevant back. In BPI's mind, that's huge. Returning so many minutes after a strong season is a big reason why BPI considers the Shockers to own the fourth-strongest offense and defense in the country, which helped them edge out the likes of Louisville and Villanova in overall BPI.


I think Olympic Fan has pointed out that this Duke team is returning the least minutes ever for a Duke team, and we're also coming off a so-so season.

[Philadukie]

This little snippet about Wichita St being #1 probably helps explain Duke's ranking:

...so the Shockers are bringing almost everyone relevant back. In BPI's mind, that's huge. Returning so many minutes after a strong season is a big reason why BPI considers the Shockers to own the fourth-strongest offense and defense in the country, which helped them edge out the likes of Louisville and Villanova in overall BPI.


I think Olympic Fan has pointed out that this Duke team is returning the least minutes ever for a Duke team, and we're also coming off a so-so season.

I would think that the preseason BPI has lost predictive value during the one-and-done era.

Do we have preseason BPI from other years to compare how teams did against final BPI or even AP ranking for that year?

[sagegrouse]

I think Olympic Fan has pointed out that this Duke team is returning the least minutes ever for a Duke team, and we're also coming off a so-so season.
I know what you mean, Troublemaker, but I cherish every championship and "ACC Champions" makes this season more than so-so.

[atoomer0881]

Here's a somewhat intriguing ESPN article with preseason offense and defense ratings, rating Duke 14th overall, with the #2 offense, but just the 106th best defense: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20163677/surprise-experienced-wichita-state-shockers-top-summer-bpi-update

I wasn't sure where to put this, and didn't think it deserved it's own thread, so I thought that it may be a good idea to just have a general off-season thread (like the FB thread) rather than discuss the 2017-18 team in bits an pieces in various other threads.

Basically, the "experts" over at ESPN think we're going to have the worst defense we've had in the entire KenPom era (since 2002). They also rate us as just the 4th best team in the ACC, behind Louisville, Notre Dame, and Virginia. We all know how credible ESPN's internal metrics are (RIP QBR), so I think it's natural to take these ratings with a large chunk of salt. Still, it's enough to raise an eyebrow. I wonder what they based these ratings on.

Interesting that everywhere else I read, they have the top 4 teams in the ACC as being UNCheat, Duke, Miami, and Louisville. Where the heck did Notre Dame and UVA come from as ranking ahead of us?

[Troublemaker]

I know what you mean, Troublemaker, but I cherish every championship and "ACC Champions" makes this season more than so-so.

I agree with you sage, and heck, I probably still have the entire ACC tourney run on DVR. In this context, I was referring to our statistical profile with a dash of "by Duke's lofty standards" caveat.

[kAzE]

I would think that the preseason BPI has lost predictive value during the one-and-done era.

Do we have preseason BPI from other years to compare how teams did against final BPI or even AP ranking for that year?

You would think that, but apparently, they do factor freshmen in somehow. Also, I don't think BPI was even around before the OAD era, so it can't have "lost" any value (more likely it never had any value to begin with).

But nonetheless, I'd also be interested to see how preseason BPI has fared over the years.

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting that everywhere else I read, they have the top 4 teams in the ACC as being UNCheat, Duke, Miami, and Louisville. Where the heck did Notre Dame and UVA come from as ranking ahead of us?

I think some of you are too hung up on BPI ratings. BPI is just one of many computer-based ranking systems -- probably worse than most. You only see it because of the ESPN hype. No computer model -- even a good one such as KenPom -- means anything until games are played.

FWIW, ESPN's current 2017-18 "too early" rankings have the ACC this way:

5 (nationally) Duke
7 UNC
10 Louisville
12. Miami
21. Notre Dame

Not sure I agree with that either -- Louisville is too low and UNC too high, still, it's worth more than the BPI. Although considering ESPN's college basketball coverage in the last two weeks, I'd assume that is the view from up LaVar Ball's butt.

PS I can see calling 2017 disappointing based on the preseason expectations and the early NCAA exit, still -- 28 wins, an ACC championship and two wins in three games with the Cheats, but if that's a "so-so" season then it's great to be a Duke fan.

[Henderson]

Not sure about ONE thread that purports to cover all of the off-season MBB issues.

Do all such conversations get parked here? From now until CTC? Covering months of off-season topics?

That'd be a pretty all-encompassing thread, wouldn't it?

Maybe the OP has in mind a more focused idea for this particular thread? Like preseason rankings? Or is there already a thread for that?

[kAzE]

I think some of you are too hung up on BPI ratings. BPI is just one of many computer-based ranking systems -- probably worse than most. You only see it because of the ESPN hype. No computer model -- even a good one such as KenPom -- means anything until games are played.

FWIW, ESPN's current 2017-18 "too early" rankings have the ACC this way:

5 (nationally) Duke
7 UNC
10 Louisville
12. Miami
21. Notre Dame

Not sure I agree with that either -- Louisville is too low and UNC too high, still, it's worth more than the BPI. Although considering ESPN's college basketball coverage in the last two weeks, I'd assume that is the view from up LaVar Ball's butt.

Here's Garry Parish's rankings over at CBS (Updated 7/10/17): https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-kentucky-moves-up-to-no-5-in-the-top-25-and-one/

He has Louisville #5, Duke #7, Miami #11, UNC #12, and Notre Dame #13. (Virginia was not in his top 26)


Not sure about ONE thread that purports to cover all of the off-season MBB issues.

Do all such conversations get parked here? From now until CTC? Covering months of off-season topics?

That'd be a pretty all-encompassing thread, wouldn't it?

Maybe the OP has in mine a more focused idea for this particular thread?

I view this as a general purpose off-season thread where we can discuss men's basketball topics which don't have relevance to specific things which have their own thread already (such as recruiting, the Dominican Republic trip, the schedule, etc.). I've noticed a lot of non-recruiting Duke basketball talk in the 2017 recruiting thread specifically.

The minutes thread hasn't started yet, so where else are we going to talk about the team for the next 2 months? Yes, it's a Duke basketball forum, but we have 20 threads on the first page at the time of this post, and only 5 of them (including this one) are relevant to the 2017-18 team. It's the offseason, so there are going to be lots of off-topic threads.

The women's team and the football team both have their own off-season threads, so it only seems logical for MBB to have one.

[Olympic Fan]

Here's Garry Parish's rankings over at CBS (Updated 7/10/17): https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-kentucky-moves-up-to-no-5-in-the-top-25-and-one/

He has Louisville #5, Duke #7, Miami #11, UNC #12, and Notre Dame #13. (Virginia was not in his top 26)


I respect Parish (except for his odd blind spot when it comes to NC State) and I like his preseason poll a lot more than ESPN.

I do think Parish and a lot of other commentators are missing the bet when it come to Virginia Tech. I like them a LOT more than Virginia -- even with the recent loss of Outlaw.

[Olympic Fan]

Worth noting ... ESPN updated its preseason top 25 today and had Duke at No. 1:

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20360600/marvin-bagley-iii-duke-blue-devils-jump-arizona-wildcats-no-1-way-too-early-top-25

Interesting that they suggest both Bolden and Trent will be coming off the bench. In that scenario, who would be the fifth starter?

Allen ... Bagley ... Carter ... Duval ... and ????

[atoomer0881]

Worth noting ... ESPN updated its preseason top 25 today and had Duke at No. 1:

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20360600/marvin-bagley-iii-duke-blue-devils-jump-arizona-wildcats-no-1-way-too-early-top-25

Interesting that they suggest both Bolden and Trent will be coming off the bench. In that scenario, who would be the fifth starter?

Allen ... Bagley ... Carter ... Duval ... and ????

Just read that on ESPN and was literally thinking the exact same thing.

[kAzE]

Worth noting ... ESPN updated its preseason top 25 today and had Duke at No. 1:

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20360600/marvin-bagley-iii-duke-blue-devils-jump-arizona-wildcats-no-1-way-too-early-top-25

Interesting that they suggest both Bolden and Trent will be coming off the bench. In that scenario, who would be the fifth starter?

Allen ... Bagley ... Carter ... Duval ... and ????

Nobody ever said the people at ESPN are good at this. There's almost no realistic scenario in which Gary Trent comes off the bench.

[JasonEvans]

The only scenario where Trent comes off the bench is one where Jordan Tucker, Alex O'Connell, or Jack White get the start on the wing ahead of him. It seems extremely unlikely given the various recruiting rankings of the players but it is not impossible. Maybe SI has some inside intel about how guys are playing in late summer pick-up and informal practices... but the more likely answer is some weak reporting by SI.

-Jason "also possible that the sentence structure was off and it meant either Bolden or Trent would come off the bench (not both), which is almost certain" Evans

[ipatent]

I wonder what they based these ratings on.

Lack of experience, at least as far as the defensive rating is concerned.

[CDu]

Nobody ever said the people at ESPN are good at this. There's almost no realistic scenario in which Gary Trent comes off the bench.

I agree.

I think the only remotely plausible scenario in which Trent would come off the bench (and this is testing the limits of the term "remote") almost requires that Bolden start. As in, playing Bagley at the 3.

Or, I guess they could say DeLaurier would start at the 3. But it seems highly unlikely that that's what they meant (not to mention highly unlikely to happen).

[jimsumner]

I read an "analysis" recently on Bleacher Report that suggested Tucker would start ahead of Trent because Allen, Duval and Trent were Duke's only guards and Duke would need Trent to come off the bench and spell Allen and Duval.

The flaws with this reasoning are so apparent that I'll not even bother.

[CDu]

I read an "analysis" recently on Bleacher Report that suggested Tucker would start ahead of Trent because Allen, Duval and Trent were Duke's only guards and Duke would need Trent to come off the bench and spell Allen and Duval.

The flaws with this reasoning are so apparent that I'll not even bother.

Wow. Yeah that's... something.

[sagegrouse]

I read an "analysis" recently on Bleacher Report that suggested Tucker would start ahead of Trent because Allen, Duval and Trent were Duke's only guards and Duke would need Trent to come off the bench and spell Allen and Duval.

The flaws with this reasoning are so apparent that I'll not even bother.

If there's a surprise starter early in the season, don't you think it would be a returning player like DeLaurier or White -- someone who has a year working under the Duke system.

Anyway, my working assumption is that all freshmen will be pretty bad at Duke team defense (and maybe individual defense) until mid-season. I hope I am wrong, but my memories are pretty strong over the past 6-7 years.

[Kedsy]

Anyway, my working assumption is that all freshmen will be pretty bad at Duke team defense (and maybe individual defense) until mid-season. I hope I am wrong, but my memories are pretty strong over the past 6-7 years.

I don't know. I don't think Rasheed Sulaimon was a bad defender as a freshman. Ditto for Justise Winslow, Tyler Thornton, even Derryck Thornton (though he wasn't great). Matt Jones didn't play much as a freshman, but he was at least adequate defensively when he did. It was only a few games, but even Kyrie Irving didn't seem bad at defense at Duke (though he doesn't seem particularly good in the NBA).

Sure, the more years someone is at Duke, the better his D, but freshmen can be good at defense, even really good. It depends on the player.

[CDu]

I don't know. I don't think Rasheed Sulaimon was a bad defender as a freshman. Ditto for Justise Winslow, Tyler Thornton, even Derryck Thornton (though he wasn't great). Matt Jones didn't play much as a freshman, but he was at least adequate defensively when he did. It was only a few games, but even Kyrie Irving didn't seem bad at defense at Duke (though he doesn't seem particularly good in the NBA).

Sure, the more years someone is at Duke, the better his D, but freshmen can be good at defense, even really good. It depends on the player.

I believe Coach K mentioned how advanced defensively Jones was, even as a freshman. Duhon was pretty darn good defensively as a frosh too, as was (of course) Battier.

It is true that freshmen are typically not as prepared defensively (either mentally, physically, or both) as more experienced players. But there have certainly been examples of freshmen who were good defenders.

I would argue that the one-and-done era has probably reduced the deficit that top-tier freshmen face. Typically, the upperclassmen (I mean juniors and seniors) aren't as talented as they were 15-20 years ago, because the best freshmen and sophomores almost all head to the NBA. So while they face a deficit in age/experience/physical maturity, elite freshmen have a bigger talent edge to help offset their deficits elsewhere.

[Kedsy]

I believe Coach K mentioned how advanced defensively Jones was, even as a freshman. Duhon was pretty darn good defensively as a frosh too, as was (of course) Battier.

Grant Hill and Bobby Hurley and Shelden Williams (though he fouled a lot) too. And others. But Sage said the last 6 or 7 years, so I limited my list accordingly.

[rsvman]

I think Sage's point referred more strongly to team defense than to individual defense, and I think it was a good point.

I would expect team defense to get stronger as the season progresses. Although this is likely true for all seasons, perhaps it is more so when the team is largely made up of freshmen, which is what I took from Sage's original post.

[kAzE]

Lots of kids are great defenders as freshmen.

Here are some examples: Josh Jackson, De'Aaron Fox, Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd Gilchrist, Justise Winslow, Marcus Smart, Jaylen Brown, Karl Towns, Andrew Wiggins, Aaron Gordon, Joel Embiid, Gary Harris, Nerlens Noel, Steven Adams.

It's not that freshmen are just generally worse at defense than offense. Defense is a skill that improves over time, just like offense. The only difference is that defense is more reliant on 5 guys working together as one than offense. Therefore, defense improves more noticeably than offense over time after a kid has joined the program, even though in reality, their actual offensive and defensive skill are probably more or less on the same trajectory.

Duke as a program has pretty clearly favored offense over defense when it comes to recruiting in the past 5 years. It's not that we don't go after guys who are good defenders (Winslow), but some of our biggest names in that span include Jahlil Okafor, Jabari Parker, Luke Kennard, and Tyus Jones. These guys were not recruited for their defensive prowess. Even a guy like Jayson Tatum, who I thought was pretty good on defense, was still a top recruiting priority because of his offensive skills.

However, I am pretty optimistic that Trevon Duval, Gary Trent, and Marvin Bagley are pretty solid (and maybe even great) defenders. They might not be perfect on day 1, but I perceive them to be closer to the first group players that I listed, rather than the latter group.

[Kedsy]

However, I am pretty optimistic that Trevon Duval, Gary Trent, and Marvin Bagley are pretty solid (and maybe even great) defenders. They might not be perfect on day 1, but I perceive them to be closer to the first group players that I listed, rather than the latter group.

I just read three or four scouting reports on Gary Trent. They all question his lateral quickness and team defensive ability. So I'm not sure he belongs on your list of solid, maybe great, defenders as a freshman.

[kAzE]

I just read three or four scouting reports on Gary Trent. They all question his lateral quickness and team defensive ability. So I'm not sure he belongs on your list of solid, maybe great, defenders as a freshman.

While it's true that lateral quickness is definitely useful for defense, how are these scouting reports questioning his "team defensive ability?"

Maybe I just have a different idea of what that means, but I view "team defensive ability" as a player's ability to understand correct positioning and role in relation to his teammates on the floor. Essentially, it's almost totally based on the player's intelligence and ability to react to what is happening with the ball and the other players on the floor.

Matt Jones was definitely not a big time lateral quickness guy. He was great on D because he was so smart and extremely prudent in making the correct decisions on defense. So I could see scouting reports criticizing Gray's lack of ideal athletic attributes (and I agree, he's not extremely quick), but it seems strange to call out his team defensive ability right now. It's too early to make a call on that IMO.

[Olympic Fan]

I found this evaluation of Trent on NBA Draft Express:

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Gary-Trent-82914/

Under the PROS:

-Can move his feet and stay in front when he's locked in and competing. Aggressive playing the passing lanes and has good instincts for coming up with steals

Under the CONS

-Inconsistent in his approach defensively. Doesn't always put enough pride in on this end of the floor. Doesn't have standout lateral quickness, so will get roasted at times off the bounce. Likes to gamble for steals

I also found this blub at NBA Draft Room:

http://www.nbadraftroom.com/2017/02/gary-trent-jr.html

Doesn't project as a great perimeter defender in the NBA and might be a step slow by NBA standards.

ESPN's profile doesn't mention his lateral quickness nor his defensive prowess, one way or another. Scout and 247 both link to a Sports Illustrated profile that also focuses on his offensive game and doesn't mention defense.

[NSDukeFan]

While it's true that lateral quickness is definitely useful for defense, how are these scouting reports questioning his "team defensive ability?"

Maybe I just have a different idea of what that means, but I view "team defensive ability" as a player's ability to understand correct positioning and role in relation to his teammates on the floor. Essentially, it's almost totally based on the player's intelligence and ability to react to what is happening with the ball and the other players on the floor.

Matt Jones was definitely not a big time lateral quickness guy. He was great on D because he was so smart and extremely prudent in making the correct decisions on defense. So I could see scouting reports criticizing Gray's lack of ideal athletic attributes (and I agree, he's not extremely quick), but it seems strange to call out his team defensive ability right now. It's too early to make a call on that IMO.

Wouldn't Trent have played in quite a few games as part of teams already? I haven't seen his defensive skills at all, but wouldn't people have had quite a number of chances to observe his team defensive skills?

[kAzE]

Wouldn't Trent have played in quite a few games as part of teams already? I haven't seen his defensive skills at all, but wouldn't people have had quite a number of chances to observe his team defensive skills?

True, but he also hasn't been coached by a world-class coaching staff until very recently, either.

[sagegrouse]

Wouldn't Trent have played in quite a few games as part of teams already? I haven't seen his defensive skills at all, but wouldn't people have had quite a number of chances to observe his team defensive skills?

Isn't the point that is HS these top recruits are so physically superior that they can get by on athleticism not technique. And then there's Duke team defense... which for many top players will be a whole new world.

[MartyClark]

Went to a MLB game this week. Thanks to a friend, I had an opportunity to sit at the press club level in what, essentially, is a luxurious owners box. Lots of fun.

I sat next to a prominent, Division I hockey coach and really enjoyed the conversation. He is a Duke fan and greatly admires K. He admires K for being genuine and tough with his players.

Sorry for the tangent here, but it's enjoyable to find a guy who, in a somewhat similar situation, really admires K.

[Olympic Fan]

ESPN has an insider article up today that lists the top 25 players in college basketball this coming season. Duke did fairly well on the list:

1. Marvin Bagley
2. Grayson Allen
15. Wendell Carter
21. Trevon Duval

I can't believe they didn't include Jack White!

[devildeac]

ESPN has an insider article up today that lists the top 25 players in college basketball this coming season. Duke did fairly well on the list:

1. Marvin Bagley
2. Grayson Allen
15. Wendell Carter
21. Trevon Duval

I can't believe they didn't include Jack White!

I'd bet he's on the other side of the equator, err, equation. :o

[kAzE]

If Marvin and Grayson really are the top 2 players in the country, then we are almost a lock to be a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, according to historical precedence. However, it is far from a guarantee of postseason success.

Here's a complete (to the best of my knowledge) list of teammates who were both AP 1st team All-Americans in the same season:

2010: John Wall & DeMarcus Cousins (Sweet 16 - HAHA)
2006: JJ Redick & Shelden Williams (Elite 8)
2001: Shane Battier & Jason Williams (National Champions)
1998: Raef LaFrentz & Paul Pierce (Round of 32)
1998: Mike Bibby & Miles Simon (Elite 8)
1991: Stacey Augmon and Larry Johnson (Lost to Duke :cool:)
1984: Michael Jordan and Sam Perkins (Sweet 16)
1976: Scott May & Kent Benson (Undefeated)
1974: Bill Walton & Jamaal Wilkes (Final Four)

Interestingly, only 2 such teams have won it all: Duke in 2001, and Indiana in 1976.

[Kedsy]

2006: JJ Redick & Shelden Williams (Elite 8)

If only...

[BD80]

If Marvin and Grayson really are the top 2 players in the country, then we are almost a lock to be a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, according to historical precedence. However, it is far from a guarantee of postseason success.

Here's a complete (to the best of my knowledge) list of teammates who were both AP 1st team All-Americans in the same season:

2010: John Wall & DeMarcus Cousins (Sweet 16 - HAHA)
2006: JJ Redick & Shelden Williams (Elite 8)
2001: Shane Battier & Jason Williams (National Champions)
1998: Raef LaFrentz & Paul Pierce (Round of 32)
1998: Mike Bibby & Miles Simon (Elite 8)
1991: Stacey Augmon and Larry Johnson (Lost to Duke :cool:)
1984: Michael Jordan and Sam Perkins (Sweet 16)
1976: Scott May & Kent Benson (Undefeated)
1974: Bill Walton & Jamaal Wilkes (Final Four)

Interestingly, only 2 such teams have won it all: Duke in 2001, and Indiana in 1976.

But we haven't seen MBIII play yet!


Which makes him a combination of Shelden Williams, Shane Battier, Raef LaFrentz, Paul Pierce, Stacey Augmon, Larry Johnson, Sam Perkins, Scott May, Kent Benson, Bill Walton & Jamaal Wilkes

[JasonEvans]

If Marvin and Grayson really are the top 2 players in the country, then we are almost a lock to be a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, according to historical precedence. However, it is far from a guarantee of postseason success.

I would need to search the internets to know for sure, but I pretty vividly recall that at this time last year ESPN said that Grayson Allen and Jayson Tatum were the number one and number three players in college basketball. I think Harry Giles was in the top 5 or so too. Of course, injuries and distractions took a pretty severe toll on those rankings, but it is worth noting as we approach another season where everyone says the Duke Blue Devils have far and away the most talent in college basketball.

Jason "I was supremely confident we were going to win 35+ games a year ago...and am again this season" Evans

[kAzE]

I would need to search the internets to know for sure, but I pretty vividly recall that at this time last year ESPN said that Grayson Allen and Jayson Tatum were the number one and number three players in college basketball. I think Harry Giles was in the top 5 or so too. Of course, injuries and distractions took a pretty severe toll on those rankings, but it is worth noting as we approach another season where everyone says the Duke Blue Devils have far and away the most talent in college basketball.

Jason "I was supremely confident we were going to win 35+ games a year ago...and am again this season" Evans

Which is why I went with AP's 1st Team AA list, and not ESPN's preseason click bait.

I also said "If Marvin and Grayson really are the top 2 players," not "because ESPN said they are the top 2 players." :)

[Tappan Zee Devil]

ESPN has an insider article up today that lists the top 25 players in college basketball this coming season. Duke did fairly well on the list:

1. Marvin Bagley
2. Grayson Allen
15. Wendell Carter
21. Trevon Duval

I can't believe they didn't include Jack White!


And only one of them (not counting Jack) has ever played an NCAA game.

but typical of ESPN - and I guess also the state of college BB (sigh)

[NSDukeFan]

I would need to search the internets to know for sure, but I pretty vividly recall that at this time last year ESPN said that Grayson Allen and Jayson Tatum were the number one and number three players in college basketball. I think Harry Giles was in the top 5 or so too. Of course, injuries and distractions took a pretty severe toll on those rankings, but it is worth noting as we approach another season where everyone says the Duke Blue Devils have far and away the most talent in college basketball.

Jason "I was supremely confident we were going to win 35+ games a year ago...and am again this season" Evans

I am not as certain about 35 wins as I was last year as I thought last year's team had better returning leadership and more depth, if healthy. I believe 30 wins is very doable for this group and wouldn't be surprised by 35, if healthy but I don't think this is the year for the 40-0 tattoo.

[kAzE]

I am not as certain about 35 wins as I was last year as I thought last year's team had better returning leadership and more depth, if healthy. I believe 30 wins is very doable for this group and wouldn't be surprised by 35, if healthy but I don't think this is the year for the 40-0 tattoo.

I was totally one of the people who thought we were going to just destroy the world last year (who wasn't?), but our injury issues in 2016-17 are WELL documented. We have no health issues for this team to date (fingers crossed), and there's a chance Marvin Bagley might be the most talented player to EVER play at Duke.

Let that sink in for a minute, and then consider that it's possible that a player as talented as Grayson Allen might never stay 4 years at Duke again.

If this program is ever going to go 40-0, there is a non-zero possibility that this year might be our last, best chance. Coach K doesn't have that much time left. Our non-conference schedule early on is easy enough that even early season kinks/freshman mistakes might not cost us a game. It's within the realm of possibility.

To be clear, I do not think we're going 40-0. We will almost certainly lose multiple ACC games. BUT . . . if Bagley is as good as advertised (and he's advertised as the next Anthony Davis), we're going to be ridiculous, and anything can happen.

Look, 40-0 has never been done. Things would have to go PERFECTLY for it happen. But I refuse to believe it's impossible! I'm not getting a tattoo, but I'm firmly aboard the hype train! :D

7591

[Troublemaker]

I would need to search the internets to know for sure, but I pretty vividly recall that at this time last year ESPN said that Grayson Allen and Jayson Tatum were the number one and number three players in college basketball. I think Harry Giles was in the top 5 or so too. Of course, injuries and distractions took a pretty severe toll on those rankings, but it is worth noting as we approach another season where everyone says the Duke Blue Devils have far and away the most talent in college basketball.

Jason "I was supremely confident we were going to win 35+ games a year ago...and am again this season" Evans

Another important aspect to consider in this conversation is that college basketball has much less talent separation at the top than other sports due to the fact that college basketball's best talents only stay 1 year.

What do I mean by talent separation (and I'm certain there's a better word / phrase to use but I'm operating without coffee this morning - someone help me - thanks!)? In most other sports (NBA, NFL, etc), the total talent in the sport is arranged like a triangle:

http://www.iconsdb.com/icons/preview/black/triangle-xxl.png
So, there's only one Lebron James, and below him in the next tier are about 3-4 players who are great but not as great as Lebron, and below THEM in the next tier are about 10 players, etc. In a "triangle sport" like the NBA, the top player Lebron James is a much better player than the 10th best player in the sport.

Likewise, in the NFL, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady are much better and much more valuable than the 10th best player in their sport.

In college basketball, though? Our best talents don't stay more than one year and build the experience needed to dominate. College basketball's overall talent is arranged like a trapezoid:
https://images.vexels.com/media/users/3/139368/isolated/lists/4b2c705a2d079bd0bd8fb03e8d957e02-forma-trapezoidal-negra.png
We are a "trapezoid sport." Marvin Bagley might be one of the top 2 talents (along with Michael Porter, imo), but there are going to be about 20 veterans of college basketball that are going to be roughly as good as Bagley this season, including Duke's own Grayson Allen.

What I've been getting around to saying is that it's not all that amazing to have the alleged best player, third-best player, and fifth-best player in the sport on same team in a "trapezoid sport." Because there are about 20 other players out there who are roughly as good, and some of THEM are going to play together as well. In a "triangle sport," yes, it'd be utterly amazing to have three alleged top-10 players of the sport, and you could be expected to be head and shoulders better than the competition.

Alternatively, if players still stayed 4 years, college basketball would look much more "trianglish." A team with senior Bagley, senior Carter, senior Duval, etc. would destroy the competition. A senior Bagley would have separation between him and the 10th-best player in the sport. But alas, that is not the case with college ball. We a trapezoid, not a triangle.

And, so yes, cautious optimism is best.

Hopefully my coffee-less post can be understood.

[Philadukie]

Another important aspect to consider in this conversation is that college basketball has much less talent separation at the top than other sports due to the fact that college basketball's best talents only stay 1 year.

What do I mean by talent separation (and I'm certain there's a better word / phrase to use but I'm operating without coffee this morning - someone help me - thanks!)? In most other sports (NBA, NFL, etc), the total talent in the sport is arranged like a triangle:

http://www.iconsdb.com/icons/preview/black/triangle-xxl.png
So, there's only one Lebron James, and below him in the next tier are about 3-4 players who are great but not as great as Lebron, and below THEM in the next tier are about 10 players, etc. In a "triangle sport" like the NBA, the top player Lebron James is a much better player than the 10th best player in the sport.

Likewise, in the NFL, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady are much better and much more valuable than the 10th best player in their sport.

In college basketball, though? Our best talents don't stay more than one year and build the experience needed to dominate. College basketball's overall talent is arranged like a trapezoid:
https://images.vexels.com/media/users/3/139368/isolated/lists/4b2c705a2d079bd0bd8fb03e8d957e02-forma-trapezoidal-negra.png
We are a "trapezoid sport." Marvin Bagley might be one of the top 2 talents (along with Michael Porter, imo), but there are going to be about 20 veterans of college basketball that are going to be roughly as good as Bagley this season, including Duke's own Grayson Allen.

What I've been getting around to saying is that it's not all that amazing to have the alleged best player, third-best player, and fifth-best player in the sport on same team in a "trapezoid sport." Because there are about 20 other players out there who are roughly as good, and some of THEM are going to play together as well. In a "triangle sport," yes, it'd be utterly amazing to have three alleged top-10 players of the sport, and you could be expected to be head and shoulders better than the competition.

Alternatively, if players still stayed 4 years, college basketball would look much more "trianglish." A team with senior Bagley, senior Carter, senior Duval, etc. would destroy the competition. A senior Bagley would have separation between him and the 10th-best player in the sport. But alas, that is not the case with college ball. We a trapezoid, not a triangle.

And, so yes, cautious optimism is best.

Hopefully my coffee-less post can be understood.

Nicely done. Not only are we in a trapezoid as it relates to talent and teams overall, but our end of year single elimination "playoff" format - the tournament - further levels the field at the top and makes it equally likely that any one of 10 or so teams can win it all.

[UrinalCake]

I read an "analysis" recently on Bleacher Report that suggested Tucker would start ahead of Trent because Allen, Duval and Trent were Duke's only guards and Duke would need Trent to come off the bench and spell Allen and Duval.

The flaws with this reasoning are so apparent that I'll not even bother.

I realize I'm setting myself up to get destroyed here, but that reasoning actually makes some sense to me. Duval, Allen and Trent are all ball-dominant guards. Bagley and Carter will want to get their shots. So starting five scorers could be problematic. With Tucker in that lineup instead of Trent, he could be used simply to space the floor and wouldn't require the ball. And yes, I'm aware that Trent is also a really good shooter, but I can see the value of bringing him off the bench so we don't have as much dropoff when the starters come out.

It would be similar to how we had Grayson come off the bench at the end of this past season. The move was created by injury, but it worked well to have Jones start as the 3 and D guy along with four scorers, then when Allen came in he could dominate the ball.

[jimsumner]

I realize I'm setting myself up to get destroyed here, but that reasoning actually makes some sense to me. Duval, Allen and Trent are all ball-dominant guards. Bagley and Carter will want to get their shots. So starting five scorers could be problematic. With Tucker in that lineup instead of Trent, he could be used simply to space the floor and wouldn't require the ball. And yes, I'm aware that Trent is also a really good shooter, but I can see the value of bringing him off the bench so we don't have as much dropoff when the starters come out.

It would be similar to how we had Grayson come off the bench at the end of this past season. The move was created by injury, but it worked well to have Jones start as the 3 and D guy along with four scorers, then when Allen came in he could dominate the ball.

That's a lot more nuanced than the BR article. The author of that seemed to feel that if Duke started Allen, Duval and Trent, Duke couldn't bring Tucker off the bench because Tucker is not a guard.

But in our universe Tucker could sub for Allen by moving Trent to the 2. he could substitute for Duval by moving Allen to the 1 and Trent to the 2 or substitute for Trent at the 3. The author didn't seem to understand positional flexibility.

[Indoor66]

That's a lot more nuanced than the BR article. The author of that seemed to feel that if Duke started Allen, Duval and Trent, Duke couldn't bring Tucker off the bench because Tucker is not a guard.

But in our universe Tucker could sub for Allen by moving Trent to the 2. he could substitute for Duval by moving Allen to the 1 and Trent to the 2 or substitute for Trent at the 3. The author didn't seem to understand positional flexibility.

There you go again! Rational analysis, sheesh! :p:cool:

[kAzE]

That's a lot more nuanced than the BR article. The author of that seemed to feel that if Duke started Allen, Duval and Trent, Duke couldn't bring Tucker off the bench because Tucker is not a guard.

But in our universe Tucker could sub for Allen by moving Trent to the 2. he could substitute for Duval by moving Allen to the 1 and Trent to the 2 or substitute for Trent at the 3. The author didn't seem to understand positional flexibility.

We don't have positions at Duke! :rolleyes: