Phase VIII: NCAA Regional Weekend

[CDu]

Welcome to regional weekend of the NCAA tournament! I'm very happy that this phase post (annually the first phase post realistically at risk of not happening) is an active phase post and not a postmortem. This is going to be a 3-part post. The first is your typical phase post, which focuses entirely on our team and what to look for from us. The next 2 posts in the thread will be scouting reports for the 2 remaining teams in the opposite half of our region (like was done in the Phase VII thread). As of right now, only one of the 2 is known (Kansas), as we await the Clemson/Auburn game result today. So the second post will be a Kansas breakdown, while the other team will be added once those games are through. Here's hoping it is Clemson so I can copy/paste from earlier this year ;).

From here on out, there are not likely to be any cakewalks. Sure, there is a chance that we could see Syracuse, in which we would be heavily favored. But everyone left in our path is fully capable of beating us. Worth noting that we'll be favored in every game but potentially one (Villanova) the rest of the way, though. This team can absolutely cut down the nets. So let's talk about what they need to do to get through Phase VIII.

1. Health: Full disclosure, I think the "health has to be first thing" is generally overdone. That was a very specific first for the 2010 team, which quite literally had no margin for error in terms of health. With this team, the margin is a bit different. In the frontcourt, I do think we could withstand an injury and still be a championship contender. We are that deep and that talented up front. But the backcourt simply cannot suffer an injury for us to win it all. We saw in the ACC tourney what happens when one of Duval or Allen gets hurt: when Duval got hurt against UNC, we were outscored 14-2 before he could return. We simply don't have the ballhandlers and playmakers behind Duval and Allen to be an elite team. Quite simply, the guards HAVE to stay healthy. So, here's hoping they do so! As of now, the team seems relatively healthy. Yes, Bolden is still wearing a knee brace and Carter is playing with a sore Achilles, but both are seemingly not limited out there. And Duval seems to be fully over his ankle sprain. Let's hope that we stay healthy for at least 2.5 more weeks!

2. Guard play (namely, guards making good decisions). My key question going into the tournament was "how will our guards play?" Well, for two games so far, they were magnificent. Duval put up 30 points (on just 21 shots) and 15 assists to 5 turnovers this weekend. And against on of the best pressure defenses in the tournament yesterday, he had 7 assists to 1 turnover - and that turnover was bogus (the ball bounced off a URI player's foot, not his). He was extremely secure with the ball. But more importantly, he didn't let ball security limit his aggressiveness. It was a great display of controlled aggression from Duval in both games. If he plays like that, we get REALLY hard to beat. But Duval wasn't alone. Allen had 12 assists to just 2 turnovers, and didn't force shots in scoring 26 points on 20 shots. It is no coincidence that the team rolled in both games that these guys were solid. They make such a huge difference.

3. Will the bigs stay big now that they aren't much bigger than the other bigs? It is no secret that our bigs dominated this weekend. They had a HUGE size advantage in both games, and they made the game look easy inside in both games. Well, that advantage is likely to go away next weekend. Our first round opponent is going to be fairly big, whether it be MSU or Syracuse. Carter and Bagley have been our rocks all season. We will need them to continue to do so next week. I think they will be up to the task, but that will be a key to getting through. We are so lucky to have two of the 3 best big men in the country (and the two best remaining big men in the tourney) on the same team! And even if those guys get in foul trouble, we have two solid backup options.

4. 3pt shooting. Basically, everything went right this weekend. Our guards didn't turn it over too much, our bigs dominated inside, and we hit 3s. Our regulars went 22-47 from 3 (46.8%!). It goes without saying that if we shoot like that, we aren't likely to lose. Of course, we haven't always shot like that. If the shooting is at least decent, that will help to make teams pay for overplaying the post (which most teams are going to do). Sure, it's nice to see a 45+% 3pt percentage, but that isn't critical. We just need to avoid 30% or below games.

5. UVa is out, long live "UVa?" Apologies to our Wahoo brethren on the boards for reopening fresh wounds, but I found some interesting info courtesy of Bart Torvik: over the past 10 games, we have put up the following adjusted efficiency numbers: 119.8 offense, 81.7 defense. We've been a top-20 offense during that stretch, but we've been the best defense in the country. Not surprisingly, we have been rated the #1 team in adjusted efficiency margin over that stretch. In short, we've basically out-UVa'd UVa over the last 10 games. We have allowed just 1 team in the past 10 games to score 1 point per possession. And that one team was a top-5 offense, who scored just barely a point per possession, and it was in the aforementioned game in which Duval missed a critical 4-minute stretch. Now, of course we haven't done it the same way UVa has. But the results are eerily similar to peak UVa style: suffocating defense, fairly efficient offense. Our length and activity in the zone has flummoxed basically everyone we've faced. Can the defensive dominance continue? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't continue. We have been consistently excellent defensively over those 10 games. It has been a really impressive show. Which brings me to the next point.

6. Can we get back to winning if the games are close? You may have wondered "how can we be the best over the past 10 games if we're only 8-2 in that stretch?" Well, it's simple: we lost the only two games that were within 5 points at the end. That is an unfortunate trend that has played out over the majority of the season. We've lost the last 6 games we've played in which the score was decided by 5 points or less. On the season, we are just 2-6 in games that were decided by 5 or less or went to OT (we won an OT game by 7, but I think it is fair to include in the close game department). Now, that stat is a tad misleading, in that we were also in close games against MSU, FSU, Miami, and Clemson, but pulled away in the final 2 minutes. But in games that were within a possession with under a minute to go, we are 3-5 on the year (wins against Texas, UF, and Clemson; losses to BC, UVa, St John's, VT, and UNC). Now, the good news is that we were within a possession of winning all but 2 of our games this year (only the road losses to NC State and UNC were more than a possession apart with under a minute to go). But the bad news is that we haven't done a good job of finishing when the game pressure is high in the final minute. There is a decent chance we will be in a close game this coming weekend, so it will be interesting to see how the team responds if we do find ourselves there. Though, admittedly, I would just as soon see us when like we did in 2001: every game by double-digits.

7. Anatomy of a Duke loss (i.e., stuff to avoid). I've talked a lot in this thread about what we can watch for to happen for the good. Now, I want to take a look back at our losses to discuss what we want to avoid based on our 7 losses this year. A note: the first 5 losses were pre-zone, so to some degree they should be discounted. But away we go.
A. BC: in this one, we shot just 26.7% from 3, and didn't win the rebounding battle (it was a virtual tie) despite our size advantage. Additionally, BC got too many easy looks against our man-to-man defense, and hit 57.7% from 3. It probably goes without saying, but when you shoot 27% and the opponent shoots 57% from 3, you are likely to lose. So let's not do that.
B. NC State: we shot just 20% from 3, were slightly outrebounded, and lost the turnover battle 16 to 10. We also let them shoot 50% from the field, and fouled them too much (where they went 23-25 from the line). Again, don't shoot 20%, don't lose the rebounding battle, don't turn it over too much.
C. UVa: 26.7% from 3, 45.5% from the line, and lost the turnover battle 16 to 5.
D. St John's: We had 18 turnovers, and let them shoot 47% from 3.
E. UNC 1: We were absolutely dominated on the glass, and we lost the turnover battle 8 to 2.
F. VT: 28.6% from 3, and 18 turnovers.
G: UNC 2: We shot 26.1% from 3, had 18 turnovers, and were outrebounded (% wise).

As you can see, the consistent themes in all but the UNC losses were either turnovers, poor 3pt shooting, and/or letting the opponent get hot from 3. Oddly, the zone has largely eliminated the hot-shooting problem, likely because we aren't allowing dribble penetration of pick and rolls to allow wide-open shooters on kickouts. So the BC and St John's losses are unlikely to repeat themselves. If we can stay at 15 turnovers or below, and avoid abysmal shooting nights, and avoid getting beaten on the glass, we're going to stand a VERY good chance to advance. It's rare that a team has such a seemingly simple formula for success. But it is also rare that a team has such an individual talent advantage regardless of opponent. So it largely just comes down to attention to details and effort. If we avoid mistakes and don't let the other team outwork us, we're going to be very hard to beat. So hopefully we avoid mistakes and don't let the other team outwork us.

Here's hoping we get to see a Phase IX thread!

[dukelifer]

Welcome to regional weekend of the NCAA tournament! I'm very happy that this phase post (annually the first phase post realistically at risk of not happening) is an active phase post and not a postmortem. This is going to be a 3-part post. The first is your typical phase post, which focuses entirely on our team and what to look for from us. The next 2 posts in the thread will be scouting reports for the 2 remaining teams in the opposite half of our region (like was done in the Phase VII thread). As of right now, only one of the 2 is known (Kansas), as we await the Clemson/Auburn game result today. So the second post will be a Kansas breakdown, while the other team will be added once those games are through. Here's hoping it is Clemson so I can copy/paste from earlier this year ;).

From here on out, there are not likely to be any cakewalks. Sure, there is a chance that we could see Syracuse, in which we would be heavily favored. But everyone left in our path is fully capable of beating us. Worth noting that we'll be favored in every game but potentially one (Villanova) the rest of the way, though. This team can absolutely cut down the nets. So let's talk about what they need to do to get through Phase VIII.

1. Health: Full disclosure, I think the "health has to be first thing" is generally overdone. That was a very specific first for the 2010 team, which quite literally had no margin for error in terms of health. With this team, the margin is a bit different. In the frontcourt, I do think we could withstand an injury and still be a championship contender. We are that deep and that talented up front. But the backcourt simply cannot suffer an injury for us to win it all. We saw in the ACC tourney what happens when one of Duval or Allen gets hurt: when Duval got hurt against UNC, we were outscored 14-2 before he could return. We simply don't have the ballhandlers and playmakers behind Duval and Allen to be an elite team. Quite simply, the guards HAVE to stay healthy. So, here's hoping they do so! As of now, the team seems relatively healthy. Yes, Bolden is still wearing a knee brace and Carter is playing with a sore Achilles, but both are seemingly not limited out there. And Duval seems to be fully over his ankle sprain. Let's hope that we stay healthy for at least 2.5 more weeks!

2. Guard play (namely, guards making good decisions). My key question going into the tournament was "how will our guards play?" Well, for two games so far, they were magnificent. Duval put up 30 points (on just 21 shots) and 15 assists to 5 turnovers this weekend. And against on of the best pressure defenses in the tournament yesterday, he had 7 assists to 1 turnover - and that turnover was bogus (the ball bounced off a URI player's foot, not his). He was extremely secure with the ball. But more importantly, he didn't let ball security limit his aggressiveness. It was a great display of controlled aggression from Duval in both games. If he plays like that, we get REALLY hard to beat. But Duval wasn't alone. Allen had 12 assists to just 2 turnovers, and didn't force shots in scoring 26 points on 20 shots. It is no coincidence that the team rolled in both games that these guys were solid. They make such a huge difference.

3. Will the bigs stay big now that they aren't much bigger than the other bigs? It is no secret that our bigs dominated this weekend. They had a HUGE size advantage in both games, and they made the game look easy inside in both games. Well, that advantage is likely to go away next weekend. Our first round opponent is going to be fairly big, whether it be MSU or Syracuse. Carter and Bagley have been our rocks all season. We will need them to continue to do so next week. I think they will be up to the task, but that will be a key to getting through.

4. 3pt shooting. Basically, everything went right this weekend. Our guards didn't turn it over too much, our bigs dominated inside, and we hit 3s. Our regulars went 22-47 from 3 (46.8%!). It goes without saying that if we shoot like that, we aren't likely to lose. Of course, we haven't always shot like that. If the shooting is at least decent, that will help to make teams pay for overplaying the post (which most teams are going to do). Sure, it's nice to see a 45+% 3pt percentage, but that isn't critical. We just need to avoid 30% or below games.

5. UVa is out, long live "UVa?" Apologies to our Wahoo brethren on the boards for reopening fresh wounds, but I found some interesting info courtesy of Bart Torvik: over the past 10 games, we have put up the following adjusted efficiency numbers: 119.8 offense, 81.7 defense. We've been a top-20 offense during that stretch, but we've been the best defense in the country. Not surprisingly, we have been rated the #1 team in adjusted efficiency margin over that stretch. In short, we've basically out-UVa'd UVa over the last 10 games. We have allowed just 1 team in the past 10 games to score 1 point per possession. And that one team was a top-5 offense, who scored just barely a point per possession, and it was in the aforementioned game in which Duval missed a critical 4-minute stretch. Now, of course we haven't done it the same way UVa has. But the results are eerily similar to peak UVa style: suffocating defense, fairly efficient offense. Our length and activity in the zone has flummoxed basically everyone we've faced. Can the defensive dominance continue? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't continue. We have been consistently excellent defensively over those 10 games. It has been a really impressive show. Which brings me to the next point.

6. Can we get back to winning if the games are close? You may have wondered "how can we be the best over the past 10 games if we're only 8-2 in that stretch?" Well, it's simple: we lost the only two games that were within 5 points at the end. That is an unfortunate trend that has played out over the majority of the season. We've lost the last 6 games we've played in which the score was decided by 5 points or less. On the season, we are just 2-6 in games that were decided by 5 or less or went to OT (we won an OT game by 7, but I think it is fair to include in the close game department). Now, that stat is a tad misleading, in that we were also in close games against MSU, FSU, Miami, and Clemson, but pulled away in the final 2 minutes. But in games that were within a possession with under a minute to go, we are 3-5 on the year (wins against Texas, UF, and Clemson; losses to BC, UVa, St John's, VT, and UNC). Now, the good news is that we were within a possession of winning all but 2 of our games this year (only the road losses to NC State and UNC were more than a possession apart with under a minute to go). But the bad news is that we haven't done a good job of finishing when the game pressure is high in the final minute. There is a decent chance we will be in a close game this coming weekend, so it will be interesting to see how the team responds if we do find ourselves there. Though, admittedly, I would just as soon see us when like we did in 2001: every game by double-digits.

7. Anatomy of a Duke loss (i.e., stuff to avoid). I've talked a lot in this thread about what we can watch for to happen for the good. Now, I want to take a look back at our losses to discuss what we want to avoid based on our 7 losses this year. A note: the first 5 losses were pre-zone, so to some degree they should be discounted. But away we go.
A. BC: in this one, we shot just 26.7% from 3, and didn't win the rebounding battle (it was a virtual tie) despite our size advantage. Additionally, BC got too many easy looks against our man-to-man defense, and hit 57.7% from 3. It probably goes without saying, but when you shoot 27% and the opponent shoots 57% from 3, you are likely to lose. So let's not do that.
B. NC State: we shot just 20% from 3, were slightly outrebounded, and lost the turnover battle 16 to 10. We also let them shoot 50% from the field, and fouled them too much (where they went 23-25 from the line). Again, don't shoot 20%, don't lose the rebounding battle, don't turn it over too much.
C. UVa: 26.7% from 3, 45.5% from the line, and lost the turnover battle 16 to 5.
D. St John's: We had 18 turnovers, and let them shoot 47% from 3.
E. UNC 1: We were absolutely dominated on the glass, and we lost the turnover battle 8 to 2.
F. VT: 28.6% from 3, and 18 turnovers.
G: UNC 2: We shot 26.1% from 3, had 18 turnovers, and were outrebounded (% wise).

As you can see, the consistent themes in all but the UNC losses were either turnovers, poor 3pt shooting, and/or letting the opponent get hot from 3. Oddly, the zone has largely eliminated the hot-shooting problem, likely because we aren't allowing dribble penetration of pick and rolls to allow wide-open shooters on kickouts. So the BC and St John's losses are unlikely to repeat themselves. If we can stay at 15 turnovers or below, and avoid abysmal shooting nights, and avoid getting beaten on the glass, we're going to stand a VERY good chance to advance. It's rare that a team has such a seemingly simple formula for success. But it is also rare that a team has such an individual talent advantage regardless of opponent. So it largely just comes down to attention to details and effort. If we avoid mistakes and don't let the other team outwork us, we're going to be very hard to beat. So hopefully we avoid mistakes and don't let the other team outwork us.

Here's hoping we get to see a Phase IX thread!

Nice analysis as usual. I agree that limiting turnovers is the key. Also Duval playing like this has changed Duke’s overall play on the offensive end. That is a big difference from the end of the season. He gives another weapon. If that kid could finish at the rim- Duke would be even that more potent. Duke has the kind of team to make a run because multiple players are capable of big games. Also the zone is working against most teams that don’t have that 6’ 6’’ player who can hit shots from the middle and pass the ball. The bench bigs have been excellent. The only weakness is bench play from guards but in a pinch - AOC is capable of having one of those nights. It won’t be easy- but this team is peaking at the right time.

[Bob Green]

4. 3pt shooting. Basically, everything went right this weekend. Our guards didn't turn it over too much, our bigs dominated inside, and we hit 3s. Our regulars went 22-47 from 3 (46.8%!). It goes without saying that if we shoot like that, we aren't likely to lose. Of course, we haven't always shot like that. If the shooting is at least decent, that will help to make teams pay for overplaying the post (which most teams are going to do). Sure, it's nice to see a 45+% 3pt percentage, but that isn't critical. We just need to avoid 30% or below games.

Here's hoping we get to see a Phase IX thread!

Great job!

You made several key points such as decision making and bigs staying big; however, from my perspective, making a high percentage on 3 PT FG will be the KEY key. With Bagley, Carter and Bolden being solid inside, consistently knocking down 3 PT FG makes Duke an extremely hard team to beat.

I'm not undervaluing the other points, I'm just convinced it is the 3 PT FG that is key in today's landscape.

[DukieInBrasil]

Nice analysis as usual. I agree that limiting turnovers is the key. Also Duval playing like this has changed Duke’s overall play on the offensive end. That is a big difference from the end of the season. He gives another weapon. If that kid could finish at the rim- Duke would be even that more potent. Duke has the kind of team to make a run because multiple players are capable of big games. Also the zone is working against most teams that don’t have that 6’ 6’’ player who can hit shots from the middle and pass the ball. The bench bigs have been excellent. The only weakness is bench play from guards but in a pinch - AOC is capable of having one of those nights. It won’t be easy- but this team is peaking at the right time.

i agree, and we haven't needed it in the tourney so far, but: what does this team go to if any two of our 3 main rotation guards get in foul trouble? J-Gold nailed a contested 3 at the end of the URI game, so he's a good candidate for some emergency minutes, having broken the ice a little bit. AOC seems to be a sure-fire bet due to his shooting, but he's not much of a ball-handler. J-White is tough, but he's not going to guard Guards very well. Buckmire could be an option, but only if J-Gold and AOC are not available.
So, if 2 of the guards get in foul trouble, i can see Duke going "big" with Javin or Jack in at SF, and J-Gold or AOC depending on how much ball-handling we need. That is far from our best look, but one that could reasonably be expected to buy us a few minutes without major problems. OTOH, when Duval went out vs UNC for those 1st half minutes, we still had 2 of our primary guards available and we still got housed. So, best option: don't get 2 Guards in foul trouble!!!

[Saratoga2]

i agree, and we haven't needed it in the tourney so far, but: what does this team go to if any two of our 3 main rotation guards get in foul trouble? J-Gold nailed a contested 3 at the end of the URI game, so he's a good candidate for some emergency minutes, having broken the ice a little bit. AOC seems to be a sure-fire bet due to his shooting, but he's not much of a ball-handler. J-White is tough, but he's not going to guard Guards very well. Buckmire could be an option, but only if J-Gold and AOC are not available.
So, if 2 of the guards get in foul trouble, i can see Duke going "big" with Javin or Jack in at SF, and J-Gold or AOC depending on how much ball-handling we need. That is far from our best look, but one that could reasonably be expected to buy us a few minutes without major problems. OTOH, when Duval went out vs UNC for those 1st half minutes, we still had 2 of our primary guards available and we still got housed. So, best option: don't get 2 Guards in foul trouble!!!

I didn't think AOC had good minutes in the URI game. He seemed tentative and constantly deferred to others when he could have made a play and his passing was not good either. The kid has size, length, quickness and talent, but he needs help understanding that he has to start being aggressive when he gets the ball.

[jv001]

Our FT shooting has been good overall and I hope that continues to be true. As games get tight, the pressure builds. Let's hope that Grayson and Gary are the ones on the line. GoDuke!

[godins]

Caveat: I didn't watch the first Duke v. Syracuse game, but just finished going over the condensed game on YouTube. Available here if you're short on time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egn5xWMvhsA&t=329s (6:44)

First, in case anyone is interested in how to play a clinical zone offense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azfZOi3dH04 -- this is Wisconsin vs. Syracuse from last season. The personnel is substantially different, but Boeheim always recruits bunches of rangy wings and tall guards to man his zone. Wisconsin brutalized the high-low passing in this game, running the action through their foul-line fulcrum, Nigel Hayes. There are plenty of other ways to attack their zone (i.e. overloading one side, ball screen penetration, isolation in the post, quick-hitting transition opportunities), some of which we employed in our first game with Cuse.

My thoughts:
1) Carter should run our offense through the foul line when we go that route. He's such a smart passer, can hit the midrange jumper and attack the basket, and has great high-low feel with Bagley. We didn't run this action exclusively in the first match-up but I think it'll serve us well.

2) Have one big, Bagley or Delaurier, run hard in transition. And reward the man when he does. Syracuse is 21st nationally in offensive rebounding, so we can't ditch the defensive boards. (We outrebounded them 37-33 in the first matchup.) With Bagley and Delaurier running the floor like gazelles, we can initiate easy offense before Syracuse gets set defensively. Cuse was susceptible to this; we converted four alley-oops in transition in the first matchup. Bagley is a lurking panther on the baseline.

3) As has been noted, we shot terribly from 3 in the first meeting. 2-18. Anything remotely close to a normal 3-PT performance and we win by 25. These quick passing actions in the interior of the zone could allow for Trent to slink unnoticed to the corner where he shoots a very high percentage. They sagged off Trevon and he finally made them pay with a second half 3. As the game progresses we might look for a skip pass across the zone for wing 3s from Grayson and Gary.

4) Trevon's ability to get into the interior of the zone will either be turnover city or the best thing ever, depending on his decision making. Their zone implodes when a savvy ball-handler gets inside. Trevon can whip passes to the perimeter, toss soft oops to Marvin, or dump-off to a rolling and rampaging Wendell for a high percentage shot. I'll be interested to see if we use any ball-screen action to get Trevon into the second level where he can wreak havoc. He's shown some promise splitting the ball screen double team.

5) Cuse is an awful, and I mean AWFUL 3PT shooting team. 325th of 351 D1 teams. Do we sag off more than previous games, daring them to shoot? Of their 54 shots in the first matchup, 25 were 3s (46.2%). That ratio bodes well considering how poorly they shoot it. All it takes is one Derrick Williams, though...

Responding specifically to the Phase post, I think this is one of those games where we don't have to shoot well from 3 to win (as has been the case in previous losses). In fact, we could well repeat our performance from the first game. If Grayson, Gary, and Trevon are able to hit at a decent clip, i.e. 35% instead of 12%, it'll allow us to keep the spacing we'll need to keep picking them apart. Limiting turnovers is key, although Syracuse isn't exceptional at forcing them (95th nationally in TO%). I like your number of 15, CDu. Ultimately, our offense is so versatile. Too much so for the Cuse. We're able to score in transition, have two guys post up on either block, offensive rebound, all five guys knock down the perimeter shot (and two with range out to 27 feet). If we stay focused and locked in on defense I think we win this one going away, 75-58.

[Kedsy]

Nice phase post, CDu.

One thing that made me somewhat confident coming into the tournament was the fact that the teams we were playing hadn't really seen us before, which theoretically is helpful for both our offense and our defense. Now that we're playing an ACC team (and maybe two), I'm getting a little nervous. I don't think we played much if any zone against Clemson, which is good, but they gave us a lot of trouble, and our offense was somewhat weak against both the Tigers and the Orange.

Some pretty big NCAA tournament upsets have come when conference teams play against each other (#8 Villanova over #1 Georgetown in 1985; #6 Kansas over #1 Oklahoma in 1988; #6 NC State over #1 Virginia (Elite Eight) in 1983; #11 LSU over #1 Kentucky (Elite Eight) in 1986; #6 Providence over #1 Georgetown in 1987 (Elite Eight); #10 Syracuse over #1 Virginia in 2016 (Elite Eight); #7 South Carolina over #4 Florida in 2017 (Elite Eight); and so on). Overall, in the history of the tournament, when same conference teams have met in the Sweet 16 or later, by my count the lower-seeded team has won 14 times and lost 11 times (i.e., lower-seeded team has won 56% of the time), presumably because the lower-seeded team is familiar with its conference foe. Hopefully that won't happen to us.

On the other hand, fewer than 10% of Final Four teams get there through a straight chalk path, so it might be a good sign that we're playing at least one upset winner. Guess we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.

[Kedsy]

On the other hand, fewer than 10% of Final Four teams get there through a straight chalk path, so it might be a good sign that we're playing at least one upset winner.

Sorry, I accidentally misstated this statistic. The actual percentage is 17.4% of Final Four teams (in the 64+ team era) have gotten there through a straight chalk path. More than 10% but still a fairly small number.

[dukelifer]

Nice phase post, CDu.

One thing that made me somewhat confident coming into the tournament was the fact that the teams we were playing hadn't really seen us before, which theoretically is helpful for both our offense and our defense. Now that we're playing an ACC team (and maybe two), I'm getting a little nervous. I don't think we played much if any zone against Clemson, which is good, but they gave us a lot of trouble, and our offense was somewhat weak against both the Tigers and the Orange.

Some pretty big NCAA tournament upsets have come when conference teams play against each other (#8 Villanova over #1 Georgetown in 1985; #6 Kansas over #1 Oklahoma in 1988; #6 NC State over #1 Virginia (Elite Eight) in 1983; #11 LSU over #1 Kentucky (Elite Eight) in 1986; #6 Providence over #1 Georgetown in 1987 (Elite Eight); #10 Syracuse over #1 Virginia in 2016 (Elite Eight); #7 South Carolina over #4 Florida in 2017 (Elite Eight); and so on). Overall, in the history of the tournament, when same conference teams have met in the Sweet 16 or later, by my count the lower-seeded team has won 14 times and lost 11 times (i.e., lower-seeded team has won 56% of the time), presumably because the lower-seeded team is familiar with its conference foe. Hopefully that won't happen to us.

On the other hand, fewer than 10% of Final Four teams get there through a straight chalk path, so it might be a good sign that we're playing at least one upset winner. Guess we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.
Not much zone against Clemson but also without Bagley. Cuse is always dangerous but Duke shot poorly from deep and still won by 16. In general - this is about as favorable as it gets. Just need to play well.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

My thoughts:
1) Carter should run our offense through the foul line when we go that route. He's such a smart passer, can hit the midrange jumper and attack the basket, and has great high-low feel with Bagley. We didn't run this action exclusively in the first match-up but I think it'll serve us well.



I would have Wendell and Marvin, maybe Trent and even Bolden, shooting a few thousand 12-15 footers this week in practice.

[CDu]

Nice phase post, CDu.

One thing that made me somewhat confident coming into the tournament was the fact that the teams we were playing hadn't really seen us before, which theoretically is helpful for both our offense and our defense. Now that we're playing an ACC team (and maybe two), I'm getting a little nervous. I don't think we played much if any zone against Clemson, which is good, but they gave us a lot of trouble, and our offense was somewhat weak against both the Tigers and the Orange.

First, thanks.

As for Clemson, we actually did play exclusively zone in the Clemson game. And while the Clemson game was close, it wasn’t because they gave our defense trouble. They scored only 57 points on 68 possessions. Where we struggled was on offense. Of course, there isn’t a ton to take from that game, as (1) it was in Clemson, (2) Bagley didn’t play, and (3) their star PG Mitchell didn’t play.

As for the seeing our zone a second time thing, it is certainly something to consider. But I am not too too concerned about it. We held UNC (despite Duval’s costly injury) and Va Tech (at Va Tech) to ~1 ppp or less in rematches after seeing our zone. So I think our defense would be fine.

[uh_no]

As for the seeing our zone a second time thing, it is certainly something to consider. But I am not too too concerned about it. We held UNC (despite Duval’s costly injury) and Va Tech (at Va Tech) to ~1 ppp or less in rematches after seeing our zone. So I think our defense would be fine.

And even if it DID matter, don't forget the syracuse game was only "close" because our offense was kinda trash in the stretch after bagley returned. And WE'RE seeing SYRACUSE's zone for the second time. You would generally expect a freshman team to end up further from their potential when facing a defense for the first time than a relatively more experienced one (though cuse is still on the younger). Given that, you'd expect Duke to improve more when facing cuse a second time than Cuse will facing duke.

Plus that was the first game Bagley was back and part of a poor stretch offensively in general. In my opinion, the word is still out on whether the problems that plagued us that week persist. As I like to say, we live in one of two worlds:

1) the offense just had a bad 3 game stretch due to bagley's reintegration. They solved the problems by the second half the the first carolina outing, and the second carolina game was just due to duval being hurt
2) the offense does have some issues. They caught fire in a bottle vs UNC, ND was reintegrating bonzie, and iona and RI are small, so we can dominate them like we did small teams early in the year, but we'll still be in trouble when we face a bigger more talented team.

I can't say with any confidence which world we live in...I think we can suppose and assign probabilities to each...and each game we play great offense again, a few more % shift from world 2 to world 1.

This is the tournament, so all that matters is we win, though. I'm just not apt to be super confident about anything when there is still a real possibility that we live in world (2). Syracuse will be telling. If both are fortunate to make it that far, Kansas also would be.

[Billy Dat]

Some pretty big NCAA tournament upsets have come when conference teams play against each other (#8 Villanova over #1 Georgetown in 1985; #6 Kansas over #1 Oklahoma in 1988; #6 NC State over #1 Virginia (Elite Eight) in 1983; #11 LSU over #1 Kentucky (Elite Eight) in 1986; #6 Providence over #1 Georgetown in 1987 (Elite Eight); #10 Syracuse over #1 Virginia in 2016 (Elite Eight); #7 South Carolina over #4 Florida in 2017 (Elite Eight); and so on). Overall, in the history of the tournament, when same conference teams have met in the Sweet 16 or later, by my count the lower-seeded team has won 14 times and lost 11 times (i.e., lower-seeded team has won 56% of the time), presumably because the lower-seeded team is familiar with its conference foe. Hopefully that won't happen to us.

I was thinking about this, too, and since you have officially spooked me, I am looking for any caveats I can discover.

Maybe we are better off because we have only faced Syracuse and Clemson once this season instead of twice?

The 2017 Gamecocks were playing their third game against Florida and had split the regular season contests (home teams won). However, in 2016 Syracuse and UVA only played one regular season contest which the Orange lost on the road, and had to overcome a 16 point second half deficit in the Elite Eight. I can only assume the other examples are so old that they were true round robin situations and these teams all played each other 2x, if not 3x (conf tournament), before their NCAA tournament games. That's the difference I am going to talk myself into this week.

[CDu]

I'll go ahead and say "thank you!" to Clemson and Syracuse for making my life a bit easier with the scouting reports. Always nice to be able to recycle. The info below is mostly copy/paste from the regular season scouting report, with one big update. In the one matchup we had with Clemson, they didn't have their PG and primary ballhandler, which neutered their offense completely against the zone. As you might expect, we dominated them defensively. Of course, they nearly matched our dominance (worth noting that we didn't have Bagley in that one, too) defensively, and it wound up a close, low-scoring, ugly affair. Hopefully if we face them again, our zone will continue to throw them off, but Bagley's return will be the difference for our offense.

Clemson is a very stout defensive team. They don't force many turnovers, but they rebound the hell out of the ball on defense, and really challenge you on 2pt shots. And despite being a very physical defense, they don't foul much. It's a really well-coached, VERY experienced group. On offense, Clemson's best attribute is their shooting. They are essentially a top-100 team from 3 and top-50 from the FT line. They are smallish, so they don't score quite as well inside the line (largely because they shoot a lot of jumpers). But they are quite capable there too. They play a pretty slow pace (not UVa slow, but 285th in the country in pace). They can get hot from 3, and that is when they are dangerous. But defense carries this team.

Centers: Elijah Thomas (6'9", 240lb junior transfer from Texas A&M) is the man in the middle. Thomas is a very athletic, and very skilled big man who is a bit underutilized by Clemson in my opinion. He's a handful on the blocks and gave us trouble in the first meeting last year. We'll need to keep track of him if we stay in zone. Thomas is also an elite rebounder (on both ends) and shotblocker. He's a real force inside. The issue for him is foul trouble. He's lost a lot of minutes this year due to foul trouble. Hopefully that continues this weekend. Mark Donnal (6'9", 230lb grad transfer from Michigan) is technically the backup center, although he is more of a stretch-big than a true center. He's a very capable 3pt shooter if left alone out there, but not much of a presence inside. Doesn't rebound well or block shots. Still, he's not a bad pairing with Thomas.

Forwards: Aamir Simms (6'7", 235lb freshman) is the usual starting PF. Simms is a rugged, athletic, blue-collar forward who is sort of a poor-man's Elijah Thomas. Not a very consistent offensive presence away from the basket, but he brings a lot of energy, athleticism, and physicality/toughness to the team. And at times he can make those longer jumpers (he hit a couple against us if I recall). Simms is a very nice role player for the Tigers. Donnal will also play some at PF next to Thomas as needed. David Skara (6'8", 210lb junior transfer from Croatia via Valpo) is a combo forward who plays heavy minutes typically off the bench. Skara is a tough kid, with decent athleticism and a decent perimeter shot. He's also a terrific positional defensive player; not a wow-you type athletic defender, but just a really good on-ball defender. Skara gives you max effort out there, and really knows his role.

Wings: The Tigers have a couple of very good starting wings. Marquise Reed (6'3", 190lb junior transfer from Robert Morris) is the star. Reed is a dynamite all-around combo-guard scorer blessed with tremendous strength and athleticism, capable of playing PG or SG. He is also a fantastic shooter with supreme confidence. With even a little space, he can light you up. Reed has been one of the best players in the ACC this year. Beside him is Gabe DeVoe (6'3", 205lb senior). DeVoe deserves a LOT of credit for dramatically improving his game this year. Prior to this season, DeVoe was a blue-collar, glue guy type who did the little things well but wasn't much of a scorer. He is a very strong, very athletic wing capable of defending 3-4 spots on the floor. But this year, he's added a really good shot to his arsenal, hitting 43% of 3s on nearly 6 attempts per game. And it's not a fluke: he is also shooting a career-best 77% from the line. DeVoe plays almost exclusively off-ball, allowing the Tigers' playmaking guards to set him up for open jumpers. But he's quite dangerous in that role. Clyde Trapp (6'4", 190lb freshman) is the third wing. Trapp is a terrific shooter who does just a little of everything else but nothing specific of note. He'll have to play heavier minutes in this one if Mitchell is out. And they may have to bring Scott Spencer (6'6", 190lb sophomore) off the bench for a few minutes as well. Spencer is just overmatched at this level.

Guards: Shelton Mitchell (6'3", 195lb junor transfer from Vanderbilt) is the starting PG. Mitchell is almost a carbon copy of Reed, but just a bit more PG-oriented. Great athlete, strong, very good with the ball, terrific shooter, and uber-confident. Mitchell really makes that team go. If Mitchell sits, Reed moves to PG, and everyone kind of gets shifted out of position. Mitchell and Reed are really the only two ballhandlers Clemson has, which is one of their weaknesses offensively.

The one nice thing is that the zone mitigates two of Clemson's strengths offensive, which are the dribble penetration of Mitchell and Reed. I also wouldn't mind seeing some 3/4 court trapping to make Mitchell/Reed expend some energy and get the ball into the hands of guys who aren't comfortable dribbling. Outside of Mitchell and Reed, nobody is terribly comfortable on the dribble. DeVoe can occasionally be effective, but he sometimes gets a little to confident in his abilities and makes mistakes going out of his comfort zone. The more we can take the ball out of the hands of Mitchell and Reed, the better I think.

[curtis325]

And even if it DID matter, don't forget the syracuse game was only "close" because our offense was kinda trash in the stretch after bagley returned. And WE'RE seeing SYRACUSE's zone for the second time. You would generally expect a freshman team to end up further from their potential when facing a defense for the first time than a relatively more experienced one (though cuse is still on the younger). Given that, you'd expect Duke to improve more when facing cuse a second time than Cuse will facing duke.

Plus that was the first game Bagley was back and part of a poor stretch offensively in general. In my opinion, the word is still out on whether the problems that plagued us that week persist. As I like to say, we live in one of two worlds:

1) the offense just had a bad 3 game stretch due to bagley's reintegration. They solved the problems by the second half the the first carolina outing, and the second carolina game was just due to duval being hurt
2) the offense does have some issues. They caught fire in a bottle vs UNC, ND was reintegrating bonzie, and iona and RI are small, so we can dominate them like we did small teams early in the year, but we'll still be in trouble when we face a bigger more talented team.

I can't say with any confidence which world we live in...I think we can suppose and assign probabilities to each...and each game we play great offense again, a few more % shift from world 2 to world 1.

This is the tournament, so all that matters is we win, though. I'm just not apt to be super confident about anything when there is still a real possibility that we live in world (2). Syracuse will be telling. If both are fortunate to make it that far, Kansas also would be.


After careful analysis, big-data number crunching, and tea leave reading, I have concluded that the probabilities are 98% world 1 and 12% world 2. Those of you who did not go to uncheat may have noticed that the numbers add up to 110%, which coincidentally is the amount of effort Duke will give in their remaining 4 games.

[robed deity]

While Syracuse will be seeing our zone again, the same will hold true for us. Who knows if we'll have more success against it, but this advantage/disadvantage goes both ways. The Orange usually have an advantage in the tournament because of unfamiliarity, but not here.

I'd like Duke to get out to a decent lead and keep it. The Orange offense isnt great, but they do have guys that make plays down the stretch of tight games (Battle, Brissett lately)

[CDu]

I put the Syracuse scouting report (thanks Cuse for making my work a bit easier - I can copy/paste!) in the game thread. Here is the scouting reports for Kansas, one of the other two teams in our region.

Kansas is an extremely good offensive team and just an okay defensive team. Not bad defensively, but they definitely get their wins on the offensive side of the ball. They shoot the 3 extremely well, and also shoot quite well from 2pt range. They aren't a great offensive rebounding team, but they are extremely efficient at avoiding turnovers and hitting shots at a high percentage. It's a guard/wing-heavy team, as they had some unexpected difficulty in pulling in bigs for this year's team (I won't get into that). They have some size, but the majority of their rotation is smaller and athletic.

Defensively, they are fairly weak on the glass, something we should look to exploit. They don't foul though, and defend on the perimeter quite well with their bevvy of guards/wings. Azubuike and Lightfoot do a good job of blocking shots, but otherwise they aren't terribly noteworthy on that end. The Jayhawks don't play terribly fast, and don't force a ton of turnovers. So I think with our zone this should be a relatively low-possession game.

Centers: Udoka Azubuike (7'0", 280lb sophomore from Nigeria) is the man in the middle. "Dok" is a behemoth inside with good athleticism, who has a game-changing presence around the basket. He has no shooting touch whatsoever, but if he gets it near the basket he is very tough to stop. He's shooting 78% from the field, and 42% from the free throw line (no, I don't have those backwards). Given his size, Dok is a strong rebounder and shotblocker. He can get in foul trouble though, and if he does things get really dicey for the Jayhawks inside. Basically, huge, athletic, and extremely raw sums up Dok. The only other center that gets PT is Silvio de Sousa (6'9", 245lb freshman from Angola). De Sousa is another very athletic, very strong kid whose bball game is still catching up to his size/athleticism. De Sousa is a way better shooter than Azubuike, and is a dominant rebounder. But he fouls way too much and the pace of the game still seems ahead of him. He's probably a year or two away, but I think he has potential down the line.

Forwards: The Jayhawks really only have one of these, and he is often asked to play center. Mitch Lightfoot (6'8", 210lb sophomore) is a very springy forward who does a lot of the hustle play, dirty work for the Jayhawks. Despite lacking optimal size for a big, Lightfoot leads the team in shotblocking rate, and contributes on the offensive glass too. He's not a great defensive rebounder, in part because he looks for blocks and in part because he just isn't that big. On offense, Lightfoot is athletic and springy, but also a solid shooter with stretch-four capability. He's a really nice role player for the Jayhawks, but gets asked to play up a position fairly often. He's pretty much the only forward on the team.

Wings: The Jayhawks start a trio of these guys. Svi Mykhailiuk (6'8", 205lb senior from Ukraine). Mykhailiuk is deceptively athletic: very capable of finishing above the rim, and quick enough to attack the basket off the dribble. With his height/length and Kansas' lack thereof, Mykhailiuk often gets asked to play PF this year. He's expanded his role this year to be a dynamic scorer at all levels, including 45% from 3 and 80% from the line. He'll almost certainly play in the NBA. Alongside Mykhailiuk are Malik Newman (6'3", 180lb sophomore transfer from Miss St) and Lagerald Vick (6'5", 175lb junior). Vick is a highly-athletic, long, skilled wing. He's a strong 3pt shooter, a solid rebounder, and an athletic defender. He's very skinny though, but plenty quick and athletic. Very capable of finishing at/above the rim. But most of his looks come from 3. Newman is an interesting case study. He was a top-10 recruit when he went to Mississippi State out of high school. But things went poorly that year, both for the team and for Newman. So, he transferred to Kansas. This year, things have gone much better, although his focus can come and go at times. He's been terrific lately, averaging 22 ppg and shooting 56% from 3 over his past 5 games. He's a terrific shooter for the season (41% from 3, 83% from the line), and a dynamic off-the-dribble scorer and shotmaker. He's not as gifted as a facilitator, mainly because he hunts his shot almost exclusively. The only backup is Marcus Garrett (6'5", 180lb freshman). Garrett is long and athletic, though more smooth than explosive. He's not shot the ball well this year, but he does a little bit of everything well as more of an all-purpose type of wing. Still, of Kansas's guard/wings, he is the one that has done the least damage offensively. Basically all of the other wings can score, while Garrett is all role player at this point in his young career.

Guards: Devonte' Graham (6'2", 175lb senior) is the man that runs the Jayhawk show. He spent the past 3 years playing as a combo guard alongside Frank Lucas, which masked some of his playmaking brilliance. This year, it's his team, no questions asked. Graham isn't a great leaper, but he is quick and tough and a great shotmaker (40% from 3, 83% from the line). He knows how to draw fouls off the dribble, and knows how to get his shot off from anywhere on the court. He's also developed into a terrific passer, averaging 7.5 assists per game at a 2.5 assists to turnovers ratio. Where he has struggled this year is converting on 2pt shots, down from 50% last year to 39% this year. Still, he's the heart of the Jayhawks. Containing him is a big step towards beating them.

The Jayhawks would be a formidable opponent. They are an elite shooting team that has some holes defensively. It would look quite different than a matchup with either Clemson or Syracuse. But would be a fun test, and an entertaining game to watch (as opposed to the slugfests we will/would see against Syracuse and Clemson.

[Jeffrey]

One thing that made me somewhat confident coming into the tournament was the fact that the teams we were playing hadn't really seen us before, which theoretically is helpful for both our offense and our defense. Now that we're playing an ACC team (and maybe two), I'm getting a little nervous. I don't think we played much if any zone against Clemson, which is good, but they gave us a lot of trouble, and our offense was somewhat weak against both the Tigers and the Orange.


I'm thrilled we are facing Syracuse instead of Michigan State! Izzo had a much better team, than Syracuse, and he knows how to win in the tournament. This is not a strong Boeheim team and he is not a great tournament coach.

I sure hope we also get to play Clemson! Only having to beat Syracuse and Clemson to get to the Final Four would be awesome. Those pairings sound much more like what we would face to get to the ACC Finals. Go Clemson!

[Kedsy]

I'm thrilled we are facing Syracuse instead of Michigan State! Izzo had a much better team, than Syracuse, and he knows how to win in the tournament. This is not a strong Boeheim team and he is not a great tournament coach.

NCAA tournament record, last 15 seasons (not including this season):

IZZO:
30 wins, 15 losses (.667)
4 Final Fours (26.7%)
4 first round losses (26.7%)
0 championships

BOEHEIM
25 wins, 10 losses (.714)
3 Final Fours (27.3%)
2 first round losses (18.2%)
1 championship

So, yeah, Boeheim missed the tournament (or was ineligible) four times in the 15 year period. And, yeah, Izzo went to three straight Final Fours and won his championship a few years earlier, so there's some cherry-picking here (though Boeheim had a couple other championship game appearances too). My point is they both "know how to win in the tournament." This is not some sort of major edge for Izzo.

[godins]

Guards: Devonte' Graham (6'2", 175lb senior) is the man that runs the Jayhawk show. He spent the past 3 years playing as a combo guard alongside Frank Lucas, which masked some of his playmaking brilliance.



Small but interesting correction -- it's Frank Mason III you're thinking of. And you're exactly right that he overshadowed Devonte Graham's abilities. Frank Lucas is a former drug trafficker most famous for the film about him, American Gangster and, given he's 87 years old I'd have been very surprised to see him in a Kansas uniform on the hardwood. :cool:

[CDu]

Small but interesting correction -- it's Frank Mason III you're thinking of. And you're exactly right that he overshadowed Devonte Graham's abilities. Frank Lucas is a former drug trafficker most famous for the film about him, American Gangster and, given he's 87 years old I'd have been very surprised to see him in a Kansas uniform on the hardwood. :cool:

Yes, though I'm not sure I was even aware of Frank Lucas. Not sure how I morphed Frank Mason into Frank Lucas - maybe merging him with John Lucas. I don't know. But yes, I'm talking about Frank Mason there. :)

[Jeffrey]

NCAA tournament record, last 15 seasons (not including this season):

IZZO:
30 wins, 15 losses (.667)
4 Final Fours (26.7%)
4 first round losses (26.7%)
0 championships

BOEHEIM
25 wins, 10 losses (.714)
3 Final Fours (27.3%)
2 first round losses (18.2%)
1 championship

So, yeah, Boeheim missed the tournament (or was ineligible) four times in the 15 year period. And, yeah, Izzo went to three straight Final Fours and won his championship a few years earlier, so there's some cherry-picking here (though Boeheim had a couple other championship game appearances too). My point is they both "know how to win in the tournament." This is not some sort of major edge for Izzo.

Let's not cherry-pick. What's Izzo's tournament record during his 23 seasons at MSU and Boeheim's during his 42 seasons at Syracuse?

[godins]

Let's not cherry-pick. What's Izzo's tournament record during his 23 seasons at MSU and Boeheim's during his 42 seasons at Syracuse?

I'm not sure I understand your logic or insistence that we focus on their entire body of work. Coaches improve over time, just like players. Jim Boeheim the 1976 version is not Jim Boeheim in 2018. The same goes for Tom Izzo; the same for Coach K. If K wins one title in 1991 and then doesn't make it back to a Sweet 16 for 25 years, are we saying he's a great tournament coach? What do people think about Bruce Weber?

Yes, extending from 15 seasons to 18 gives both Boeheim and Izzo a championship. But look at their tournament records -- they're remarkably similar. They both know how to coach -- you're not disputing that, are you? If you're not, what do we really glean about their ability to coach in the tournament by going back to 1976-77 (for Boeheim) and 1995-96 (Izzo)?

[Jeffrey]

But look at their tournament records -- they're remarkably similar.

IIRC, which I might not (thus, my request not to cherry pick their tournament records), Izzo's teams have been substantially more likely to make the Final Four. I suspect Coach K's Duke teams have also (again, using his entire Duke coaching career).

Izzo had a substantially better team this season (Syracuse barely made the tournament) and, IIRC, he has been more likely to take a team to the Final Four. So, since our desire next weekend is to get to the Final Four, I'd strongly prefer to be playing Syracuse than Michigan State.

[CDu]

IIRC, which I might not (thus, my request not to cherry pick their tournament records), Izzo's teams have been substantially more likely to make the Final Four. I suspect Coach K's Duke teams have also (again, using his entire Duke coaching career).

Izzo had a substantially better team this season (Syracuse barely made the tournament) and, IIRC, he has been more likely to take a team to the Final Four. So, since our desire next weekend is to get to the Final Four, I'd strongly prefer to be playing Syracuse than Michigan State.

I would certainly rather face Syracuse than Michigan State. But that's mainly because Michigan State has more talent this year than Syracuse. That's entirely unrelated to whether or not Boeheim is a good tourney coach. He has 4 Final Fours and a title in the past 15 years. You don't get that without being a good tournament coach.

[Jeffrey]

I would certainly rather face Syracuse than Michigan State. But that's mainly because Michigan State has more talent this year than Syracuse. That's entirely unrelated to whether or not Boeheim is a good tourney coach. He has 4 Final Fours and a title in the past 15 years. You don't get that without being a good tournament coach.

My original post was in response to Kedsy's concern "Now that we're playing an ACC team (and maybe two), I'm getting a little nervous." I take the opposite view and hope we play two ACC teams next weekend.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?41709-Phase-VIII-NCAA-Regional-Weekend&p=1056096#post1056096

I agree Boeheim is a good tourney coach. I think he is a very good tourney coach. But, as I wrote, I don't think Boeheim is a great tourney coach and I do not think he can beat us with the team he has this year.

We may be missing my point while we debate my interpretation of the word "great"?

[CDu]

My original post was in response to Kedsy's concern "Now that we're playing an ACC team (and maybe two), I'm getting a little nervous." I take the opposite view and hope we play two ACC teams next weekend.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?41709-Phase-VIII-NCAA-Regional-Weekend&p=1056096#post1056096

I agree Boeheim is a good tourney coach. I think he is a very good tourney coach. But, as I wrote, I don't think Boeheim is a great tourney coach and I do not think he can beat us with the team he has this year.

I think Boeheim is about as good a tourney coach as Izzo is. Now, I do agree in thinking we have a better chance of beating Syracuse though. But that has nothing to do with whom is coaching our opponent.

[Jeffrey]

But that has nothing to do with whom is coaching our opponent.

Fair enough. I think who is coaching matters and it will, unfortunately, for us within the next 10 years. I'm not looking forward to "about as good".

[CDu]

Fair enough. I think who is coaching matters and it will, unfortunately, for us within the next 10 years.

Coaching absolutely matters. I just don’t think there is much if any real disparity in the tourney coaching ability of Boeheim and Izzo. Both are good coaches, both know what it takes to get to the Final Four. The difference comes down to whom has the talent. And this year, MSU had more talent.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Coaching absolutely matters. I just don’t think there is much if any real disparity in the tourney coaching ability of Boeheim and Izzo. Both are good coaches, both know what it takes to get to the Final Four. The difference comes down to whom has the talent. And this year, MSU had more talent.

Just a nice reminder that the better team doesn't always win any particular game, much less the tournament. The tournament doesn't determine who the "best" team is, just the team that can string together six wins.

Seven game series are far more effective in determining the "better" team.

Part of what makes this time of year fun.

[arnie]

Coaching absolutely matters. I just don’t think there is much if any real disparity in the tourney coaching ability of Boeheim and Izzo. Both are good coaches, both know what it takes to get to the Final Four. The difference comes down to whom has the talent. And this year, MSU had more talent.

Caught a radio interview with Boeheim this morning. He said Bennett is the best college b-ball coach today. Announcer did not follow up.

[Jeffrey]

He has 4 Final Fours and a title in the past 15 years.

What I'm looking at shows 3 Final Fours (2003, 2013, 2016) in the past 20 years. Is it missing a year?


IIRC, which I might not (thus, my request not to cherry pick their tournament records), Izzo's teams have been substantially more likely to make the Final Four. I suspect Coach K's Duke teams have also (again, using his entire Duke coaching career).

Izzo had a substantially better team this season (Syracuse barely made the tournament) and, IIRC, he has been more likely to take a team to the Final Four. So, since our desire next weekend is to get to the Final Four, I'd strongly prefer to be playing Syracuse than Michigan State.

Instead of relying on my lame memory, I looked it up.

Final Four appearances in the last 20 years:

Izzo- 7 appearances or 35% of the time

K- 5 appearances or 25% of the time

Boeheim- 3 appearances or 15% of the time



I just don’t think there is much if any real disparity in the tourney coaching ability of Boeheim and Izzo. Both are good coaches, both know what it takes to get to the Final Four. The difference comes down to whom has the talent.

Trying to factor for talent, this is the best statistical analysis I found. Do you know of a better analysis?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tom-izzo-is-the-best-coach-in-modern-ncaa-tournament-history-by-far/

"By any standard, Izzo’s teams tend to wildly exceed their expectations once the NCAA tournament commences.

We can track where Izzo ranks among all tournament coaches in the 64-team bracket era1 by comparing his actual wins to the number we’d expect of a team with the same seedings and pre-tournament Simple Rating System (SRS) ratings. And — spoiler alert — he’s No. 1 by a wide margin."

[CDu]

Trying to factor for talent, this is the best statistical analysis I found. Do you know of a better analysis?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tom-izzo-is-the-best-coach-in-modern-ncaa-tournament-history-by-far/

"By any standard, Izzo’s teams tend to wildly exceed their expectations once the NCAA tournament commences.

We can track where Izzo ranks among all tournament coaches in the 64-team bracket era1 by comparing his actual wins to the number we’d expect of a team with the same seedings and pre-tournament Simple Rating System (SRS) ratings. And — spoiler alert — he’s No. 1 by a wide margin."

A few things:

1. That analysis doesn't really control for player talent. It controls for seed and pre-tourney SRS. Which isn't a bad analysis, but it doesn't quite get at talent. Izzo's teams have often found themselves underseeded relative to their talent: MSU has a long history of having talented teams that struggled early, in part because of playing a tough non-con schedule and in part because of being a slow starter (Kedsy did a breakdown of this a while ago, I think). So I think they were often a 3/4/5 seed in talent but had earned a 7 seed in seeding due to early-season struggles. So any analysis based on his seed or pre-tourney SRS is going to make Izzo look better in the tournament. A team that underperforms early in the season will get a lower SRS and lower-than-expected-based-on-preseason-expectations seed.

I certainly don't know of a better analysis, though, as this would be really hard to do.

2. That analysis was as of 2015. It would be interesting to see it done again given that Izzo's teams have flamed out in the first weekend each of the last 3 years, twice as a high seed. He'd still probably be #1 in that list, but probably not by nearly as much. And again, that doesn't address the issue of talent, where Izzo's teams' talent hasn't always translated to regular season success.

Remember: there was a time about 10-15 years or so ago that this analysis said that Coach K was considered the dominant coach in the tournament. Things change.

[Kedsy]

What I'm looking at shows 3 Final Fours (2003, 2013, 2016) in the past 20 years. Is it missing a year?

Instead of relying on my lame memory, I looked it up.

Final Four appearances in the last 20 years:

Izzo- 7 appearances or 35% of the time

K- 5 appearances or 25% of the time

Boeheim- 3 appearances or 15% of the time

Trying to factor for talent, this is the best statistical analysis I found. Do you know of a better analysis?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tom-izzo-is-the-best-coach-in-modern-ncaa-tournament-history-by-far/

"By any standard, Izzo’s teams tend to wildly exceed their expectations once the NCAA tournament commences.

We can track where Izzo ranks among all tournament coaches in the 64-team bracket era1 by comparing his actual wins to the number we’d expect of a team with the same seedings and pre-tournament Simple Rating System (SRS) ratings. And — spoiler alert — he’s No. 1 by a wide margin."

Well, first of all, you're kind of changing the subject at this point. Your original assertion was that Izzo knows how to win in the tournament AND Boeheim doesn't. I don't think anybody's disagreeing with the first half of your assertion, it's the second half that's the problem.

Second, if you're trying to assess what a coach "knows," logically what happened 20 years ago isn't as relevant as what has happened more recently, and Boeheim's Final Four percentages match or exceed Izzo's in the 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year timeframes; you have to go back 20 years before Izzo looks better.

Third, much of Izzo's "legend" stems from his taking a few (3, to be precise) lower-seeded (#5 or below) teams to the Final Four. If you compare his performance to Boeheim's as a #2 to #4 seed in the last 20 years, Izzo's record is 13-6 (one Final Four) and Boeheim's is 16-6 (two Final Fours; 1 championship).

Finally, in the three years since your article was written, Izzo's number has gone down about 3.5 (due to losing to two double-digit seeds in three years), which would put him approximately at 11. Boeheim's numbers have gone up almost 6 (due to phenomenal success as two double-digit seeds in three years), which would put him approximately at 11. I did the math roughly; it's probable that Izzo could still be a half point or so above Boeheim, but no matter how you slice it, they're really close now. Which (a) shows the danger of relying on articles based on small samples; and (b) undercuts your entire point.


EDIT: Also, CDu's point.

[Jeffrey]

Well, first of all, you're kind of changing the subject at this point. Your original assertion was that Izzo knows how to win in the tournament AND Boeheim doesn't. I don't think anybody's disagreeing with the first half of your assertion, it's the second half that's the problem.


When did I say that?

[Kedsy]

I'm thrilled we are facing Syracuse instead of Michigan State! Izzo had a much better team, than Syracuse, and he knows how to win in the tournament. This is not a strong Boeheim team and he is not a great tournament coach.


When did I say that?

If you're going to parse whether saying "he is not a great tournament coach" in the context of your statement is different from saying Boeheim doesn't "know how to win in the tournament," go ahead, but I think it would be disingenuous.

[Jeffrey]

If you're going to parse whether saying "he is not a great tournament coach" in the context of your statement is different from saying Boeheim doesn't "know how to win in the tournament," go ahead, but I think it would be disingenuous.

You're wrong!


My original post was in response to Kedsy's concern "Now that we're playing an ACC team (and maybe two), I'm getting a little nervous." I take the opposite view and hope we play two ACC teams next weekend.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.c...96#post1056096

I agree Boeheim is a good tourney coach. I think he is a very good tourney coach. But, as I wrote, I don't think Boeheim is a great tourney coach and I do not think he can beat us with the team he has this year.

We may be missing my point while we debate my interpretation of the word "great"?


You've never started to address the main focus of my original post! You were expressing concern about possibly facing two ACC teams. I think you're foolish to believe we would be better off playing Michigan State and Kansas, than Syracuse and Clemson.

[CDu]

A few things:

1. That analysis doesn't really control for player talent. It controls for seed and pre-tourney SRS. Which isn't a bad analysis, but it doesn't quite get at talent. Izzo's teams have often found themselves underseeded relative to their talent: MSU has a long history of having talented teams that struggled early, in part because of playing a tough non-con schedule and in part because of being a slow starter (Kedsy did a breakdown of this a while ago, I think). So I think they were often a 3/4/5 seed in talent but had earned a 7 seed in seeding due to early-season struggles. So any analysis based on his seed or pre-tourney SRS is going to make Izzo look better in the tournament. A team that underperforms early in the season will get a lower SRS and lower-than-expected-based-on-preseason-expectations seed.

I certainly don't know of a better analysis, though, as this would be really hard to do.

2. That analysis was as of 2015. It would be interesting to see it done again given that Izzo's teams have flamed out in the first weekend each of the last 3 years, twice as a high seed. He'd still probably be #1 in that list, but probably not by nearly as much. And again, that doesn't address the issue of talent, where Izzo's teams' talent hasn't always translated to regular season success.

Remember: there was a time about 10-15 years or so ago that this analysis said that Coach K was considered the dominant coach in the tournament. Things change.

The converse to that point is that a team that is constantly a 1 or 2 seed has to absolutely dominate to do well on that list. Just getting to the Elite-8 is the expectation for those teams, so anything short of the elite-8 is a negative impact on this list. If you are frequently a 7-seed or 8/9 seed, you can't really underperform your seed much (since you aren't expected to win more than once). If you are a 1 or 2 seed, any early loss is a substantial negative. So Coach K's habit over the years of getting teams that overachieved all season to get 1/2 seeds has caught up to him: by winning more than expected all season, Duke teams got great tourney seeds. But they were probably punching above their weight class several years, and as a result they got some Sweet-16 losses (which hurt relative to expectation) and some first-weekend losses.

Izzo had a brief stretch of greatness from 1999-2001, getting to the Final Four 3 times with top-tier seeds. From there, though, it's been largely up and down for the Spartans. Their good (relative to seed) years were 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, and 2015. But many of those years were the result of an underperforming regular season leading to low seeds. In 2010, they were a preseason top-2 team that underachieved a bit in the regular season and wound up as a 5 seed. In 2014, they were again a top-2 team preseason, underachieved all year and got a 4 seed. And to add to that, they got paired with an injured UVa team as their 1, for whom MSU matches up really well. In 2015, they were a top-20 team preseason that underachieved to a 7 seed, and AGAIN got paired with UVa (who also had an injury that year). In 2005, they were a top-10/top-15 team that underachieved a little and fell to the 5 line, so anything more than 1 win was a bonus. In 2008, they were again a top-10 team that underachieved to a 5 seed, and made the Sweet-16. 2009 was the one year in that span where they played like a top seed all year AND did well in the tournament.

So I think a lot of Izzo's rep as a great tourney coach is really just having a lot of talent that underachieves in the early season and gets underseeded in the tournament.

[DukieInBrasil]

You're wrong!

wow, what a powerful counterpoint. Nuanced and subtle.


You've never started to address the main focus of my original post! You were expressing concern about possibly facing two ACC teams. I think you're foolish to believe we would be better off playing Michigan State and Kansas, than Syracuse and Clemson.

now calling people foolish is a foolish thing to do. Kedsy pointed out where you had said precisely the thing you said you didn't say, and then you change the argument. This is tiresome to follow on a message board about the game of basketball. If you want to argue a semantic point, take it to the personal message format.

[MarkD83]

I have not read the entire thread but see that one of the issues is whether it is better to face Syr or MSU.

Well Syr shoot 36% overall and 12.5% (1-8) on their 3 ptrs. They were outrebounded 51 to 30 by MSU. MSU lost because they shoot even worse 26% overall and 22% from 3 but that was 8-37.

So Syr is still an offensively challenged team just as they were when Duke played them earlier. They get outrebounded which plays to a Duke strength. Finally, I seriously hope Duke can hit more than 8 out of 37 3 ptrs.

[CDu]

I have not read the entire thread but see that one of the issues is whether it is better to face Syr or MSU.

Well Syr shoot 36% overall and 12.5% (1-8) on their 3 ptrs. They were outrebounded 51 to 30 by MSU. MSU lost because they shoot even worse 26% overall and 22% from 3 but that was 8-37.

So Syr is still an offensively challenged team just as they were when Duke played them earlier. They get outrebounded which plays to a Duke strength. Finally, I seriously hope Duke can hit more than 8 out of 37 3 ptrs.

At this point, it's kind of pointless (I know, I know) to debate whether or not it would be better to face Syracuse or MSU. We're facing Syracuse.

I will say that if we shoot 30+% from 3 and don't turn it over 20 times, we'll very likely win. That being said, we did shoot worse than 8-37 in our last meeting with Syracuse. They have a way of uglying up the game for sure.

To be clear, I think we will win. It's certainly possible we will lose, but I would consider us to be about as big a favorite in this one as we were in the last round. In other words, a double-digit favorite.

[Jeffrey]

At this point, it's kind of pointless (I know, I know) to debate whether or not it would be better to face Syracuse or MSU. We're facing Syracuse.


Then, why have an extended debate about which one has the better coach?

[Jeffrey]

wow, what a powerful counterpoint. Nuanced and subtle.


He accused me of being "disingenuous" and that's wrong. There's a lot of ground between being great (very good, good, average, below average) and being a failure (does not know how to win). I had already stated in this thread that I think he is very good (he knows how to win).

[Jeffrey]

I have not read the entire thread but see that one of the issues is whether it is better to face Syr or MSU.


Yes, exactly, and then whether we want to face Clemson or Kansas. I prefer to face Syracuse and Clemson. Kedsy appears to prefer facing MSU and Kansas.

[CDu]

Then, why have an extended debate about which one has the better coach?

I acknowledged that with the "(I know, I know)" in my post.

That being said, I think it was a two-way street on the extended debate about the coaches.

[CDu]

Kedsy appears to prefer facing MSU and Kansas.

To be fair, I think that is a misrepresentation of Kedsy's post. He said that the familiarity makes him a little nervous. That doesn't mean that he would prefer to play the better teams.

If you're going to call him and me onto the carpet for misrepresenting your post, you probably shouldn't do the same thing to him.

[duke96]

Caught a radio interview with Boeheim this morning. He said Bennett is the best college b-ball coach today. Announcer did not follow up.

Heard that too. Also occurred to me that it was a big miss on the part of the interviewer not to follow up on that comment. However, I actually heard a subsequent interview later in the day where Boeheim took the opportunity to volunteer that Bennett was “one of the best coaches” (or the like). I’m guessing he realized what he said earlier and wanted to correct the record.

[yancem]

The converse to that point is that a team that is constantly a 1 or 2 seed has to absolutely dominate to do well on that list. Just getting to the Elite-8 is the expectation for those teams, so anything short of the elite-8 is a negative impact on this list. If you are frequently a 7-seed or 8/9 seed, you can't really underperform your seed much (since you aren't expected to win more than once). If you are a 1 or 2 seed, any early loss is a substantial negative. So Coach K's habit over the years of getting teams that overachieved all season to get 1/2 seeds has caught up to him: by winning more than expected all season, Duke teams got great tourney seeds. But they were probably punching above their weight class several years, and as a result they got some Sweet-16 losses (which hurt relative to expectation) and some first-weekend losses.

Izzo had a brief stretch of greatness from 1999-2001, getting to the Final Four 3 times with top-tier seeds. From there, though, it's been largely up and down for the Spartans. Their good (relative to seed) years were 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, and 2015. But many of those years were the result of an underperforming regular season leading to low seeds. In 2010, they were a preseason top-2 team that underachieved a bit in the regular season and wound up as a 5 seed. In 2014, they were again a top-2 team preseason, underachieved all year and got a 4 seed. And to add to that, they got paired with an injured UVa team as their 1, for whom MSU matches up really well. In 2015, they were a top-20 team preseason that underachieved to a 7 seed, and AGAIN got paired with UVa (who also had an injury that year). In 2005, they were a top-10/top-15 team that underachieved a little and fell to the 5 line, so anything more than 1 win was a bonus. In 2008, they were again a top-10 team that underachieved to a 5 seed, and made the Sweet-16. 2009 was the one year in that span where they played like a top seed all year AND did well in the tournament.

So I think a lot of Izzo's rep as a great tourney coach is really just having a lot of talent that underachieves in the early season and gets underseeded in the tournament.

I think that this is an excellent illustration on how random the tournament is and how it is a little silly for people to overly judge a coach solely on tournament record. Sometimes a good team looses to a hot lesser team (one can pick from several examples from this year alone) and seeding usually reflects the whole season not current trends. Injuries or developing freshman can make swings in playing level quite severe over the course of a season.

Certainly patterns occur and should be recognized (K from '86-'94, Patino from '96-'98 or Izzo from '99-'01 or on the flip side UVA the past few years) but even that can change. K dominated the tourny in the 80's and 90's and rarely if ever went out the first weekend. This decade has been feast (2010, 2013 & 2015) or famine (2012, '14 & '17). Is K a great coach some years and a bad coach others? Of course not (although there certainly years he's coached better than others). As much as coaches get credit/fault for results, players are just as if not more important with recard to winning vs loosing and when you are dealing with 18-22 year old kids and a single elimination tournament anything can happen.

[MarkD83]

Yes, exactly, and then whether we want to face Clemson or Kansas. I prefer to face Syracuse and Clemson. Kedsy appears to prefer facing MSU and Kansas.

I would prefer to face Clemson or Kansas as compared to not facing them at all.

[superdave]

Duke has shot 23-51 from 3 in their two games so far. That's strong to quite strong.

+17 rebounding margin so far.

-3 turnover margin so far.

+24 points in the paint.

+14 second chance points.

-1 fast break points.

If we can shoot 40+% on 3's and cut down on turnovers, we should beat Syracuse and probably Kansas as well. Here's hoping Duval keeps his level of play up.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Duke has shot 23-51 from 3 in their two games so far. That's strong to quite strong.

+17 rebounding margin so far.

-3 turnover margin so far.

+24 points in the paint.

+14 second chance points.

-1 fast break points.

If we can shoot 40+% on 3's and cut down on turnovers, we should beat Syracuse and probably Kansas as well. Here's hoping Duval keeps his level of play up.

Broken record here... The turnovers are the most critical piece in my eyes. Don't give the ball away, and our offense is good enough to hit shots and get rebounds, our defense is good enough to make stops. Give the ball away, and nothing else matters very much.

My energy for basketball has been recharged! Time for more games!

Let's go Duke!

[Jeffrey]

I would prefer to face Clemson or Kansas as compared to not facing them at all.

Absolutely! It's all about winning 4 more games. I like our chances, but would not mind Nova departing this weekend.

[BandAlum83]

He accused me of being "disingenuous" and that's wrong. There's a lot of ground between being great (very good, good, average, below average) and being a failure (does not know how to win). I had already stated in this thread that I think he is very good (he knows how to win).

Private messaging is probably the best place for these very tedious discussions.

Just sayin.

[DukieInBrasil]

Private messaging is probably the best place for these very tedious discussions.

Just sayin.

yup, and i got flamed for pointing that out.

[Jeffrey]

yup, and i got flamed for pointing that out.

I did not mind you "pointing that out", I just thought it was inappropriate for you to flame me (this is tedious... I flamed your flame). You could have sent me a PM instead of flaming me. In addition, you could have sent me a PM instead of having this public exchange. That seems more consistent with your PM recommendation. None of this is about basketball.

[duke4ever19]

yup, and i got flamed for pointing that out.

Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but what is "flamed?"

[Jeffrey]

Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but what is "flamed?"

The box, in the bottom left of a post, where you approve or disapprove (flame) a post.

[devildeac]

Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but what is "flamed?"

Click on quadrilateral (that contains the green colon and R parenthesis or red colon and L parenthesis-if I type in the punctuation, the :) or :(will appear) in lower left corner of any recent post, then click on I disapprove, add a comment if you'd like and you have your "flame." (the "icon" that appears looks like a flame, IIRC.

Want me to try it on one of your posts?

(kidding)

[Jeffrey]

Want me to try it on one of your posts?


Yes, if you have an appropriate beer label to attach.

[devildeac]

Yes, if you have an appropriate beer label to attach.

Nah, I have a little mean streak but couldn't bring myself to do that, but you did make me a bit thirsty now. :o

[Jeffrey]

....but you did make me a bit thirsty now. :o

I'm rather certain that will be the easiest thing I do today.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but what is "flamed?"

You sweet, sweet summer child...

[jv001]

I did not mind you "pointing that out", I just thought it was inappropriate for you to flame me (this is tedious... I flamed your flame). You could have sent me a PM instead of flaming me. In addition, you could have sent me a PM instead of having this public exchange. That seems more consistent with your PM recommendation. None of this is about basketball.

Don't feel bad, I flamed FDD when I was trying to sporkz him/her. I made up for it with a sporkz when I allowed. GoDuke!

[Jeffrey]

Don't feel bad, I flamed FDD when I was trying to sporkz him/her. I made up for it with a sporkz when I allowed. GoDuke!

I'm capable of doing the same. I probably would have flamed myself, by now, if it was only possible.

[ipatent]

Bilas has Duke as the best team left. (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22847978/bilas-not-revolution-unprecedented-happening-ncaa-tournament-sweet-16)

[-jk]

Bilas has Duke as the best team left. (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22847978/bilas-not-revolution-unprecedented-happening-ncaa-tournament-sweet-16)

Wait!, what?!

He never does that... ;)

-jk

[uh_no]

Bilas has Duke as the best team left. (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22847978/bilas-not-revolution-unprecedented-happening-ncaa-tournament-sweet-16)

welp, we're screwed.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

welp, we're screwed.

It's over.

[duke4ever19]

The box, in the bottom left of a post, where you approve or disapprove (flame) a post.


Click on quadrilateral (that contains the green colon and R parenthesis or red colon and L parenthesis-if I type in the punctuation, the :) or :(will appear) in lower left corner of any recent post, then click on I disapprove, add a comment if you'd like and you have your "flame." (the "icon" that appears looks like a flame, IIRC.

Want me to try it on one of your posts?

(kidding)


You sweet, sweet summer child...

Ugh. I knew it had to be something obvious. Thanks for the clarification, folks.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Ugh. I knew it had to be something obvious. Thanks for the clarification, folks.

Wow, I didn't mean that to sound nearly as condescending as it did. I intended for it to highlight that you must be pure of heart if you have never been flamed or issued flames.

Apologies.

[duke4ever19]

Wow, I didn't mean that to sound nearly as condescending as it did. I intended for it to highlight that you must be pure of heart if you have never been flamed or issued flames.

Apologies.

I didn't take your post as condescending at all, so no worries. I'm just laughing at myself for being a member of this forum for years and only just figuring this stuff out. I'm assuming the opposite of "flamed" is "pitchforked." These were terms I often saw tossed back-and-forth among posters, but honestly, I didn't look into how it all worked. Sorry for derailing the thread. I'm sure the answer is in the rules and guidelines thread.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I didn't take your post as condescending at all, so no worries. I'm just laughing at myself for being a member of this forum for years and only just figuring this stuff out. I'm assuming the opposite of "flamed" is "pitchforked." These were terms I often saw tossed back-and-forth among posters, but honestly, I didn't look into how it all worked. Sorry for derailing the thread. I'm sure the answer is in the rules and guidelines thread.

Close. The accurate antonym for flame is "spork."

:-)

[superdave]

Closing out the Phase threads for the season is a bittersweet moment. This team was a rimmed out shot by Grayson away from a Final Four. They seemed so close all year long to being great, which is why the shot that didnt fall seems like a good metaphor for the year.

Grayson played brilliantly at times, but seemed to defer a lot. Duval was brilliant at times, but may have turned a corner too late in the season for the team to really, significantly elevate as a team. Bagley and Carter wont be missed by opponents. Gary has to be the best 3 point shooter we've had a freshman. Bolden made a huge step forward and was a legitimate spark off the bench.

Yet here we are.

I feel good about where we came from and how we got here. We had a chance to win today, a chance to compete for a title. We were a Grayson floater and a bad call on Carter away from a 2015 clone.

With freshmen, you have a brief window to find your game and maximize it. We came close.

Here's a quick couple of thoughts about what I appreciated about the season -

- Grayson deferring. Too much at times, maybe. But thank you, Captain.

- The second half vs Unc in Cameron. 49-29. Thank you, Marvin.

- The full on zone. Thanks for always adjusting, Coach K.

- Mrs Carter - thank you for giving us your son for a year! She was fun to watch.

- Bolden coming back from injury and accepting his ever-growing role. I hope to see him be All-Defense next year in the conference.

- Tricky. He came so close to being an all-timer. Reminds me of Justise a little.

Here's a few wishes, in retrospect -

- Earlier turbulence and growth for Duval. If he had gone through his bench stretch in December/January, we'd cut down the nets next weekend.

- Better Allen - Bagley chemistry. I think Coach K missed a big chance to run pick n roll like he had the Cowboys o-line and Emmitt Smith playing downhill. Those two were born for PnR but we played the horns set and floppy?! Agh.

- Use Javin and Alex for stretches to press. Would have bled teams energy.

All in all a fun year. A bit frustrating at times, but a wonderful group of kids to cherish. My toddler hugged me after the game and said it's ok. Without hesitation, I told him we are winning the title next year.

I will leave this clip as a rallying cry for the off-season: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_-vfaw1BwQ#t=2m04s