Devil's Debate: Which team was best -- 2001, 2010, or 2015?

[Truth&Justise]

Nice video showing guys from the 2001, 2010, and 2015 teams debating which was the best:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGI2SvAMQng

Coach K says he knows which one was truly the best. So, which one was it?

It's the off-season, might as well go down this rabbit hole.

[UrinalCake]

The black shirts in front of that black background makes them look like floating heads.

[JasonEvans]

1986 was best... or maybe 1999.

[Troublemaker]

2001 >> 2015 > 2010

Most of the debate would center around 2010 vs 2015. I think most would agree with 2001 being the best of those three teams.

[Bluedog]

Fun video, thanks for linking. I realize the guys are just trying to have fun with one another by sparking the "debate," but I think it's pretty obvious to a non-biased outsider that 2001 was the best team by far. College teams were simply better back in those days with talent actually sticking around. 2015 didn't even win the ACC regular season or tournament. They got hot in the NCAA tournament and I'm glad they did, but can't compete with that much more experience+talent. And, on top of that, 2001 was probably more dominant anyways (against other teams with more talent+experience than later eras). I'd say 2010 would be next because of their consistent D throughout the season and offensive rebounding firepower. But 1999 probably would beat them all in a 4 out of 7 series. (And '86 would possibly too). I guess we've had these debates many times before on this site. :)

Edit: I see Jason beat me to it.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The video was hilarious, especially Marshall.

I'd say 1992 by far - and they peaked in December - were still good enough.
1986 and 1999 even though they didn't win titles were awesome too. A couple other non natty winners were great teams.

Of these three:
I'd go 2001 - and they faced the best competition. The epic comebacks against a great Maryland team...TWICE.

Second place would be really close. The 2010 team peaked the second half v. Baylor in Regional Final and the entire W Va game. Seemed to be a little off, but good enough to beat Butler (barely). 2015 was great too - though probably helped that Wisky and Kentucky went after each other in the semis.

I could be talked out of anything, except for that 92 was the greatest team ever.

[left_hook_lacey]

2001. And it's really not close.

[Truth&Justise]

The video was hilarious, especially Marshall.

Agree, plus credit to Mason for being the only person to name a team other than his own.

[gotoguy]

2001 had Shane (and Badazz Nate, whose tip-in beat the turtles in the ACC tourney semi). The others didn't

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

1999, 1991, 1986, 2001. Then you can choose.

[UrinalCake]

Of the three title teams discussed in the video, 2001 was definitely the best. Here’s how I would define it: imagine each of the teams played their respective tournament 100 times. How many times would they win it? IMO the 2001 team would win it 25 times, 2015 would win it 10, and 2010 would win it 5.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

1999, 1991, 1986, 2001. Then you can choose.

Uh, where's 92?

[OldPhiKap]

The 2010 team was dead in the water, with Scheyer mired in a nasty slump, until he hit a wild shot against GTech. We did not have a threatening paint presence until Zoubs woke up and got healthy a month before the season ended,

I love the 2010 team just because they were so unlikely to win it all as we sat in January and most of February. One of my favorite teams.

But nowhere close to the teams in 1986, 1991-1993, 1999, 2001, or 2015. That’s what made that a great year!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Uh, where's 92?

After those? Lots of great teams.

[cato]

After those? Lots of great teams.

Interesting. How do you make the argument for including 91 but excluding 92?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Interesting. How do you make the argument for including 91 but excluding 92?

I am not excluding them. They just aren't in my top tier.

It might simply be emotional, having watched them do the impossible.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

After those? Lots of great teams.

I'll bet you anything K would tell you this was his best team. They were the 91 team, but better. There is simply no doubt about that. They were the only team to repeat, the only team to go wire to wire number one in the nation, and their road games were circuses unlike anything that has ever been seen by Duke basketball, or anyone else's. And to boot, the played in the most remarkable college game ever.

[weezie]

HHhmmmm. '92 or '01 it's a toss up for me.

[Edouble]

2001

Jason and Shane were each better than any players on 2010 or 2015, and for my money, were the best two players in college that season.

Both have their jerseys in the rafters. 2010 and 2015 have no jerseys in the rafters.

[Wander]

2001. However, 2010 is underrated in this thread, as that team usually is by Duke fans. That team was better than 2015, and it's not even that close in my mind. Higher in kenpom overall, offense, defense, ACC standings, won the ACC tournament...

[MChambers]

I’ll go with 2001, if we’re restricted to those three seasons. But I’ll take 1992 over any of them, with Laettner, Hill, and Hurley, with a very strong supporting cast of Davis, T Hill, Lang, and Parks.

[subzero02]

99>92>01>91>15>10

I didn't include the 86 squad because they were a bit before my time. 99 Duke and 90 UNLV were the 2 most dominant teams I have seen. 92 Duke is very close to both of those squads.

[gep]

OK... for me, it's 2001 >>> 2010 >> 2015. I really enjoyed 2001. 2010 was a great "team" effort... good players, but no "star". 2015 had a great season, and greater Grayson at the end, of course, all the way with Quinn, who I think was the main reason for the "team" success. But still, for me, it's 2001.:cool:

[AGDukesky]

2001 for me too. People overrate the 1999 team. Sure it was a dominating team, but the ACC was extremely weak that year. Against the really good teams, the squad was not dominant. If that team played the same quality opponents as 1986, 1992, or 2001 it would have lost more games...

[HereBeforeCoachK]

99>92>01>91>15>10

I didn't include the 86 squad because they were a bit before my time. 99 Duke and 90 UNLV were the 2 most dominant teams I have seen. 92 Duke is very close to both of those squads.

You mention dominant teams, and certainly there was a physical dominance that the 99 team had that was above the rest. But does that equal "best" team? I'm not sure it does.

Without a doubt, the 86,92, 99 and 01 teams were the best in the country. Maybe 98 and a couple of other years too. Actually, 78 was by the end of the year too. (Just going off top of head here, early in am) But of those, 92's accomplishments are without peer. The 92 team carried a burden none of the others did...being the defending champion, and all the inherent pressure that comes with it.

That pressure weighed on that team, and they peaked very early, then kind of gutted out the rest of the season. Still, even not peaking at the right time, they were still the best team in the nation. They withstood the pressure.

It's true that the 19-0 ACC record with a 20 point plus average margin by the 99 team is the most mind boggling and dominant stat. If memory serves, Bill Guthridge of the cheats stated that they were the best team in the nation, period. They were. There's no doubt that the 99 team, as well as 86, 02, maybe 98, and some other years, would've won the natty in a best of seven format. In that format I think 99 might well emerge as the best team ever.

But that's not the format. I'll grant 99 the crown as most dominant. But best? To me that's a different metric...and going back to back while staying number one all year requires a great great team.

SIDEBAR: Foster's 78 team peaked at perfect time, and only a fantasy island game by Goose Givens won it for Kentucky. This may have been blessing in disguise. Foster wins the natty in 78, I doubt he goes to SC in 80. We never get K probably. And we're not having this discussion. Funny how things work out.

[nmduke2001]

If you put the top 8 against one another, I think 2001 holds up pretty well to 1999. I was there for both teams and I have a hard time thinking that a Senior Battier team wouldn't somehow will themselves to win. I also think that 2001 would have had 2 of the best three on the court with Senior Battier and JWill.



1999
Year
2001
Year


Battier
SO
Battier
SR


Brand
SO
Boozer
SO


Avery
SO
J. Williams
SO


Langdon
SR
Dunleavy
SO


Carrawell
JR
Duhon
FR


James
SO
James
SR


Magette
FR
Sanders
SO


Burgess
SO
Horvath
SO

[Turk]

99>92>01>91>15>10

I didn't include the 86 squad because they were a bit before my time. 99 Duke and 90 UNLV were the 2 most dominant teams I have seen. 92 Duke is very close to both of those squads.

OK, I'll play. Fun summer exercise. Here's my sequence.

92>86>99>91>01>10>15

I am Crusty enough to represent the 86 team. Starting four seniors and a junior, that experience in arguably the greatest era of ACC talent gives the 86 team an edge over the younger squads later on. (oh yeah, plus Billy King and Danny Ferry coming off the bench).

A quick refresher for our younger Crazies:

The Bilastrator (C): Undersized but bulky and gritty, he gave up his offense to do the dirty work inside. Laettner or Brand would have been too much, but he would have done just fine against soph Boozer, Zoubs, or Jah.

Mark Alarie (F): Second banana to Johnny Dawkins, we would call Alarie a stretch 4 in today's terms, comfortable out on the perimeter. Great comp with Battier; I think Alarie is also similar to but better than Singler. In a matchup with 91-92, I might be tempted to have Alarie guard Laettner.

David Henderson (F): Versatile swingman who was the prototype for Nate James, Carrawell, and Winslow. Third scoring option behind Dawkins and Alarie.

Tommy Amaker (G): Classic pass-first point guard; not the scorer that Hurley was, until next season when he led the 87 team. I would be comfortable having him guard either Hurley or JWill; Amaker easily dominates Nolan Smith and Tyus.

Johnny Dawkins (G): The Moses who led Duke out of the basketball desert to the Promised Land but could not enter. His NBA career never got off the ground due to a steady stream of injuries. I think Johnny D was better overall than JWill, and the Amaker / Dawkins tandem was a perfect fit. From time to time, we bump that thread on "best starting 5 in the K era" and there is no doubt in my mind that Dawkins is on it.

YMMV.

[Matches]

OK, I'll play. Fun summer exercise. Here's my sequence.

92>86>99>91>01>10>15



I agree with this except I'd swap 15 and 10, and possibly 91 and 01. All those teams were outstanding so that's not a knock on 2010 - being Duke's worst Natty team isn't an insult.

I remember 86 as well and that was a team full of men. The 99 team was physically imposing and had the country's best big man but it would have looked a lot less imposing matched up against the 86 or 92 teams.

[WillJ]

OK, I'll play. Fun summer exercise. Here's my sequence.

92>86>99>91>01>10>15

I am Crusty enough to represent the 86 team. Starting four seniors and a junior, that experience in arguably the greatest era of ACC talent gives the 86 team an edge over the younger squads later on. (oh yeah, plus Billy King and Danny Ferry coming off the bench).

A quick refresher for our younger Crazies:

The Bilastrator (C): Undersized but bulky and gritty, he gave up his offense to do the dirty work inside. Laettner or Brand would have been too much, but he would have done just fine against soph Boozer, Zoubs, or Jah.

Mark Alarie (F): Second banana to Johnny Dawkins, we would call Alarie a stretch 4 in today's terms, comfortable out on the perimeter. Great comp with Battier; I think Alarie is also similar to but better than Singler. In a matchup with 91-92, I might be tempted to have Alarie guard Laettner.

David Henderson (F): Versatile swingman who was the prototype for Nate James, Carrawell, and Winslow. Third scoring option behind Dawkins and Alarie.

Tommy Amaker (G): Classic pass-first point guard; not the scorer that Hurley was, until next season when he led the 87 team. I would be comfortable having him guard either Hurley or JWill; Amaker easily dominates Nolan Smith and Tyus.

Johnny Dawkins (G): The Moses who led Duke out of the basketball desert to the Promised Land but could not enter. His NBA career never got off the ground due to a steady stream of injuries. I think Johnny D was better overall than JWill, and the Amaker / Dawkins tandem was a perfect fit. From time to time, we bump that thread on "best starting 5 in the K era" and there is no doubt in my mind that Dawkins is on it.

YMMV.


On the 1986 team, don't forget freshman Danny Ferry, surely one of the top 10 Duke players of all time. That said, I agree that 92 was the best Duke team ever.

[Highlander]

It's true that the 19-0 ACC record with a 20 point plus average margin by the 99 team is the most mind boggling and dominant stat. If memory serves, Bill Guthridge of the cheats stated that they were the best team in the nation, period. They were. There's no doubt that the 99 team, as well as 86, 02, maybe 98, and some other years, would've won the natty in a best of seven format. In that format I think 99 might well emerge as the best team ever.



The '99 Duke team was great, but people forget that the '99 UConn team was very good too. Every week Duke was not #1 that season, UConn was. UConn lost only 2 games all year prior to the tournament (both to top 15 teams); Duke lost only one. UConn finished their season ranked 34-2 and had 13 top 25 wins. Duke was #1, finished 37-2, and had 9 top 25 wins. UConn was ranked #1 in the country for over 2 months (December-February), claiming the top spot after Duke lost to Cincinnati. Duke was #1 for 2 months, claiming the top spot after UConn lost to Syracuse. UConn went into the NCAA tournament ranked #3 in the country after winning the Big East title. Duke was #1 after winning the ACC.

I don't disagree that the '99 Duke team was a bit better on paper prior to the championship game, but I don't think a Duke win was nearly the slam dunk argument people make it out to be. I'm not sure it's a sure thing Duke would have beaten UConn in a best of 7 format, for example.

[BLPOG]

It was Zoubek that broke the beard barrier! If 2015 grew beards further, it was only by standing on the shoulders of a giant.

2001 was definitely the best of the three.

Great video.

[Acymetric]

2001. However, 2010 is underrated in this thread, as that team usually is by Duke fans. That team was better than 2015, and it's not even that close in my mind. Higher in kenpom overall, offense, defense, ACC standings, won the ACC tournament...

This is 100% true. Even if you want to go by the "pure talent" argument and point to NBA success, 2010 was only an eye scratch and chronic back injury away from standing on almost level ground in that category (or possibly even ahead, and that's not counting Nolan who might have been able to put together a journeyman career somewhat similar to Duhon if he hadn't gotten the opportunity at Duke). People underrate that team because they weren't flashy and nobody went on to become a star in the pros.

[AGDukesky]

The '99 Duke team was great, but people forget that the '99 UConn team was very good too. Every week Duke was not #1 that season, UConn was. UConn lost only 2 games all year prior to the tournament (both to top 15 teams); Duke lost only one. UConn finished their season ranked 34-2 and had 13 top 25 wins. Duke was #1, finished 37-2, and had 9 top 25 wins. UConn was ranked #1 in the country for over 2 months (December-February), claiming the top spot after Duke lost to Cincinnati. Duke was #1 for 2 months, claiming the top spot after UConn lost to Syracuse. UConn went into the NCAA tournament ranked #3 in the country after winning the Big East title. Duke was #1 after winning the ACC.

I don't disagree that the '99 Duke team was a bit better on paper prior to the championship game, but I don't think a Duke win was nearly the slam dunk argument people make it out to be. I'm not sure it's a sure thing Duke would have beaten UConn in a best of 7 format, for example.

Also UConn’s losses occurred when a key player was injured if I remember correctly.

[Acymetric]

If you put the top 8 against one another, I think 2001 holds up pretty well to 1999. I was there for both teams and I have a hard time thinking that a Senior Battier team wouldn't somehow will themselves to win. I also think that 2001 would have had 2 of the best three on the court with Senior Battier and JWill.



1999
Year
2001
Year


Battier
SO
Battier
SR


Brand
SO
Boozer
SO


Avery
SO
J. Williams
SO


Langdon
SR
Dunleavy
SO


Carrawell
JR
Duhon
FR


James
SO
James
SR


Magette
FR
Sanders
SO


Burgess
SO
Horvath
SO




I thought I would play this game with 2010 vs. 2015 and see how things stacked up. I was tempted to set the cut-off at 10 mpg for comparing lineups, which I think would be fair, but people would complain that it didn't include Allen (who is not a major factor in this conversation as a freshman).



2010
Year
2015
Year


John Scheyer
SR
Tyus Jones
FR


Nolan Smith
JR
Quinn Cook
SR


Kyle Singler
JR
Justice Winslow
FR


Lance Thomas
SR
Amile Jefferson
JR


Brian Zoubek
SR
Jahil Okafor
FR


Miles Plumlee
SO
Matt Jones
SO


Mason Plumlee
FR
Grayson Allen
FR


Andre Dawkins
FR
Marshall Plumlee
JR



2015 has a slightly better bench, and a better scorer at center (Zoubek was the better rebounder). I give Singler the edge over Justice because I'm just not sure Winslow could have overcome Singler's signature in-game purple nurple. 2010 had the best individual defender (I love both Lance and Amile but would take SR Lance over any version of Amile 10/10 times) and the better overall defensive scheme.

[Turk]

OK, I'll play. Fun summer exercise. Here's my sequence.

92>86>99>91>01>10>15

I am Crusty enough to represent the 86 team. Starting four seniors and a junior, that experience in arguably the greatest era of ACC talent gives the 86 team an edge over the younger squads later on. (oh yeah, plus Billy King and Danny Ferry coming off the bench).




On the 1986 team, don't forget freshman Danny Ferry, surely one of the top 10 Duke players of all time. That said, I agree that 92 was the best Duke team ever.

I didn't! Coach K had the luxury of bringing Ferry along slowly, getting about 20 mins and 6 ppg. (Yes, I had to look it up).

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Johnny Dawkins (G): The Moses who led Duke out of the basketball desert to the Promised Land but could not enter. His NBA career never got off the ground due to a steady stream of injuries. I think Johnny D was better overall than JWill, and the Amaker / Dawkins tandem was a perfect fit. From time to time, we bump that thread on "best starting 5 in the K era" and there is no doubt in my mind that Dawkins is on it.

YMMV.


With this thread, I went back and watched some video of the great 86 team. Man, I had forgotten how easily Johnny D floated up off the court. He made it look so effortless. I mean, I never forgot he had great ups, but I had truly forgotten what his jumps looked like. It's different than the Brickey, Maggette,Dahntay, Gerald H jumps....somehow.

Here is one clip of Johnny D...I think this was the second ever reverse jam in a regional final (Kenny Dennard had the first).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL1T18T5sxk

[NSDukeFan]

I thought I would play this game with 2010 vs. 2015 and see how things stacked up. I was tempted to set the cut-off at 10 mpg for comparing lineups, which I think would be fair, but people would complain that it didn't include Allen (who is not a major factor in this conversation as a freshman).



2010
Year
2015
Year


John Scheyer
SR
Tyus Jones
FR


Nolan Smith
JR
Quinn Cook
SR


Kyle Singler
JR
Justice Winslow
FR


Lance Thomas
SR
Amile Jefferson
JR


Brian Zoubek
SR
Jahil Okafor
FR


Miles Plumlee
SO
Matt Jones
SO


Mason Plumlee
FR
Grayson Allen
FR


Andre Dawkins
FR
Marshall Plumlee
JR



2015 has a slightly better bench, and a better scorer at center (Zoubek was the better rebounder). I give Singler the edge over Justice because I'm just not sure Winslow could have overcome Singler's signature in-game purple nurple. 2010 had the best individual defender (I love both Lance and Amile but would take SR Lance over any version of Amile 10/10 times) and the better overall defensive scheme.
I agree 2010 was better than 2015. I remember how awesome 2010 was with the lead where they milked the clock so well, and between the 3 S’s almost always ended up with a good shot. If it missed, there was a reasonable chance on of the greatest offensive rebounders would grab the ball. On the defensive end, teams didn’t get a quick easy basket because all Duke’s starters were good defensively. I loved watching that team.

[AGDukesky]

Yeah I tend to agree with 2010 over 2015. However it is difficult to assess 2015 due to the Sulaimon situation, Allen not being a factor till late, and the defense suddenly becoming great in the NCAAs. Just looking at position vs position, I’d give 2010 the nod across the board...

[Acymetric]

On the 1986 team, don't forget freshman Danny Ferry, surely one of the top 10 Duke players of all time. That said, I agree that 92 was the best Duke team ever.

Certainly true, but in the context of this conversation the fact that he was a freshman (and not a major contributor during his freshman year) sort of takes him out of the conversation when evaluating 1986. Just like 2010 doesn't get credit for the nearly NPOY season of Nolan Smith in 2011...we (merely) get the very good 2010 version.


Yeah I tend to agree with 2010 over 2015. However it is difficult to assess 2015 due to the Sulaimon situation, Allen not being a factor till late, and the defense suddenly becoming great in the NCAAs. Just looking at position vs position, I’d give 2010 the nod across the board...

The same issue definitely makes 2015 hard to evaluate. I think you have to exclude Sulaimon entirely, but Allen is very difficult. I guess I would say, if you are going to count Final Four GA for this team, then you would also have to count the Final Four versions of the other guys, and part of the reason Allen busted out the way he did is that other guys were not playing nearly as well as they did all season (on offense, at least) during those games.

My solution is to take some kind of mental average of performance across the season, using proprietary algorithms that conveniently seem to agree with the conclusions I already reached ;)

[OldPhiKap]

‘86 also featured the best defensive pg in the K era (Amaker) and one of the best defensive small forwards (King). That man-to-man was a thing of beauty to watch.

[Acymetric]

‘86 also featured the best defensive pg in the K era (Amaker) and one of the best defensive small forwards (King). That man-to-man was a thing of beauty to watch.

I keep meaning to work this into a post and then forgetting, but in the vein of nostalgia for great defenses of years gone by, is senior Lance Thomas the best defender Duke has had since Battier? Hard to come up with any other contenders, except possibly Shelden Williams (although I feel he was mostly very good at blocking and rebounding but not great necessarily at other aspects of defense). Lance was certainly more versatile, at least.

[OldPhiKap]

I think Williams was national defensive POY two years in a row.

[Bluedog]

In case you're interested, these are Duke's top SRS ranks. Certainly, we as fans are more influenced by NCAA tournament results and 2010 comes in 8th overall with 2015 just behind in 9th. I don't have any explanation as to why 91-92 is so low though (or why '86 is so low)...Title years bolded.


1998-99: 34.8
2000-01: 32.18
1997-98: 29.56
2001-02: 28.91
1992-93: 25.98
2003-2004: 25.67
1999-2000: 25.55
2009-10: 25.21
2014-15: 24.97
1988-89: 24.94
1990-91: 24.90
1991-92: 24.68


https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/

Some fun stuff on that site. Incidentally, if you look at program SRS scores, Kentucky is overall #1 and we're #2. Carolina is #3 and UCLA #4. Wonder if there's a way to find top SRS seasons across schools. I can't find anything higher than '99 Duke. 1971-72 UCLA comes close at 33.79 (and they were undefeated that year).
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/

[Highlander]

I agree 2010 was better than 2015. I remember how awesome 2010 was with the lead where they milked the clock so well, and between the 3 S’s almost always ended up with a good shot. If it missed, there was a reasonable chance on of the greatest offensive rebounders would grab the ball. On the defensive end, teams didn’t get a quick easy basket because all Duke’s starters were good defensively. I loved watching that team.

Good point. Duke's offensive rebounding and kick out was sooo good that year that a missed shot wasn't that bad of a play. It made us very efficient on offense.

I remember a reporter that year saying that what made 2010 Duke great was that "they have 3 piano players and 2 piano movers." Lance and Zoubs (and Plumlee x2) were basically there to 1) defend, 2) set pics for the scorers, 3) rebound. They only scored to keep defenses honest or when they got an easy put back. Most teams could defend 1 or 2 of our guys well. But Duke had 3 capable of scoring 20+ in a game, and whichever matchup presented itself was the one they exploited. I also remember K never telling the team they were great, only that they were good, becoming great, have the capacity to be great, etc. until they won the NC. He finally conceded then that they were pretty great :)

2001 is the only Duke team to win a NC that won all of their games by double digits. The MD game in the FF was the only one they were seriously threatened. The talent that team had was unreal by today's standards. I think 2001 was the better team talent-wise, and I'd take them h2h over 2010, but I wouldn't be surprised to see 2010 keep it interesting.

[OldPhiKap]

I don't have any explanation as to why 91-92 is so low though (or why '86 is so low)..

the '86 team did not have a three point line, and the shot clock was 45 seconds (IIRC). So margins were closer because of fewer possessions and fewer shots that spread the spread. Plus, I don't know how the figure is calculated but the '86 team played one of the deepest ACC schedules I can recall. (Duke, GT and UNC were loaded; State, UVa and Maryland had really solid players too).

I think the '91-'92 team used a lot of stall ball which kept the margins respectable.

But these are prejudiced guesses, not a statistical analysis.

[evrim]

The black shirts in front of that black background makes them look like floating heads.

As a photographer, I agree. We try to avoid that!

[luvdahops]

In case you're interested, these are Duke's top SRS ranks. Certainly, we as fans are more influenced by NCAA tournament results and 2010 comes in 8th overall with 2015 just behind in 9th. I don't have any explanation as to why 91-92 is so low though (or why '86 is so low)...Title years bolded.


1998-99: 34.8
2000-01: 32.18
1997-98: 29.56
2001-02: 28.91
1992-93: 25.98
2003-2004: 25.67
1999-2000: 25.55
2009-10: 25.21
2014-15: 24.97
1988-89: 24.94
1990-91: 24.90
1991-92: 24.68


https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/duke/

Some fun stuff on that site. Incidentally, if you look at program SRS scores, Kentucky is overall #1 and we're #2. Carolina is #3 and UCLA #4. Wonder if there's a way to find top SRS seasons across schools. I can't find anything higher than '99 Duke. 1971-72 UCLA comes close at 33.79 (and they were undefeated that year).
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/

Only looked up a few data points, but they did confirm my hunch. The 92 team had an average margin of victory of "only" 15.4 points, well below 99 (24.6) and 01 (20.2). SoS figures were 10.18 for 92 (15th nationally) versus 10.13 for 99 (11th) and 11.97 for 01 (5th). So the average point margin would seem to be the bigger factor. Injuries to Hurley and Grant may have had something to do with that, but my recollection is that the 92 team usually had games in hand by mid second half, and would often coast a bit from there down the stretch. At least in the regular season.

[Matches]

I keep meaning to work this into a post and then forgetting, but in the vein of nostalgia for great defenses of years gone by, is senior Lance Thomas the best defender Duke has had since Battier? Hard to come up with any other contenders, except possibly Shelden Williams (although I feel he was mostly very good at blocking and rebounding but not great necessarily at other aspects of defense). Lance was certainly more versatile, at least.

Jr/Sr Matt Jones was really good, although probably not as versatile as Thomas. I always thought Duhon was really good when he was "on" (i.e. as a freshman and a senior, which is an odd career path).

[Acymetric]

the '86 team did not have a three point line, and the shot clock was 45 seconds (IIRC). So margins were closer because of fewer possessions and fewer shots that spread the spread. Plus, I don't know how the figure is calculated but the '86 team played one of the deepest ACC schedules I can recall. (Duke, GT and UNC were loaded; State, UVa and Maryland had really solid players too).

I think the '91-'92 team used a lot of stall ball which kept the margins respectable.

But these are prejudiced guesses, not a statistical analysis.

The figure takes strength of schedule into account. If you played a 1 game season, won the game by 15, but your opponent was 3 points below average, your SRS would be 12. On the other hand, if you played a very difficult schedule and your opponent was 5 points above average, your SRS with the same margin of victory would be 20. Like most metrics, a shortcoming is that it can't differentiate between teams that keep pushing leads against bad teams vs. teams that take their foot off the gas and play "stall ball" with large leads (although whether you would want to take that into account is also up for discussion). Link below if you want to do some reading (it is a very simple explanation, not dense at all). Because this metric only cares about points, that effect is exaggerated more than some others that include other offensive/defensive stats.

https://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2015/03/srs-calculation-details/

Perhaps more interestingly, although it probably doesn't have a huge impact on season long numbers, is that for college basketball they do not include games against "non-major opponents" although they do not state what a non-major opponent is. Would it be by conference (so Pitt would have counted this year, but UMBC would not)? Or is it some kind of quality threshold (ignore games against the bottom x% of teams)?

The idea is clearly to avoid inflating stats for teams that blow out lower tier opponents, which makes sense, but also has the (unintended?) consequence of failing to penalize teams for bad losses...presumably UVA's loss to UMBC did not count against them in this year's SRS, which seems incorrect when trying to evaluate a team's strength, although I guess if you argue that the game was an outlier you could argue that you don't want it included in the set.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Only looked up a few data points, but they did confirm my hunch. The 92 team had an average margin of victory of "only" 15.4 points, well below 99 (24.6) and 01 (20.2). SoS figures were 10.18 for 92 (15th nationally) versus 10.13 for 99 (11th) and 11.97 for 01 (5th). So the average point margin would seem to be the bigger factor. Injuries to Hurley and Grant may have had something to do with that, but my recollection is that the 92 team usually had games in hand by mid second half, and would often coast a bit from there down the stretch. At least in the regular season.

With due respect, crunching the numbers to get this answer can be very misleading. The ACC has been wildly different from year to year....and there are other factors, such as the 92 team probably had the most hostile regular season schedule non conference, owing to them being defending champ, and to being rock star status. All of these things impact the numbers.

As for 99, they were awesome, but the ACC that the 86 team faced, for example, was far superior to the ACC faced by 99. Numbers only tell a small part of the story.

[BLPOG]

Yeah I tend to agree with 2010 over 2015. However it is difficult to assess 2015 due to the Sulaimon situation, Allen not being a factor till late, and the defense suddenly becoming great in the NCAAs. Just looking at position vs position, I’d give 2010 the nod across the board [emphasis added]...

2010: Brian Zoubek, Center
2015: Jahlil Okafor, Center

I love the 2010 team (and Zoubek!), so I'm not making any calls regarding the 2010 squad vs. 2015. I don't think 2010 beats 2015 position vs. position, though.

[Acymetric]

2010: Brian Zoubek, Center
2015: Jahlil Okafor, Center

I love the 2010 team (and Zoubek!), so I'm not making any calls regarding the 2010 squad vs. 2015. I don't think 2010 beats 2015 position vs. position, though.

Talent-wise, you're probably correct (although Okafor's NBA career has only been moderately more successful than Z's). On the other hand, I think putting Okafor on the 2010 team makes them worse (less effective as a team). Putting Zoubek on the 2015 team would presumably make them worse too, but I do think that o-rebounding would have been interesting for that team as well.

If you are going position by position for some talent score, Okafor is clearly better. If you go position by position and look at what a team needs from that position vs. what that player is good at, it is most likely still Okafor but there is a case for Zoubs. Guys he had one of the best offensive rebounding rates ever (if memory serves, I did not look that up).

[Bluedog]

Talent-wise, you're probably correct (although Okafor's NBA career has only been moderately more successful than Z's). On the other hand, I think putting Okafor on the 2010 team makes them worse (less effective as a team). Putting Zoubek on the 2015 team would presumably make them worse too, but I do think that o-rebounding would have been interesting for that team as well.

If you are going position by position for some talent score, Okafor is clearly better. If you go position by position and look at what a team needs from that position vs. what that player is good at, it is most likely still Okafor but there is a case for Zoubs. Guys he had one of the best offensive rebounding rates ever (if memory serves, I did not look that up).

Second to DeJuan Blair in the last 20 years, IIRC.

[AGDukesky]

2010: Brian Zoubek, Center
2015: Jahlil Okafor, Center

I love the 2010 team (and Zoubek!), so I'm not making any calls regarding the 2010 squad vs. 2015. I don't think 2010 beats 2015 position vs. position, though.

That was the only one I was gonna give but I think Okafor gets in foul trouble against Zoubek, which happened a lot.

[Steven43]

I'll bet you anything K would tell you this was his best team. They were the 91 team, but better. There is simply no doubt about that. They were the only team to repeat, the only team to go wire to wire number one in the nation, and their road games were circuses unlike anything that has ever been seen by Duke basketball, or anyone else's. And to boot, the played in the most remarkable college game ever.

You’ve certainly convinced me. Grant Hill, Bobby Hurley, and Christian Laettner all at or near the peak of their powers? Please. These guys are not only among Duke’s hallowed legends but also three of the greatest players in college basketball history. Yes, 1992 was the best, maybe of any team ever.

[BLPOG]

Talent-wise, you're probably correct (although Okafor's NBA career has only been moderately more successful than Z's). On the other hand, I think putting Okafor on the 2010 team makes them worse (less effective as a team). Putting Zoubek on the 2015 team would presumably make them worse too, but I do think that o-rebounding would have been interesting for that team as well.

If you are going position by position for some talent score, Okafor is clearly better. If you go position by position and look at what a team needs from that position vs. what that player is good at, it is most likely still Okafor but there is a case for Zoubs. Guys he had one of the best offensive rebounding rates ever (if memory serves, I did not look that up).

"Position vs. position" vs. "role vs. role"

I agree with what you've said, I just thought it deserved a mention. It's a common enough belief (and one I share) that Zoubek was the linchpin of the 2010 team. His breakout rebounding performance in the spring is in large measure what allowed the team to move from, in Coach K's words, a "good team" to a "great team."

[Acymetric]

"Position vs. position" vs. "role vs. role"

I agree with what you've said, I just thought it deserved a mention. It's a common enough belief (and one I share) that Zoubek was the linchpin of the 2010 team. His breakout rebounding performance in the spring is in large measure what allowed the team to move from, in Coach K's words, a "good team" to a "great team."

Zoubek was the linchpin of our offense with his offensive rebounding (our offense was based around it, or at least depended on it). Similarly, on defense Thomas was the linchpin, with our defensive strategy predicated on the fact that he could switch 1-5 (which is not entirely common even in college). A really interesting case where our offense and our defense were built around role players, and their performance in those roles allowed the team as a whole to thrive.

[kAzE]

I would take the 98-99 team over any Duke team, including the championship teams . . .

That was the most dominant college basketball team I've ever seen. They just didn't win the title :(

But if we're only choosing between the championship teams, it would have be '01, with the 4 significant NBA players, 3 of whom were sophomores and the one senior.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

You’ve certainly convinced me. Grant Hill, Bobby Hurley, and Christian Laettner all at or near the peak of their powers? Please. These guys are not only among Duke’s hallowed legends but also three of the greatest players in college basketball history. Yes, 1992 was the best, maybe of any team ever.

Great point, and there's more. The 92 team faced "moments" like none of the others. When they went into LSU, with Bobby Hurley out due to injury, they might've faced the most hostile environment ever in college hoops - not to mention Shaq.

They went into an incredible environment in Michigan, and beat the Fab Five. And in the Kentucky game, think about this: that was the only time in history that the Kentucky Wildcats were the fuzzy little lovable underdog everyone in America was cheering for. Think about that.

This was the Duke team that defined the program of today, including the haters. And they faced more of that than anyone, more attention than any other Duke team, and they were the team that started it.

They were the best, and I do not buy that idea that "dominant = best" necessarily. 99 was great, but they didn't face the competition 92 did, they didn't face the pressure 92 did, and they certainly did not accomplish what the 92 team did.

[Wander]

Zoubek was the linchpin of our offense with his offensive rebounding (our offense was based around it, or at least depended on it). Similarly, on defense Thomas was the linchpin, with our defensive strategy predicated on the fact that he could switch 1-5 (which is not entirely common even in college). A really interesting case where our offense and our defense were built around role players, and their performance in those roles allowed the team as a whole to thrive.

Even so, Okafor was ACC Player of the Year. I think that's enough to put him very comfortably ahead of Zoubek.

But, 2010 was better at all four other positions IMO. Not a ton better, but better. And they worked perfectly in combination. I don't see any real argument to put 2015 ahead of them unless you're just swooning over the memory of their NBA potential.

[Rich]

2010: Brian Zoubek, Center
2015: Jahlil Okafor, Center

I love the 2010 team (and Zoubek!), so I'm not making any calls regarding the 2010 squad vs. 2015. I don't think 2010 beats 2015 position vs. position, though.


Talent-wise, you're probably correct (although Okafor's NBA career has only been moderately more successful than Z's). On the other hand, I think putting Okafor on the 2010 team makes them worse (less effective as a team). Putting Zoubek on the 2015 team would presumably make them worse too, but I do think that o-rebounding would have been interesting for that team as well.

If you are going position by position for some talent score, Okafor is clearly better. If you go position by position and look at what a team needs from that position vs. what that player is good at, it is most likely still Okafor but there is a case for Zoubs. Guys he had one of the best offensive rebounding rates ever (if memory serves, I did not look that up).


That was the only one I was gonna give but I think Okafor gets in foul trouble against Zoubek, which happened a lot.

With his size and frame, Zoubek was also a master at setting wide, strong picks (pick after pick, since that's pretty much all he did besides rebound) that would tire out the opposing team. By the 10 minute mark of the second half his picks over the course of the game would just wear the other team out.

[Steven43]

With his size and frame, Zoubek was also a master at setting wide, strong picks (pick after pick, since that's pretty much all he did besides rebound) that would tire out the opposing team. By the 10 minute mark of the second half his picks over the course of the game would just wear the other team out.
Speaking of Zoubs, I would love to find the series of posts from the DBR poster six or seven years ago who went through these long detailed explanations of how Zoubek was this nearly otherworldly player who was doing magical things at the center position that the vast majority (like 99.9%) of fellow DBR regulars had no idea he was doing. Those were fantastical posts that I still think about from time to time because they were indescribably over the top in their fawning over Zoubek. Does anyone eise remember the posts to which I am referring?

[Wander]

Speaking of Zoubs, I would love to find the series of posts from the DBR poster six or seven years ago who went through these long detailed explanations of how Zoubek was this nearly otherworldly player who was doing magical things at the center position that the vast majority (like 99.9%) of fellow DBR regulars had no idea he was doing. Those were fantastical posts that I still think about from time to time because they were indescribably over the top in their fawning over Zoubek. Does anyone eise remember the posts to which I am referring?

greybeard. Every post of his was insane, but in a way that was somehow different from anything else on the internet and not entirely without value. Hope he's doing OK and makes a return sometime.

[Troublemaker]

I don't see any real argument to put 2015 ahead of them unless you're just swooning over the memory of their NBA potential.

Let's not take a light-hearted thread and potentially turn it into something acrimonious with careless phrasing. Reasonable minds can have different opinions, and many smart people in this thread have chosen 2015 over 2010; I doubt they were just "swooning over the memory of 2015's NBA potential."


Even so, Okafor was ACC Player of the Year. I think that's enough to put him very comfortably ahead of Zoubek.

But, 2010 was better at all four other positions IMO. Not a ton better, but better.

That's fine. I have it roughly as:

Okafor > Zoubek
Winslow >> Thomas
MJones << Singler
Cook = Smith
TJones = Scheyer

Allen, Jefferson, MP3 > Dawkins, MP2, MP1

(Not that player by player comparisons are necessarily a great way of comparing teams. But even under this method, I like 2015 slightly better.)

[budwom]

The thread reminds me of a question I was asked when I wrote a wildlife column years ago: Can a duck beat up a goose?

[Steven43]

greybeard. Every post of his was insane, but in a way that was somehow different from anything else on the internet and not entirely without value. Hope he's doing OK and makes a return sometime.
Ahh, greybeard. Now I remember, thanks. Does anybody know when he last posted or where he is? Is there any way to repost his Zoubek commentaries? And I agree with you, Wander, about his posts—they were indeed different from anything else on the internet. It was like getting a glimpse into the mind of a being from an alternate solar system. I would read his stuff in utter astonishment while trying to decide if he was simply insane or perhaps instead a mad genius who was able to see things on a level so far above mine that it couldn’t help but come across as incomprehensible to me through no fault of his own. Somebody please find greybeard’s posts!!

[jv001]

Ahh, greybeard. Now I remember, thanks. Does anybody know when he last posted or where he is? Is there any way to repost his Zoubek commentaries? And I agree with you, Wander, about his posts—they were indeed different from anything else on the internet. It was like getting a glimpse into the mind of a being from an alternate solar system. I would read his stuff in utter astonishment while trying to decide if he was simply insane or perhaps instead a mad genius who was able to see things on a level so far above mine that it couldn’t help but come across as incomprehensible to me through no fault of his own. Somebody please find greybeard’s posts!!

I went to the Community for DBR and it looks like greybeard joined 2/26/07 and last activity was 10/4/17. I guess there's a way to look at all the posts but I'm too lazy to find them. This poster was spelled Graybeard. Not even sure if this is the greybeard we are talking about. GoDuke!

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

1992

[NSDukeFan]

Ahh, greybeard. Now I remember, thanks. Does anybody know when he last posted or where he is? Is there any way to repost his Zoubek commentaries? And I agree with you, Wander, about his posts—they were indeed different from anything else on the internet. It was like getting a glimpse into the mind of a being from an alternate solar system. I would read his stuff in utter astonishment while trying to decide if he was simply insane or perhaps instead a mad genius who was able to see things on a level so far above mine that it couldn’t help but come across as incomprehensible to me through no fault of his own. Somebody please find greybeard’s posts!!

I believe he’s been posting as whitebeard in the podiatrist thread of the off Topic board. I also miss his posts and also wasn’t sure if he was a mad genius or not. He often had interesting things to say.

[OldPhiKap]

The thread reminds me of a question I was asked when I wrote a wildlife column years ago: Can a duck beat up a goose?

Not if the goose is on its game.

[BLPOG]

Not if the goose is on its game.

That's a givens.

[vick]

Let's not take a light-hearted thread and potentially turn it into something acrimonious with careless phrasing. Reasonable minds can have different opinions, and many smart people in this thread have chosen 2015 over 2010; I doubt they were just "swooning over the memory of 2015's NBA potential."



That's fine. I have it roughly as:

Okafor > Zoubek
Winslow >> Thomas
MJones << Singler
Cook = Smith
TJones = Scheyer
Allen, Jefferson, MP3 > Dawkins, MP2, MP1

(Not that player by player comparisons are necessarily a great way of comparing teams. But even under this method, I like 2015 slightly better.)

Jon Scheyer was a consensus second-team all-American, who might actually have been the best player in college basketball in 2010, as suggested by multiple (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?30763-Advanced-Statistical-Plus-Minus-(or-Jon-Scheyer-was-really-good)) independent (http://valueaddbasketball.com/ballall.html) statistical (https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/leaders/ws-player-yearly.html) methods. Tyus Jones was the 12th leading vote-receiver on the all-ACC team. To say they were equal players is a humongous stretch.

[Troublemaker]

Jon Scheyer was a consensus second-team all-American, who might actually have been the best player in college basketball in 2010, as suggested by multiple (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?30763-Advanced-Statistical-Plus-Minus-(or-Jon-Scheyer-was-really-good)) independent (http://valueaddbasketball.com/ballall.html) statistical (https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/leaders/ws-player-yearly.html) methods. Tyus Jones was the 12th leading vote-receiver on the all-ACC team. To say they were equal players is a humongous stretch.

A huge stretch statistically perhaps, but one is allowed to use non-statistical analysis. (Incidentally, statistical analysis would probably rate 2010 above 1992, I'm guessing.)

Tyus was our go-to guy at the end of big games, and he came through consistently in those moments. That means a lot to me (although I understand the reasons why a statistician would scoff at my caveman analysis). When watching games, I was completely comfortable when Tyus had the ball in his hands, and I trusted his decision-making. Same as I did with Jon in 2010.

[MChambers]

That's a givens.

Too soon.

[Lar77]

Jon Scheyer was a consensus second-team all-American, who might actually have been the best player in college basketball in 2010, as suggested by multiple (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?30763-Advanced-Statistical-Plus-Minus-(or-Jon-Scheyer-was-really-good)) independent (http://valueaddbasketball.com/ballall.html) statistical (https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/leaders/ws-player-yearly.html) methods. Tyus Jones was the 12th leading vote-receiver on the all-ACC team. To say they were equal players is a humongous stretch.

Agree with Vick on this. Tyus Jones was a great player but Scheyer was better both ways. The combo of Scheyer-Smith was better than Jones-Cook. Singler was clearly better than Matt Jones (and I think Singler was better than Scheyer, but not trying to pick a debate).

Getting back to the original question, 2001 was a great team (2 NPOYs, 5 NBA players, and one Nate) and would beat either 2015 and 2010 in an extended series. 2015 and 2010 would go to game 6 or 7 with each other with Grayson and Amile being the difference.

Just an opinion.

[jv001]

Jon Scheyer was a consensus second-team all-American, who might actually have been the best player in college basketball in 2010, as suggested by multiple (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?30763-Advanced-Statistical-Plus-Minus-(or-Jon-Scheyer-was-really-good)) independent (http://valueaddbasketball.com/ballall.html) statistical (https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/leaders/ws-player-yearly.html) methods. Tyus Jones was the 12th leading vote-receiver on the all-ACC team. To say they were equal players is a humongous stretch.

I know one poster(who was one of my favorites) that probably agrees with you.:cool: I sure miss his posts. It's hard to say T. Jones or Jon Scheyer was better than the other. They were both great and contributed to two Championship banners for our Blue Devils. GoDuke!