SI's Stewart Mandel - fair comment

[FerryFor50]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/index.html?eref=T1

[pfrduke]

With the exception of the McDonald's All-Americans section, you could write that article about any top team in the country. Also, taking out last year's 4-8 finish (everyone would agree that last year's team was not as good, even when they were ranked #5), Duke's winning percentage is around 74% in Feb-Apr over 7 seasons. That's very, very good - the equivalent of going 12-4 in conference play.

[Cameron]

The Kentucky boards believe this article to hold the same weight as the Bible.

Gotta love UK fans knocking Duke when their team has a 90 percent chance of NIT :D. Jerk-offs.

(Well, I think it is clear that I need to stop reading one of my guilty pleasures. As another Devil stated on here a few days ago, we all have 'em.)

[The1Bluedevil]

Has some very interesting points. I don't like the Duke hating but ESPN is to blame for that. I will say though nobody gets hammered more often then Duke for recruiting " busts. Everyone knows those Rivals rankings are not that important but when a publication ranks a player in the top 25 and he doesn't perform its automatically the programs fault. Every person that writes on here could research hundreds of big time recruits who fail to live up to the rankings but don't have time to do so. The notion that players become McDonald's All Americans after Duke signs them is a flat out joke. Rankings are updated two to three times a year and only once after players have signed. So would have Patrick Patterson jumped into the top 5 if he had signed at Duke?

Many people see the rankings as uselss and overated, so why is it used in pointing out Duke's faults? For years Florida lost to less talented teams, Roy is notorious for the same thing, KU lost in the first round back to back years.

Has the recruiting suffered or is this just a string of bad luck?

[BD80]

Article that at first seems overly critical, but gains perpsective.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/index.html?eref=T1

[slower]

Until we "return to glory" in March and April, this type of article will be the norm.

[JasonEvans]

I find it hard to call this a hatchett job as Mandell backs up every single point with cold, hard facts.

We may disagree as to the reason but it is a fact that Duke has faded down the stretch in recent seasons.

We may disagree with whether it is smart or not but it is a fact that Duke no longer schedules true road games.

We may disagree for the reasons behind it but it is a fact that Duke's Mickie Dees have underperformed relative to expectations in terms of NBA success in recent years.

In truth, the only rebuttal for this article is to play better in February and March. Period, end of story.

--Jason "up until a week ago, I was certain we would reverse the trend this year-- I am less certain now, that's for sure" Evans

[SMO]

The most obvious possibility that Mandel did not consider regarding scheduling is that many schools probably don't want to play Duke at home for fear of being blown out early in the season. The other interesting thing to either validate or refute his arguments would be to see how other top programs fare late in the season. Do other teams hit losing streaks or play less consistently? It's funny, all this attention is paid to Duke because they lost 2 games. Not even UCLA or UNC would get this type of attention for the same thing. That speaks louder than any of Mandel's points.

[shadowfax336]

I think this article was probably written towards the beginning of the season and they were just waiting to bust it out at the first sign of trouble. It was a very detailed article to have been written in one night

[Faison1]

I actually thought the article had some good points, and showed some good research.

However, throughout the article, I kept wondering if the guy was going to name any programs that had maintained anywhere close to the level of success.

With that being said, I have longed for those epic out of conference home and home series that have been missing the last few years. Although my understanding is many programs don't want to schedule home and home, and it may not make fiscal sense.

But geeze.....every program has ups and downs, except most ups and downs tend to be extreme.....go deep in the NCAA's, then miss making the field the next year. Maybe his next article will be about why the Yankees haven't won a world series in quite a few years.

[HumboldtDevil]

I have no problem with Mandel's article, in fact it is refreshing to read an article that uses facts. That's what I have come to really like about SI's college basketball writers; they're fair and well-informed.

I only skimmed the article, so I don't know exactly what Mandel's point was. I guess he thinks Duke should play a tougher non-conference schedule or maybe he's just pointing out that Duke has been overrated due to an inflated OOC record built against mid-level teams. I don't know.

Something Mandel fails to mention is that everybody struggle more in conference than out of conference. The same goes for the other top teams, but Duke is a bigger deal and is still consistently better than every other program.

One thing about the Mickey D's stats Mandel uses is that I think a big reason why Duke isn't bringing in as many sure-fire superstars in because K doesn't really want the one-and-done guys. Or maybe it is the other way around. Does a one-and-done guy really want to have to hit the books hard for a year at Duke in order to be eligible? Probably not. Plus there have been a few flops. I think that some guys get into the Mickey D's game because they are going to Duke. There are Duke players that weren't Top 25 types that still made the game. Notre Dame usually gets a good number of players into the Army AA football game, too. These games are designed to pull in viewers, sponsors, etc., so a basketball game will get more viewers w/ Duke porospects in the game rather than Arizona or Oklahoma kids. A football game will get more viewers - especially a game on NBC - if it has a ton of ND kids instead of kids going to mid-level Pac-10 or Big 12 schools.

I'm not worried about the back-to-back losses. UConn - a much different team - struggled mightily in February of 04 and wound up as a two seed with six losses entering the tourney. We know what happened in March.

[pamtar]

Mods are slow today huh?;)

[Jaymf7]

I agree that we have not won a national championship since 2001, so if that is our standard we have failed to live up to it. That said, we have made it to the Sweet 16 or better in each of the years since then (other than last year). We played the de facto championship game in 2004 (losing a game we lead to a favored UConn team). Hard to ignore that year in the analysis.

The "facts" he uses to back up our fading show numerous years with 13-3 records or similarly win-heavy finishes. Apart from last year's true swoon, we finished each year relatively well.

As someone mentioned above, how does this compare to other top teams. It is not surprising that we have more losses in the heart of the ACC season. team like UConn (when they were relevant), Florida (ditto), Pittsburg, etc. routinely won ALL of their (weak) non-conference games before having numerous losses in conference later in the season. Big surprise.

It is pretty ridiculous to say we have faded recently simply because we have only made the Sweet 16 5 times and the Final Four once. How many teams have done better (even with strong regular seasons). Have Memphis and Kansas "faded" in recent years after having stellar regular seasons only to lose before the Final Four?

Ugh.

For our part, I am disappointed by the recent losses, but I feel much better about this team than last years (which simply did not have the guns or experience), or even JJ's last two years (where we had more raw talent, but still spent too much time watching the all-time scoring leader do his thing).

[greybeard]

I'm not sure what the guy's point is. One would hope that he isn't suggesting that Duke emulate Memphis, or that the measure of a great college program is how many successful pros it produces year in and year out. If he is, then the distinction between college and pro basketball becomes, ironically, academic.

To the extent that he is saying that this year's team has been overrated to this point he has not proven it. Far from it. With his emphasis on how many "pros" a team produces, you might think that his analysis would include mention of Henderson's wrist injury, or Smith's foot injury (if he writes Smith off as not having pro potential, one needs to question his accumen). And, on a team that is short on tall, how can he discount what a healthy Zoubek would have brought to this season.

So, he writes an article about Duke that ignores any careful look at the players on the ground and the superior deployment strategies that K has employed, brushing off the latter as if it doesn't count because he can't put a number on it.

At the end of the day, Duke is on television more than other teams because they are terrific to watch, year in and year out, and bring out the very best in what other teams have to offer. They play the game smarter than most competitors because that is what McD All Americans in the main do and because they have a coach who emphasizes that quality as a key ingredient in the style of play he facilitates. That other coaches might as the season stretches on to be able to develop and deploy strategies to permit their teams better meet with what Duke puts forth is a credit to the extent to which resources are available in today's world to permit such adjustments. It does not make these other teams better, or Duke's team worse, at least in my view.

What the author of this article proves with his numbers is the unexceptional point that there is tremendous parity in the college game today, and that given the time, teams can figure ways to better try to slay the giants. It seems that many teams possess several stellar performers, and some, a select few, present some performers that are outlandishly gifted. That the author did not recognize that Duke possesses at least one such player astounds.

And, while he dismisses all but two of the current Duke players as not possessing pro potential, how is it possible that he writes an article about Duke this year without saying word one about Demarcus's ridiculous domination of games against equally gifted athletes who somehow just get outplayed over and over again. And could he really miss how Scheyer has performed coming off the bench? What other team presents a 6th man like that?

An article about Duke that discusses none of the players named, or the innovations that have been incorporated so successfully into this year's team, is in my view vacuous. I am left after reading this well crafted piece to wonder what this guy finds of value in the college game, and where he sees that manifest to any greater degree than at Duke.

I said at the beginning of the year that championships in high-end sports today are not won on the field, but rather are a matter of good fortune with regard to injury. I still believe that to be the case. Maybe our numbers-wonk of a writer could do a numbers story to prove that. Then perhaps his statistics will say something worthwhile. In his current article, they don't.

[wisteria]

In truth, the only rebuttal for this article is to play better in February and March. Period, end of story.


agree. There will be no need to defend ourselves once we can actually play better in February and go deep in March again. Media is always stirring things, nothing new. Until we play better, they can say whatever they want.

[Wander]

Wait? You mean when teams start playing the tougher part of their schedule, they're going to lose more? Genius!

What a piece of trash. It doesn't take any "research" to add up win-loss numbers.

By the way, where is the mention of the ACC tournament, which we've won like 10000 of the last 10002 times or something ridiculous like that? I'd say that's finishing pretty strong... Or how would the numbers look if you removed the outlier (last year)? This is just lazy writing, nothing more.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

I find it hard to disagree with the writer's view of Duke's McD AAs. More often than not, they prove to be less than dominating players when they get to college. Maybe this is due to Duke's rigorous academic standards ....Duke gets the guys who are more likely to want to be students rather than rushing to the NBA, and those guys are often the less talented athletes. And the high academic standards make it more difficult to be a student at Duke than at most other schools.

Let's see what happens in March this year. If Duke wins its next twelve games, we'll be back in the Final Four.

[blueprofessor]

It is ironic that two non-calls tipped the scales from "Duke has had a greatly productive NCAA tourney run since 2001" to "Duke has been over-seeded based on NCAA tourney results since 2001."
The egregious non-call regarding the Boozer stuff to win the game in the Sweet Sixteen game at Rupp Arena vs. Indiana in 2002 and the non-call when Redick was fouled in the lane vs. UConn in 2004 had huge consequences on overall impressions of Duke's success.Both games were 1-point losses.In the former game,I believe Duke would have made the Final Four and faced Maryland in the championship game(as Indiana).In the latter, we would have faced Georgia Tech whom we owned (16 of the last 17 games) for the national title.
Add a Final Four (2002) and 1 more title(2004) and a possible title (2002) and there is no talk of a faltering performance post 2001.
Best regards.:)

[Virginian]

What I find ironic is that most sports writers use NCAA performance, especially final fours and national championships, as the true measure of how good or successful a college basketball program is. Fair enough. But then they spend all season picking apart the way teams like Duke schedule non-conference games and how well they do in conference or not or how well they do on the road and on and on.

I think -- I KNOW -- Coach K knows what the heck he's doing when he creates his schedule. He's looking forward to the Sweet 16 and better the whole time.

We should ignore the carping, whining pundits. Let them say what they want about home-and-home schedules and the rest. It's all meaningless until March.

If we had been told three months ago that Duke would have lost only 3 games at this point, and two of them by one point, and be atop the ACC, ranked in the top 5 nationally and vying for a No. 1 seed in the big tournament, we'd all have been hyperventilating with joy. Things are, so far, really really good. Enjoy it and keep looking forward.

[yancem]

I read the whole article and really don't fault much that was said. I agree that most of Duke's McD recruits have fallen into the NBA reserve/over seas pro category. I also agree that down the stretch the past few years Duke has not been overly impressive (although I think that has had more to do with depth than talent). And I can't agree more that Duke would benefit from playing a few more true road games, especially against top teams. If you play the best on their floor, you get a good measure of how good you are. To be honest, I am having difficulty figuring out exactly how good we are this year.

That being said, I do have a couple of bones to pick. First what standard is he holding Duke to. I don't think that any team can measure up to what he seems to think is needed to be dominate. Florida has 7 losses already this year, is their program in decline? UConn was horrible last year and the first part of this year, are they not a top program. Kansas routinely exits the ncaa tourney early. Who qualifies as dominate? Second he ignores the fact that Duke signed Livingston and Humphries but they never arrived on campus. He is also incorrect in some of his recruiting stats. If you start counting recruits that joined the team in 2002 to date, Daniel Ewing, JJ Redick, Shelden Williams, Shavlik Randolph, Luol Deng and Josh McRoberts made it to the NBA. All of which with the exception of Ewing are currently on a roster. He said that only 4 made it to the NBA. It is also too early to tell if JJ, Shelden or McRoberts will be starters (Shelden started several games last year and may work his way back into the starting lineup now that he is with the Kings) That would change his percentages quite a bit.

[SMO]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/index.html?eref=T1

The greatest omission of this piece is Duke's dominance of the ACC tournament. To accept that Duke's place among the top programs is overstated, one would have to accept that the ACC is not a top conference. Duke's dominance of the ACC tourney in recent years demonstrates that late in the season, Duke is the top team in one of the top conferences in the country.

But let's forget that inconvenient truth and focus on February losing streaks. The facts Mandel presents are selective confirmation.

[heyman25]

Agree with Jason Evans the writer states the facts without obvious duke hating style that most sportswriters use. What has happened to Shavlik Randolph. I guess he has his contract but he can't be on the 76'ers active roster. JJ can't do anything but sit til next year unless Evans Bogans or Dooling suffers an injury.Williams is now a center behind Brad Miller.He will get time but not major pt.Dahntay Jones was waived by the Kings and has not been picked up. McRoberts will sit on the Portland bench.
Hill Deng Boozer Dunleavey and eventually Brand and Maggette Battier Duhon are all successful NBA players. Ewing and Langdon are in Russia.Sean Dockery I think is still playing pro overseas as well as Nick Horvath down under. Crawford Palmer must have retired. I wonder what Cherokee and Erik Meek do professionally. I would think Cherokee might be in something like skateboards and accessories.Being a Huntington Beach native 7 footer with lots of tatoos. Jason Williams and Lee Melchionni are in sports agencies. Danny Ferry made the last trade of the trading season today.I hope it keeps LeBron James happy or Danny might join Billy King as an ex General Manager.Anyone know what Billy King is doing now?

[RelativeWays]

There's no denying some of the points he makes about Duke hitting the wall in MArch, but Duke is hardly alone in that catagory. There are quite a few College basketball "elite teams that either have one or no Final four appearances this decade, many have recruits that didn't pan out in college or the pros, but its Duke and apparently its only Duke's problem.

If you want my opinion on why Duke falters in February or March since 2004 is because Coach K hasn't had that leadership player that kind of embodies his priniciples on the court. Who is the last good leader Duke has had? And I mean a K type guy that takes charge on the court (in Battier's case, takes lots of charges ;) ) It wasn't Redick or Williams. It surely wasn't anyone on last years team, and I'm not seeing it this year. You could make the case for Duhon as the senior in 03-04, before you had Williams, Battier, Wojo, Grant, Laettner, etc, etc...We need to establish a true leader, I'm not sure D-marc is it. I had high hopes for Paulus after what he endured last year, but he hasn't turned the corner yet. If we don't have someone to emotionally galvanize the team, we doomed in March.

[Mudge]

Has some very interesting points. I don't like the Duke hating but ESPN is to blame for that. I will say though nobody gets hammered more often then Duke for recruiting " busts... The notion that players become McDonald's All Americans after Duke signs them is a flat out joke. Rankings are updated two to three times a year and only once after players have signed. So would have Patrick Patterson jumped into the top 5 if he had signed at Duke?

Has the recruiting suffered or is this just a string of bad luck?

1) This article is from SI, not ESPN, which as far as I know, has not been accused of any anti-Duke bias.

2) It has been suggested with a number of recruits that they moved up in the rankings (even on to the McDonald's list) as a result of Duke recruiting them. Wojo is the most widely known of these, although I suspect that Boateng and/or Thompson also fit this mold. Yes, I believe that some have moved up higher after they became Duke recruits. I'm not sure that Paulus doesn't fit this description (in basketball, not football-- I've no idea if Paulus is as good at football as Dick Vitale claims he is.)

3) I suggested in a thread on the old bulletin board last year that Duke's recruiting was no longer at the level that it had been in the Golden Era (from 1997-2003). This is not news that Duke has not recruited at its former level lately; however, I would argue that this year's class with Singler and Smith is step in the right direction, as these two players would have fit in with any of those classes from 1997-2003. Henderson and Scheyer from the previous year are also near that level as well, so perhaps Duke is beginning to regain its recruiting Mojo, after several years of missing badly. Certainly this year's results to date suggest that the coaching staff is getting back on track.

[Mudge]

The most obvious possibility that Mandel did not consider regarding scheduling is that many schools probably don't want to play Duke at home for fear of being blown out early in the season. The other interesting thing to either validate or refute his arguments would be to see how other top programs fare late in the season. Do other teams hit losing streaks or play less consistently? It's funny, all this attention is paid to Duke because they lost 2 games. Not even UCLA or UNC would get this type of attention for the same thing. That speaks louder than any of Mandel's points.

Actually, what Mandel does not mention is that Duke had two pretty good home-and-home non-conference rivalries against traditionally powerful teams that got canceled for different reasons. We used to play Michigan (when they were good) every year, but when Amaker became their coach, K did not want to play against his former player (for reasons of loyalty, not competition.) Now, it wouldn't help our SOS to play them, as they're so bad, they're about as useful as playing Temple and St. Johns. We used to play UCLA every year, until their coach (not sure if that was Harrick or Lavin at the time) got tired of us beating their head in every year (and using the free publicity to steal top West Coast recruits.)

Also, I think we used to play Notre Dame pretty regularly, but again, I think Digger Phelps got tired of losing to us (and still hasn't gotten over it, apparently), and it won't be re-started with K disciple Mike Brey coaching there now. We also tried to play a home-and-home with Arizona many years ago, but we got homered so badly by the refs out there, the rumor is that K swore off playing them anymore... it's not as though Lute Olsen is the most gracious person to collaborate with, either-- he's like a 75-year old version of Roy Williams.

Also, we still play Temple and St. Johns home-and-home, but both of these once great programs have declined and show no signs of emerging... I think K is loyal to them because they give us exposure in two major media cities, and he hopes that one day soon they will revive-- K knows what it is like to be great, suffer decay, and then have to try to rebuild. I also think K is willing to play Illinois on a home-and-home basis, as long as the home game is played in Chicago (which, let's be honest, would be a home court advantage for Illinois), because again, he wants to get major media city exposure-- so he can continue to get more than his fair share of those McDonald's AA's in the future.

[Mudge]

Wait? You mean when teams start playing the tougher part of their schedule, they're going to lose more? Genius!

What a piece of trash. It doesn't take any "research" to add up win-loss numbers.

By the way, where is the mention of the ACC tournament, which we've won like 10000 of the last 10002 times or something ridiculous like that? I'd say that's finishing pretty strong... Or how would the numbers look if you removed the outlier (last year)? This is just lazy writing, nothing more.

So many fans here are immediately dismissive of reasoned criticism of Duke-- not that that is any different than fans of any other program-- it's just that I hope for more from Duke fans than I do from, say, Kentucky fans. This story is anything but lazy, as the writer uses quite a lot of facts to back up his story. I would only argue that he has, in some areas, failed to dig deep enough to get the most accurate set of facts about Duke's current situation.

For example, his own magazine's picture accompanying this story has a caption which criticizes Henderson's recent scoring output, but he fails to note that Henderson is playing with a fairly serious injury-- even though the very same picture clearly shows the large brace on GH's shooting wrist/hand. Mandel also misses a number of Duke players who have played or are playing in the NBA right now (Randolph, Ewing- who was on an NBA roster last year, J. Williams-- who would be on a roster now, to name a few). Mandel also fails to dig into the reasons behind Duke's movement away from true home-and-home series with teams like UCLA, Michigan, and Notre Dame (which are not because Duke did not want to play these teams.) He also doesn't sufficiently discuss that Duke may WANT the slightly less talented players, exactly BECAUSE they are less likely to leave school early.

So, I would argue that he did a passable job of research, but he could have done much better, and thus presented a more nuanced picture.

[chrisM]

But let's forget that inconvenient truth and focus on February losing streaks. The facts Mandel presents are selective confirmation.

The past three years, Duke has underperformed in the NCAA tournament, relative to the average team with their seed. By a significant amount- they went out more than a round early each year. That is a real problem.

Chris

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I think the article is interesting and well-researched, and written in a very professional manner, but ultimately overblown. In fact, I'm not sure I quite understand his argument. Is it that Duke can't recruit good NBA talent? In a season where our alums have had massive injuries we're still one of the 4-5 best schools in the TDD fantasy league. And how much NBA talent were we churning out in the late 1980's when we went to 7 FF's in 9 seasons? Is it that we don't schedule enough OOC true road games? Mandel recognizes that our SOS is uniformly in the top of the nation, and I'm just not buying that 1-2 games in December played at Rupp/Storrs/etc. are really more important than a game at the Dean Dome, at Maryland, etc. In fact, like UNC, I'd argue that Duke's schedule is consistently underrated because we get everybody's best shot. In effect we play "better" teams than most lesser-known programs and face more energized and hostile crowds every time we step on the court.

Anyway, we're cherry-picking a 6 year period (2002-2007) that begins the year after 3 consecutive historically dominant seasons. In that time Duke has been head-and-shoulders above everyone in the regular season as Mandel recognizes.

In the NCAA's Duke is 12-6 with 1 FF and 0 NCAA misses. How many other teams have averaged 2 wins over the same period? How many of those have never missed the NCAAs? Not UConn, UNC, etc. I think you can argue that Florida has been better than us (never missed, 2 titles). Otherwise, there are 2 teams with 1 more FF than us: Kansas which has done it's share of underperforming, and UCLA, which missed the NCAAs 2 times (2003, 2004) in the same span, or 1/3 of the total tournaments. That's it, that's the list.

All of this is to say, Duke hasn't been better than everyone else, but it's hard to argue we've been appreciably worse either. Florida's historic run makes them, imo, the clear #1, but after that we're (at worst) neck and neck with Kansas, UNC, and UCLA, as we have been for just about the entire history of college basketball.

And if our swoon is a February/March phenomenon, we must really stink in the ACC tournament, right? After all, the ACC has sent a third of the NCAA champions in that period and the ACC is always one of the top 2-3 conferences, so poor stumbling Duke must just get crushed.

Actually, we get all those undeserved #1 NCAA seeds because we win a lot of games and have a high RPI/SOS (as Mandel recognized) AND because we won the ACC tournament on Selection Sunday in 4 of the 6 seasons (with an OT loss in the championship game in 1 other).

The bottom line is that the NCAA is really tough to win. In 100 years only two teams have more than 5, and both of those were fueled by massive cheating. Any team with Duke's consistent success (and #1 seeds) is going to "underperform" in the NCAA's if a FF is expected. Good players get you regular season success, matchups and luck win you titles. I'd argue that several of those seasons (2003 and 2005) in fact represent significant over-performance that just couldn't be sustained past the Sweet 16. In 2004 we lost to the eventual champions in the FF by 1 point. Basically, we've had 2 years of real underachievement and in each case the team that beat us went to the FF.

All of that said, I think you can make an argument that Duke has been "down" (again in a highly relative sense) for the last 3-4 season. I just don't buy that scheduling or recruiting NBA talent has been the major culprit. Here are the three problems that I think are major factors:

1) The Class of 2005 - For years K used a recruiting method that hinged on giant classes every 2-3 seasons, with 1-2 hand-picked parts inserted in the intervening seasons (Killer B's, JWill/Boozer/Dun, Selected 6, etc.) I've been griping about this for years and it came back to bite us hard in '05. That was a relatively weak class overall and of our 3 Burger Boys only 1 player has panned out (Greg). If Josh had played like the #1 player, if Greg had been the creator we expected, and if Boat, Marty, or Boykin had ever made ANY sort of impact there might be a 2006 banner in Cameron and there definitely wouldn't have been the (22-win) "disaster" that was 2007.

2) Injury - Everyone has injuries, but whether its bad luck, the floor in Cameron, or karma for the AMEx ads, we've been bit really hard by the injury bug. Two of our biggest recruits, Shav and Nelson, essentially lost their careers to injury and, like Ron Curry for UNC, that really sets a team back. We've also had several more players with a series of major injuries including Dave McClure, Josh McRoberts, Brian Zoubek, Gerald Henderson, and Marty Pocius. It's easy to argue that losing those guys is no great loss, but a) depth has been our Achilles heel and b) it can be argued that a lot of those guys would have been a lot better if they hadn't missed so much practice time, game time, and conditioning. In any event, losing 2-3 projected superstars and 3-4 more expected role-players is a lot in 6 seasons.

3) Transfers/No Shows - In this 6 year period we've had Sweet, MT, Leavingsoon, Hump, Boat, and Boykin all check out before playing any significant minutes. Stars never showed up and role-players bailed before they could develop. We've averaged one loss like this (above the normal graduation/early-entry losses) every season in this period. There's a reason why, and a cost for having 0 seniors last season and 1 this season.

What Duke does going forward is anyone's guess. We could run the table to a title or fall apart like last season, and neither would surprise me much. How we do, however, will probably reflect more about our recruiting, health, and matchups rather than whether or not we go to Rupp to play a game in December or whether or not Jon finds the right fit in the NBA.

[SMO]

The past three years, Duke has underperformed in the NCAA tournament, relative to the average team with their seed. By a significant amount- they went out more than a round early each year. That is a real problem.

Chris

Ah, the 3-year trend analysis. Let's take this useful analysis one step further. Duke just lost its last two games to teams significantly inferior, therefore, this is a major problem negating 22 wins and clearly indicative of a season in decline and perhaps an overall program on the verge of collapse. I love stats.

You know, it's supposed to snow where I live tonight. Global warming must not be real.

[Wander]

So many fans here are immediately dismissive of reasoned criticism of Duke-- not that that is any different than fans of any other program-- it's just that I hope for more from Duke fans than I do from, say, Kentucky fans. This story is anything but lazy, as the writer uses quite a lot of facts to back up his story.

I think Coach K did an awful coaching job last year, and did an awful coaching job against Miami. I have a lot of problems with stuff that he says, like the stupid remarks he made after Gerald's elbow. I think the line monitors suck, the kids in tent 1 have a ridiculously inflated sense of self-importance, our women's program is about to entire a serious period of decline, Alleva is a dbag, etc. I'm not dismissive of reasoned criticism of Duke.

However, this is not reasoned criticism. It is lazy criticism, and it's an overreaction to Duke's two losses this week. All the facts he cites can be pulled from an ESPN.com webpage. He doesn't provide any real insight, fails to look at other elite programs for comparison, and conveniently omits Duke's dominance of the ACC tournament. It's lazy and an overreaction.

[DukeDevilDeb]

Article that at first seems overly critical, but gains perpsective.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/index.html?eref=T1

Explain, please. I thought Mandel did the usual "here is why Duke stinks" job and was not nearly as competent at it as others.

[dukie8]

The most obvious possibility that Mandel did not consider regarding scheduling is that many schools probably don't want to play Duke at home for fear of being blown out early in the season. The other interesting thing to either validate or refute his arguments would be to see how other top programs fare late in the season. Do other teams hit losing streaks or play less consistently? It's funny, all this attention is paid to Duke because they lost 2 games. Not even UCLA or UNC would get this type of attention for the same thing. That speaks louder than any of Mandel's points.

which schools do you know of that won't schedule duke in their own arenas? it has been rumored on here for a long time that certain schools, like kentucky and uconn, won't do a home-and-home contract, but claiming that there are many schools won't schedule duke at their places is a new one. it is a guaranteed sell-out and a guaranteed national tv game.

all this attention is paid to duke not because of 2 losses but because of how badly they have played in the 2 losses. from 60-55 against wake to about 5 minutes left yesterday had to have been the most horrendous 45 or so consecutive minutes of duke basketball that i can remember. it was worse than anything last year and in 1995. when was the last time that duke gave up the most points and committed the most turnovers in a game this late in the season and then followed up that bomb with an even worse bomb by giving up even more points and committing even more turnovers in the very next game?

[DukeDevilDeb]

There's no denying some of the points he makes about Duke hitting the wall in MArch, but Duke is hardly alone in that catagory. There are quite a few College basketball "elite teams that either have one or no Final four appearances this decade, many have recruits that didn't pan out in college or the pros, but its Duke and apparently its only Duke's problem.

If you want my opinion on why Duke falters in February or March since 2004 is because Coach K hasn't had that leadership player that kind of embodies his priniciples on the court. Who is the last good leader Duke has had? And I mean a K type guy that takes charge on the court (in Battier's case, takes lots of charges ;) ) It wasn't Redick or Williams. It surely wasn't anyone on last years team, and I'm not seeing it this year. You could make the case for Duhon as the senior in 03-04, before you had Williams, Battier, Wojo, Grant, Laettner, etc, etc...We need to establish a true leader, I'm not sure D-marc is it. I had high hopes for Paulus after what he endured last year, but he hasn't turned the corner yet. If we don't have someone to emotionally galvanize the team, we doomed in March.

I love the guys on this team and have taught many of them, but I think you are right about a lack of leadership. DeMarcus is a great leader by example (most of the time:o ) but not by word and deed. I agree about Redick and Williams... again, great guys but not leaders. I would even question Duhon... but it is hard to know what would have happened had his injury in the ACC tourney not occurred. In my estimation, Battier was the last K leader we had.

And I'm not dissing guys who have played recently. Davis and Laettner were superb leaders, as was Grant Hill. Bobby Hurley, one of the best college point guards ever, was NOT a great leader... and we had a quick NCAA exit his senior year.

I'm not sure how to identify that leadership a priori. I'm sure K thought Redick and MacR would have it. But that is the piece missing from this puzzle. I am praying that Greg will continue to make forward progress... his gutsy enthusiasm has the best potential of any of today's players. But just 'cause you're a Mickie D AA doesn't mean that you can lead from the heart!

Go Devils!

[dukie8]

I think Coach K did an awful coaching job last year, and did an awful coaching job against Miami. I have a lot of problems with stuff that he says, like the stupid remarks he made after Gerald's elbow. I think the line monitors suck, the kids in tent 1 have a ridiculously inflated sense of self-importance, our women's program is about to entire a serious period of decline, Alleva is a dbag, etc. I'm not dismissive of reasoned criticism of Duke.

However, this is not reasoned criticism. It is lazy criticism, and it's an overreaction to Duke's two losses this week. All the facts he cites can be pulled from an ESPN.com webpage. He doesn't provide any real insight, fails to look at other elite programs for comparison, and conveniently omits Duke's dominance of the ACC tournament. It's lazy and an overreaction.

how can you call mandel's piece "lazy?" you might not agree with it but he has a ton of facts to support his arguments and presents them in an unbiased manner. the guy has done his homework.

[Wander]

how can you call mandel's piece "lazy?"

I can call it lazy because it's lazy. Compiling a win loss record of a team in a certain month takes pretty little effort. It's pretty easy to pick and select statistics that prove your point in just about any type of argument. It's less easy, and takes much more effort, to select a good set of statistics that gives a more complete picture of what's going on. There's no one way to do this, but as some have suggested, one idea that would help would be to provide meaningful numbers for other elite programs like Kansas and UConn and compare.

[dukie8]

I can call it lazy because it's lazy. Compiling a win loss record of a team in a certain month takes pretty little effort. It's pretty easy to pick and select statistics that prove your point in just about any type of argument. It's less easy, and takes much more effort, to select a good set of statistics that gives a more complete picture of what's going on. There's no one way to do this, but as some have suggested, one idea that would help would be to provide meaningful numbers for other elite programs like Kansas and UConn and compare.

your criticism is lazy -- not the piece. where are all of your stats and tables supporting your argument? i must have missed that post. the article was about how duke recently has won a lot of games in nov-jan and then fallen apart in feb/march -- NOT about how this phenomenon occurs with all elite teams or just duke. i'm sure that kansas has demonstrated a similar propensity for late season swoons in recent years (their ncaat performances have been atrocious) but you completely missed the point of the article if you thought it should have been an exhaustive study of elite college programs and their successes at different points in the season.

[BD80]

Explain, please. I thought Mandel did the usual "here is why Duke stinks" job and was not nearly as competent at it as others.

I thought his comments on the McDonald's AAs was fair, we haven't been getting the same championship level talent as we did during our string of Final Four appearances. I also thought his conclusion was fair:

Taking all of the aforementioned data into account, it would seem the common theme among Duke's recent teams is that they spend most of the season playing above themselves. Krzyzewski certainly deserves credit for adapting each year to the personnel on hand and maximizing their talent, but eventually the gas runs out and/or they get exposed by more talented teams -- the very kind of teams they avoid playing early in the season.

My big problem is the metric used - Duke's own success prior to 2002. Who else in basketball has "succeeded" since 2001 under Mandel's analysis?

[mapei]

your criticism is lazy -- not the piece. where are all of your stats and tables supporting your argument? i must have missed that post. the article was about how duke recently has won a lot of games in nov-jan and then fallen apart in feb/march -- NOT about how this phenomenon occurs with all elite teams or just duke. i'm sure that kansas has demonstrated a similar propensity for late season swoons in recent years (their ncaat performances have been atrocious) but you completely missed the point of the article if you thought it should have been an exhaustive study of elite college programs and their successes at different points in the season.


I agree. I think the criticisms were fair and better supported than almost everything any of us posts here on the board. It's a trend that the writer has observed, and it will continue to be a trend until we go deeper in the NCAA tournament. I agree that the ACC tourney should count more but, for whatever reason, it doesn't. ACC tourney success has become a terrible predictor of NCAA success.

Like Jason said, the way to refute the argument is to win.

[dukie8]

I thought his comments on the McDonald's AAs was fair, we haven't been getting the same championship level talent as we did during our string of Final Four appearances. I also thought his conclusion was fair:

Taking all of the aforementioned data into account, it would seem the common theme among Duke's recent teams is that they spend most of the season playing above themselves. Krzyzewski certainly deserves credit for adapting each year to the personnel on hand and maximizing their talent, but eventually the gas runs out and/or they get exposed by more talented teams -- the very kind of teams they avoid playing early in the season.

My big problem is the metric used - Duke's own success prior to 2002. Who else in basketball has "succeeded" since 2001 under Mandel's analysis?

um. florida. the last 2 ncs with not a lot of prized recruits. uconn. a nc in 2004 with not a lot of prized recruits. okafur might have had a 4.0 in high school but he wasn't highly sought after. gonzaga. not a lot of prized recruits (any?) and plenty of ncaat upsets.

[dukie8]

Like Jason said, the way to refute the argument is to win.

i agree! hopefully mandel has to write an update to his article in april about how his analysis has been skewed by duke in 2008.

[dukemsu]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Mandel is a football writer who dabbles in hoops. That said, his point is accurate in the fact that Duke has "struggled" in recent tourneys. However, his comparisons of teams from 2002 to 2008 as if they are somehow the same in a sport where rosters turn over anywhere from 10 to 60 percent every year is nonsense. There is almost zero relevance. I get it, the teams have K and the staff as the common denominator but in a one-and-out situation such as the tourney, any school has largely this sort of record. Except Florida, and that's only if you count the last two years. Before 06, they were writing this kind of drivel about Billy Donovan, too. Recruits a million stars, can't win with them, blah, blah, blah. Now he's the greatest coach in history. Well, until the last two weeks, anyway.

You can't compare Duke 2002 to Duke 2007. They shouldn't even be in the same data set. Duke 2007 was loaded with inexperience kids, many of them injured. Duke 2002 had three future pros. Duke 2003 had a young Redick/Williams and 2006 had a mature Redick/Williams. Each team needs to be considered on its own merits or lackthereof.

Also, as has been said elsewhere on the board, this completely ignores other Duke accomplishments, such as ACC dominance in the regular season and tournament. Mandel is a football writer, and as such falls into the trap most American sports fans do-watch college basketball in March only, and really only from Selection Sunday on. Most non-hoopheads largely have no interest in college basketball until the football hangover evaporates in late February, or until they need something else to bet on until football starts again.

Take nothing this guy (or most of his ilk) say seriously. If you're talking about Luke Winn, or Mike DeCourcy, or Seth Davis, or someone else who follows college hoops year round, that's something different entirely. This guy is just killing time before spring football. That's why he's wearing out easy comparisons and tired storylines.

dukemsu

[FerryFor50]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Mandel is a football writer who dabbles in hoops. That said, his point is accurate in the fact that Duke has "struggled" in recent tourneys. However, his comparisons of teams from 2002 to 2008 as if they are somehow the same in a sport where rosters turn over anywhere from 10 to 60 percent every year is nonsense. There is almost zero relevance. I get it, the teams have K and the staff as the common denominator but in a one-and-out situation such as the tourney, any school has largely this sort of record. Except Florida, and that's only if you count the last two years. Before 06, they were writing this kind of drivel about Billy Donovan, too. Recruits a million stars, can't win with them, blah, blah, blah. Now he's the greatest coach in history. Well, until the last two weeks, anyway.

You can't compare Duke 2002 to Duke 2007. They shouldn't even be in the same data set. Duke 2007 was loaded with inexperience kids, many of them injured. Duke 2002 had three future pros. Duke 2003 had a young Redick/Williams and 2006 had a mature Redick/Williams. Each team needs to be considered on its own merits or lackthereof.

Also, as has been said elsewhere on the board, this completely ignores other Duke accomplishments, such as ACC dominance in the regular season and tournament. Mandel is a football writer, and as such falls into the trap most American sports fans do-watch college basketball in March only, and really only from Selection Sunday on. Most non-hoopheads largely have no interest in college basketball until the football hangover evaporates in late February, or until they need something else to bet on until football starts again.

Take nothing this guy (or most of his ilk) say seriously. If you're talking about Luke Winn, or Mike DeCourcy, or Seth Davis, or someone else who follows college hoops year round, that's something different entirely. This guy is just killing time before spring football. That's why he's wearing out easy comparisons and tired storylines.

dukemsu

To be fair, he's a great college football writer.

But your post is exactly what I meant when I said "why college football writers shouldn't write about college basketball."

[Wander]

your criticism is lazy -- not the piece. where are all of your stats and tables supporting your argument? i must have missed that post.

Dude. You want me to post stats to show that his stats are selective and misleading? Will you then post stats about my stats about his stats? Maybe greybeard will jump in and post stats about your stats about my stats about his stats? That's great. I'm a fan typing on an internet message board for god's sake, not someone who gets paid to write articles like this. If you want me to write an article that's more complete and fair than Mandel's, send me a check for a couple hundred and I'll be glad to do it.

[BD80]

um. florida. the last 2 ncs with not a lot of prized recruits. uconn. a nc in 2004 with not a lot of prized recruits. okafur might have had a 4.0 in high school but he wasn't highly sought after. gonzaga. not a lot of prized recruits (any?) and plenty of ncaat upsets.

Sorry, Florida would fail miserably under the criteria used in the article:

Florida 2007-8 - make tourney?, 20-7, 18-3 Nov-Jan, 2-4 Feb (lost 4 of 5) - want to see a soft OOC schedule? Zero top 25 with ONE road OOC game.

Florida 2006-7 - Champs, 35-5, 20-2 Nov-Jan, 15-3 Feb-Apr, lost 3 of 4 in Feb

Florida 2005-6 - Champs, 33-6, 19-4 Nov-Jan, 14-2 Feb-Apr, lost 2 straight in Feb

Florida 2004-5 - lost in 2nd round, 24-8, 13-4 Nov-Jan, 11-4 Feb-Apr

Florida 2003-4 - lost in 1st round, 20-11, 13-5 Nov-Jan, 7-6 Feb-Apr

Florida 2002-3 - lost in 2nd round, 25-8, 17-2 Nov-Jan, 8-6 Feb-Apr - tumbled from #1, lost 3 straight.

Florida 2001-2 - lost in 1st round, 22-9, 15-4 Nov-Jan, 7-5 Feb-Apr

and talent?

Pros: Brewer, Green, Horford and Noah started '04-5; Richard in '03-4; Lee in '01-02; Bonner '00-01; Haslem in '99-0; Miller in '98-99

nonpro McD AAs, '97 Humphrey; '98 Dupay; '99 Nelson; '01 White; '02 Roberson; '07 Calathes


As for UCon, they didn't make the tourney last year! And the '04 champions didn't have talent? SEVEN players from that team are in the pros, which doesn't include Ed Nelson, the 01-02 ACC freshman of the year. Under the criteria of the article, they've SUNK even more than Duke has.

Gonzaga doesn't belong in the discussion, soft conference schedule and not the level of success.

[wiscodevil]

it's a poorly thought out argument.

Compare it to EVERY other school over the last 6-7 years and show me how they stack up.

Throw out last year and it's a 75% winning % in Feb and March. On top of a 90% winning % in Dec-Feb.

Again show me the other top 10-15 schools and what their numbers look like in this era.

SOS? Please! Look it up.

# of tourney appearances, # of regular and post season titles, winning percentages, etc.

of course the % will be higher earlier in the year:
1. EVERYONE plays a weaker OCS than ICS,
2. You're playing teams in your conf for the 2nd and 3rd time.
3. The tourneys are one and done scenarios which basically make it impossible to have an 80-90% winning %, unless ur winning both every year.

Again, I'm not blindly supporting Duke and K. I'd love to see them play more away games in tough environs, go to the elite 8 or ff every year, but those are unrealistic expectations. NO ONE does it every year.

And if Duke did Mandel would have an article about how they don't win it all.

Anyone with the time and energy to look at the stats he presented and compared it to any and every other school in the country would see the reality of it.

[devildownunder]

The greatest omission of this piece is Duke's dominance of the ACC tournament. To accept that Duke's place among the top programs is overstated, one would have to accept that the ACC is not a top conference. Duke's dominance of the ACC tourney in recent years demonstrates that late in the season, Duke is the top team in one of the top conferences in the country.

But let's forget that inconvenient truth and focus on February losing streaks. The facts Mandel presents are selective confirmation.


From the article: One possible source of the discrepancy is the fact that Duke usually plays both editions of its home-and-home with archrival North Carolina in February and March. However, the Tar Heels have only been responsible for five of those 31 losses. The Blue Devils have lost more frequently to teams that failed to reach the NCAAs (seven).

Rather than focusing on Duke's ACC foes, which the Blue Devils have no control over and which, for the most part, they've continued to dominate (including four ACC tournament titles during the six-year span), it's time to focus on a largely overlooked area that's contributed to both Duke's inflated rankings and postseason failures since 2002: Its relatively unchallenging nonconference schedule.


You can argue that he gave it short shrift because it didn't support his thesis, but you can't say he ignored it. He mentions it explicitly and with facts to support it.

[dukie8]

Sorry, Florida would fail miserably under the criteria used in the article:

Florida 2007-8 - make tourney?, 20-7, 18-3 Nov-Jan, 2-4 Feb (lost 4 of 5) - want to see a soft OOC schedule? Zero top 25 with ONE road OOC game.

Florida 2006-7 - Champs, 35-5, 20-2 Nov-Jan, 15-3 Feb-Apr, lost 3 of 4 in Feb

Florida 2005-6 - Champs, 33-6, 19-4 Nov-Jan, 14-2 Feb-Apr, lost 2 straight in Feb

Florida 2004-5 - lost in 2nd round, 24-8, 13-4 Nov-Jan, 11-4 Feb-Apr

Florida 2003-4 - lost in 1st round, 20-11, 13-5 Nov-Jan, 7-6 Feb-Apr

Florida 2002-3 - lost in 2nd round, 25-8, 17-2 Nov-Jan, 8-6 Feb-Apr - tumbled from #1, lost 3 straight.

Florida 2001-2 - lost in 1st round, 22-9, 15-4 Nov-Jan, 7-5 Feb-Apr

and talent?

Pros: Brewer, Green, Horford and Noah started '04-5; Richard in '03-4; Lee in '01-02; Bonner '00-01; Haslem in '99-0; Miller in '98-99

nonpro McD AAs, '97 Humphrey; '98 Dupay; '99 Nelson; '01 White; '02 Roberson; '07 Calathes


As for UCon, they didn't make the tourney last year! And the '04 champions didn't have talent? SEVEN players from that team are in the pros, which doesn't include Ed Nelson, the 01-02 ACC freshman of the year. Under the criteria of the article, they've SUNK even more than Duke has.

Gonzaga doesn't belong in the discussion, soft conference schedule and not the level of success.

how many of florida's and uconn's pros were mcd aas? how many were top 25 recruits? you can't point to lowly rated high school players that donovan and calhoun developed into pros and claim that he has talent. that's exactly the point that mandel is making about duke. was joey beard talent? boykins? you completely missed that point of the article.

also, you failed to include florida's seeds in your "stats." how does florida "fail miserably" when they upset duke in 2000 (a lower seed beating a higher seed) and won 2 ncs the last 2 years. that's 3 of the last 8 years meeting or exceeding expectations according to its seed. prior to its ncs, florida did often choke in the tournament but it has done quite well. moreover, why are you listing losses in february? why does that have any relevance particularly when you don't include records from earlier in the year. mandel's point was that duke wins a ton of games in nov-jan (and doesn't lose many then) and then starts losing in feb-march much more so than earlier in the year. his data strongly supports his conclusion. he never claims that other teams DON'T lose games in feb. in fact, florida usually plays a joke occ schedule and i am sure loses more games in feb than earlier in the season (don't most teams anyway?)

it would behoove some of you to spend a little more time reading his article before yapping away without understanding what he is trying to explain.

[devildownunder]

Ah, the 3-year trend analysis. Let's take this useful analysis one step further. Duke just lost its last two games to teams significantly inferior, therefore, this is a major problem negating 22 wins and clearly indicative of a season in decline and perhaps an overall program on the verge of collapse. I love stats.

You know, it's supposed to snow where I live tonight. Global warming must not be real.


By this reasoning, I assume you would be posting a similar remark had someone posted after the 1990 season that things looked great for duke's future because we had been to 3 final fours in a row? Or perhaps not.

My point is that this a knee-jerk, dismissive response that comes for no other reason that to snuff out a negative comment. As someone else noted in this thread, we should attempt to rise above this sort of behavior and try to evaluate things fairly. Mr Mandel has done precisely what so many on this board accuse others who are critical of not doing -- he has backed up all of his points with facts. Maybe we should attempt to glean some truth, whatever we may determine that is, from those facts, rather than try to flush them down the john because they don't make us happy.

FWIW, I think Mandel's point is that duke's regular-season success and rankings of late have not been constructed in the same manner as our success during the 7-of-9 years, and that in examining those construction differences, we can can to some conclusions about duke's tourney underachieving (by seeding) in recent years.

I think it's hard to read and consider this article objectively without judging Mandel's theory and conclusions to be, at the very least, plausible.

[dukie8]

it's a poorly thought out argument.

Compare it to EVERY other school over the last 6-7 years and show me how they stack up.

Throw out last year and it's a 75% winning % in Feb and March. On top of a 90% winning % in Dec-Feb.

Again show me the other top 10-15 schools and what their numbers look like in this era

you nicely left out the last, and most important part of his point -- that duke then does poorly in the ncaat as compared to its seed. his point is NOT that duke pumps up its record in nov-jan and then loses more games in feb-march. you are correct in stating that nearly every team does that. it's that the trend continues into the ncaat. show me which top 15 teams also have had such a pronounced drop off from the fall to the ncaat. it is astounding how difficult it has been for some of the posters to comprehend what mandel wrote.

[wiscodevil]

you nicely left out the last, and most important part of his point -- that duke then does poorly in the ncaat as compared to its seed. his point is NOT that duke pumps up its record in nov-jan and then loses more games in feb-march. you are correct in stating that nearly every team does that. it's that the trend continues into the ncaat. show me which top 15 teams also have had such a pronounced drop off from the fall to the ncaat. it is astounding how difficult it has been for some of the posters to comprehend what mandel wrote.

so to be clear, as a #1 or 2 seed in the tourney, if they don't make the FF or at least elite 8 they have underachieved, right?

[TwoDukeTattoos]

Article that at first seems overly critical, but gains perpsective.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/21/duke/index.html?eref=T1

While as a Duke fan, we certainly don't appreciate the tone of the article, one has to admit that he brings up some valid points. Other than a string of ACC Tourney Titles, we have had very little post-season success. And when you think back, we have really had no marquee names on any of those teams (excluding J Williams from 02 and Luol Deng from 04).

[SMO]

so to be clear, as a #1 or 2 seed in the tourney, if they don't make the FF or at least elite 8 they have underachieved, right?

Good point. It's kind of tough to have upside when you're a #1 seed. Especially when you're a #1 seed overall.

[sagegrouse]

This is an utterly ridiculous piece wrapped in the integument of falsified statistics.

First: What's his point? Is is that Duke has been totally overrated since 2002 because the players are no good? Or that the weak non-conference schedule doesn't prepare the team for the NCAAs? It's not clear either to me or to the author. And, of course, for three decades columnists were opining that the tough ACC tournament made it impossible to win the NCAA championship. The Duke-Duke-UNC run from 1991 to 1993 muted those voices.

Second: He fudged the data. Of the 17 Duke McD's, nine are still in college (53%). Of the 159 from other schools, only 60 are still in college (38%)! Looking at the proportion in the NBA of those having left college, Duke has four of eight (according to his data). The others are 60 out of 99 (61%). This is not a statistically meaningful difference, if his data were correct -- which they aren't. There are actually five Duke NBA roster players from the McD sample since 2003 -- Luol, JJ, Shelden, Shav and....... Josh, who is listed on the Trailblazers roster.

WRT to the number of starters lets note that Shav is injured and the others (except Luol) are in their first two years.

Third: Probably the biggest problem from a statistics standpoint (he is not a professional statistician, and I wouldn't recommend it) is that he picked the pinnacle of 2001 and 2002 and then used it to compare with the (inevitable) valley that followed. Battier, Boozer, Dunleavy, JWill (if uninjured) were tremendous NBA players and Duke went 4 for 4 in turning McD AA's into NBA starters. This is selectivity bias of the worst kind. For example if used some fixed time interval (2000s or last ten years), he would get a totally different answer.

The reasonable conclusion from the data I see is that the McD AA's who left Duke between 1999 and 2002 did phenomenally better than their peers who went to other schools. The ones since than have done just about average -- that is, average for McDonald All-Americans.

Ugh! Double ugh!

sagegrouse

[SMO]

By this reasoning, I assume you would be posting a similar remark had someone posted after the 1990 season that things looked great for duke's future because we had been to 3 final fours in a row? Or perhaps not.

My point is that this a knee-jerk, dismissive response that comes for no other reason that to snuff out a negative comment. As someone else noted in this thread, we should attempt to rise above this sort of behavior and try to evaluate things fairly. Mr Mandel has done precisely what so many on this board accuse others who are critical of not doing -- he has backed up all of his points with facts. Maybe we should attempt to glean some truth, whatever we may determine that is, from those facts, rather than try to flush them down the john because they don't make us happy.

FWIW, I think Mandel's point is that duke's regular-season success and rankings of late have not been constructed in the same manner as our success during the 7-of-9 years, and that in examining those construction differences, we can can to some conclusions about duke's tourney underachieving (by seeding) in recent years.

I think it's hard to read and consider this article objectively without judging Mandel's theory and conclusions to be, at the very least, plausible.

The main point of my criticism is that the amount of prognostication that goes on is absurd in itself, then on top of this people try to support these assertions with "stats" or "facts" that are wholely based on confirmation bias. Mandel's article is a good example although he does put out more support for his argument than most sports writers. It just happens that his supporting facts are selective.

[SMO]

Third: Probably the biggest problem from a statistics standpoint (he is not a professional statistician, and I wouldn't recommend it) is that he picked the pinnacle of 2001 and 2002 and then used it to compare with the (inevitable) valley that followed. Battier, Boozer, Dunleavy, JWill (if uninjured) were tremendous NBA players and Duke went 4 for 4 in turning McD AA's into NBA starters. This is selectivity bias of the worst kind. For example if used some fixed time interval (2000s or last ten years), he would get a totally different answer.

Good point, but try explaining regression to the mean to Mandel. :confused:

[BD80]

how many of florida's and uconn's pros were mcd aas? how many were top 25 recruits? you can't point to lowly rated high school players that donovan and calhoun developed into pros and claim that he has talent. that's exactly the point that mandel is making about duke. was joey beard talent? boykins? you completely missed that point of the article.

also, you failed to include florida's seeds in your "stats." how does florida "fail miserably" when they upset duke in 2000 (a lower seed beating a higher seed) and won 2 ncs the last 2 years. that's 3 of the last 8 years meeting or exceeding expectations according to its seed. prior to its ncs, florida did often choke in the tournament but it has done quite well. moreover, why are you listing losses in february? why does that have any relevance particularly when you don't include records from earlier in the year. mandel's point was that duke wins a ton of games in nov-jan (and doesn't lose many then) and then starts losing in feb-march much more so than earlier in the year. his data strongly supports his conclusion. he never claims that other teams DON'T lose games in feb. in fact, florida usually plays a joke occ schedule and i am sure loses more games in feb than earlier in the season (don't most teams anyway?)

it would behoove some of you to spend a little more time reading his article before yapping away without understanding what he is trying to explain.

Nice - real nice. "Yapping". I take it you are the standard bearer of civility around here huh? You certainly aren't the leader in reading comprehension or forensics.

The title of the article is:

Dissecting Duke: Why the Devils have sunk down stretch since 2001

Mandel then breaks down Duke's winning % the last 7 seasons into Nov-Jan (92.4%) and Feb-Mar (69.0%) as evidence of the "sinking". I questioned whether any team would be successful under such a standard and you replied Florida and UCon.

I then broke down Florida's record in the same time period to illustrate they similarly "sink" from Nov-Jan (82.7%) to Feb-Mar (68.1%) despite 2 championship seasons that at least finished 6-0.

Mandel cites the decline in talent at Duke as a reason for the recent "sinking", and argues that McD AA status isn't necessarily an indicator of talent but that NBA status is, thus our glut of McD AAs the last 7 seasons isn't a true measure of talent compared to our seasons prior to 2001 when we had so many future NBA players.

You implied that Florida and UCon did not even have the talent that Duke had post 2001. Using Mandel's standard, I refuted that statement by listing the future NBA players UCon and Florida had. Are you now saying that because some players weren't McD AAs they weren't talented even though they made the NBA?

Maybe you could spend some time reading, and thinking, before you reply.

[FerryFor50]

This is an utterly ridiculous piece wrapped in the integument of falsified statistics.

First: What's his point? Is is that Duke has been totally overrated since 2002 because the players are no good? Or that the weak non-conference schedule doesn't prepare the team for the NCAAs? It's not clear either to me or to the author. And, of course, for three decades columnists were opining that the tough ACC tournament made it impossible to win the NCAA championship. The Duke-Duke-UNC run from 1991 to 1993 muted those voices.

Second: He fudged the data. Of the 17 Duke McD's, nine are still in college (53%). Of the 159 from other schools, only 60 are still in college (38%)! Looking at the proportion in the NBA of those having left college, Duke has four of eight (according to his data). The others are 60 out of 99 (61%). This is not a statistically meaningful difference, if his data were correct -- which they aren't. There are actually five Duke NBA roster players from the McD sample since 2003 -- Luol, JJ, Shelden, Shav and....... Josh, who is listed on the Trailblazers roster.

WRT to the number of starters lets note that Shav is injured and the others (except Luol) are in their first two years.

Third: Probably the biggest problem from a statistics standpoint (he is not a professional statistician, and I wouldn't recommend it) is that he picked the pinnacle of 2001 and 2002 and then used it to compare with the (inevitable) valley that followed. Battier, Boozer, Dunleavy, JWill (if uninjured) were tremendous NBA players and Duke went 4 for 4 in turning McD AA's into NBA starters. This is selectivity bias of the worst kind. For example if used some fixed time interval (2000s or last ten years), he would get a totally different answer.

The reasonable conclusion from the data I see is that the McD AA's who left Duke between 1999 and 2002 did phenomenally better than their peers who went to other schools. The ones since than have done just about average -- that is, average for McDonald All-Americans.

Ugh! Double ugh!

sagegrouse

The best part is discounting Duke's annually strong non-conference schedule strength by claiming it's never a "true" road game.

Who cares? It's still a road game; they still have to play these good teams.

You could argue that with all the bandwagon UNC fans, UNC never plays a "true" road non-conference game.

[CMVann]

If it is not Duke as Mandel says, then who? Only three teams have been to the Final Four more than Duke's 04 appearance since the 2002 Final Four: Kansas (02, 03), UCLA (06, 07), and Florida (06, 07). From 2002-2005, Florida couldn't get past the 2nd round. UCLA had a sweet sixteen appearance in 2002, didn't make the tournament in 03 or 04, and lost to Texas Tech in the first round in 05. Kansas has made two regional finals and lost in the first round twice since its last FF appearance in 02. Are these teams more dominant than Duke?

[devildownunder]

The main point of my criticism is that the amount of prognostication that goes on is absurd in itself, then on top of this people try to support these assertions with "stats" or "facts" that are wholely based on confirmation bias. Mandel's article is a good example although he does put out more support for his argument than most sports writers. It just happens that his supporting facts are selective.


Maybe this demonstrates a lack of understanding on my part but aren't the supporting facts in anyone's argument selective? Mandel starts looks at a trend that has developed over the last 6 or 7 years, coming right up to the present day. He identifies a trend, then offers some ideas on some of the factors that may be behind that trend. Anyone else is certainly free to try to come up with their own stats but how else can you possibly make any argument? And if he doesn't use any stats he will be criticised for that, correct?

It seems to me that in analyzing the argument it is unfair and unproductive to slam someone for attempting to support their statements or for being "selective". Our job is to weigh the quality of the argument, based on the validity of the premise and quality of the supporting details, both in light of what is there and what isn't. In this case, I think the writer's premise and details are drawn from facts and his (rather cautious, i think) conclusions are reasonable. That doesn't mean he has come up with a universal truth but I do think that dismissing his case as irrelevant because it is "flawed" is closed-minded.

[devildownunder]

The best part is discounting Duke's annually strong non-conference schedule strength by claiming it's never a "true" road game.

Who cares? It's still a road game; they still have to play these good teams.

You could argue that with all the bandwagon UNC fans, UNC never plays a "true" road non-conference game.


How many of those folks do you think were in Rupp Arena when unc played there? Or, even better, how many of Duke's OOC opponents wouldn't feel their chances for a win had increased greatly if they played the blue devils in charlotte, or greensboro, or even in the meadowlands, rather than have to play them at Cameron? There is a HUGE difference between playing near somebody's home floor and playing in their regular home arena -- especially when it's on-campus. Let's be honest about this.

[FerryFor50]

How many of those folks do you think were in Rupp Arena when unc played there? Or, even better, how many of Duke's OOC opponents wouldn't feel their chances for a win had increased greatly if they played the blue devils in charlotte, or greensboro, or even in the meadowlands, rather than have to play them at Cameron? There is a HUGE difference between playing near somebody's home floor and playing in their regular home arena -- especially when it's on-campus. Let's be honest about this.


There is.

But Duke plays a lot of away games in Maui, New Jersey/New York, etc. Just because a lot of Duke fans live in the north doesn't mean Duke shouldn't be allowed to play there. And last time they did, who did they play? Pitt.

They don't play all their road games in Greensboro.

UNC played true road games, but against lesser teams.

[wiscodevil]

Nice - real nice. "Yapping". I take it you are the standard bearer of civility around here huh? You certainly aren't the leader in reading comprehension or forensics.


you're kidding right?

[devildownunder]

Nice - real nice. "Yapping". I take it you are the standard bearer of civility around here huh? You certainly aren't the leader in reading comprehension or forensics.

The title of the article is:

Dissecting Duke: Why the Devils have sunk down stretch since 2001

This is a bit away from what you were getting at but...


Most people who are not in media probably don't know that reporters write probably less than one tenth of 1% of the headlines you see on their stories, no matter what medium they are in, unless you're reading a blog, where one person writes every single thing you see. In this case, I think the headline, while provocative, is a little misleading, but because he almost certainly didn't write it, I'm not going to blame him for it. Mandel touches on duke's second-half record vs. it's first-half one but he seems to address that in the context of discussing what he considers to be a weakening of the earlier-season schedules. The thrust of the article seems to be that duke has had gaudy records and seedings in the last handful of years but has failed to live up to them. In essence, he is calling us something of a paper tiger. I think a more accurate headline would have said something along those lines.

[devildownunder]

There is.

But Duke plays a lot of away games in Maui, New Jersey/New York, etc. Just because a lot of Duke fans live in the north doesn't mean Duke shouldn't be allowed to play there. And last time they did, who did they play? Pitt.

They don't play all their road games in Greensboro.

UNC played true road games, but against lesser teams.

I have no problem with duke playing in New Jersey/NY once or twice a year. No problem with Maui/alaska either. In fact, I applaud participation in those tournaments because they usually lead to games against quality competition.

But they are not true road games, anymore than playing in jersey is a true home game.

Also, nothing about those contests precludes putting two major, anticipated top 20 home-and-homes on the schedule. Real home-and-homes, not just in the same state or whatever. And on this point, I agree with mandel 100% and I'm glad he put the numbers there to show it. Duke simply does not try to schedule these games anymore and I know I can't prove it but I think it is hurting us. I don't recall unc's entire schedule and it doesn't matter. This isn't about what we've done relative to them, it's just about us.

[FerryFor50]

I have no problem with duke playing in New Jersey/NY once or twice a year. No problem with Maui/alaska either. In fact, I applaud participation in those tournaments because they usually lead to games against quality competition.

But they are not true road games, anymore than playing in jersey is a true home game.

Also, nothing about those contests precludes putting two major, anticipated top 20 home-and-homes on the schedule. Real home-and-homes, not just in the same state or whatever. And on this point, I agree with mandel 100% and I'm glad he put the numbers there to show it. Duke simply does not try to schedule these games anymore and I know I can't prove it but I think it is hurting us. I don't recall unc's entire schedule and it doesn't matter. This isn't about what we've done relative to them, it's just about us.

Well, the point Coach K has made is... are NCAA tourny games really TRUE road games? No.

So there are just 2 schools of thoughts on the matter... but it's not why Duke "fades" at the end of a season.

[devildownunder]

Good point. It's kind of tough to have upside when you're a #1 seed. Especially when you're a #1 seed overall.


Correct, but Mandel isn't berating duke for lack of upside. He is saying that Duke has been getting those No.1 and No. 2 seeds consistently for years, only in the last 5 or 6 years, we haven't been living up to them, whereas before, more often than not, when we had those seeds, we were good enough to live up to them. His argument is concerned with determining why that may be the case.

[FerryFor50]

Correct, but Mandel's isn't berating duke for lack of upside. He is saying that Duke has been getting those No.1 and No. 2 seeds consistently for years, only in the last 5 or 6 years, we haven't been living up to them, whereas before, more often than not, when we had those seeds, we were good enough to live up to them. His argument is concerned with determining why that may be the case.

What he's failing to mention is that, though Duke gets a #1 or #2 seed, they constantly get put in the toughest brackets of the tournament. #1 seed isn't doing you much good when your road is the toughest.

[devildownunder]

Well, the point Coach K has made is... are NCAA tourny games really TRUE road games? No.

So there are just 2 schools of thoughts on the matter... but it's not why Duke "fades" at the end of a season.


No, they aren't true road games, although they are close to such for duke far more often than for most teams.

Games at home against midmajors who have lost four senior top-line players from their final four team of the previous season -- without a rematch in their gym -- aren't similar to NCAA games either, but we scheduled George Mason a couple of years ago. So there are more reasons to schedule games than just whether or not they precisely simulate NCAA tourney conditions. Taking a team into an opponent's home gym toughens and galvanizes them.

Look, nothing anyone says here is ever going to change K's mind on anything but the fact is that our tournament success on the whole, as far as how well we did at living up to our seeding, was much better when K took the boys into the lion's den a few times. That doesn't mean one led to the other, but it doesn't support the argument that we don't need these games either.

[devildownunder]

What he's failing to mention is that, though Duke gets a #1 or #2 seed, they constantly get put in the toughest brackets of the tournament. #1 seed isn't doing you much good when your road is the toughest.


How exactly do you support that statement? On a couple of occasions, duke has been the no.1 overall seed, meaning the committee would have put us in what it thought was the weakest bracket, with the weakest 2, strongest 3, weakest 4, etc. meaning all the teams in our half would be the weakest in the field at their seeding.

I am at a loss to think of what evidence you could have that duke was consistently placed in the toughest regional.

[FerryFor50]

How exactly do you support that statement? On a couple of occasions, duke has been the no.1 overall seed, meaning the committee would have put us in what it thought was the weakest bracket, with the weakest 2, strongest 3, weakest 4, etc. meaning all the teams in our half would be the weakest in the field at their seeding.

I am at a loss to think of what evidence you could have that duke was consistently placed in the toughest regional.

Well, I have no evidence, of course, just opinion.

I just look at the brackets from years to year and say to myself "wow, what did we do to deserve THAT?"

If I find some time, I'll see if I can dig up old brackets and look at the matchups in hindsight... but I just know that I notice that trend every year.

For instance, when Florida won their first NC... they had one of the easiest roads to the finals I can remember (both by "luck" of the draw and other teams losing before they had to face Florida).

The NCAA tourny is really a flawed tourny because the best team doesn't always win. It's mostly luck of the draw. It's great entertainment, though, because you get to see upsets and "one shining moment" but only when you have 5 game series do you find out the best teams. (Not saying college should adopt that, because it makes no sense.)

[devildownunder]

Well, I have no evidence, of course, just opinion.

I just look at the brackets from years to year and say to myself "wow, what did we do to deserve THAT?"

If I find some time, I'll see if I can dig up old brackets and look at the matchups in hindsight... but I just know that I notice that trend every year.

For instance, when Florida won their first NC... they had one of the easiest roads to the finals I can remember (both by "luck" of the draw and other teams losing before they had to face Florida).

The NCAA tourny is really a flawed tourny because the best team doesn't always win. It's mostly luck of the draw. It's great entertainment, though, because you get to see upsets and "one shining moment" but only when you have 5 game series do you find out the best teams. (Not saying college should adopt that, because it makes no sense.)

It's pretty easy to find fans of any team that is consistently in the field of 64 (cbs and the ncaa bedeviled! it's 64!) who consistently think their team has received a right royal raw deal from the selection committee. So while I certainly can't refute your claims, I can say that duke fans don't have any monopoly on the sentiment.

And I disagree that the tournament is ALL about luck. Winning it all in any particular year generally does require some luck, such as a great escape, or 1 or 2 favourable matchups, but I think making a consistently strong, or weak, showing has a lot to do with coaching and preparation and knowing how to get your team ready under the circumstances. The relevant decisions involve several variables in play throughout the season and possibly even the offseason, not just right at tournament time. And I think one of those variables is scheduling.

[BD80]

[QUOTE=BD80;107898]
The title of the article is:

Dissecting Duke: Why the Devils have sunk down stretch since 2001

This is a bit away from what you were getting at but...


I think the headline, while provocative, is a little misleading, but because he almost certainly didn't write it,

So the editor didn't understand the article?

What about these paragraphs?

If you've followed the Blue Devils closely over the past seven years, however, this week's sudden swoon should come as little surprise. If anything, the scenes described above probably seemed extremely familiar, if not inevitable, considering where they fell on the calendar.

A closer look at the numbers, however, reveals Duke has not been nearly as dominant late in the season. The Devils' demise has not been limited solely to the Big Dance, either -- in most cases, their swoon begins in February.

I don't think we differ that much in our interpretation. Mandel discusses unmet expectations in that prior to 2002, we had continued our early season successes. I find the focus of the article is the reasons we are "swooning" beginning each February - implying that our current two game losing streak is a swoon.

[sagegrouse]

Maybe this demonstrates a lack of understanding on my part but aren't the supporting facts in anyone's argument selective? Mandel starts looks at a trend that has developed over the last 6 or 7 years, coming right up to the present day. He identifies a trend, then offers some ideas on some of the factors that may be behind that trend. Anyone else is certainly free to try to come up with their own stats but how else can you possibly make any argument? And if he doesn't use any stats he will be criticised for that, correct?

It seems to me that in analyzing the argument it is unfair and unproductive to slam someone for attempting to support their statements or for being "selective". Our job is to weigh the quality of the argument, based on the validity of the premise and quality of the supporting details, both in light of what is there and what isn't. In this case, I think the writer's premise and details are drawn from facts and his (rather cautious, i think) conclusions are reasonable. That doesn't mean he has come up with a universal truth but I do think that dismissing his case as irrelevant because it is "flawed" is closed-minded.

Part of the problem is that he falsified the data AND the analysis (failing to eliminate current college athletes when calculating the % making it in the NBA is worse than lying).

It appears to be the case that the earlier years were unusually productive for Duke McD AA's -- not that the recent ones have done bad.

And, no, when doing analytical research, you don't start with your conclusions (Duke's FF success the past six years is not as good as the previous 15) and try to force-fit and explanation. As others have noted, Duke's hasn't done badly compared to other teams -- only really in comparison to PAST Duke teams. And Duke McD AA's since 2003 have done about as well as the average for all McD AA's, especially if you consider that the sample is dominated by first and second year players.

sagegrouse

[devildownunder]

[QUOTE=devildownunder;107929]

So the editor didn't understand the article?

What about these paragraphs?

If you've followed the Blue Devils closely over the past seven years, however, this week's sudden swoon should come as little surprise. If anything, the scenes described above probably seemed extremely familiar, if not inevitable, considering where they fell on the calendar.

A closer look at the numbers, however, reveals Duke has not been nearly as dominant late in the season. The Devils' demise has not been limited solely to the Big Dance, either -- in most cases, their swoon begins in February.

I don't think we differ that much in our interpretation. Mandel discusses unmet expectations in that prior to 2002, we had continued our early season successes. I find the focus of the article is the reasons we are "swooning" beginning each February - implying that our current two game losing streak is a swoon.


Mandel does come at it from that angle at the start. But, in the main, the article stacks up as a case for our recent teams being paper tigers, saying that they were never that good to begin with, rather than that they "swooned", which to me implies a team playing beneath its abilities. That may be just a more expansive way of expressing the same idea.

[ArtVandelay]

This is an utterly ridiculous piece wrapped in the integument of falsified statistics.

First: What's his point? Is is that Duke has been totally overrated since 2002 because the players are no good? Or that the weak non-conference schedule doesn't prepare the team for the NCAAs? It's not clear either to me or to the author. And, of course, for three decades columnists were opining that the tough ACC tournament made it impossible to win the NCAA championship. The Duke-Duke-UNC run from 1991 to 1993 muted those voices.

Second: He fudged the data. Of the 17 Duke McD's, nine are still in college (53%). Of the 159 from other schools, only 60 are still in college (38%)! Looking at the proportion in the NBA of those having left college, Duke has four of eight (according to his data). The others are 60 out of 99 (61%). This is not a statistically meaningful difference, if his data were correct -- which they aren't. There are actually five Duke NBA roster players from the McD sample since 2003 -- Luol, JJ, Shelden, Shav and....... Josh, who is listed on the Trailblazers roster.

WRT to the number of starters lets note that Shav is injured and the others (except Luol) are in their first two years.

Third: Probably the biggest problem from a statistics standpoint (he is not a professional statistician, and I wouldn't recommend it) is that he picked the pinnacle of 2001 and 2002 and then used it to compare with the (inevitable) valley that followed. Battier, Boozer, Dunleavy, JWill (if uninjured) were tremendous NBA players and Duke went 4 for 4 in turning McD AA's into NBA starters. This is selectivity bias of the worst kind. For example if used some fixed time interval (2000s or last ten years), he would get a totally different answer.

The reasonable conclusion from the data I see is that the McD AA's who left Duke between 1999 and 2002 did phenomenally better than their peers who went to other schools. The ones since than have done just about average -- that is, average for McDonald All-Americans.

Ugh! Double ugh!

sagegrouse

These critiques pretty much nail it, in my view, although I wouldn't say the end result is "utterly ridiculuous." His column is relatively "fair," in that he doesn't make stuff up out of whole cloth. It's just misleading, because he has presented the statistics in a very specific way to make a very dubious point. One of the very first comments on this thread was that you can say this for just about every team, except for the part about the McDonald's AAs. That doesn't make his points untrue, but it does make you wonder why Duke was chosen as the subject, as opposed to some other team.

And as for the part about the Mickey Ds, as Sagegrouse points out, he cherry-picked the period from 2002-2007, during which a number of our AAs are still in school, while others have suffered pretty major injuries. Really it's just the 2004 class (Paulus, McBob, et al) that turned out to be a pretty major bust and seems to continue to cast a shadow on the program for some unknown reason. Again, it's not that this criticism that Duke AAs are not NBA starters is WRONG, but it's a) misleading, and b) has some very reasonable explanations. The fact that it's both of those things also makes you wonder about the motivations of the author.

[devildownunder]

Part of the problem is that he falsified the data AND the analysis (failing to eliminate current college athletes when calculating the % making it in the NBA is worse than lying).

It appears to be the case that the earlier years were unusually productive for Duke McD AA's -- not that the recent ones have done bad.

And, no, when doing analytical research, you don't start with your conclusions (Duke's FF success the past six years is not as good as the previous 15) and try to force-fit and explanation. As others have noted, Duke's hasn't done badly compared to other teams -- only really in comparison to PAST Duke teams. And Duke McD AA's since 2003 have done about as well as the average for all McD AA's, especially if you consider that the sample is dominated by first and second year players.

sagegrouse


Mandel says that the guys we had before were the real deal and the guys we've had since were not. He uses this as evidence that the public's opinion of duke's talent/ability level over the last few years has been higher than the actual reality of these duke teams.

From Mandel:

A widely held assumption among college basketball followers is that Duke, being Duke, basically gets its choice of the nation's top recruits every year. How do we know this? Because Duke always signs the most McDonald's All-Americans.

Currently, there are eight McDonald's alums on the Blue Devils' roster. That's right -- eight. The next-closest team, North Carolina, has five.

McDonald's honorees come in all shapes and sizes, however -- many become NBA All-Stars (Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, LeBron James) or solid starters (Raymond Felton, Mo Williams, Daniel Gibson). Others (DeAngelo Collins?) fall off the face of the earth. Most, however, fall somewhere in between: Solid college players, some of whom do (Glen Davis, David Harrison) or don't (Chris Thomas, Travis Garrison) make it to the next level.

In the post-Elton Brand/Shane Battier/Carlos Boozer era, most of Duke's McDonald's All-Americans have fallen into the latter two categories. ...



Whatever he did with those statistics you cited, his point that the mcdaa's in recent years haven't been the studs that the mcdaas from other years were is still valid, unless you really want to argue that guys like boateng and mcroberts are on a par with boozer and brand.

So what is your point about the story? Not trying to be difficult, just want to understand? Are you saying the rest of his story is invalid because he didn't handle these stats correctly? What's your assertion?

[devildownunder]

These critiques pretty much nail it, in my view, although I wouldn't say the end result is "utterly ridiculuous." His column is relatively "fair," in that he doesn't make stuff up out of whole cloth. It's just misleading, because he has presented the statistics in a very specific way to make a very dubious point. One of the very first comments on this thread was that you can say this for just about every team, except for the part about the McDonald's AAs. That doesn't make his points untrue, but it does make you wonder why Duke was chosen as the subject, as opposed to some other team.

And as for the part about the Mickey Ds, as Sagegrouse points out, he cherry-picked the period from 2002-2007, during which a number of our AAs are still in school, while others have suffered pretty major injuries. Really it's just the 2004 class (Paulus, McBob, et al) that turned out to be a pretty major bust and seems to continue to cast a shadow on the program for some unknown reason. Again, it's not that this criticism that Duke AAs are not NBA starters is WRONG, but it's a) misleading, and b) has some very reasonable explanations. The fact that it's both of those things also makes you wonder about the motivations of the author.



Except that he doesn't make any hateful statements about duke. he doesn't say K is a fraud, he doesn't say the program will never win another NC or anything like that. He basically just says "hey, you probably are consistently hit over the head with 'duke dominates' that you are surprised whenever they lose, but the truth is, they haven't been as dominant as you think they have been, especially late in the seasons, and here are some explanations for why I think this pattern has held up lately."

There is no assault on the program here, that I can see. In a way, I think it actually defends the program. He's saying the team aren't falling apart, they're just not as good as some of their midseason records of late suggest they are. I'd rather be overrated than legitimately underachieve. Just me.

[chrisM]

so to be clear, as a #1 or 2 seed in the tourney, if they don't make the FF or at least elite 8 they have underachieved, right?

We do know what the average team seeded #1 and #2 does (since the NCAA went to the 64 team tourney in 1985 with everyone seeded by a selection committee). I've taken the standard list and removed the wins provided by UNC and Duke during the period I'm studying.

A #1 seed wins, on average, 3.31 games
A #2 seed wins, on average, 2.40 games
A #3 seed wins, on average, 1.78 games
A #4 seed wins, on average, 1.55 games
A #5 seed wins, on average, 1.15 games
A #6 seed wins, on average, 1.30 games
A #7 seed wins, on average, 0.85 games
A #8 seed wins, on average, 0.69 games
A #9 seed wins, on average, 0.58 games
A #10 seed wins, on average, 0.66 games
A #11 seed wins, on average, 0.50 games
A #12 seed wins, on average, 0.50 games
A #13 seed wins, on average, 0.25 games
A #14 seed wins, on average, 0.19 games
A #15 seed wins, on average, 0.05 games
A #16 seed wins, on average, 0.00 games

Obviously, a team can't actually win 3.31 games, but over time those fractional wins should average out.

Let's compare UNC and Duke over the last four years:
2004: Duke seeded 1, expected win total: 3.31 games, actual win total: 4 games
UNC seeded 6, expected win total: 1.30 games, actual win total: 1 game
2005: Duke seeded 1, expected win total: 3.31 games, actual win total: 2 games
UNC, seeded 1, expected win total: 3.31 games, actual win total: 6 games
2006: Duke seeded 1, expected win total 3.31 games, actual win total: 2 games
UNC seeded #3, expected win total: 1.78 games, actual win total: 1 game
2007: Duke seeded #6, expected win total: 1.30 games, actual win total: 0 games
UNC seeded #1, expected win total 3.31 games, actual win total: 3 games

Duke
2004:0.69 games
2005:-1.31 games
2006:-1.31 games
2007:-1.30 games
Total: 3.23 games below average over four years

UNC
2004: -0.30 games
2005: 2.69 games
2006: -0.78 games
2007: -0.31 games
Total: 1.30 games above average over four years

Note that Carolina only out performed their seed average once, but because they came very close every other year, that one year still brings them to above average. Duke also out performed their seed average only once, but even had they won the NC in 2004 they would still be negative (by over a game! 1.23 games, to be exact) because they underperformed so terribly in the other years.

Relative to the average team seeded the same as Duke has been, Duke has done terribly over the past four years. Suggesting that Duke was overrated at the end of the year. Perhaps because of an inflated W/L record thanks to playing a less challenging OOC slate? Was it not playing true OOC road games? Or the players just got worn out because K was using an iron man rotation? Or was Duke just unlucky the past three years in the NCAA tournament?

Chris

[ArtVandelay]

Whatever he did with those statistics you cited, his point that the mcdaa's in recent years haven't been the studs that the mcdaas from other years were is still valid, unless you really want to argue that guys like boateng and mcroberts are on a par with boozer and brand.

So what is your point about the story? Not trying to be difficult, just want to understand? Are you saying the rest of his story is invalid because he didn't handle these stats correctly? What's your assertion?

Again, you're letting the anecdotal evidence overwhelm the objective evidence. You say "Boateng and McRoberts weren't as good as Boozer or Brand." Well sure, but what does that prove? You're overlooking all the other evidence out there and picking one fact that seems to prove your point. For instance, this overlooks that Chris Burgess (in Brand's class) was a tremendous bust as well. Casey Sanders was a pretty big bust in Boozer's class. Granted, the 2004 class was probably a bust all-around, but that doesn't mean that we're not still getting good classes. Perhaps a more fair comparison would be "Is Kyle Singler as good as Boozer?" If Singler stays in school as long as 'Los (3 years), well, maybe. Same with Gerald Henderson or Nolan Smith, maybe. Your argument is essentially, "So what if the facts don't support it?! My point is still valid!"

[ArtVandelay]

Except that he doesn't make any hateful statements about duke. he doesn't say K is a fraud, he doesn't say the program will never win another NC or anything like that. He basically just says "hey, you probably are consistently hit over the head with 'duke dominates' that you are surprised whenever they lose, but the truth is, they haven't been as dominant as you think they have been, especially late in the seasons, and here are some explanations for why I think this pattern has held up lately."

There is no assault on the program here, that I can see. In a way, I think it actually defends the program. He's saying the team aren't falling apart, they're just not as good as some of their midseason records of late suggest they are. I'd rather be overrated than legitimately underachieve. Just me.

Right, which is what makes this, in my view, a more under-handed attack. He isn't explicitly hostile, but it's definitely a hit on the program in my view. I honestly think his underlying point was "Duke is overrated." And I don't think that this underlying point that is particularly accurate, considering that we have a final four appearance in 2004 and were one bad shooting night away from possibly another one in 2006.

[devildownunder]

Again, you're letting the anecdotal evidence overwhelm the objective evidence. You say "Boateng and McRoberts weren't as good as Boozer or Brand." Well sure, but what does that prove? You're overlooking all the other evidence out there and picking one fact that seems to prove your point. For instance, this overlooks that Chris Burgess (in Brand's class) was a tremendous bust as well. Casey Sanders was a pretty big bust in Boozer's class. Granted, the 2004 class was probably a bust all-around, but that doesn't mean that we're not still getting good classes. Perhaps a more fair comparison would be "Is Kyle Singler as good as Boozer?" If Singler stays in school as long as 'Los (3 years), well, maybe. Same with Gerald Henderson or Nolan Smith, maybe. Your argument is essentially, "So what if the facts don't support it?! My point is still valid!"

No, actually, my argument is that 1) whatever the reason for it, duke's mcdaas in the last handful of years haven't made as substantial contributions as the ones who came in beforehand, despite the fact they are all mcdaas. and 2) for that reason, among others, duke's teams have been a bit overrated at this point in the season, which is a large part of the point of the article.

What I want to know is, what point are you arguing? What is the overall statement about the story that you are attempting to make? Is it that mandel's stat analysis is flawed, therefore his conclusions are invalid? If yes, then I think I'm addressing your argument pretty directly. If not, I have no idea what you are trying to say about the story.

[throatybeard]

One of the silliest things about this whole argument is comparing November-January to February-March. Of course we have a higher winning %age in the earlier period. We play in one of the two or three best conferences in the nation. You're going to win fewer games over a period that is composed almost exclusively of conference teams and NCAAT games than you are against Davidson, UNCG and the odd marquee noncon game. Duh.

[Chitowndevil]

And, no, when doing analytical research, you don't start with your conclusions (Duke's FF success the past six years is not as good as the previous 15) and try to force-fit and explanation. As others have noted, Duke's hasn't done badly compared to other teams -- only really in comparison to PAST Duke teams. And Duke McD AA's since 2003 have done about as well as the average for all McD AA's, especially if you consider that the sample is dominated by first and second year players.


Completely untrue. It is perfectly acceptable to begin with a hypothesis and attempt to find support for it in the data. Of course, if you go about things this way, you have to be willing to present evidence for and against, and to discard a hypothesis when it is not supported by the data. However, Mandel's hypothesis, that Duke teams since 2001 have failed to continue their early season success, is perfectly well supported (though chrisM makes the point much more clearly than Mandel does in the article).

As to your second statement, when you make seven final fours in nine years, you're going to be held to a different standard pretty much indefinitely thereafter. We may not like it any more than Yankees fans like that any year in which they don't win the World Series is labeled a massive disappointment.

Finally, I think that Mandel makes a valid point that when you look at a kid being a Duke recruit and being a McDAA, there may be some causality in both directions.

[crimsondevil]

We do know what the average team seeded #1 and #2 does (since the NCAA went to the 64 team tourney in 1985 with everyone seeded by a selection committee). I've taken the standard list and removed the wins provided by UNC and Duke during the period I'm studying.
Duke
2004:0.69 games
2005:-1.31 games
2006:-1.31 games
2007:-1.30 games
Total: 3.23 games below average over four years
Relative to the average team seeded the same as Duke has been, Duke has done terribly over the past four years. Suggesting that Duke was overrated at the end of the year. Chris

ChrisM, I like taking this tack. However, why the last four years? That would not seem to be very comprehensive. It's only four performances, and only the last three that we're really concerned about.

FWIW, if we include back to '01 using your data, we are only net -1.63 for 7 years, or less than 1 game under per 4 years. And if we make it an even 10 years of data, then it's net -1.56, or only 1 game under every 6-7 years. What that suggests to me is that maybe the selection committee actually knows what it's doing (shocking, I know).

[blueprofessor]

We do know what the average team seeded #1 and #2 does (since the NCAA went to the 64 team tourney in 1985 with everyone seeded by a selection committee). I've taken the standard list and removed the wins provided by UNC and Duke during the period I'm studying.

A #1 seed wins, on average, 3.31 games
A #2 seed wins, on average, 2.40 games
A #3 seed wins, on average, 1.78 games
A #4 seed wins, on average, 1.55 games
A #5 seed wins, on average, 1.15 games
A #6 seed wins, on average, 1.30 games
A #7 seed wins, on average, 0.85 games
AsA #8 seed wins, on average, 0.69 games
A #9 seed wins, on average, 0.58 games
A #10 seed wins, on average, 0.66 games
A #11 seed wins, on average, 0.50 games
A #12 seed wins, on average, 0.50 games
A #13 seed wins, on average, 0.25 games
A #14 seed wins, on average, 0.19 games
A #15 seed wins, on average, 0.05 games
A #16 seed wins, on average, 0.00 games

Obviously, a team can't actually win 3.31 games, but over time those fractional wins should average out.

Let's compare UNC and Duke over the last four years:
2004: Duke seeded 1, expected win total: 3.31 games, actual win total: 4 games
UNC seeded 6, expected win total: 1.30 games, actual win total: 1 game
2005: Duke seeded 1, expected win total: 3.31 games, actual win total: 2 games
UNC, seeded 1, expected win total: 3.31 games, actual win total: 6 games
2006: Duke seeded 1, expected win total 3.31 games, actual win total: 2 games
UNC seeded #3, expected win total: 1.78 games, actual win total: 1 game
2007: Duke seeded #6, expected win total: 1.30 games, actual win total: 0 games
UNC seeded #1, expected win total 3.31 games, actual win total: 3 games

Duke
2004:0.69 games
2005:-1.31 games
2006:-1.31 games
2007:-1.30 games
Total: 3.23 games below average over four years

UNC
2004: -0.30 games
2005: 2.69 games
2006: -0.78 games
2007: -0.31 games
Total: 1.30 games above average over four years

Note that Carolina only out performed their seed average once, but because they came very close every other year, that one year still brings them to above average. Duke also out performed their seed average only once, but even had they won the NC in 2004 they would still be negative (by over a game! 1.23 games, to be exact) because they underperformed so terribly in the other years.

Relative to the average team seeded the same as Duke has been, Duke has done terribly over the past four years. Suggesting that Duke was overrated at the end of the year. Perhaps because of an inflated W/L record thanks to playing a less challenging OOC slate? Was it not playing true OOC road games? Or the players just got worn out because K was using an iron man rotation? Or was Duke just unlucky the past three years in the NCAA tournament?

Chris


...that covered Duke's last 13 years and the last 5 years (and 1 other period), I believe, to conclude that Duke has been over-seeded for the NCAA tourney in those periods.The "research" was submitted by a listener.No affiliation of that person was offered---but why 13 years? Were some events being left out?Heh,heh.
The problem with time studies is that the writer/researcher's bias may direct him to choose a time frame that supports his intensely held bias/belief.
For instance , Duke might look a lot better in average seed to tourney wins if the research started in 1986 and ended in 2007. I have been following sports reporting since 1960 and I cannot recall the amount of negative reportage (often delivered with such bias,as the constructed moral equivalence of Coach K's remark on injuries and Coach Williams' over-the-top response,later sanitized by using a milder "oh, shucks" retort) about a non-criminal college sports team as is being hurled at Duke.Is this the Duke Derangement Syndrome?
A good many reporters covering college sports ,as opposed to 20 years ago, do not seem to care one bit about the academic standing of the school, the off-court character of the players, whether the players bear resemblance to actual students, graduation rates, and abiding by NCAA rules.
Rather, these writers have been "professionalized", a state in which crudeness and rough play do not offend and in which winning is all that matters.:(
Best regards.Professor of ethics

[devildownunder]

the whole point of the article was to suggest that a trend has developed in the last handful of years that was not present in the previous handful or more of years -- that in fact the opposite had occurred previously. How exactly is anyone to discuss that without determining that one year was the beginning of the year and showing the differences from that point? It's not as if Mandel chose some arbitrary three years from the past, he chose most recent period and said, basically, something changed at "x" point in the past.

[blueprofessor]

...The Herd's commentary from yesterday and the rather arbitrary periods of time set forth in the measurement of seeding and victories in the tourney.
I did read the SI piece and am aware that the writer did refer to the period that certainly was appropriate to his argument.
Best regards.:)

[devildownunder]

...The Herd's commentary from yesterday and the rather arbitrary periods of time set forth in the measurement of seeding and victories in the tourney.
I did read the SI piece and am aware that the writer did refer to the period that certainly was appropriate to his argument.
Best regards.:)

Whew! I'll be the first (ok, maybe not the first) to admit that I can get a bit carried away sometimes.

Later all!

[pfrduke]

Except that he doesn't make any hateful statements about duke. he doesn't say K is a fraud, he doesn't say the program will never win another NC or anything like that. He basically just says "hey, you probably are consistently hit over the head with 'duke dominates' that you are surprised whenever they lose, but the truth is, they haven't been as dominant as you think they have been, especially late in the seasons, and here are some explanations for why I think this pattern has held up lately."

There is no assault on the program here, that I can see. In a way, I think it actually defends the program. He's saying the team aren't falling apart, they're just not as good as some of their midseason records of late suggest they are. I'd rather be overrated than legitimately underachieve. Just me.

Completely agree that this is not an assault on the program or "hate" piece. It was written extremely objectively. I want to comment on the bolded sentence from your quote above, because it's this conclusion that I take issue with.

I think you're right that the point of his article is that Duke teams from 2002-2007 were not as good in March as we thought they might be based on their Nov.-Jan. performance. He reaches this conclusion based on 2 data points: 1) our record in Feb-Apr is worse than our record from Nov-Jan; 2) we "underperform" our seed in the NCAA tournament. He then offers two explanations - no marquee road games, and our McD's haven't been the same kind of McD's.

Addressing his two data points first - with regard to the drop-off in our record, pure winning percentage is not as useful, because the degree of difficulty increases substantially. There's no disputing that the winning percentage is lower. But that doesn't mean the team has "faded." From 2002-2006, our Feb-Apr. winning percentage was about 75% (65-23), or the equivalent of going 12-4 in those months. A 12-4 record in a major conference, particularly in the ACC, usually puts you at or near the top. While 12-4 is "worse" than 18-2 (our Nov-Jan average), there's no discussion of whether it is relatively worse. What I mean is this - rank Duke's winning percentage among major conference teams for the Nov-Jan months. Then rank the winning percentage among major conference teams for the Feb-Apr months (note - you would have to do this season by season, since, as many other posters have pointed out, no other team has had the sustained success of Duke over the past 7 years). And see how they stack up. If Duke falls from 1st to 5th, that's not a major drop-off - it means it's still a team playing like #1 seeds play. If they fall from 1st to 20th, that's something to talk about, and an indication that they might be fading. Merely pointing out that their winning percentage falls is not an automatic indication of a fade.

The second data point is the NCAA tournament performance. In the past 6 years, Duke played to seed twice. It "fell short" the other 4 times. There's a flaw in this argument, though, which is that high seeds typically do not play to seed. The average performance for a #1 seed is not reaching the Final Four, it's something short of that. Yes, if the tournament played "to seed" the #1s would be expected to reach the Final Four, but as we all know, that's never happened. Take 2000, for example, where two #1s lost in the second round and a third lost in the sweet 16. Duke's record in the past 6 NCAAs is 12-6. It's record as a #1 seed is 10-4. A useful point of comparison to discuss whether this is a "fade" or not would be to compare this record to the record of the other #1 seeds over the same time period. Perhaps he's right, and Duke's performance is below average - but our performance may actually be consistent with what #1 seeds generally do. Using that as the point of comparison would tell us whether Duke actually "underperforms" its seed.

So my criticism of his explanation of the "what" is not that he is wrong per se, it's that he used the wrong statistics to make his point. His data does not actually support the conclusion he's trying to draw, which is that Duke is a relatively worse team in Feb-Apr than it is in Nov-Jan. The only way to make that point is to do a relative comparison.

Turning now to his two explanations, the first is the lack of marquee road games. On its face, this looks plausible. Duke had more games against top-25 non-conference opponents, and more true road games, in the years where it reached the final 4 (with 2004 as an exception). But there's simply too much noise involved in the outcome of a basketball game to say that this has a meaningful effect on the team's play. For example, in 1992, Duke would have "underperformed" if Christian Laettner didn't hit the greatest shot in NCAA history. Did playing five road games, rather than 1, help him hit that shot? In 2002, Duke "underperformed" because Jason Williams missed a free throw and Boozer was tackled going for the tip-in. If the team had played in 5 road games, rather than 1, would that free throw have been made? Heck, even the VCU game last year came down to one play - do you believe Jon Scheyer would have made one stop on Eric Maynor if we had played a couple more road games in the fall? So often, the NCAAs come down to one or two key plays in a game, and I'm not sure you can really point to any one factor as outcome determinative. You simply cannot convince me that we beat Kentucky in 1992, or UConn in 1990, because we played road games in November and December. Similarly, you cannot convince me that we lost to LSU, Michigan State, or Indiana because we did not play those road games.

Second, he mentions that our McD's are not NBA-star level McD's. Other posters have offered better criticism of his analysis here, and I will defer to them.

Finally, Mandel offers the following as his ultimate conclusion:


Taking all of the aforementioned data into account, it would seem the common theme among Duke's recent teams is that they spend most of the season playing above themselves. Krzyzewski certainly deserves credit for adapting each year to the personnel on hand and maximizing their talent, but eventually the gas runs out and/or they get exposed by more talented teams -- the very kind of teams they avoid playing early in the season.

"More talented" is a subjective measure. I believe UCONN in 2004 and Kansas in 2003 were more talented than the Duke teams they beat (not that this is related, but both of those Duke teams played "to seed"). I believe Indiana in 2002 and LSU in 2006 were less talented than the Duke teams they beat. MSU in 2005 may have been a wash (it is worth mentioning here that Duke played this exact Michigan State team earlier in the 04-05 season, and beat them). And it neglects to consider the "talented" ACC teams that Duke beats in conference play, including the ACC tournament, in February and March.

What Mandel has essentially done is tried to take the results of three games - Indiana in 02, MSU in 05, and LSU in 06 - and make it into a larger point that Duke either overachieves early or underachieves late, or is a paper tiger. And that's where I think his article really falls apart - none of the evidence he provides can explain why Duke lost those three games. Other than the box scores from those games, I don't think there's any large, trend-style evidence that can explain those losses. On that night, against that opponent, Duke simply didn't win. If Duke had won one, two, or all of those games, there's nothing to talk about. And each of those Duke teams was very capable of winning those games - they just didn't.

[blueprofessor]

Whew! I'll be the first (ok, maybe not the first) to admit that I can get a bit carried away sometimes.

Later all!

...Australian football!!:D
Best regards.:)

[Classof06]

I think this article was probably written towards the beginning of the season and they were just waiting to bust it out at the first sign of trouble. It was a very detailed article to have been written in one night

Great point


I find it hard to call this a hatchett job as Mandell backs up every single point with cold, hard facts.

We may disagree as to the reason but it is a fact that Duke has faded down the stretch in recent seasons.

We may disagree with whether it is smart or not but it is a fact that Duke no longer schedules true road games.

We may disagree for the reasons behind it but it is a fact that Duke's Mickie Dees have underperformed relative to expectations in terms of NBA success in recent years.

In truth, the only rebuttal for this article is to play better in February and March. Period, end of story.

--Jason "up until a week ago, I was certain we would reverse the trend this year-- I am less certain now, that's for sure" Evans

While Duke is held to a ridiculously higher standard than every other program in America, facts are facts. I've long said I didn't like Duke's tactics in the Non-conference schedule and I'm not surprised the media also noticed. It is what it is. While I think Duke has performed well in the postseason (10 straight Sweet 16s is unreal), there is something to be said about only one Final Four appearance since 2001 (again, lofty standards). This article definitely has some merit and it's difficult to say otherwise.

[dukelifer]

Well a few quibbles. First, Shelden was not a McD AA- so eliminate him off the list. JJ may not have set the pros on fire as of yet- but he was a great college player- as was Shelden. I thought K's job was to develop great college players- I thought THAT was his job. If you think that he helped to develop POYs Brand, J Williams, Battier, Redick over the last 10 years - he has done a pretty good job in that dept. And of course a few of his players over that period- Boozer, Brand as all stars and Battier, Deng and Dunleavy as very consistent starters or six men- are signs that he is not a bust in the pro development department either. Of course if his job is to just create great pros- perhaps he should do something different or go somewhere else.

As for the rest of the article, sure there is some truth to it- but I am not sure what a more demanding non-conference schedule would do except recalibrate Duke's rank going into the conference-perhaps. Duke also has done remarkably well in the ACC tourney over the past 8 years which has often propelled them into a number 1 seed. I think a point that was missed was how K conducts practices. I heard an interview with Jay Bilas who suggested that the practices are SO intense - mostly mentally- that it takes some adjustment and thus, it could be affecting the younger players as the year goes on. This coupled with the fact that teams usually circle the Duke game as their way to get in the tourney with a signature win and you have a recipe for a swoon. Don't know if that is true- but some food for thought.

Also, if you look at the Feb swoon, the games are rarely blowouts. Duke is often in those games. So yes if you only look at NCAA final fours or eights as the measure of success- then Duke has fallen short of that lofty expectation- but there was a time that Duke made almost every final four and they were criticized for not winning it all. So in then end- you can always find fault if that is what you choose to do. Right now, UConn and Florida have some claim to being the best college programs over the past 8 years. So I look forward to the analysis of those teams in 4 years if they fail to make the FF over that stretch.

[SMO]

Completely untrue. It is perfectly acceptable to begin with a hypothesis and attempt to find support for it in the data. Of course, if you go about things this way, you have to be willing to present evidence for and against, and to discard a hypothesis when it is not supported by the data. However, Mandel's hypothesis, that Duke teams since 2001 have failed to continue their early season success, is perfectly well supported (though chrisM makes the point much more clearly than Mandel does in the article).

As to your second statement, when you make seven final fours in nine years, you're going to be held to a different standard pretty much indefinitely thereafter. We may not like it any more than Yankees fans like that any year in which they don't win the World Series is labeled a massive disappointment.

Finally, I think that Mandel makes a valid point that when you look at a kid being a Duke recruit and being a McDAA, there may be some causality in both directions.

The original poster stated that it's inappropriate to state a conclusion then find stats to support it. You're saying it's OK to state a hypothesis and find support. They're two entirely different things. A hypothesis, by definitition, is not a conclusion.

[devil84]

So I looked at Mandel's chart that looks at Duke's performance in the tourney, and proves how Duke underachieves in the tournament. So then I got to taking a look at who HAS achieved, based on tourney seed.

Looking at the last six years since (and not including) our last national championship, I found that only two teams have been seeded #1 or #2 in four of the last six years. These teams are Duke, and Connecticut. Kentucky and Kansas been seeded #1 or #2 three times. I think one can argue that these would then be the "recent perennially elite" teams, and therefore capable of underachieving. (Just for interest, those making it as a #1 or #2 seed twice in the last six years: Florida, Memphis, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Texas, UCLA, UNC, and Wake). So then I drew up the same chart for each team (omitting the AP ranking, as I do actually have to get SOMETHING done today). Here's what I came up with:

Duke
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 6 R1 11 VCU
06 1 S16 4 LSU
05 1 S16 5 Mich St.
04 1 F4 2 Connecticut*
03 3 S16 2 Kansas*
02 1 S16 5 Indiana

Connecticut
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 - -- -- Not in tourney
06 1 E8 11 George Mason
05 2 R2 10 NCSU
04 1 -- National Champs
03 5 S16 1 Texas
02 2 E8 1 Maryland

Kentucky
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 8 R2 1 Kansas*
06 8 R2 1 Connecticut*
05 2 E8 5 Michigan State
04 1 R2 9 UAB
03 1 E8 3 Marquette
02 4 S16 1 Maryland

Kansas
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 1 E8 2 UCLA
06 4 R1 13 Bradley
05 3 R1 14 Bucknell
04 4 E8 3 Georgia Tech
03 2 F2 3 Syracuse
02 1 F4 1 Maryland

A couple of observations stand out. First, the asterisked opponents are the opponents are also on this "recent perennial elite" list. While a W is still a W and an L is still an L, it's interesting to note that the elite teams beat up on each other.

Second, kudos to Maryland in 2001 who consecutively beat Kentucky, Connecticut, and Kansas to get to the finals. It doesn't have anything to do with this argument, but I found it very interesting.

Onto the analysis. Connecticut is the only one of these four to win a national championship. In this time frame, 3 national champs were a #1 seed, one #2, and two #3s. Kansas is the only other team to make it to the finals, in '03 as a #2. Duke ('04, #1) and Kansas ('01, #1) made it to the Final Four.

Of this recent perennial elite group, here's the how the losses stack up in the 24 games (noting that 4 of the losses came at the hands of another recent perennial elite team, noted in parentheses):

National Champs: 1
Lost in Final 2: 1
Final Four: 2 (1)
Elite Eight: 6
Sweet Sixteen: 6 (1)
Second Round: 4 (2)
First Round: 3
Not in tourney: 1

So Duke's one Final Four (losing to UConn), four Sweet Sixteens (losing one to Kansas), and one first round loss looks like it's not too far off from the others in this group. Duke has played 18 games in that six years.

Connecticut is the only other team with four #1 or #2 seeds in the last year. They have a National Championship (beating Duke along the way), and losses in two Elite Eights, one Sweet Sixteen, a second round out, and they did not make the tourney last year. At least Duke made the tourney every year. However, Connecticut has a National Championship (so does Duke if you go back 1 year). Connecticut has played 19 games, indicating that they've gone farther than Duke each year, given that they've not make the tourney every year. Edge to Connecticut for the NC, but take it back since they didn't make the tourney. I guess it's arguably a draw.

Kentucky has three second round outs (two in the past two years to Connecticut and Kansas, both were as a #8). Two more losses in Elite Eights and one in the Sweet Sixteen. Not bad at all. However, Duke's only lost once before the Sweet Sixteen. Kentucky does have two Elite Eights, but Duke did a Final Four and an extra Sweet Sixteen. Kentucky has played 17 games to Duke's 16. Call it a draw.

Kansas has been seeded no lower than #4. They have two first round outs ('06 as #4, to #13 Bradley, and '05 as #3 to #14 Bucknell). They've made it to two Elite Eights (beating Kentucky last year in the second round), one Final Four, and one Finals game (ousting Duke in '03 in the Sweet 16). Again, not bad. Duke has only one bow-out in the first round, unlike Kansas' two. Kansas has a finals game over Duke. While Kansas has played 21 games to Duke's 18, it still feels is pretty even, though I'll concede the edge to Kansas.

Comparing Duke to the other teams that have consistently been very high seeds in the tournament, I think Duke's record over the last six years is arguably comparable to theirs.

Here's what happens when you expand the "recent perennial elite" to adding seeds #3 and #4 as a criteria for excellence (I noticed that Kansas met that criteria for all six years, and wondered if going two more places would change things):
Six years: Kansas
Five: Duke
Four: Kentucky, Connecticut, Florida, Texas
Three: Gonzaga, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Pitt, Maryland, Wake Forest
Two: UNC, Arizona, Cincinnati, Memphis, Oklahoma State, Oregon Illinois, Louisville, Syracuse, Stanford, Mississippi State, UCLA.

Being a top four seed in the last six years adds Florida and Texas to the list. Here are their stats:

Florida
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 1 National Champs
06 3 National Champs
05 4 R2 5 Villanova
04 5 R1 12 Manhattan
03 2 R2 7 Michigan State
02 5 R1 12 Creighton

Prior to their National Championships, they don't hold a candle to Duke, Connecticut, Kentucky and Kansas, bowing out by the second round.

Texas
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 4 R2 5 USC
06 2 E8 4 LSU
05 8 R1 9 Nevada
04 3 S16 7 Xavier
03 1 FF 3 Syracuse
02 6 S16 2 Oregon

In '03, Texas knocked out Connecticut in the Sweet Sixteen on their run to the Final Four. Two first-weekend losses, two Sweet Sixteens, an Elite Eight and a Final Four -- perhaps as good as Kansas, and maybe better than Duke. Of course, they were only a #1 or #2 seed twice, so one could give the edge to them because they are achieving a similar level of excellence with fewer #1 and #2 rankings. Or you could say they aren't as perennially elite by virtue of fewer top seedings and are overachieving at the "almost elite" level. Or you could say ... well, you can support your position however you'd like. :D

So some football writer has decided to write an article, supported with statistics (remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics), that proves that Duke "underachieves." Well, they "underachieve" with the best of them, I guess.

Or to put it another way, some football writer has decided to write an article, which causes everyone to wring their hands, and I spend WAAAAAY too much time researching meaningless stats to figure out (well, to support my assertion, anyway) that Duke's pretty darn good. Which I already knew.

So all that's left is to do is some winning during the post season. I'll do my part, cheering from Cameron and at the TV. And I think I've figured out that I'll leave the sports writers to write whatever they want. I don't have to believe them (except for Al, Bill, Jim, and the others who post here!). And I think I'll just relish in the fact that people want to show Duke's decline. If that's a decline, well, it's a whole lot better than a lot of programs! And the writers are writing about us -- when they stop, Duke Basketball will look a whole lot different, more like back in my day (T'84). Which was still a lot of fun to watch, IMHO.

- della

PS -- I'm quite tickled that my definition of recently perennially elite definitely EXCLUDES UNC, who has only been a top 4 seed twice in the last six years. I thought they were better than that! ;)

[MIKESJ73]

The Mcdonalds AA arguement is a little bias. JJ was ranked around 40th as a senior as were guys like Ewing and and Shav. I think that signing with Duke gets a few in the game that wouldn't otherwise. As for what we have done wit our talent since 2001:
2002 finished 4th RPI SOS 33rd
2003 finished 12th RPI SOS 32nd
2004 finished 1st RPI SOS 4th
2005 finished 4th RPI SOS 4th
2006 finished 1st RPI SOS 1st
2007 finished 15th RPI SOS 3rd
2008 is 3rd SOS 4th

I guess the computers are also biased, and look how weak our schedules were!!!

On a side note, this team reminds me of 2004 FF team. Led by a senior with lots oy younger guys, they also lost back to back road games in mid Feb. after only one prev. loss.

http://www.kenpom.com/sked.php?team=Duke&y=2004

[chrisM]

ChrisM, I like taking this tack. However, why the last four years? That would not seem to be very comprehensive. It's only four performances, and only the last three that we're really concerned about.


My original choice of comparison was the past three years, where Duke has done rather poorly. When I added UNC, because I saw that many people were clamoring for a comparison to another high profile program and I am a UNC fan, it seemed rather unbalanced to compare a period where UNC won a NC and Duke didn't make it out of the Sweet 16. So I threw in the previous year for some sort of balance.

As to why I didn't go back to the terms of reference in the original article- because I don't think Duke was doing that badly in 2002 or 2003. I think that the current Duke slump started with the 2004 NBA draft.

Oh, and for everyone talking about how this is all picking on Duke, look at UNC after they won the 1982 National Championship. They never made it back to the Final Four during the 1980's, a long period in the wilderness with Jeff Lebo, Scott Williams, J.R. Reid, etc. And then made the Final Four again in 1991 after recruiting what was considered, at the time, the best recruiting class ever (the Brian Reese/Derrick Phelps/Eric Montross class, which was surpassed the next year by the Fab Five at Michigan), and won the National Championship in 1993. It was a temporary setback, the rest of the 1980's.

Chris M

[Jaymf7]

I've taken the standard list and removed the wins provided by UNC and Duke during the period I'm studying.

A #1 seed wins, on average, 3.31 games
A #2 seed wins, on average, 2.40 games
A #3 seed wins, on average, 1.78 games
A #4 seed wins, on average, 1.55 games
A #5 seed wins, on average, 1.15 games
A #6 seed wins, on average, 1.30 games
A #7 seed wins, on average, 0.85 games
A #8 seed wins, on average, 0.69 games
A #9 seed wins, on average, 0.58 games
A #10 seed wins, on average, 0.66 games
A #11 seed wins, on average, 0.50 games
A #12 seed wins, on average, 0.50 games
A #13 seed wins, on average, 0.25 games
A #14 seed wins, on average, 0.19 games
A #15 seed wins, on average, 0.05 games
A #16 seed wins, on average, 0.00 games

Chris

Do you have a link for these stats? Thanks.

[dukelifer]

So I looked at Mandel's chart that looks at Duke's performance in the tourney, and proves how Duke underachieves in the tournament. So then I got to taking a look at who HAS achieved, based on tourney seed.

Looking at the last six years since (and not including) our last national championship, I found that only two teams have been seeded #1 or #2 in four of the last six years. These teams are Duke, and Connecticut. Kentucky and Kansas been seeded #1 or #2 three times. I think one can argue that these would then be the "recent perennially elite" teams, and therefore capable of underachieving. (Just for interest, those making it as a #1 or #2 seed twice in the last six years: Florida, Memphis, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Texas, UCLA, UNC, and Wake). So then I drew up the same chart for each team (omitting the AP ranking, as I do actually have to get SOMETHING done today). Here's what I came up with:

Duke
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 6 R1 11 VCU
06 1 S16 4 LSU
05 1 S16 5 Mich St.
04 1 F4 2 Connecticut*
03 3 S16 2 Kansas*
02 1 S16 5 Indiana

Connecticut
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 - -- -- Not in tourney
06 1 E8 11 George Mason
05 2 R2 10 NCSU
04 1 -- National Champs
03 5 S16 1 Texas
02 2 E8 1 Maryland

Kentucky
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 8 R2 1 Kansas*
06 8 R2 1 Connecticut*
05 2 E8 5 Michigan State
04 1 R2 9 UAB
03 1 E8 3 Marquette
02 4 S16 1 Maryland

Kansas
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 1 E8 2 UCLA
06 4 R1 13 Bradley
05 3 R1 14 Bucknell
04 4 E8 3 Georgia Tech
03 2 F2 3 Syracuse
02 1 F4 1 Maryland

A couple of observations stand out. First, the asterisked opponents are the opponents are also on this "recent perennial elite" list. While a W is still a W and an L is still an L, it's interesting to note that the elite teams beat up on each other.

Second, kudos to Maryland in 2001 who consecutively beat Kentucky, Connecticut, and Kansas to get to the finals. It doesn't have anything to do with this argument, but I found it very interesting.

Onto the analysis. Connecticut is the only one of these four to win a national championship. In this time frame, 3 national champs were a #1 seed, one #2, and two #3s. Kansas is the only other team to make it to the finals, in '03 as a #2. Duke ('04, #1) and Kansas ('01, #1) made it to the Final Four.

Of this recent perennial elite group, here's the how the losses stack up in the 24 games (noting that 4 of the losses came at the hands of another recent perennial elite team, noted in parentheses):

National Champs: 1
Lost in Final 2: 1
Final Four: 2 (1)
Elite Eight: 6
Sweet Sixteen: 6 (1)
Second Round: 4 (2)
First Round: 3
Not in tourney: 1

So Duke's one Final Four (losing to UConn), four Sweet Sixteens (losing one to Kansas), and one first round loss looks like it's not too far off from the others in this group. Duke has played 18 games in that six years.

Connecticut is the only other team with four #1 or #2 seeds in the last year. They have a National Championship (beating Duke along the way), and losses in two Elite Eights, one Sweet Sixteen, a second round out, and they did not make the tourney last year. At least Duke made the tourney every year. However, Connecticut has a National Championship (so does Duke if you go back 1 year). Connecticut has played 19 games, indicating that they've gone farther than Duke each year, given that they've not make the tourney every year. Edge to Connecticut for the NC, but take it back since they didn't make the tourney. I guess it's arguably a draw.

Kentucky has three second round outs (two in the past two years to Connecticut and Kansas, both were as a #8). Two more losses in Elite Eights and one in the Sweet Sixteen. Not bad at all. However, Duke's only lost once before the Sweet Sixteen. Kentucky does have two Elite Eights, but Duke did a Final Four and an extra Sweet Sixteen. Kentucky has played 17 games to Duke's 16. Call it a draw.

Kansas has been seeded no lower than #4. They have two first round outs ('06 as #4, to #13 Bradley, and '05 as #3 to #14 Bucknell). They've made it to two Elite Eights (beating Kentucky last year in the second round), one Final Four, and one Finals game (ousting Duke in '03 in the Sweet 16). Again, not bad. Duke has only one bow-out in the first round, unlike Kansas' two. Kansas has a finals game over Duke. While Kansas has played 21 games to Duke's 18, it still feels is pretty even, though I'll concede the edge to Kansas.

Comparing Duke to the other teams that have consistently been very high seeds in the tournament, I think Duke's record over the last six years is arguably comparable to theirs.

Here's what happens when you expand the "recent perennial elite" to adding seeds #3 and #4 as a criteria for excellence (I noticed that Kansas met that criteria for all six years, and wondered if going two more places would change things):
Six years: Kansas
Five: Duke
Four: Kentucky, Connecticut, Florida, Texas
Three: Gonzaga, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Pitt, Maryland, Wake Forest
Two: UNC, Arizona, Cincinnati, Memphis, Oklahoma State, Oregon Illinois, Louisville, Syracuse, Stanford, Mississippi State, UCLA.

Being a top four seed in the last six years adds Florida and Texas to the list. Here are their stats:

Florida
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 1 National Champs
06 3 National Champs
05 4 R2 5 Villanova
04 5 R1 12 Manhattan
03 2 R2 7 Michigan State
02 5 R1 12 Creighton

Prior to their National Championships, they don't hold a candle to Duke, Connecticut, Kentucky and Kansas, bowing out by the second round.

Texas
Yr Seed Out Opponent
07 4 R2 5 USC
06 2 E8 4 LSU
05 8 R1 9 Nevada
04 3 S16 7 Xavier
03 1 FF 3 Syracuse
02 6 S16 2 Oregon

In '03, Texas knocked out Connecticut in the Sweet Sixteen on their run to the Final Four. Two first-weekend losses, two Sweet Sixteens, an Elite Eight and a Final Four -- perhaps as good as Kansas, and maybe better than Duke. Of course, they were only a #1 or #2 seed twice, so one could give the edge to them because they are achieving a similar level of excellence with fewer #1 and #2 rankings. Or you could say they aren't as perennially elite by virtue of fewer top seedings and are overachieving at the "almost elite" level. Or you could say ... well, you can support your position however you'd like. :D

So some football writer has decided to write an article, supported with statistics (remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics), that proves that Duke "underachieves." Well, they "underachieve" with the best of them, I guess.

Or to put it another way, some football writer has decided to write an article, which causes everyone to wring their hands, and I spend WAAAAAY too much time researching meaningless stats to figure out (well, to support my assertion, anyway) that Duke's pretty darn good. Which I already knew.

So all that's left is to do is some winning during the post season. I'll do my part, cheering from Cameron and at the TV. And I think I've figured out that I'll leave the sports writers to write whatever they want. I don't have to believe them (except for Al, Bill, Jim, and the others who post here!). And I think I'll just relish in the fact that people want to show Duke's decline. If that's a decline, well, it's a whole lot better than a lot of programs! And the writers are writing about us -- when they stop, Duke Basketball will look a whole lot different, more like back in my day (T'84). Which was still a lot of fun to watch, IMHO.

- della

PS -- I'm quite tickled that my definition of recently perennially elite definitely EXCLUDES UNC, who has only been a top 4 seed twice in the last six years. I thought they were better than that! ;)


It is true that you have to wonder who is doing better than Duke over that same period- and this analysis suggests that probably no one any better. Right now Florida and UConn are the only two teams with a claim to be the best college basketball program. UNC has a chance to get in that group if they can get to the FF or win it all this year. So those are the teams the should be analyzed as well for their consistency. For some reasons, UConn and Florida are allowed a take a stumble or two but Duke is not. The reasons seem to be that UConn and Florida win their NC's without the bevy of AA's which must mean that they are better coached.

There seems to be the notion out there that Duke is underachieving with all their HS AA's- that is, any coach could do what K has done if they had all that talent and moreover would have likely have won it all if they had Duke's teams. This suggests that Coach K is either not as good as before or is not developing his talent any more- with evidence that guys are not that good in the pros. Of course, this same criticism could be levied against UNC has also had talent and AA's and somehow they have not gone to FF every year. And many of their recent AA's have not exactly set the NBA on fire. Perhaps, Williams is a bad coach as well.

[MIKESJ73]

Recruit rankings of McDonalds All-Americans from rivals.com (03-07):

Top 10 recruits
03 Loul Deng #2 NBA after 1 year
04 Shuan Livingston #2 NBA after 0 years
05 Josh McRoberts #2 NBA after two years
07 Kyle Singler #5 still at Duke

Top 20 recruits
04 D.Nelson #17
05 G.Paulus #11
06 G.Henderson #11

Others:
05 Eric Boateng #82
06 Lance Thomas #42
06 Jon Sheyer #71
07 Taylor King #37
07 Nolan Smith #39

While we have a large amount of McDonalds all-americans we only have one top ten recruit (a freshman) and only three others were ranked as top 35 recruits. I love all ours guys and wouldn't trade any of them, but it's not like we are getting the top guys every year, nor would I want most of them.

[devil84]

It is true that you have to wonder who is doing better than Duke over that same period- and this analysis suggests that probably no one any better. Right now Florida and UConn are the only two teams with a claim to be the best college basketball program. UNC has a chance to get in that group if they can get to the FF or win it all this year. So those are the teams the should be analyzed as well for their consistency. For some reasons, UConn and Florida are allowed a take a stumble or two but Duke is not. The reasons seem to be that UConn and Florida win their NC's without the bevy of AA's which must mean that they are better coached.

Coaching could be *one* reason. Individual and collective team performances count, too. Don't forget hostile/neutral/favorable crowds. How about team chemistry? How about the intangible of a team getting "up" for Duke (or other giant)? The opponent that goes Bootsy and drops 30 when they usually average 6. You can't pin a loss (or a win) on any ONE factor. Some of these circumstances may affect only one game, and in a one-loss-and-out tournament, sometimes it's just good luck that the opponent didn't go Bootsy or a higher than usual percentage of shots fell for us.


There seems to be the notion out there that Duke is underachieving with all their HS AA's- that is, any coach could do what K has done if they had all that talent and moreover would have likely have won it all if they had Duke's teams. This suggests that Coach K is either not as good as before or is not developing his talent any more- with evidence that guys are not that good in the pros. Of course, this same criticism could be levied against UNC has also had talent and AA's and somehow they have not gone to FF every year. And many of their recent AA's have not exactly set the NBA on fire. Perhaps, Williams is a bad coach as well.

If AA status is absolutely, in no way, influenced by committing to a particular school, then I agree. But I think it's been anecdotally documented that committing to certain schools (Duke in particular), seems to invite AA status. Are some AA's overrated simply because they chose to play at an elite school? Where did those kids who just barely missed the AA cutoff (and might have been AA's had others not leapfrogged them) go to school? Are those schools, then, perceived as "doing more with less?"

That also assumes that these AA's will continue to perform well in college. Perhaps their game was suited to HS rules, and against HS players. If the argument is made that Duke players don't do well in the pros because their game is so well suited to college, then the same can be applied to AA's with the transition from the HS to college game. I think it's a valid argument. AA's are conferred their status as tops in the HS echelon. POYs in college aren't always All Stars/MVPs in the pros.

What happens when the AA you *thought* would stay for four years picks up and leaves after one or two years? Recruiting gets, well, a bit creative.

How many people want to read a feel-good story about a Florida three-peat? (How many Florida fans are there?) How many want to read about Texas or Kansas being quite dominant over the years? (How many Texas and Kansas fans are out there?) How many want to read a story about Duke maybe not being so great? (How many Duke detractors are out there?) OK, so which one's going to get to press?

Mandel took a series of facts and statistics, and showed that Duke underachieves with a huge number of AA's. With very little effort, one can highlight the facts a different way (as many on this thread have done), and it becomes Duke is a dynasty and wait 'til you see what the current horde of AA's does when they finally graduate and hit the NBA.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. People will use them to "prove" their opinion, and once they support their opinion with their own "facts," you can't change their mind. So why try? I'm just glad that we've been so good that people are trying to prove we're not. Boy, it was a different story when I was on the team in the early 80's.

[devildownunder]

I just found and read the response to Mandel's column that is linked from the front page. IMO, it is a defensive rant. Nothing wrong with defensive rants, as long they are defending against an actual attack, but that's not the case here.

DBR vehemently defends K for adapting to the changing world of college basketball. That's great, except nowhere is his column does he suggest the game has passed K by. In fact, he goes out of his way not to attack K in the story and explicitly praises him more than once.

The article's focus is much more that duke is somewhat unfairly called an underachiever these days than to say that duke is lousy now or something like that.

[chrisM]

Do you have a link for these stats? Thanks.

Got them from George Harris on rsbc. He posts (updated) ones every year, where he compares conference performance relative to their seeds- so a conference has a 1 seed, a 2 seed, and a 6 seed, it is predicted to win x games, and actually won y games. Google groups doesn't make pretty links, so I won't post it here, but from that you should be able to find it.

Chris

[2002grad]

What Mandel has essentially done is tried to take the results of three games - Indiana in 02, MSU in 05, and LSU in 06 - and make it into a larger point that Duke either overachieves early or underachieves late, or is a paper tiger. And that's where I think his article really falls apart - none of the evidence he provides can explain why Duke lost those three games. Other than the box scores from those games, I don't think there's any large, trend-style evidence that can explain those losses. On that night, against that opponent, Duke simply didn't win. If Duke had won one, two, or all of those games, there's nothing to talk about. And each of those Duke teams was very capable of winning those games - they just didn't.

Amen. We can't ignore the fact that luck plays a role. If your goal is to win a championship, success can hinge on a bounce of the ball, a bad call by an official, a missed free throw and lots of other factors. Since the tournament is one-and-done, six years of results in the tournament is not a large enough sample to draw conclusions based on statistics.

We have informed opinions because we watch the games and understand basketball, but there's no point in pretending that those opinions are based on meaningful statistics. In my opinion, Mandel weakened his argument by throwing all those numbers in there. Better to not use statistics than to misuse them.

[chrisM]

We have informed opinions because we watch the games and understand basketball, but there's no point in pretending that those opinions are based on meaningful statistics. In my opinion, Mandel weakened his argument by throwing all those numbers in there. Better to not use statistics than to misuse them.

In my opinion, K made a mistake in his reaction to the 2004 NBA draft- he overreacted and started targeting too many players he knew would stay in school for 3-4 years. Without the pure athletic talent of previous teams, his teams have struggled towards the end of the season, as they wore down from the ironman rotation he has generally used since the Gaudet interregnum. Also, K's excellence as a game coach has tended to mask the shortcomings of these teams (e.g. his spottier record recruiting, like not landing Patterson, as an example). And finally, since the interregnum he has dramatically lessened his willingness to play OOC games on an opponents home court. He used to be much more willing to do that than he has been over the past few years (this actually dates to before the 2004 NBA draft, but I don't think it is one of the major reasons for the decline, more an explanation for Duke being overrated at the middle of the year).

How would I show that? I can say it, and it makes sense, but then everyone says 'no, you need to compare to other schools, you are just comparing Duke to their own awesomeness.' Or they feel differently- they might have the impression that Paulus is really capable of guarding, say, Ty Lawson.

McDAA's are a terrible way of looking at the talent at Duke. Over the past few years there seems to have been a lot of 'he's going to Duke, he's a McDAA' going on. So how else could you show it? Well, one way would be to try and show that Duke has, over the past three years, grossly underperformed relative to an average team with their NCAA seed, suggesting that they are overrated by the end of the year. You are correct that three years isn't a truly long enough time period to judge based on those stats, but they are all we really have, if we want to show that the 2004 NBA draft was the source of the problem. There simply aren't enough data points otherwise: these aren't baseball players with 500+ recorded events each season.

By combining anecdotal evidence and argument with statistical ones, you can make a much more compelling case. And that is what Mandel was trying to do here. He marshaled statistics and anecdotal evidence together to try and support a hypothesis.

As for my theory on K, he'll fix it eventually. He's too smart and way too competitive to keep making these mistakes. I'm just trying to enjoy every moment of this while I can. (It was, after all, in a similar slump by Dean that K built his program.)

Chris

[Papa John]

By combining anecdotal evidence and argument with statistical ones, you can make a much more compelling case. And that is what Mandel was trying to do here.

My problem with this is by combining too few data points with anecdotal evidence, you can argue pretty much anything, but there's really nothing of statistical significance to back it up, so it essentially all boils down to 'gut' perceptions. As has been demonstrated, the data that Mandel laid out can essentially be used to prove the exact opposite conclusion. And, as a journalist, there's my problem with Mandel's column [and ones like it]--it's largely a pointless exercise [although, I suppose, mildly entertaining--after all, it did spawn this thread, so he must be doing something right].


(It was, after all, in a similar slump by Dean that K built his program.)

And this statement sums up the problem that really is at the root of the 'Duke slump' perception. Deano and the Heels were at the top of the ACC--the toughest conference in the land--during that supposed slump... They just weren't winning national championships or reaching Final Fours with the historic consistency that Duke was... But that was a special streak for Duke and Coach K, on the level of UCLA's historic runs back in the day... Carolina wasn't slumping then, just like Duke isn't slumping now... IMO, either suggestion is preposterous (of course, that and a dollar probably won't even get you a cup of coffee)...

[sagegrouse]

devildownunder:


So what is your point about the story? Not trying to be difficult, just want to understand? Are you saying the rest of his story is invalid because he didn't handle these stats correctly? What's your assertion?

devildownunder:

Here is my textual criticism of the Mandell piece. (I apologize for a more cursory response last time – but I was on my way out of town.)

…”this week’s sudden swoon should come as little surprise.” Two losses equal “sudden swoon” – maybe OK. “… [L]ittle surprise” implies that this trend will continue. Uh – we’ll see. But except for last year, I don’t see a swoon in other years. The ACC has been a very competitive conference, and in five of the last seven years Duke has won the ACC tournament. Tournament victories have contributed a lot to Duke receiving no. 1 seeds, when other schools lost the last week. In fact, I thought the 2003 team overachieved, with JWill, Dunleavy and Boozer gone and JJ and Shel as freshman, winning the ACC tournament was quite an accomplishment.

“Its relatively unchallenging nonconference schedule”…. [has] contributed to both Duke’s inflated rankings and postseason failure.” Huh? A good record in conference and winning the ACC tournament is not enough preparation for the NCAAs? Everybody in basketball tends to agree that results in November don’t matter at all. Moreover, my earlier point was that until Duke and UNC started racking up NCs in the early ‘90s, there was a lot of tut-tutting that the ACC teams couldn’t win the NC because they were worn out by the ACC tournament. In any event, we are supposed to believe that a couple more road games against good teams in Nov-Dec are supposed to make the team better prepared in March. Uh, no! The point that harder games may lead to losses and to lower rankings is a fair comment, but it looks to me that Duke plays as challenging a non-conference schedule as anyone.

His table citing road games from 1986 to 2001 is interesting, although unchecked (and he doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt). I don’t know whether this reflects NCAA wide trends or Duke is somehow special. I do believe that, top to bottom, the ACC is much tougher now than 20 years ago. I expect that affects K’s scheduling decisions.

“…[H]e began softening the schedule in recent years simply because he knew his teams weren’t as good as in years past.” Give me a break! Duke’s conference record the past ten years has been phenomenal. How is it that K thought his teams weren’t as good as in the 10-15 years before then? What I do believe is true is that when the team totally turns over (2000, 2003, 2007) K starts the team off more slowly.

And then, his factual paragraph on Duke McD’s and subsequent NBA experience was poorly researched. McRoberts has, in fact, made an NBA roster in his rookie year (no guaranteed contract). And Shelden wasn’t a McD AA (off-court charges, which were dropped, prevented him from being a shoo-in for McD).

“The rate of pro success for Duke’s McDonald’s alums is significantly lower than that of all others during the same time period.” Horse hockey! He fudged the data; he falsified the analysis by not omitting current college players; and he imagined a result that isn’t in the data.

“… [R]ecent emphasis by Krzyzsewski to recruit players more likely to remain in school for three or four years.” Didn’t we go all out for the Louisiana stud who chose G’town for his one year in college? Unless some other poster wants to provide some info on this subject, this is idle speculation by Mandell. Of course, when the majority of your scholarship players are white, he is not the only one to speculate thusly. But I would be surprised if Scheyer, King and Singler don’t have long NBA careers (along with, for sure, Henderson and Smith).

“There are, at most, two players on the Duke roster that one can envision eventually approaching that level” (i.e., NBA starters Battier, Boozer and Dunleavy). Then, of course, having said “at most” he adds the possibility of Smith and King also reaching that level. I mean, does SI have editors, and do they read this stuff?

But it gets worse: “Memphis, whose entire starting five could end up in the NBA; North Carolina (at least three if you include the injured Ty Lawson).” Notice the subtle shift from “NBA starters” to “end up in the NBA.” He has already conceded that Markie, Greg and Scheyer are comparable to Avery and Ewing (who, of course, did play in the NBA). Is he really saying that Memphis’s starting five will all become NBA starters? Yuck! This is jabbering to make a point by obscuring both your reasoning and the facts.

That’s the end of my textual criticism, although I could have gone on even longer.

My other point is implicit in the whole article. Duke players from 1999 to 2002 were absolutely fabulous on both the college and NBA levels: NBA stars Brand, Maggette, Battier, Boozer and Dunleavy (with JWill missing because of a career-ending injury). To say that JJ, Shel, Luol, Shav and Josh are not as good is hardly a bold move and really unfair to them given their stage of career. But it is also illogical if Duke’s recent McD’s have done about as well as others in the NBA. I think they have, and I think Mandell falsified the data and the analysis to prove otherwise.

On the issue of exceptional performance, I think he is holding Duke’s 1986-1994 teams’ NCAA results as a standard of comparison for more recent teams. Those years were the most fabulous NCAA long-running performance, except for UCLA, in history.

Ugh and double ugh!

sagegrouse
'BTW, how are things down under? I remember your reasons for emigration -- did it work out as well as you hoped?'

[mapei]

To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

2a. If the answer is yes, why?
2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?

[MIKESJ73]

The tournament winner is rarely the best team. Bad match-ups (Duke-LSU) or just one bad game 2002 will cost the team a championship, seasons can't be judged on NCAA performance alone. Saying that I don't think too many teams have a better record over the last 6 years. We clearly have been the best RPI wise with such poor NBA talent (eyes rolling). There are 64 teams every year that feel the disappiontment of not winning. We were one of them.

[sagegrouse]

To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

2a. If the answer is yes, why?
2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?

First, you can't (or shouldn't) eliminate the "peak" -- I would include 2001 and, really, overall performance in the post 1995 era. The NCAA's are a single elimination tournament that is going to produce random results (a real crapshoot, IMHO). Restricting results to only a few years is a mistake (one that Mandell was only to eager to embrace).

I thought the 1999 and 2004 teams played well enough, overall to win the championship, but as we learned in all the years before (1964, 1966, 1978, 1986, and 1994), "well enough" doesn't do it -- you have to have some luck.

I thought the 2002 team was a disappointment, in that it had all necessary talent, but didn't play with the focus and intensity of the 2001 team (of, course, Battier was the glue in 2001).

I thought the 2005 and 2006 could have done better, and maybe should have done better.

2003 and 2007 had nowhere near the talent to contend for anything. The fact that the 2003 team won the ACC tournament is as close to a miracle as anything in Duke history.

Basically, if the 2004 team doesn't get victimized by a horribly officiated game and wins the NC, we don;t have this conversation.

sagegrouse

[pfrduke]

To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

2a. If the answer is yes, why?
2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?

I agree with much of what sagegrouse said in the post above me, but I thought I'd add this.

I don't think there is any one reason (or any group of reasons) that we can pull from the season as a whole (or multiple seasons) to explain why Duke lost three or four particular games at the time they did. Just like there's no reason (or group of reasons) that would explain why Duke won the games they did in earlier seasons.

To turn your 2b around, do you believe that the reason Duke lost to LSU, MSU, Indiana, and VCU is that we did not play true road games against top 25 opponents in November and December?

[mapei]

I agree with much of what sagegrouse said in the post above me, but I thought I'd add this.

I don't think there is any one reason (or any group of reasons) that we can pull from the season as a whole (or multiple seasons) to explain why Duke lost three or four particular games at the time they did. Just like there's no reason (or group of reasons) that would explain why Duke won the games they did in earlier seasons.

To turn your 2b around, do you believe that the reason Duke lost to LSU, MSU, Indiana, and VCU is that we did not play true road games against top 25 opponents in November and December?

Not necessarily. I honestly don't know. It may be that our style of play produces a more fatigued, error-prone team down the stretch, and I don't think Mandel discussed that possibility.

It could also be that our lack of "true" road games helps push our record and ranking too high, so that while we were a number one seed against LSU, MSU, Indiana, and VCU, we weren't really one of the best four teams in the country going into the tournament those years. Maybe when we lost those games they shouldn't have been considered such huge upsets.

I do think there has been a trend towards underperformance in the tournament in the last several years, relative to our ranking, and it's happening with enough recent recurrence that it's a good topic for consideration. Personally I'm at a loss to explain it or to think about how to improve it. Fortunately it is K rather than me with that challenge.

I found Mandel's take on it interesting and provocative, and although I can't say that he's right I've been surprised by the vehement reaction.

I do wish K played true nonconference road games against tough opponents, mainly to take the argument away from Duke-haters that we are ducking those situations, something that in the past we could never be cited for. I have no idea whether it hurts us in March.

I also think it's possible that we're not the top dog in recruiting anymore and that could be having an impact, especially with regard to power players. (Not that we ever did recruit those guys much, but it's possible that it's catching up to us.) I'll concede that that one can be argued either way, and it frequently is on this board.

Finally, although I don't think the '04 semifinal was well-officiated, I think UConn had an ax to grind in that game (1st half) just like we did (2nd half). Both affected the game, as did superb 2nd-half play by a great college player named Ameka Okafor (whose name I probably just misspelled). If he had played most of the first half we might never have built a lead at all. I agree that, if we had won that game, there would be much less to discuss on this set of topics.

[throatybeard]

If we've been overseeded, it's because we have a habit of winning the ACCT. In the last ten ACCTs we've won 7 and lost the final in two more, so our record in the ACCT (1998-) is 25-3. Because almost everybody's got a conference tournament, the overwhelming majority of the top 50 lose their last game before the NCAAT. So when you go 3-0 that week, you're going to leapfrog a bunch of people in the polls. And the polls are a much better predictor of seed than the RPI.

[Papa John]

But except for last year, I don’t see a swoon in other years. The ACC has been a very competitive conference, and in five of the last seven years Duke has won the ACC tournament...

I'm sorry, Sage, but you are muddying the waters here with your insanely accurate interpretation of the facts...


To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

2a. If the answer is yes, why?
2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?

I think Sage has actually done an excellent job of rebutting Mandel's column... My main problem with these types of columns is that they're pointless--using your 'gut feeling' and trying to back it up with an extraordinarily limited data set [one which he clearly defined as he did because he obviously felt it proved his argument, yet I think it's been clearly demonstrated by others here that you could draw opposite conclusions from the limited data set he presents] is a sloppy, lazy excuse to 'punt' a column... Of course, I also think this is what the bulk of sports "journalism" is...

To answer your questions...

- Yes, Mandel is full of crap, but that's no revelation...

- No--I want Duke to win the National Championship every year... But winning the tournament has a lot to do with matchups and luck as much as anything else... And, quite frankly, we Duke fans have been extraordinarily spoiled with respect to our team's NCAA tournament performance during the K years... 22 tournament appearances, 68-19 record, 3 National Championships, 3 runner-ups, 10 Final Fours... Only one team can win the NCAA... Only 4 of 64 make the Final Four... We've been one of those four almost 50 percent of the time in Coach K's tenure... We've underperformed relative to our seed in some years, and overachieved relative to our seed in others--that's the law of averages...

The only season I was truly disappointed in was last season, when I felt we had too much talent to play as poorly as we did down the stretch...

You can't win 'em all... You can hope, but...

[mapei]

Fair points by both of you. I do worry that it has become a trend, but I don't dispute that it could simply be blind luck.

The year that disappointed me the most was JJ & Shel's senior year. Those two guys, and their teammates, deserved better than to go out early. :(

[dukie8]

No--I want Duke to win the National Championship every year... But winning the tournament has a lot to do with matchups and luck as much as anything else... And, quite frankly, we Duke fans have been extraordinarily spoiled with respect to our team's NCAA tournament performance during the K years... 22 tournament appearances, 68-19 record, 3 National Championships, 3 runner-ups, 10 Final Fours... Only one team can win the NCAA... Only 4 of 64 make the Final Four... We've been one of those four almost 50 percent of the time in Coach K's tenure... We've underperformed relative to our seed in some years, and overachieved relative to our seed in others--that's the law of averages

not exactly. because the ncaat is a single-elimination event, you are going to have years when your team loses when it should not due to matchups or luck. that's why the indiana loss didn't stand out at the time. however, you make it sound like the '05 and '06 teams were humming along and just hit bad matchups with mich st and lsu. that couldn't be any further from the truth. the '05 MIGHTILY struggled with 16 seed delaware state. we won by 11 but we scored a grand total of 21 points in the 2nd half and shot 41% for the game. we then BARELY beat miss st by 8 by shooting 38% from the field. that team was a staggering mess by the time the mich st game tipped off and, by that point, not surprising that it lost.

the '06 also didn't exactly look like a well-oiled 1 seed either in rounds 1 and 2. it, too, struggled with its 16 seed, southern. southern only was down by 9 at half and wound up losing only by 16. players not named jj and sheldon scored a grand total of 12 points that game and we committed an embarrassing 20 turnovers. i remind you that this was the 16 seed! the next game was against gw, which was quite upset at getting an 8 seed despite being ranked 14th. we actually played ok that game. despite committing 18 turnovers, we wound up winning by 13 in a game that really wasn't in doubt.

so in summary, the '05 and '06 teams played extremely poorly in 3 of the 4 games leading up to their sweet 16 exits (and 2 of those games were against 16 seeds). thus, of the 6 ncaat games they played, 5 were poorly played. it's fantasy to simply chalk up the mich st and lsu loses to either bad matchups and/or the vagaries of bad luck as our poor play started well before those games. mapei nicely outlined some of the possibly explanations and i don't think anyone can say for sure what is going on. however, when duke flames out of the ncaat 4 out of the last 6 years, you have enough datapoints to conclude that there is something else going on besides randomness or "bad" matchups at the sweet 16 level.

[Papa John]

However, when duke flames out of the ncaat 4 out of the last 6 years, you have enough datapoints to conclude that there is something else going on besides randomness or "bad" matchups at the sweet 16 level.

I didn't realize that making it into the Final 16 and losing a game in the final minute [which describes both the MSU and LSU losses you cite] constituted a "flameout"... I normally reserve "flameout" for, say, a 2 seed losing in round 1 (something Ole Roy has done a couple of times)...

We all want to see Duke win the championship every year, I imagine... That just ain't reality...

[dukie8]

I didn't realize that making it into the Final 16 and losing a game in the final minute [which describes both the MSU and LSU losses you cite] constituted a "flameout"... I normally reserve "flameout" for, say, a 2 seed losing in round 1 (something Ole Roy has done a couple of times)...

We all want to see Duke win the championship every year, I imagine... That just ain't reality...

maybe we have a different set of expectations, but when you are a 1 seed (and the #1 1 seed to boot), losing to the 4/5 winner is a flameout in my book. also, we lost to mich st by 10 and didn't lead for the final 17:07. so, yes, you can loosely say that we lost the game in the final minute, but if you are that liberal with the term, then every losing team loses the game in the final minute (eg, st johns yesterday).

the fact that you still are trying to make the argument that we lost 2 really close games and they were due to luck/bad matchups indicates that you missed the whole point of my last post -- that the team was playing poorly in the games leading up to the ultimate loss and the belief that we just had some bad luck or a bad matchup is malarkey. take a look at some of the scores against other 16 seeds in past tournaments and you will see utter whippings with the stars benched well before the final horn.

[MIKESJ73]

The getting fat at McDonalds is an unfair assessment. First off Duke only had 16 McD AA from 01-07, and a fifth in the NBA (McRoberts), the numbers change alot. It also isn't right to compare the McD's as a whole. Duke has only had 6 top 15 recruit (according to Scout.com) during that time period.

02 Shav 12th in the NBA
02 Redick 13th in the NBA
03 Deng 2nd in the NBA
05 McRoberts 1st in the NBA
06 Henderson 15th lottery selection in next years draft (NBAdraft.net)
07 Singler 6th any question he wouldn't go in the 1st this year?

05 Paulus was 18th
06 Thomas was 18th
06 Sheyer was 20th

All three still in school and I wouldn't rule out an NBA career for any of them

Ewing, Thompson, Dockery, Nelson, Boateng, Smith, and King all were ranked outside of the top 25 players, compare them to similar ranked McDees.

Of the 60 NBA players that were McDees in those 7 classes, how many do you think were top 15 players. Their were 68 top 10 players during that same period.

[Papa John]

maybe we have a different set of expectations, but when you are a 1 seed (and the #1 1 seed to boot), losing to the 4/5 winner is a flameout in my book. also, we lost to mich st by 10 and didn't lead for the final 17:07. so, yes, you can loosely say that we lost the game in the final minute, but if you are that liberal with the term, then every losing team loses the game in the final minute (eg, st johns yesterday).

The MSU game was a 4-point game in the closing minute... LSU was a 1-point game with a minute to go... How do those possibly compare to St. John's the other day?

[Johnboy]

To those who think Mandel was full of crap, I would pose two questions:

1. Have you been satisfied with Duke's ncaat performance since the 2001 peak?

2a. If the answer is yes, why?
2b. If the answer is no, and Mandel got it wrong, what do you think the reasons are?

1. Overall, I'm satisfied. Which is to say, I wouldn't trade Duke's situation for anyone else, I wouldn't want to recruit different players, change the Head coach, Associate or Assistant Coaches, or otherwise make any drastic revisions to the program.

2(a). There are a couple years where we did worse than I hoped, and the rest I chalk up to chance. Every champion get some breaks (think we'd beat UNLV in a series in 1991? Laettner hits the shot every time? we erase a 22 point deficit in the final Four and win the final with the "go-to" guy in foul trouble?). The NCAA title is rarefied air for everyone. We've been spoiled. <curmudgeon> When I graduated from Duke, the school had never won a national championship in any team sport. This was remedied by the 1986 Men's soccer team.</curmudgeon>

2(b). Paucity of datapoints. Statistics is the study of large numbers. Sure, it'd be fun if we had won more titles, but it's not like anyone else was doing significantly better (arguably Florida and UConn), but I don't want to be them.

This idea that the higher ranked team should win every time seems silly to me (e.g. a #1 seed losing to a 4 or 5 is a "flameout"). If you don't believe basketball is a game of matchups, then you need to pay better attention. you construct the best team you can (and keep it together long enough to get really good), then try to impose your will on the other team. Beyond that, you have to survive such obstacles as fatigue, shooting slumps, a poor free-throw shooting night, a hot hand on the other team, foul trouble, illness, injuries, matchup problems and any number of things that can happen to a team.