Some perspective: recent history of ACC Tourney and NCCA Tourney success

[scottdude8]

In 2017, Duke won the ACC Tourney and UNC was upset in the semis of the ACC Tourney (by us). UNC won the NCAA Tourney while we were upset in second round.

In 2015, Duke was upset in the quarters of the ACC Tourney. We won the NCAA title. UNC made it to the ACC Tourney final but lost in the Sweet 16.

In 2014, Virginia won the ACC Tourney but was upset in the Sweet 16. We lost to Virginia in the ACC Final but were upset in the first round of the NCAA Tourney.

In 2013, Duke was upset in the quarters of the ACC Tourney. We still made it to the Elite 8. North Carolina made it to the ACC Tourney final but lost in the second round of the NCAA Tourney. Miami won the ACC Tourney but lost in the Sweet 16.

None of the above is a scientific analysis, it's a quick look through of recent history of ACC Tourney and NCAA Tourney success using Google, Wikipedia, and some memory. The point: as much as losing to UNC last night sucks, nothing about that loss necessarily means our NCAA Tourney chances are dead while UNC is going to the Final Four. Some perspective is always useful. Despite playing with two injured starters and playing objectively bad basketball, we still had a very realistic chance to beat one of the best teams in the country last night. If it comes together like it has at times this year we have every opportunity to make a deep NCAA Tourney run.

Breathe.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

When I tried to make some of those points ^^^^ last night before the game, I was lit up by a number of posters here. I would imagine now more people are open to this kind of analysis.

[Duke_92]

What I tell myself is that the 91 team had 7 losses and lost to UNC in the ACC tournament....not sure this passes as recent! I guess that’s relative.

[duke4ever19]

When I tried to make some of those points ^^^^ last night before the game, I was lit up by a number of posters here. I would imagine now more people are open to this kind of analysis.

You were "lit up" last night because you called the ACC Tournament "meaningless" and put forward a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Saying there is "something to" losing early in the tournament to rest players.

I countered by saying you were wily-nilly selecting examples that help your point while ignoring the mountain of evidence suggesting playing an extra game or two in the ACC tournament doesn't necessarily lead to "tired legs" and early flame-outs in the tournament. I argued that for every example you put forward, there were several counter-examples which render your argument fallacious.

[scottdude8]

To clarify, I by no means intend to devalue the ACC tourney. I wanted to win badly last night. I was itching for the chance to spend 100 bucks on ACC title swag. That said, the season isn’t over by any means, and recent history bears that out. That’s the point I thought needed emphasis.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

You were "lit up" last night because you called the ACC Tournament "meaningless" and put forward a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Saying there is "something to" losing early in the tournament to rest players. .

Well thank you for clarfying. Your guidance and wisdom is much appreciated.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

What I tell myself is that the 91 team had 7 losses and lost to UNC in the ACC tournament...not sure this passes as recent! I guess that’s relative.

Not recent, but significant in that it was Duke's first national title, and done 3 weeks after getting waxed by 22 points in the finals of the ACCT.

And the recent...after getting waxed by N Dame by 10, Duke won natty in 2015.

I'll add, before anyone else jumps in and points it out, that this is not statistically significant test....but it is at least some evidence that there is no reason to fret over the loss last night with The Big Dance coming up.

[jv001]

Not recent, but significant in that it was Duke's first national title, and done 3 weeks after getting waxed by 22 points in the finals of the ACCT.

And the recent...after getting waxed by N Dame by 10, Duke won natty in 2015.

I'll add, before anyone else jumps in and points it out, that this is not statistically significant test...but it is at least some evidence that there is no reason to fret over the loss last night with The Big Dance coming up.

Trevon's and Wendell's injuries, and our offense, that's something to fret over. GoDuke!

[sagegrouse]

When I tried to make some of those points ^^^^ last night before the game, I was lit up by a number of posters here. I would imagine now more people are open to this kind of analysis.

Naw! Fizzy soda pop is still weak -- although not as fizzy a day later.

Actually, there is a comparison of last night to our loss to Notre Dame in the ACC semis in 2015 (some have said quarter-finals, but it was the semis). We were flat and got behind and could never catch up. IIIRC (and there is always a first time) K used that game as an object lesson in congressional testimony in favor of a program for early-childhood development -- a fast start is important.

Lesson learned, I hope. I think our team can beat anyone in the country -- no matter how well the opponent plays -- with an intense, smart effort and reasonable success in hitting three-point shots. In other words, it's on us.

WRT last night, I give kudos to the Heels for playing with a great deal of focus and for reacting well to what Duke was intending to do. Those above who have rightfully criticized our play at the end of the game (Grayson's, in particular) should recognize that if the first-half score was 16-16 instead of 16-3, the end-game plays wouldn't have mattered.

[jv001]

Naw! Fizzy soda pop is still weak -- although not as fizzy a day later.

Actually, there is a comparison of last night to our loss to Notre Dame in the ACC semis in 2015 (some have said quarter-finals, but it was the semis). We were flat and got behind and could never catch up. IIIRC (and there is always a first time) K used that game as an object lesson in congressional testimony in favor of a program for early-childhood development -- a fast start is important.

Lesson learned, I hope. I think our team can beat anyone in the country -- no matter how well the opponent plays -- with an intense, smart effort and reasonable success in hitting three-point shots. In other words, it's on us.

WRT last night, I give kudos to the Heels for playing with a great deal of focus and for reacting well to what Duke was intending to do. Those above who have rightfully criticized our play at the end of the game (Grayson's, in particular) should recognize that if the first-half score was 16-16 instead of 16-3, the end-game plays wouldn't have mattered.

Great post. Neals has just posted the +/- for last night's game and something interesting: The starting lineup was +15 and the top 3 lineups had Duval in the lineup. I truly believe if he does not get injured it's a different outcome. His speed and length is a great weapon on both defense and offense. We were only down 5 points at half time and played them even(38-38) in the 2nd half. Sometimes luck plays a part. Oh, and our bench was really bad last night. Javin is a better player than he's showed lately. GoDuke!

[CDu]

Great post. Neals has just posted the +/- for last night's game and something interesting: The starting lineup was +15 and the top 3 lineups had Duval in the lineup. I truly believe if he does not get injured it's a different outcome. His speed and length is a great weapon on both defense and offense. We were only down 5 points at half time and played them even(38-38) in the 2nd half. Sometimes luck plays a part. Oh, and our bench was really bad last night. Javin is a better player than he's showed lately. GoDuke!

Yeah, for all the talk about how Duval cost us the game, he was in the game when we played well. Yes, he was atrocious offensively last night (in large part because he was hobbled, but also because he was trying to do too much while hobbled). But our defense suffered without him in the game.

[jv001]

Yeah, for all the talk about how Duval cost us the game, he was in the game when we played well. Yes, he was atrocious offensively last night (in large part because he was hobbled, but also because he was trying to do too much while hobbled). But our defense suffered without him in the game.

One reason he was atrocious on offense was it seemed he ended up with the ball as the shot clock was running down. That and a few times Grayson and Gary got the ball to him when someone else was open. The poor guy just can't shoot and his teammates should know that by now. GoDuke!

[MarkD83]

The real perspective on this Duke team, is while they have plenty of talent and play brilliantly at times they are still very inconsistent.

With a likely 2 seed (can't see a loss to another potential 2 seed dropping them to a 3) my expectations are

1) major disappointment if they lose in the first round
2) Second round loss is a possibility
3) Sweet 16 would be great
4) Everything beyond that is awesome

p.s. Just a first warning shot for next year. Next year's team will be even younger and rely on freshman even more than this year. 25 wins, a top 4 finish in the ACC and a sweet 16 would be major accomplishments for next year's team.

[Stray Gator]

Not recent, but significant in that it was Duke's first national title, and done 3 weeks after getting waxed by 22 points in the finals of the ACCT.

And the recent...after getting waxed by N Dame by 10, Duke won natty in 2015.

I'll add, before anyone else jumps in and points it out, that this is not statistically significant test...but it is at least some evidence that there is no reason to fret over the loss last night with The Big Dance coming up.

I agree that losing early in ACC Tournament is "no reason to fret" about our prospects in the NCAA Tournament. I still disagree with the premise that losing early in the ACC Tournament improves our prospects in the NCAA Tournament, which is the point you were urging so assiduously last night. The fact that there have been seasons in which the team that won the national championship was one that had lost early in its conference tourney cannot, in my judgment, be deemed "significant" when the record reflects that there have been seasons in which the team that won the national championship had also won its conference tourney. In Duke's case, three of our five national championship teams also won the ACC Tournament. Just to be clear, no one is contending that this proves winning the ACC Tournament improves Duke's chances of winning the NCAA Tournament; but I believe it certainly provides significant evidence that winning the ACC Tournament does not hurt Duke's chances of winning the NCAA Tournament.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I agree that losing early in ACC Tournament is "no reason to fret" about our prospects in the NCAA Tournament. I still disagree with the premise that losing early in the ACC Tournament improves our prospects in the NCAA Tournament, which is the point you were urging so assiduously last night. The fact that there have been seasons in which the team that won the national championship was one that had lost early in its conference tourney cannot, in my judgment, be deemed "significant" when the record reflects that there have been seasons in which the team that won the national championship had also won its conference tourney. In Duke's case, three of our five national championship teams also won the ACC Tournament. Just to be clear, no one is contending that this proves winning the ACC Tournament improves Duke's chances of winning the NCAA Tournament; but I believe it certainly provides significant evidence that winning the ACC Tournament does not hurt Duke's chances of winning the NCAA Tournament.

I was responding to a poster who said that "most of Duke's national championship teams" won the ACCT, and that post absolutely was in context of winning the ACCT did improve chances...so not only was someone saying that, they were using the math of 5 championships to make that point specifically. The math is 3-2, which I thought was very inconclusive. So I used the last 3 years to demonstrate that. Perhaps you did't understand that part. He was using 5 years over 26, I was using 3 years in a row.

That said, rest is exponentially more important for a team that is banged up, and/or uses a short rotation. Also, rest is mental as well as physical. Duke uses a longer rotation this year than they have in a while, but its still a relatively short rotation. Some teams go 9-10-11 deep. It's a different dynamic for those teams.

Now we also seem to have two starters hampered by injuries. Maybe 3. I'm thinking at this point, our only choice is to find the silver lining in not playing tonight. While I couldn't think that way during the game last night, while it was going on, I had contemplated that silver lining already.

[wobatus]

ACC regular season success has been more of an indicator of NCAA tourney success than ACC tournament titles in recent years. In the last 15 years 6 ACC teams won NCAA titles. Five of them won the ACC regular season. Only1 won the ACC Tournament. Duke in 2010, which also won the regular season title. 2015 Duke won neither.

[Ian]

In 2017, Duke won the ACC Tourney and UNC was upset in the semis of the ACC Tourney (by us). UNC won the NCAA Tourney while we were upset in second round.

In 2015, Duke was upset in the quarters of the ACC Tourney. We won the NCAA title. UNC made it to the ACC Tourney final but lost in the Sweet 16.

In 2014, Virginia won the ACC Tourney but was upset in the Sweet 16. We lost to Virginia in the ACC Final but were upset in the first round of the NCAA Tourney.

In 2013, Duke was upset in the quarters of the ACC Tourney. We still made it to the Elite 8. North Carolina made it to the ACC Tourney final but lost in the second round of the NCAA Tourney. Miami won the ACC Tourney but lost in the Sweet 16.

None of the above is a scientific analysis, it's a quick look through of recent history of ACC Tourney and NCAA Tourney success using Google, Wikipedia, and some memory. The point: as much as losing to UNC last night sucks, nothing about that loss necessarily means our NCAA Tourney chances are dead while UNC is going to the Final Four. Some perspective is always useful. Despite playing with two injured starters and playing objectively bad basketball, we still had a very realistic chance to beat one of the best teams in the country last night. If it comes together like it has at times this year we have every opportunity to make a deep NCAA Tourney run.

Breathe.

I don't think Duke's chances in the tourney are depedant upon success in the ACCT. However, the manner in which Duke lost is consistent with certain characteristics (such as poor backcourt play in general and decision making in key possessions late in games) which they've displayed throughout the season and does not appear to have improved at all. And those characterics make me doubious of future success.

In other words, this was not a "they had a uncharacteristic bad game" situation which you can write off an move on. This was a "we keeping doing the same thing yet somehow think it will end up differently" situation.

I'm not down on our chances to win the tournment because of last night's loss. I'm down on our chances because I have no confidence that in a game with a quality opponent that is close with 2 minutes left, that we would make the smart, savvy plays neccessary to pull it out. We are 0-6 in our last 6 games decided by 5 points or less, and the last 2-3 minutes of all those games have looked the same to me. We either fail to get a good shot, turn the ball over, fail to box out, or miss FTs, some time all of the above.

[Duke07]

I think specifically for this year's Duke team with the current injury issues, the silver lining may be avoiding Duval/Carter playing hurt tonight and potentially prolonging their recovery time. In any other year, I agree winning always trumps losing. Anticipating a Friday 1st round game (Charlotte or Nashville), a week off for them might be of greater benefit than a slightly higher seed in regards to our overall NCAA tourney prospects (and we would've probably gotten a 1 seed only if we beat UVA which obviously would be a major task)..

[Stray Gator]

I was responding to a poster who said that "most of Duke's national championship teams" won the ACCT, and that post absolutely was in context of winning the ACCT did improve chances...so not only was someone saying that, they were using the math of 5 championships to make that point specifically. . . .

I'm sure everyone has grown weary of this discussion, and I regret that you force me to belabor it further. I was the poster who responded to your suggestion that this team would "benefit" from "a little rest" by pointing out that the majority of Duke's national championship teams also won the ACC Tournament. To be specific, here was your post:

Interesting how people who love the Devils look at things so differently. I enjoyed the run last year, and did not expect it. But at the same time, I was thinking "a little rest might be more beneficial in the long run." Once we lost in Greenville, I had zero joy whatsoever at the ACCT. Once the Heels cut down the nets for the big title, I went from zero joy to below zero.

And here's what I said in response:

You continue to suggest that Duke basketball teams would have a better chance of winning the national championship if they would bow out of the ACC Tournament early so that they could get "a little rest" for the NCAA Tournament. The fact remains, however, that the majority of Duke's national championship teams also won the ACC Tournament.

You're certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish, but I don't think that "a little rest" would have made any difference whatsoever in the outcome of Duke's game against South Carolina last March; and I'll venture a guess that Duke's coaches and players would confirm that playing the four games it took to win the ACC Tournament last year did not materially affect their performance in the NCAA Tournament. Indeed, given the remote prospects of winning the NCAA Tournament in any season, I'd guess that those coaches and players are proud enough of the ACC Championship that they wouldn't trade it for the chance to have a do-over of the 2017 NCAA tournament.

In any event, count me as one Duke alumnus and fan who still values the ACC Championship -- and did even through the unpleasantness of seeing UNC cut down the nets for the NCAA title.

You then retorted that

"[O]ur ACCT title was meaningless last year as the Holes cut down the real nets. So recent history indicates the rest is key."

Despite your repeated mischaracterizations, I have never said or suggested that winning the ACC Tournament would improve Duke's chances of winning the NCAA Tournament. Just because I don't agree with your opinion that losing early in the ACC Tournament improves Duke's chances of winning the NCAA Tournament, and offered facts to show that the record doesn't support that opinion, does not justify your repeated attempts to falsely portray my response as having claimed that winning the ACC Tournament improves Duke's chances of winning the national championship.

I don't appreciate you deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting my position. I try to discuss issues here reasonably, with appropriate respect for the opinions of others; but I expect that those who disagree with me will debate honestly and honorably. If you find it necessary to materially miscast another person's position to defend your own, I believe that not only shows disrespect for the person you're debating, but signifies that you recognize a weakness in your position that leaves you unwilling or unable to defend it on its own merits. I maintain, as I have from the outset, that whether Duke wins the ACC Tournament or exits early and gets "a little rest" does not significantly affect Duke's chances of winning the NCAA Tournament. You're welcome to disagree, and encouraged to offer evidence that supports your position; but you're not entitled to misstate my position.

[subzero02]

Naw! Fizzy soda pop is still weak -- although not as fizzy a day later.

Actually, there is a comparison of last night to our loss to Notre Dame in the ACC semis in 2015 (some have said quarter-finals, but it was the semis). We were flat and got behind and could never catch up. IIIRC (and there is always a first time) K used that game as an object lesson in congressional testimony in favor of a program for early-childhood development -- a fast start is important.

Lesson learned, I hope. I think our team can beat anyone in the country -- no matter how well the opponent plays -- with an intense, smart effort and reasonable success in hitting three-point shots. In other words, it's on us.

WRT last night, I give kudos to the Heels for playing with a great deal of focus and for reacting well to what Duke was intending to do. Those above who have rightfully criticized our play at the end of the game (Grayson's, in particular) should recognize that if the first-half score was 16-16 instead of 16-3, the end-game plays wouldn't have mattered.

Early in that loss to Notre Dame, the camera caught coach K mouthing the words, "no one wants to play". I felt the same way during most of the first half last night. This team needs to get closer to playing complete games or we will flame out earlier than we should in the NCAAT.