2018-19 Basketball catch all thread

[Troublemaker]

Then add in a few scrub opponents in the fall. By my count we have 13 games that I'd consider "losable." What I mean by that for each game, if we were to lose I wouldn't be surprised. That isn't to say that I expect to lose them all, or that we won't lose any of the other games, but basically these are the games that I will go into feeling a little worried. These games are the three November games, CHeat x2, Syracuse x2, UVA x2, @FSU, @Louisville, @ND, @VT. And yes, I am aware that there are other land mines as well. St. John's beat us last year. Indiana gave us a game. NC State is never a gimme even at home (they beat us in 2017 with our team mostly healthy).

Given this schedule, then adding the ACCT and NCAAT, I think a ten-loss season is a possibility. We lost 8 games last year and had a much easier schedule. We'll have a young team that will lose some games they shouldn't. The conference will be down, but still has some good teams and everybody will be gunning for us as always. And the start of our schedule is brutal, with three possible top-10 opponents in November.

What do you guys think? Am I being overly pessimistic?

Anything's possible, sure. Unless you assign percentages/odds to the possibility, it's hard to really discuss. For example, I'm optimistic about this team but I would agree there is a non-zero chance at a 10-loss season. (And a 9-loss season, and a 4-loss season, and a 2-loss season, etc.) Duke lost 11 games in 2016, for example.

Now, if you're saying you are predicting a 10-loss season, then we probably should discuss a pie bet.

[CDu]

Is it too early to start speculating on the season? Now that the Maui bracket has been released, we have a pretty good idea of what the schedule is going to look like (minus the exact dates).

Champions Classic:
- Kentucky (ranked #1 or #2)

Maui Invitational:
- San Diego State, then likely Auburn (top-10) and Gonzaga (top-5)

ACC/B10 Challenge:
- Indiana (in Cameron)

Other OOC games:
- Texas Tech (in MSG)
- St. John's (in Cameron)

ACC Schedule:
- Home/Road: North Carolina, Syracuse, Virginia, Wake Forest
- Home: Boston College, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, NC State
- Road: Florida State, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pitt, Virginia Tech

Then add in a few scrub opponents in the fall. By my count we have 13 games that I'd consider "losable." What I mean by that for each game, if we were to lose I wouldn't be surprised. That isn't to say that I expect to lose them all, or that we won't lose any of the other games, but basically these are the games that I will go into feeling a little worried. These games are the three November games, CHeat x2, Syracuse x2, UVA x2, @FSU, @Louisville, @ND, @VT. And yes, I am aware that there are other land mines as well. St. John's beat us last year. Indiana gave us a game. NC State is never a gimme even at home (they beat us in 2017 with our team mostly healthy).

Given this schedule, then adding the ACCT and NCAAT, I think a ten-loss season is a possibility. We lost 8 games last year and had a much easier schedule. We'll have a young team that will lose some games they shouldn't. The conference will be down, but still has some good teams and everybody will be gunning for us as always. And the start of our schedule is brutal, with three possible top-10 opponents in November.

What do you guys think? Am I being overly pessimistic?

I think that's pretty unlikely, but certainly possible. I think they could reasonably lose two preseason games (they aren't losing two in Hawaii; if they lose to Auburn, they won't face Gonzaga, for example), they could lose 5-6 in conference. And they could lose in the ACC and NCAA tournaments. If all that happens, it's a 9- or 10-loss season.

But, of the games you listed, Indiana, St. John's, and NC State don't scare me too much, because they are at home. Pitt, Louisville, and Notre Dame are in rebuilding mode. FSU might be decent, but they have real question marks at PG, and don't have consistent offense. Va Tech should be tough one though, and a very possible loss.

My guess? We lose maybe one of the preseason games, 5 regular season games, and then head to the tourneys. I think an over/under of around 6 or 6.5 feels about right.

[Rich]

Until a few guys can prove they can consistently hit from three and I know we can play some defense, I'm not counting any chickens. I don't want to turn this into another one-and-done thread, but I've learned to bring my expectations down in recent years, at least until late in the season if/when things finally start to gel.

Although this particular group is tremendously athletic, the current state of the game seems to be won or lost from three and I just don't see us having sufficient firepower from there. I'm a bit more down on this team than I have been in recent years. I'll be rooting my butt off as always and am more than happy to eat these words at season's end.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Until a few guys can prove they can consistently hit from three and I know we can play some defense, I'm not counting any chickens. I don't want to turn this into another one-and-done thread, but I've learned to bring my expectations down in recent years, at least until late in the season if/when things finally start to gel.

Although this particular group is tremendously athletic, the current state of the game seems to be won or lost from three and I just don't see us having sufficient firepower from there. I'm a bit more down on this team than I have been in recent years. I'll be rooting my butt off as always and am more than happy to eat these words at season's end.

This might be a case where recency bias is influencing your opinion. Looking at the recent Final Four teams shows that being good or bad at making the long ball has little correlation with success in the tournament.

Villanova was a great shooting team last year, hitting 40.1% of their attempts as a team. That was tied with Kansas for 10th in the nation. But Michigan was not a good shooting team, as it turns out, and was just #156 in the nation at 35.2% while Loyola of Chicago was very good (#17) at 39.8% as a team.

Going back a year, North Carolina won the National Championship as a so-so shooting team, hitting 35.5% of its 3's, good for #149 in the nation. Gonzaga was a little better at #42 and a 38.2% 3P%. Oregon was about the same at #46 and 38.0% while South Carolina was pretty bad at #243 and 33.4%.

Back in 2016, Villanova was not that good of a shooting team, just #105 in the nation at 35.2%. UNC was even worse at #258 and 32.7%. The other Final Four teams were Syracuse (#114/36.0%) and Oklahoma (#2/42.2%)

Based on recent trends, 3-point shooting isn't anywhere near the most important factor in a team's success in either making it to the Final Four or cutting down the nets. It certainly helps, but there is a lot more to the game than the ability to hit 3-point shots. The revolution of the game in the NBA hasn't made its way to the college game as best I can tell.

[jimsumner]

But, of the games you listed, Indiana, St. John's, and NC State don't scare me too much, because they are at home.

Correct. It's inconceivable that a talented Duke team could lose at home to a mediocre NC State team.

Beyond the pale.

Never, ever happen.

Am I laying it on too thick?

[CDu]

Correct. It's inconceivable that a talented Duke team could lose at home to a mediocre NC State team.

Beyond the pale.

Never, ever happen.

Am I laying it on too thick?

Could it happen? Absolutely. Has it happened before? Sure. Should we expect it to happen? Uh, no.

[proelitedota]

I wish we live in a world where upsets never happen and the outcome always goes as planned.

Then again I would be sipping tea while praising her majesty right now.

[jimsumner]

Could it happen? Absolutely. Has it happened before? Sure. Should we expect it to happen? Uh, no.

Perhaps. But shouldn't we expect to lose a game/games to teams that on paper Duke shouldn't lose to?

Seems to happen on a pretty regular basis. BC last year being a prime example. Even the 2015 title team got blown out at home by Miami.

On paper last year's Duke team shouldn't have lost more than a couple of games. Just like the 2018-'19 team.

But I would very much expect "it" to happen, "it" being a loss to a team(s) overmatched on paper but not on the court.

[UrinalCake]

Correct. It's inconceivable that a talented Duke team could lose at home to a mediocre NC State team.

Beyond the pale.

Never, ever happen.

Am I laying it on too thick?

Just to clarify, the games that Cdu mentioned - State, St. John's, Indiana - were not in my list of "losable" games. I'm mostly concerned about the games against the top ACC opponents (CHeats, UVA, Syracuse), the road ACC games, and the three early games against top-10 teams. I think those are games that we have a 70% or less chance of winning. For the remaining games, I agree that we'll almost definitely drop one or two (or more) in which we are favored. So between 13 "losable" games, another couple unexpected losses, and the ACCT and NCAAT, would ten losses really be all that shocking?

[CDu]

Perhaps. But shouldn't we expect to lose a game/games to teams that on paper Duke shouldn't lose to?

Seems to happen on a pretty regular basis. BC last year being a prime example. Even the 2015 title team got blown out at home by Miami.

On paper last year's Duke team shouldn't have lost more than a couple of games. Just like the 2018-'19 team.

But I would very much expect "it" to happen, "it" being a loss to a team(s) overmatched on paper but not on the court.

Of course. But by the same token, we should also win some games that we “shouldn’t.” Pretty much every year we win a couple we shouldn’t and lose a couple we shouldn’t.

[CDu]

Just to clarify, the games that Cdu mentioned - State, St. John's, Indiana - were not in my list of "losable" games. I'm mostly concerned about the games against the top ACC opponents (CHeats, UVA, Syracuse), the road ACC games, and the three early games against top-10 teams. I think those are games that we have a 70% or less chance of winning. For the remaining games, I agree that we'll almost definitely drop one or two (or more) in which we are favored. So between 13 "losable" games, another couple unexpected losses, and the ACCT and NCAAT, would ten losses really be all that shocking?

We will also likely win some games that we “shouldn’t.”

“Shocking” is a fairly subjective term. I would be quite surprised, barring injury, if we lose 10 games. It is certainly possible, but I would consider it on the extreme edge. I think 6-7 losses feels about right for the middle of the distribution.

[MarkD83]

I don't know about all of this pessimism...I have been planning to get my 40-0 tattoo ever since I saw the hype video (of course it is a henna tattoo just to be safe)...

[Kedsy]

Just to clarify, the games that Cdu mentioned - State, St. John's, Indiana - were not in my list of "losable" games. I'm mostly concerned about the games against the top ACC opponents (CHeats, UVA, Syracuse), the road ACC games, and the three early games against top-10 teams. I think those are games that we have a 70% or less chance of winning. For the remaining games, I agree that we'll almost definitely drop one or two (or more) in which we are favored. So between 13 "losable" games, another couple unexpected losses, and the ACCT and NCAAT, would ten losses really be all that shocking?

I agree with CDu on this one. Could 10 losses happen? Sure. Would it be a surprise? Absolutely.

For example, doing a rough analysis using your numbers, if we have 13 games with an average chance of winning of 70%, you would expect a 9-4 record in those games (69.2%). Or let's say 6 of those games are 50/50 (expected record 3-3) and the other 7 games are 70/30 (expected record 5-2), that puts us at 8-5 in those games. Then add a couple unexpected losses, but possibly offset those with one or two stronger-than-expected showings in the tougher games. That puts us at an expectation of 5 to 7 losses for the year. So unless you're counting the post-season (which it doesn't appear that you are) the team would have to be much worse than we expect, or have unexpected major injuries, in order to have an expected value close to 10 losses. Right now, there's no reason to think there's a good chance of that happening.

[Troublemaker]

So unless you're counting the post-season (which it doesn't appear that you are) the team would have to be much worse than we expect, or have unexpected major injuries, in order to have an expected value close to 10 losses.

UrinalCake IS counting the postseason tourneys, though. See the bold below.

Just to clarify, the games that Cdu mentioned - State, St. John's, Indiana - were not in my list of "losable" games. I'm mostly concerned about the games against the top ACC opponents (CHeats, UVA, Syracuse), the road ACC games, and the three early games against top-10 teams. I think those are games that we have a 70% or less chance of winning. For the remaining games, I agree that we'll almost definitely drop one or two (or more) in which we are favored. So between 13 "losable" games, another couple unexpected losses, and the ACCT and NCAAT, would ten losses really be all that shocking?

Urinal, would you say your scale is something like the following?

10 losses - not shocking
9 losses - not surprising
8 losses - pretty much expected

So let's set the over/under at 7.5 losses (again, counting postseason games)? You go over and I go under with a pie at stake? You'd be getting a steal. The 3 previous Duke teams had 8 losses, 9 losses, and 11 losses. Why would this team all of a sudden go under 7.5 losses when the other three teams failed to do so? I would be the underdog. Darn OADs.

[kAzE]

I'm pretty optimistic, actually. It's mostly because of how highly I regard R.J. I think there's a pretty decent chance he'll be the best player in the country, and a guy who we can go to on critical possessions to manufacture points. He's good enough average 20 or more points, do it efficiently, AND be a lockdown defender on the other end.

I also feel that these pieces fit together better than the team last year did. Yes, we're still a bit light on shooting, but at least there's no logjam in the front court, and as weird as this sounds to say this in July, every player more or less has a pretty defined role on the team already.

Last year, it was always sort of weird because Bagley was our best player, but Grayson was the leader and sort of closer, but he couldn't always do his thing because it was so crowded in the paint with all the bigs. Trevon was sort of a difficult fit on a team without a ton of shooting and he's kind of a player who needs to have the ball in his hands a lot, which wasn't possible with Grayson on the team.

This year, it's RJ's team, he's going to have the ball when it matters, and everyone else can play off of him. I think this team has a great shot at a Final Four. We will probably have a few losses, maybe even a couple of bad ones, due to inexperience, but we should be a force to be reckoned with by the time the postseason is here.

[UrinalCake]

So let's set the over/under at 7.5 losses (again, counting postseason games)? You go over and I go under with a pie at stake? You'd be getting a steal. The 3 previous Duke teams had 8 losses, 9 losses, and 11 losses. Why would this team all of a sudden go under 7.5 losses when the other three teams failed to do so? I would be the underdog. Darn OADs.

The gambler in me would absolutely take that bet, as I do think we will finish with 8 or more losses. But I could never do it because I'd have to root for Duke to lose. I could justify it as an emotional hedge, but I still wouldn't be able to live with myself if I took that bet. I agree that 7.5 is the right number though.

[sagegrouse]

Anything's possible, sure. Unless you assign percentages/odds to the possibility, it's hard to really discuss. For example, I'm optimistic about this team but I would agree there is a non-zero chance at a 10-loss season. (And a 9-loss season, and a 4-loss season, and a 2-loss season, etc.) Duke lost 11 games in 2016, for example.

Now, if you're saying you are predicting a 10-loss season, then we probably should discuss a pie bet.

Hey, Trouble, kAze and others whom I respect: This is arguably the most inexperienced Duke team in the past sixty years, at least in terms of minutes of playing time at the college level. (Proof or dis-proof is left to the reader.) I, like you, would be very disappointed if this team is not one of the best in the country by March. How it gets there is another matter, and I would be prepared for major setbacks on the way.

[budwom]

reduce the number of early losses by playing a zone from the get go. Looks to be nearly a perfect team for that...

[CajunDevil]

I’m with kAzE here, especially regarding RJ. From the summer Canada trip to having already defined roles, this team should be further along from a chemistry perspective than recent Duke teams in the OAD era. Also, I think RJ will ultimately be the best player to ever come out of Duke (health permitting) - he is that good and has that kind of drive - and will be a strong leader for this team. I doubt this team will lose 10 games but it is possible. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this team lose only 4 games either. I can’t wait for the games in Canada.

Btw, the how is Tre’s hip and Cam’s foot/ankle? Any updates?

[Troublemaker]

Hey, Trouble, kAze and others whom I respect: This is arguably the most inexperienced Duke team in the past sixty years, at least in terms of minutes of playing time at the college level. (Proof or dis-proof is left to the reader.) I, like you, would be very disappointed if this team is not one of the best in the country by March. How it gets there is another matter, and I would be prepared for major setbacks on the way.

We'll take losses, sure, as even experienced Duke teams lose games. But if Duke stays reasonably healthy, I do think under 7.5 losses is a good bet. [Now that I'm not trying to reel UrinalCake in for a pie bet :-), I'll make the case for this.]

Let's start with last season's 8-loss team. It was a healthy Duke team that was able to produce a very high efficiency margin in KenPom's system. We were #3 in fact:



Duke was in rarefied air -- just behind dominant champ Nova and best regular season team UVA -- but take a look at the loss count of these +25 adjusted efficiency margin teams. Duke had the most losses, and that was due to poor close-game luck (most notably in the Elite 8 game when a rimout prevented a trip to the Final Four). Kenpom has a measure for close-game luck (essentially), and it's the right-most column in the image above. Duke ranked 271st in the country in "Luck," and I believe if Duke had just been average in close games, we would've taken two fewer losses.

The 2015 team was also reasonably healthy and produced a very efficient team (+32 in adjusted efficiency margin) and only took 4 losses (probably due in part to some good close-game luck). The 2016 and 2017 Duke teams were not healthy.

I believe if this current team stays healthy like the 2018 and 2015 teams, they will likewise be a very efficient team and that 7 losses or fewer is a good bet for them.

Biggest thing to watch for in the Canada trip is how Tre Jones is moving. Does he look recovered from his hip injury? We're currently not giving him a big load. Even in shooting drills, he's only shooting half the attempts that his teammates are shooting.