This season will be a different experience for a lot of you.

[mepanchin]

Why are people comparing Zoubek's freshman year to Newton's senior year? Zoubek turned the ball over a full one third of the time he tried to do anything with it. When Newton was a senior, he turned it over less than 15% of the time. Worth noting that Newton had similar turnover problems to Zoubek as a freshman - and played even fewer minutes.

I think you'll find the "lack of depth" problems since, oh, 05 or so stem more from NBA defections and Kris Humphries and the class of 05 admittedly sucking relatively than it does from Coach K's reluctance to use a deep line-up. I will also maintain that JJ was not tired at the end of the 2006 season - he just ran into Garrett Temple, who was a nightmare match-up for our beloved JJ and his T-Rex arms.

Furthermore, the 00-01 team was pretty shallow with only 7 players getting any sort of significant play-time - and they seemed to be ok. I think you have to do what you can with what you have and you can be equally successful playing a deep bench or playing a short bench, as long as you tailor the team properly.

[cato]

(Of course, then [Newton] went off the deep end and got benched).

Heh. I remember Newton showing up at a house party with some pretty sketchy friends. The best part was that 4 out of my 6 house mates had no idea who the tall dude standing next to the keg was.

[throatybeard]

Why are people comparing Zoubek's freshman year to Newton's senior year?

Ask Udaman.

[Zeb]

K's supporters on the depth issue say that since 2000, Duke has had fewer numbers of highly talented players. This caused K to use a small rotation because he got more value out of a great player for 35 minutes than giving 10-15 minutes to a fresher but much less skilled player.

Critics of the short bench retort with the idea that there's always a drop off from a starter to a bench player, but that using depth has an intrinsic value beyond the marginal value of a starter's minute versus a bench player's. Depth allows a faster place, reduces injuries, better prepares a team to recover from injuries, enhances player development, cuts down on transfers, keeps players from wearing down over the season, etc.

K supporters' responses to these items ranged from complete rejection (JJ is NOT tired!) to admitting that yes, depth does have benefits, but those benefits have not been enough to justify sitting down a vastly superior player on previous teams.

With talent suposedly much more evenly distributed across 11 players on this year's team, everyone is predicting that K will go deep. Udaman's hypothetical is right on then--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it.

[Jumbo]

Udaman's hypothetical is right on then--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it.

Those two sentences inherently contradict each other.

[throatybeard]

Those two sentences inherently contradict each other.

Sort of like some of the things Udaman said.

[Zeb]

You start this thread telling everyone that K's recent teams have not had enough talent to go deep, and that this year since K has plenty of talent he will play more players.

That may be true... at the end of the season if 8 or 9 guys are seeing significant minutes, than your theory that K is still open to using depth when he has enough talent will be true.

But if K decides that he likes 35 minutes out of Singler and Henderson and Nelson, and only 6-7 players see real minutes, what then? Does that mean everyone (including you) was wrong that this is a deep team? Or does it mean that K just likes playing his best guys a lot and doesn't see value in giving the 7th and 8th guys more minutes?

If this squad doesn't do deep, will there ever be a team with an even enough talent distribution to justify not giving the starters minutes in the mid-30's?

[Jumbo]

You start this thread telling everyone that K's recent teams have not had enough talent to go deep, and that this year since K has plenty of talent he will play more players.

That may be true... at the end of the season if 8 or 9 guys are seeing significant minutes, than your theory that K is still open to using depth when he has enough talent will be true.

But if K decides that he likes 35 minutes out of Singler and Henderson and Nelson, and only 6-7 players see real minutes, what then? Does that mean everyone (including you) was wrong that this is a deep team? Or does it mean that K just likes playing his best guys a lot and doesn't see value in giving the 7th and 8th guys more minutes?

If this squad doesn't do deep, will there ever be a team with an even enough talent distribution to justify not giving the starters minutes in the mid-30's?

I get it perfectly. You're still contradicting yourself. I'll give you one more chance to detect the flaw in your logic yourself. If you can't find it, I'll be happy to point it out to you.

[Zeb]

Yes, I am missing the contradiction. I see it pretty simply. If this team does not go 8+ deep this year:

a) you are wrong about its talent level

or

b) you are wrong that K will expand the rotation

Keep in mind, I think this hypothetical will not occur. I think Duke will be deep. But it's more fun to have these talks now before we have the benefit of hindsight.

[Jumbo]

Yes, I am missing the contradiction. I see it pretty simply. If this team does not go 8+ deep this year:

a) you are wrong about its talent level

or

b) you are wrong that K will expand the rotation

Keep in mind, I think this hypothetical will not occur. I think Duke will be deep. But it's more fun to have these talks now before we have the benefit of hindsight.

You pretty much got it. Remember, this is what you said originally: "--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it."

The point is that the possibility still exists for players 6 and 7, for instance, to distance themselves considerably from players 8 and 9. You finally mentioned a version of that possibility above when you said "you are wrong about its talent level." But that doesn't take in-season separation into account.

Regardless, none of that makes udaman's argument correct, nor does it make this season some sort of ultimate test for "depth."

[CDu]

You pretty much got it. Remember, this is what you said originally: "--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it."

The point is that the possibility still exists for players 6 and 7, for instance, to distance themselves considerably from players 8 and 9. You finally mentioned a version of that possibility above when you said "you are wrong about its talent level." But that doesn't take in-season separation into account.

Regardless, none of that makes udaman's argument correct, nor does it make this season some sort of ultimate test for "depth."

In which case, this season WOULDN'T be a different experience. If once again talent separation (either unobserved inherent separation or mid-season improvement separation) reduces the rotation to 6-7, wouldn't that sort of disagree with your initial argument? Either that, or it would sort of support Udaman's argument, right?

For the record, I'm in the camp that does think this team will have more depth. I don't know how much, because I suspect that Pocius and Zoubek will get squeezed, and I don't know if McCLure will make an impact this year. But I do expect an extended rotation this year.

[Zeb]

I already allowed for this in my earleir statement, which you left out when quoting me.

With talent suposedly much more evenly distributed across 11
players on this year's team, everyone is predicting that K will go deep. Udaman's hypothetical is right on then--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it.

I still argue there is no contradiction, and I don't see where Udaman is wrong. But at this point it seems like we're talking in circles.

Go Duke.

[throatybeard]

What I don't get is why people think that one season, 2007-08, represents some sort of final referendum on Krzyzewski's attitude towards depth. He's been coaching for three decades.

[Jumbo]

In which case, this season WOULDN'T be a different experience. If once again talent separation (either unobserved inherent separation or mid-season improvement separation) reduces the rotation to 6-7, wouldn't that sort of disagree with your initial argument? Either that, or it would sort of support Udaman's argument, right?

No, because it's a question of general vs. specific. Udaman is saying generally that Coach K no longer likes playing more than seven guys. And he is making comparisions between not playing Zoubek/Pocius last year with Price/Newton in 1996-97.

I'm speaking that depth is a team-specific issue, that Coach K goes deep specifically when he has a large number of players who don't have a huge drop in skill. Now, when I say this season will be different, I'm making my best guess at player evaluation. There is every chance that I could end up wrong. Maybe Smith, Zoubek and a healthy McClure won't be as good as I think. If that happens, it doesn't necessarily mean that Coach K isn't a fan of using his bench. It could just mean that I didn't have a good read of the talent on this team.

[Zeb]

Translation: If K plays a 6 man rotation for the rest of his career at Duke, it means nothing about his attitude towards depth and everything about the talent makeup of each of the rosters.

That's certainly one way to argue. Pretty tough to disprove.

[Jumbo]

Translation: If K plays a 6 man rotation for the rest of his career at Duke, it means nothing about his attitude towards depth and everything about the talent makeup of each of the rosters.

That's certainly one way to argue. Pretty tough to disprove.

That's not the translation. That's a straw man. I'm talking about this season. And I've already shown you quite a few seasons where K has gone extemely deep on his bench. Throaty is right -- why are we trying to judge Coach K's beliefs based on one season (or even a few) -- when he's been at Duke so long?

[Zeb]

The concern Udaman raised is whether K has changed his bench philosophy in recent years. How does 25 years of history help answer that?

To his credit, Coach K is still a work in progress and frequently cites the national team as a huge learning experience. Duke is playing some zone this year--I think that partly stems from his international experience and is another example that what happened in the previous 25 years doesn't guarantee what comes next.

No team since 2000 has been as talented in the 7-10 spots as this year's. This season will provide a great test of whether K's recent lack of a bench has been due to personnel or philosophy. (Frankly, I think you agree on this whether or not you admit it.)

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

As I understand the argument, it goes:

"Although K may once have been willing to use depth, since 2000* K has not been willing to use guys that could contribute or build a bench, instead riding his best 6-7 guys as far as they can take him. This has led to more in-season success but has killed us at tournament time. It has also made guys who are 'left out' feel discouraged and less able to find their place on the team."

The argument points to our post-season let-downs in a number of otherwise promising seasons, (2002, 2005, 2006, 2007) based on fatigue and no "Plan B" if our go-to guys had an off night. It also points to to a really high number of transfers by guys who "never got a chance" (Sweet, MT, Boykin, Boat), and an equal number of guys who never got a chance to find their place in the offense on a regular basis and thus never developed a reliable offensive presence (Casey, Dockery, Marty, etc.)

My own sense is that this argument is only half right. Early entry, injury, and some poor recruiting decisions have left us with real problems that have not permitted us go as deep as some are suggesting we should have. Further, a lot of this argument is classic begging the question (i.e. "Marty would be great if only he got more minutes that K should give him because he'd be great"). That said, I know we can all name guys with some serious promise (often McDonald's guys) who never seemed to get any meaningful minutes/shots, (or often couldn't get off the bench) once we entered the meat of the season. We've also seen the pretty poor NCAA results (again, relative to our talent and pre-season expectations) that seem related to tired legs and no Plan B.

This season is so important because it is the first year we have had a large group of guys with obvious potential to contribute a lot. K has said loudly that we will be deep this season, and the title of the thread is essentially mocking anyone who thinks K has made mistakes in this area with a promise that "you'll see this season."

Count me among those that think K has been forced, rather than chosen, to neglect/ignore his bench in favor of a small cadre of iron men. But also count me as a guy that needs to see an example from this millennium that K is still willing to give guys some freedom to learn on the job in service of depth. If not this year, when?




*2000 is not just cherry-picked to fit an argument, it is an important benchmark for a number of reasons: it was the first year we faced any serious NBA defections, it was the end of Dean/Gut period in the ACC. Maybe more importantly, since 2001 we have had talent that is equal to or exceeded every team in the country, but we've only seriously contended for an NCAA title once in that period. This period is not a small sample size and it clearly represents a trend that K's teams in 198X or early/mid-199X are not relevant to.

[Zeb]

Count me among those that think K has been forced, rather than chosen, to neglect/ignore his bench in favor of a small cadre of iron men. But also count me as a guy that needs to see an example from this millennium that K is still willing to give guys some freedom to learn on the job in service of depth. If not this year, when?

This summary and conclusion says everything I've wanted to say on this topic (and in much finer fashion than I could hope to).

[Troublemaker]

There are 8 guys that I will be very surprised isn't part of the rotation at the end of the season if healthy: Paulus, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, Smith, Scheyer, King, McClure. Lance is very, very close to making that list as well (in fact, he's almost certainly a starter at the beginning of the season), but I have still have some doubts about his effectiveness on offense that might end up putting him on the deep bench (but I would agree that outcome isn't likely). And if McClure goes down because of health reasons, Lance would probably replace him in the rotation because we'd need the height, so 8 seems like a sure bet to me.

Will Coach go 11 deep? Doubtful, imo. At the beginning of the season, I can see it happening, but I consider it overkill to go 11 deep the entire season. Even the deepest teams usually settle into a 9-man rotation (that can extend to 11 in blowouts) and I think that's what will happen to Duke. 8 is a "sure thing", 9 is likely, 10 possible, and 11 unlikely.