The all-important context for last night's loss

[scottdude8]

The 2010 National Championship team lost by 14 at unranked N.C. State in late January. About a week later we lost again by 10+ points at Georgetown. In neither game did we look anywhere near like a championship caliber team. We all know how that turned out.

In 2015 we ALSO lost at an unranked N.C. State by double digits. We followed up that loss with an embarrassing home loss to an unranked Miami squad by 16 (AT HOME). In neither game did we look anywhere near like a championship caliber team. We all know how that turned out.

In fact, we've lost five of our last seven at N.C. State. And all those losing teams ended up having memorable seasons.

Last year's National Champions, Virginia, lost to us by 10 at home and lost by 10 in the ACC Tournament. They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those two results in a vacuum.

The 2018 National Champions, Villanova, lost three of their last eight regular season games. All three of these losses were to unranked teams, including one at home. They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those results in a vacuum.

The 2017 National Champions, UNC (ugh), lost by 15 on the road to an unranked Miami team in late January, only put up 43 points in a loss to Virginia in late February, and dropped their last two contests against us by decisive margins (fun memories!). They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those results in a vacuum.

I could go on and on and on.

The point: judging this team, or any team, based on one result, no matter how onerous, is a mistake. Every successful Duke team, and most National Champions more generally, have had bad losses at some point during the season. We're all human, and prone to recency bias. But this is the same team this morning as it was 24 hours ago, before an outlier poor performance.

Whether or not this team makes it to the Final Four or gets upset won't be dictated by one game. Should we adjust our expectations and recognize some important flaws that were revealed last night? Of course. But one game does not make the season.

Let's all take a deep breath and focus on winning the ACC.

[SOB13]

My concern is not the one result, but the (increasing?) regularity with which this team is showing up not ready to play. Last night they ran into a team that was happy to make them pay. This team has to be locked in, especially on defense, to go far. And when they are, they can beat anyone. Hopefully they figure out the antidote for NOT in the next couple of weeks.

[DukeDevilDeb]

The 2010 National Championship team lost by 14 at unranked N.C. State in late January. About a week later we lost again by 10+ points at Georgetown. In neither game did we look anywhere near like a championship caliber team. We all know how that turned out.

In 2015 we ALSO lost at an unranked N.C. State by double digits. We followed up that loss with an embarrassing home loss to an unranked Miami squad by 16 (AT HOME). In neither game did we look anywhere near like a championship caliber team. We all know how that turned out.

In fact, we've lost five of our last seven at N.C. State. And all those losing teams ended up having memorable seasons.

Last year's National Champions, Virginia, lost to us by 10 at home and lost by 10 in the ACC Tournament. They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those two results in a vacuum.

The 2018 National Champions, Villanova, lost three of their last eight regular season games. All three of these losses were to unranked teams, including one at home. They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those results in a vacuum.

The 2017 National Champions, UNC (ugh), lost by 15 on the road to an unranked Miami team in late January, only put up 43 points in a loss to Virginia in late February, and dropped their last two contests against us by decisive margins (fun memories!). They did not enter the tournament looking like a national title contender based on those results in a vacuum.

I could go on and on and on.

The point: judging this team, or any team, based on one result, no matter how onerous, is a mistake. Every successful Duke team, and most National Champions more generally, have had bad losses at some point during the season. We're all human, and prone to recency bias. But this is the same team this morning as it was 24 hours ago, before an outlier poor performance.

Whether or not this team makes it to the Final Four or gets upset won't be dictated by one game. Should we adjust our expectations and recognize some important flaws that were revealed last night? Of course. But one game does not make the season.

Let's all take a deep breath and focus on winning the ACC.

The problem is, of course, that winning the ACC regular season was made infinitely more difficult by losing last night. If we focus on winning the ACC (regular season or tournament), each and every game between now and the end of the season is of critical importance. I'm sure the team knows that. I want them to KNOW that and take responsibility for it.

[proelitedota]

It's not the one game. Its the pattern of digging themselves a big hole in first quarter that happens almost every single game.

[chrishoke]

And who could forget the 1991 Duke team getting drubbed in the ACC Tournament by the Heels 96-74. We all know how that turned out.

[kAzE]

From the ESPN article: "According to ESPN Stats & Information research, the game marked the first time an unranked opponent beat a top-10 Duke team by at least 20 since 1979"

It's great that our championship teams had some bad losses, but this one was really historically bad. And I'm not sure those other teams dropped a game at home to a team like Stephen F Austin, either. Not saying this team can't win a national championship, but I don't think it's fair to compare the team against past championship teams, especially when the ACC is such a weak conference this year.

[Kedsy]

The problem is, of course, that winning the ACC regular season was made infinitely more difficult by losing last night.

Infinitely more difficult? In what way? We're basically in a three-way tie for first, right now. The other two teams play each other (so one of them will then be behind us, all other things being equal). And our remaining schedule is the easiest of the three teams. We still should be considered the favorite to win (or at least tie) the ACC regular season, unless we do a complete nosedive.

[tbyers11]

Infinitely more difficult? In what way? We're basically in a three-way tie for first, right now. The other two teams play each other (so one of them will then be behind us, all other things being equal). And our remaining schedule is the easiest of the three teams. We still should be considered the favorite to win (or at least tie) the ACC regular season, unless we do a complete nosedive.

In my head I had us losing to either NCST or UVA (I did not picture us losing to NCST in this manner but that's another thread). If win the last 5 games, which is still quite possible, all we need is Louisville to lose at FSU or UVA and, at worst, we share the ACC title with FSU and would be the 1 seed in the ACC tourney via H2H victory over FSU.

So more difficult after last night, yes. But I agree that we are still the betting favorite.

[Kedsy]

From the ESPN article: "According to ESPN Stats & Information research, the game marked the first time an unranked opponent beat a top-10 Duke team by at least 20 since 1979"

It's great that our championship teams had some bad losses, but this one was really historically bad. And I'm not sure those other teams dropped a game at home to a team like Stephen F Austin, either. Not saying this team can't win a national championship, but I don't think it's fair to compare the team against past championship teams, especially when the ACC is such a weak conference this year.

Then what are you saying?

[Kedsy]

Of the past 20 national champions, 14 of 20 (70%) had double-digit losses at some point during the season (and six of the 14 had double-digit losses to unranked teams). Seven of the 20 (35%) had losses of 15+ (three to unranked teams), and three of the 20 (15%) had losses of 20+. The 2014 UConn champions lost by 33 to Louisville, earlier that season.

This is not to say this year's team will win the championship. It's merely to say last night's loss doesn't really change the championship calculus very much (if at all).

[scottdude8]

All are making valid points here. That said, and I’m not sure how far back the DBR archives go to check this, but I’d bet that people were saying VERY similar things about the flaws of our teams back in 2015 and 2010. Yes, you can make the argument that this result is more concerning than any of the others, and that’s a reasonable position. But my point is that, at some point in every season, it’s pretty reasonable to look at the team and say “This isn’t a great team” following a bad stretch. Many of those teams end up still being special. This team still has that POTENTIAL, even after last night.

[Tripping William]

Of the past 20 national champions, 14 of 20 (70%) had double-digit losses at some point during the season (and six of the 14 had double-digit losses to unranked teams). Seven of the 20 (35%) had losses of 15+ (three to unranked teams), and three of the 20 (15%) had losses of 20+. The 2014 UConn champions lost by 33 to Louisville, earlier that season.

This is not to say this year's team will win the championship. It's merely to say last night's loss doesn't really change the championship calculus very much (if at all).

I actually agree with your second paragraph assessment, but am curious: Did any of them have (a) a loss of 20+, (b) to an unranked team, (c) after February 15th?

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I actually agree with your second paragraph assessment, but am curious: Did any of them have (a) a loss of 20+, (b) to an unranked team, (c) after February 15th?

Wouldn't be surprised if UConn did, because they were terrible all reagular season then caught lightning in a bottle for Big East and NCAAT...

[kAzE]

Then what are you saying?

What I’m trying to say is, it’s hard to compare this team to past champions, because it’s strange year in college basketball, and especially the ACC.

In a normal year, this particular team would probably have a few more than 4 losses at this point, and we would be looking at our national championship chances very differently. But with such few great teams this year, we might be good enough if things go our way.

[Kedsy]

I actually agree with your second paragraph assessment, but am curious: Did any of them have (a) a loss of 20+, (b) to an unranked team, (c) after February 15th?

In what way would that be predictive of anything?

[Tripping William]

In what way would that be predictive of anything?

Didn't say it would be. I said it would satisfy a curiosity. So, never mind.

[CDu]

What I’m trying to say is, it’s hard to compare this team to past champions, because it’s strange year in college basketball, and especially the ACC.

In a normal year, this particular team would probably have a few more than 4 losses at this point, and we would be looking at our national championship chances very differently. But with such few great teams this year, we might be good enough if things go our way.

Right. It's a bit too rosy a statement to say "we've had championship teams lose badly before, so everything is fine." This loss is one of the worst in the Coach K era.

Now, it doesn't necessarily mean the world is coming to the end. But it's totally reasonable to find this loss (especially on the heels of playing poorly in some recent games) concerning. Especially when we consider that our chances at the ACC regular season title, the ACC tourney #1, and a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney just took a big hit.

[proelitedota]

Of the past 20 national champions, 14 of 20 (70%) had double-digit losses at some point during the season (and six of the 14 had double-digit losses to unranked teams). Seven of the 20 (35%) had losses of 15+ (three to unranked teams), and three of the 20 (15%) had losses of 20+. The 2014 UConn champions lost by 33 to Louisville, earlier that season.

This is not to say this year's team will win the championship. It's merely to say last night's loss doesn't really change the championship calculus very much (if at all).

I am not hung up on records, but this year's team is merely young team without lottery picks that benefited from a really easy schedule and really weak ACC.

If you look at Barttorvik, the number of "bad" (below 80) games we've had each of the past 9 seasons before March. It's unprecedented for us to have so many bad games in season before March.

2020: 6 (59, 66, 69, 75, 73, 21)
2019: 3 (78, 58, 44)
2018: 5 (62, 74, 72, 74, 79)
2017: 4 (40, 71, 62, 79)
2016: 3 (77, 75, 37)
2015: 4 (78, 75, 48, 68)
2014: 4 (72, 76, 76, 70)
2013: 5 (79, 29, 77, 74, 69)
2012: 4 (59, 56, 74, 78, 37)

I am not downplaying the potential of this team, but we should heed K's word that this is merely a good team that has a very good record on paper.

[Kedsy]

What I’m trying to say is, it’s hard to compare this team to past champions, because it’s strange year in college basketball, and especially the ACC.

In a normal year, this particular team would probably have a few more than 4 losses at this point, and we would be looking at our national championship chances very differently. But with such few great teams this year, we might be good enough if things go our way.

I agree it's hard to compare. In fact, I agree with everything you say in this post. Personally, I think this year's Duke team is the least talented Duke team since 2016. Doesn't mean this year's model can't achieve big things.

But the point I've been trying to make is we shouldn't disqualify this team for anything based on the difference between a 22-point loss and a 15-point loss, or whether past losses by whoever came to unranked or ranked teams, or whether the loss came on February 19 or January 13. There's just not enough data to tell us whether these distinctions are meaningful.

The distinctions might not even be distinctions. State is a top 50 team according to Pomeroy; counting the home team advantage, it's probably the equivalent of at least top 30 or maybe even top 25 (meaning there might not be any meaningful difference between this unranked State team and a ranked team in some other team's ignominious defeat. This 22-point loss at NCSU is almost certainly a "better" loss than our 16-point loss at home to Miami in 2015, for example, so why would we treat it as something worse?

[Kedsy]

Didn't say it would be. I said it would satisfy a curiosity. So, never mind.

Fine. I believe the answer is no.