2021 National Invitational Tournament (NIT)

[JasonEvans]

Only valuable if all the young pieces are coming back.

Seeing as we know some of them will be back, I would argue it is still valuable. The only young player who seems certain to leave is Jalen. That's a lot of other guys who could benefit from playing under tournament pressure.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Wish we had more of those this past Fall.

So many that it's ingrained in my spelling now.

[Acymetric]

Seeing as we know some of them will be back, I would argue it is still valuable. The only young player who seems certain to leave is Jalen. That's a lot of other guys who could benefit from playing under tournament pressure.

Who do we know​ is back?

[Phredd3]

I didn't like it when Coach P turned down an NIT invitation the year Greenwell was hurt, and I won't like it if Coach K turns down an NIT invitation now. It's an opportunity to play games and represent the school.

If the players vote to turn it down, that's a whole different thing.

[JasonEvans]

Who do we know​ is back?

I mean, no one has declared anything but I don't think anyone expects Roach, Brakefield, Coleman, or Williams to really consider turning pro. The consensus right now seems to be that DJ Steward will have a decision to make, but most draft analysts think he is enough of a fringe prospect so that a year of added strength and better shooting could really help his stock.

That's the freshmen -- among the sophs, I think everyone expects Wendell Moore to return to Duke. Hurt is likely to leave, but it is not a lock. Joey Baker will be back for his senior campaign.

-Jason "I suppose we might lose someone to transfer, it is always possible (but not very common), but that's even harder to predict than NBA decisions" Evans

[Acymetric]

I mean, no one has declared anything but I don't think anyone expects Roach, Brakefield, Coleman, or Williams to really consider turning pro. The consensus right now seems to be that DJ Steward will have a decision to make, but most draft analysts think he is enough of a fringe prospect so that a year of added strength and better shooting could really help his stock.

That's the freshmen -- among the sophs, I think everyone expects Wendell Moore to return to Duke. Hurt is likely to leave, but it is not a lock. Joey Baker will be back for his senior campaign.

-Jason "I suppose we might lose someone to transfer, it is always possible (but not very common), but that's even harder to predict than NBA decisions" Evans

It is fair to say those guys might be back, and certainly some of them will be, but saying we "know" it is overstating the case, and of the group you listed outside of Stewart, it would be pretty surprising given patterns of past teams if we didn't have at least one more surprise departure, one way or the other. It has been quite a few years since someone saying they "knew" the young non-lottery locks would be back would have been right.

[Kedsy]

I mean, no one has declared anything but I don't think anyone expects Roach, Brakefield, Coleman, or Williams to really consider turning pro. The consensus right now seems to be that DJ Steward will have a decision to make, but most draft analysts think he is enough of a fringe prospect so that a year of added strength and better shooting could really help his stock.

That's the freshmen -- among the sophs, I think everyone expects Wendell Moore to return to Duke. Hurt is likely to leave, but it is not a lock. Joey Baker will be back for his senior campaign.

-Jason "I suppose we might lose someone to transfer, it is always possible (but not very common), but that's even harder to predict than NBA decisions" Evans

Goldwire and Tapé could also come back, if they want.

[CDu]

It is fair to say those guys might be back, and certainly some of them will be, but saying we "know" it is overstating the case, and of the group you listed outside of Stewart, it would be pretty surprising given patterns of past teams if we didn't have at least one more surprise departure, one way or the other. It has been quite a few years since someone saying they "knew" the young non-lottery locks would be back would have been right.

I think Jason said we know “some of them” will be back. Not that we know which of the group will comprise that “some.” And a tourney experience would be valuable for whomever of the group returns.

I would venture fairly confidently that more than half will be back. I won’t venture as to which ones, or exactly how many more than half. But to Jason’s point, for however many do return, a tourney will be valuable experience.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I mean, no one has declared anything but I don't think anyone expects Roach, Brakefield, Coleman, or Williams to really consider turning pro. The consensus right now seems to be that DJ Steward will have a decision to make, but most draft analysts think he is enough of a fringe prospect so that a year of added strength and better shooting could really help his stock.

That's the freshmen -- among the sophs, I think everyone expects Wendell Moore to return to Duke. Hurt is likely to leave, but it is not a lock. Joey Baker will be back for his senior campaign.

-Jason "I suppose we might lose someone to transfer, it is always possible (but not very common), but that's even harder to predict than NBA decisions" Evans

Speaking of Baker - now that we know he is granted an extra year of availability, can we revisit the "burning Baker's redshirt was a horrible mistake" thread we had a few years ago?

I insisted that it was impossible to deem it a mistake until he was gone from Duke. Seems that this tilts the scales towards "overblown drama" at the time and zero long term effect.

[Acymetric]

Speaking of Baker - now that we know he is granted an extra year of availability, can we revisit the "burning Baker's redshirt was a horrible mistake" thread we had a few years ago?

I insisted that it was impossible to deem it a mistake until he was gone from Duke. Seems that this tilts the scales towards "overblown drama" at the time and zero long term effect.

To be fair, it would have been difficult to predict at the time that it wouldn't matter because of a national pandemic that resulted in him getting a 5th year anyway. "Rather be lucky than good" and all, but I'm not sure you can really take credit for calling that one correctly here.

[Music man55]

We send the banner over to the Dean Dome for hanging, if they can find enough ceiling space.

Gotcha rsvman. If not the ceiling, then the roof.

[Natty_B]

Goldwire and Tapé could also come back, if they want.

Goldwire more likely than Hurt imo. The Tapé situation is just sad.

[CDu]

Speaking of Baker - now that we know he is granted an extra year of availability, can we revisit the "burning Baker's redshirt was a horrible mistake" thread we had a few years ago?

I insisted that it was impossible to deem it a mistake until he was gone from Duke. Seems that this tilts the scales towards "overblown drama" at the time and zero long term effect.

To be fair, it would have been difficult to predict at the time that it wouldn't matter because of a national pandemic that resulted in him getting a 5th year anyway. "Rather be lucky than good" and all, but I'm not sure you can really take credit for calling that one correctly here.

Yep, the assessment needs to be made based on where things were then. Surely Coach K knew that Baker wasn’t going to play significant minutes that year when the decision was made. Unless Coach K knew back in early 2019 that we would have cataclysmic worldwide disaster, I don’t think he can get relief on that one.

Also worth noting that had Baker redshirted, he would have 3 more years of eligibility now instead of just the 2. The pandemic year doesn’t subtract that away, though who knows if Baker would use the 6th year if it had been available (he wouldn’t be the first to do so). And given that he made essentially zero impact on the results his freshman year, it still seems like a wasteful and short-sighted decision.

[throatybeard]

Seems that this tilts the scales towards "overblown drama" at the time and zero long term effect.

Only if we're being reasonable about it.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

To be fair, it would have been difficult to predict at the time that it wouldn't matter because of a national pandemic that resulted in him getting a 5th year anyway. "Rather be lucky than good" and all, but I'm not sure you can really take credit for calling that one correctly here.

Well, obviously no one knew about the pandemic - we can probably mostly agree that even K isn't omniscient.

But my point at the time was - calling it an unequivocal mistake when it happened was impossible for exactly that reason among others. You can't write something off as a misstep when there are so many unknowns.

At the time, the argument was that a fifth year Baker might be the missing cog. Well, now we know that burning the redshirt won't be the difference in finding out.

I won't bother listing out other scenarios that would have borne out similar results, but certainly "worldwide pandemic" wasn't on my list at the time.

[CDu]

Well, obviously no one knew about the pandemic - we can probably mostly agree that even K isn't omniscient.

But my point at the time was - calling it an unequivocal mistake when it happened was impossible for exactly that reason among others. You can't write something off as a misstep when there are so many unknowns.

At the time, the argument was that a fifth year Baker might be the missing cog. Well, now we know that burning the redshirt won't be the difference in finding out.

I won't bother listing out other scenarios that would have borne out similar results, but certainly "worldwide pandemic" wasn't on my list at the time.

But the reason it was unequivocally a mistake is that it offered basically no upside. Coach K essentially never played Baker. And he had to know that was going to be the case when he put Baker in.

So given that Baker was never likely to play meaningful minutes that year, there was no benefit to burning the redshirt. And there was no way that we would get an extra year that didn’t involve losing a more valuable version of him in a subsequent season. If he had redshirted last year or this year, we would have lost more player value than we did in 2019. And even with the pandemic year, had he redshirted the first year he would be a sophomore now with 3 more years instead of a junior with 2.

[UrinalCake]

But the reason it was unequivocally a mistake is that it offered basically no upside. Coach K essentially never played Baker. And he had to know that was going to be the case when he put Baker in.

At the time the decision was made to burn Baker's redshirt, Zion had just gotten injured and we didn't know how long he'd be out, we lost the UNC game badly, and we had a really difficult stretch ahead of us on the schedule. We needed a spark and needed some depth, we were already in need of more shooting, and everyone decided that Baker might be able to contribute. In retrospect we can look back and say it was the wrong decision, but I think that in that moment the decision was justifiable. K knows his players but can't exactly predict how well they will perform in games with 100% accuracy. And who knows how much his presence affected the team in practices and in his limited court time and how that was different because he knew he was eligible? Maybe without his engagement on the sidelines against Louisville we don't make that huge comeback. I know that's a bit of a stretch, but overall I think the uproar over burning his redshirt is kind of overblown and only being made in hindsight. Just like Zoubek should have been redshirted his freshman year, but we didn't know it at the time. Both Baker and the coaches decided it was worth the risk given the team that we had, and throwing all our eggs into that basket to maximize our chances at a title knowing that roster like that doesn't come around every year was a decision I'm comfortable with.

[CDu]

At the time the decision was made to burn Baker's redshirt, Zion had just gotten injured and we didn't know how long he'd be out, we lost the UNC game badly, and we had a really difficult stretch ahead of us on the schedule. We needed a spark and needed some depth, we were already in need of more shooting, and everyone decided that Baker might be able to contribute. In retrospect we can look back and say it was the wrong decision, but I think that in that moment the decision was justifiable. K knows his players but can't exactly predict how well they will perform in games with 100% accuracy. And who knows how much his presence affected the team in practices and in his limited court time and how that was different because he knew he was eligible? Maybe without his engagement on the sidelines against Louisville we don't make that huge comeback. I know that's a bit of a stretch, but overall I think the uproar over burning his redshirt is kind of overblown and only being made in hindsight. Just like Zoubek should have been redshirted his freshman year, but we didn't know it at the time. Both Baker and the coaches decided it was worth the risk given the team that we had, and throwing all our eggs into that basket to maximize our chances at a title knowing that roster like that doesn't come around every year was a decision I'm comfortable with.

Yes, I'm well aware of when Baker's redshirt was burned. There was no saving the season if Zion wasn't coming back, so adding Baker wasn't going to change the equation without Zion. The season was always going to rest on Zion's return. Furthermore, the coaching staff also had watched the team practice for months, and they had to have a pretty good idea that Baker wasn't going to make any impact on the court. I mean, they evidently had a good inclination of this, given how little he played even right out of the gate. If they didn't have a pretty good idea, then that is probably an indictment on the coaching staff. But I think they knew.

I think it was a panic move, and I think it was a mistake. And no, this isn't a claim being made in hindsight. Most of the folks who have complained about it complained about it at the time as well.

It may wind up not mattering much: Baker hasn't developed into a regular player yet, so he may never wind up relevant. But it was totally unnecessary given how little they planned to use him. And to the original point in this thread, the pandemic doesn't change that in any way.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yes, I'm well aware of when Baker's redshirt was burned. There was no saving the season if Zion wasn't coming back, so adding Baker wasn't going to change the equation without Zion. The season was always going to rest on Zion's return. Furthermore, the coaching staff also had watched the team practice for months, and they had to have a pretty good idea that Baker wasn't going to make any impact on the court. I mean, they evidently had a good inclination of this, given how little he played even right out of the gate. If they didn't have a pretty good idea, then that is probably an indictment on the coaching staff. But I think they knew.

I think it was a panic move, and I think it was a mistake. And no, this isn't a claim being made in hindsight. Most of the folks who have complained about it complained about it at the time as well.

It may wind up not mattering much: Baker hasn't developed into a regular player yet, so he may never wind up relevant. But it was totally unnecessary given how little they planned to use him. And to the original point in this thread, the pandemic doesn't change that in any way.

Well my original point was that EVERYONE was complaining about it and that NO ONE would know until hindsight.

Baker has proven a limited factor at best. If your argument is that a sixth year Baker would be a difference maker on a Duke team, well, I guess maybe.

At the time, I was just frustrated that everyone seemed to be railing on K when it seemed to me like it was not an obviously bad move, and that we wouldn't really know the fallout for years to come.

[CDu]

Well my original point was that EVERYONE was complaining about it and that NO ONE would know until hindsight.

Baker has proven a limited factor at best. If your argument is that a sixth year Baker would be a difference maker on a Duke team, well, I guess maybe.

At the time, I was just frustrated that everyone seemed to be railing on K when it seemed to me like it was not an obviously bad move, and that we wouldn't really know the fallout for years to come.

I mean, railing on him is probably a bit of an overstatement of what happened. And the argument was always about fifth year (or now sixth year) Baker compared with the minimal usage of first year Baker.

At best, it was an irrelevant move. But when "at best" is "irrelevant", that should be the answer as to whether or not it was a good decision. No?