Looking Towards Next Season

[SkyBrickey]

I don't know that this made things much less confusing .

Moore and Brakefield aren't in the same class, so one would be a junior and the other a sophomore in 2022-23 (assuming all players get the free year this year, as I believe is the case). Or senior in Moore's case and junior in Brakefield's.

My brain may only be half-on today. Brakefield and Coleman. I hope neither transfer because both should have huge roles their junior seasons.

[arnie]

All of these are overestimates. I don't think we're going to have a core that missed the NCAA tournament be ranked preseason #1, and a non-tournament team that loses its best player isn't going to be ranked in the top 3. We have to think about what other teams do too. For example, Kansas looks like the might not lose that many players, and starts from a better place than us.

I'm optimistic we'll be very good next year as long as Williams stays, but we're going to need to earn these kinds of high rankings sometime after the preseason.

My feelings exactly, as my expectations lower. I don’t see top 10; much less top 5 with projected lineups above. Guard play has to improve dramatically and if I’m voting I’d place us closer to 15-20. Unless we’re talking ACC rankings above; then see us Top 5.

[CDu]

Gumbomoop, I agree that there is a clear hierarchy of 6 if they all stay/arrive. And I agree that Goldwire or just the right transfer would make it 7. I disagree only slightly about the backup big.

I think both Brakefield and Coleman have a chance to be the third big. Neither would be playing center when in - they would play PF alongside Williams or alongside Banchero (who moves to C when Williams sits). And I think either could get the nod depending upon which player improves more.

[jimsumner]

Imho, Hurt would crush Bird in a game of 1 on 1 and be much more valuable in a regulation game in which both played 40 minutes. No question. Of course, while I like sci fi as much as the next guy, games are played now, and I’m factoring in that Bird is 44 years older and has a bad back.

Sometime in the 1950s Ty Cobb was watching a spring-training game in Florida. A writer recognized him and started a conversation. The writer asked Cobb what he thinks he would have batted against today's (1950s) pitchers.

Cobb answered, "oh. .300, maybe .310."

"I'm surprised," the writer answered. "I would have thought you would have said something higher."

"Well," Cobb responded, "you have to remember, I am 70 years old."

[SouthernDukie]

Gumbomoop, I agree that there is a clear hierarchy of 6 if they all stay/arrive. And I agree that Goldwire or just the right transfer would make it 7. I disagree only slightly about the backup big.

I think both Brakefield and Coleman have a chance to be the third big. Neither would be playing center when in - they would play PF alongside Williams or alongside Banchero (who moves to C when Williams sits). And I think either could get the nod depending upon which player improves more.

Agreed on both points. The "Big 6" hierarchy will be clear assuming Hurt leaves. And if Goldwire came back that makes the "Big 7". And yes, Coleman and Brakefield will have to decide if they are willing to stay and push for minutes behind the 6/7 hierarchy. Joey will have a similar decision.

[Acymetric]

Sometime in the 1950s Ty Cobb was watching a spring-training game in Florida. A writer recognized him and started a conversation. The writer asked Cobb what he thinks he would have batted against today's (1950s) pitchers.

Cobb answered, "oh. .300, maybe .310."

"I'm surprised," the writer answered. "I would have thought you would have said something higher."

"Well," Cobb responded, "you have to remember, I am 70 years old."

Look, I think in general if you take athletes from half a century or more ago (as they are, no speculation about if they had modern training regimens and so on) and pit them against modern athletes the modern athletes are usually going to win. Having said that, Larry Bird would eat Hurt's breakfast, lunch, and dinner. What a silly thing to claim! I'm not sure how good I would feel putting money on Hurt over the current, 2021 version of Bird that we have now!

Also, that is just a really fantastic line from Ty Cobb, I hadn't heard that one before.

[Alan_Wilson]

The transfer market isn't just the grad transfer market. The expectation is that there will be a one-time free transfer with immediate eligibility. Thus, we can look for guys -- and they'll be out there -- who can help us next year and the year after (and maybe even after that ...)

Yea I Get that and am fine with getting the next Seth Curry. The Auburn kid would be a huge get. I just don't like the idea of relying too much on the grad transfer route.

[gumbomoop]

Gumbomoop, I agree that there is a clear hierarchy of 6 if they all stay/arrive. And I agree that Goldwire or just the right transfer would make it 7. I disagree only slightly about the backup big.

I think both Brakefield and Coleman have a chance to be the third big. Neither would be playing center when in - they would play PF alongside Williams or alongside Banchero (who moves to C when Williams sits). And I think either could get the nod depending upon which player improves more.

Definitely a fair point and maybe a good one for a discussion about our reasoning. I’ll “think aloud” here and admit my thinking may be flawed.

Five scenarios:

1. Coleman and Banchero — I’m guessing when Coleman replaces Williams to play alongside Banchero that Coleman is more suited on both O and D to play the 5. I don’t expect him to develop a reliable outside shot to play the 4 on O, and his footwork is much less advanced than Banchero’s, so on D he’s better suited to using his strength to defend down low.
2. Coleman and Williams — Yes, here Coleman is the 4.
3-4. Brakefield with either Williams or Banchero — Yes, Brakefield is the 4.
5. Brakefield as the 3, playing with 2 of Williams, Banchero, and Coleman. This “extra” scenario seems to suggest that Brakefield has the potential to garner a few more mpg than Coleman — which I think is true, potentially. But this isn’t a “big” scenario and so is not the relevant question. (And I know you didn’t claim it is.)

Your point about who improves more is clearly the key. But I wonder whether, sort of suspect, that Brakefield would have to improve more than Coleman this offseason to nudge ahead as, specifically, the third big. He needs to improve quickness, handle, shooting, decision-making, blocking out. For next season, Coleman would simply be expected to do the same thing as this season, with some marginal improvement: strength, energy, rebounding, defensive positioning. Am I way off here?? I’m asking.

In all, whether we have a top 6 or 7, it seems likely that Baker, Brakefield, and Coleman will all play some in conference play, but which of them gets minutes against this opponent or that will depend on situation, particular opposing players, and Duke foul trouble or injuries.

[MChambers]

I know you may well have been kidding, but did you actually watch Larry Bird play when he was at his peak? The guy would absolutely DOMINATE his opponents. Bird was a 6’ 10” space alien with otherworldly shooting ability from anywhere on the court even though he had defenders draped all over him at all times. Yet as great of a shooter as he was his court awareness, vision, and passing ability was even better. No player has ever been one of the greatest of all time at both of those things.

In addition to those remarkable talents he was a very good rebounder, the best free throw shooter in the league, was often among the league leaders in steals, was a savvy and capable defender (I believe he made All-NBA second team defense a couple of times), was one of the toughest guys you’ll ever find, lived for the moments when the pressure was greatest (and came through again and again), and had leadership qualities in spades.

I’m not sure Hurt can do a single thing at the level of Larry Bird. And that’s not a knock on Matthew; it just is what it is.

I certainly remember Bird the way that you do (except that I didn't like the Celtics back then), but Bird's career stats show that he wasn't as great of an outside shooter as I remember. His career three point percentage was .376 and he only made 649 three pointers in 870 games. Of course, the game was different then. Maybe if he played in today's era he'd be a better three point shooter (setting aside his age).

https://www.basketball-reference.com.../birdla01.html

Not trying to start an argument, but I thought the numbers were interesting.

[Skydog]

Im going to ignore that last sentence because the chances of Matt Hurt becoming “the next” greatest 15 or 20 players of all time is pretty much zero. Bird was so much more than a shooter.

But the thing about Hurt is that he’s actually not a guy you have to give some years to in order to see if he develops. You already know exactly what he is. A long stretch 4 with a deadly shooting stroke, who is subpar at pretty much everything else. That’s what youre getting out of him this year, next year, and any other year. Sure he could put on some more weight and maybe become a little more effective inside, but that’s never going to be his game. He is what he is and as a GM either you think that’s good enough to stick in the league and help you, or you don’t.

I know you may well have been kidding, but did you actually watch Larry Bird play when he was at his peak? The guy would absolutely DOMINATE his opponents. Bird was a 6’ 10” space alien with otherworldly shooting ability from anywhere on the court even though he had defenders draped all over him at all times. Yet as great of a shooter as he was his court awareness, vision, and passing ability was even better. No player has ever been one of the greatest of all time at both of those things.

In addition to those remarkable talents he was a very good rebounder, the best free throw shooter in the league, was often among the league leaders in steals, was a savvy and capable defender (I believe he made All-NBA second team defense a couple of times), was one of the toughest guys you’ll ever find, lived for the moments when the pressure was greatest (and came through again and again), and had leadership qualities in spades.

I’m not sure Hurt can do a single thing at the level of Larry Bird. And that’s not a knock on Matthew; it just is what it is.

Bird was uber competitive - he played his best when the pressure was on. You either have that trait or you don’t and it is pretty rare. Tatum seems to have it. I have not seen that in Hurt.

I was kidding about Hurt - in the sense of "What do I know? Hurt may sprout wings." The bolded part above by Tommy is exactly what I believe and why I, in my GM hat, would probably not draft Hurt but give him a trial and possibly sign him as an undrafted free agent (if that is the term). I didn't write what Tommy said because I didn't want to come across as too harsh - some say the players read these boards. My main point is that I disagree with those who are predicting Hurt is more likely than Williams to get drafted this year because he is "more ready." Winning GM's are looking long term. At the extreme - Wiseman had 2 college games experience total, but his body screamed future NBA star. So if the player has a high upside but "isn't ready" (and almost all of the college players not named Zion aren't ready) then draft him and send him to the G-league. He'll develop faster there than in college due to the # of games and level of competition.

Bottom line - very few players are going to become regulars in the NBA - when you have access to one who has that potential to make it you take them, almost no matter how raw.

And I know all about Bird and agree with Steven's bolded sentence. I lived in LA and was a big fan of the Lakers during "Showtime" so I got to watch Bird eat us alive from time to time. One of my favorite players of all time.

[hustleplays]

Okay, so is that an indication that the silent (in those instances) half of DBR loves OAD? Are the DBR denizens who dislike OAD wrong to feel that way while those who like OAD are correct to feel thusly?

Who is right and who is wrong? And if the issue is completely subjective it seems pointless to bring it up. I’m not saying that to you; I just mean it as a general comment. It is what it is. Nothing we can do about it either way. We’ll just have to see how Brad approaches it when he takes over.

Do I get extra credit for not waiting until our first loss by saying I HATE the OAD approach?! [I don't hate the OAD players, I hate the approach.]

[Rich]

I am so very much hoping Williams is back next year. His enthusiasm and potentially is infectious. 19 rebounds yesterday. Wow.

Too soon

[whereinthehellami]

Top story lines, in order of need, for Duke to get back to being a national contender for next year:

1. Banchero is as good as he is projected to be, a lottery pick. A man amongst boys.
   
   
2. Griffin is as good as he is projected to be, a lottery pick. Really solid two-way player with size and skill.
   
   
3. Steward gets stronger and more consistent. Hits close to 40% from 3. A potential 1st round pick.
   
   
4. Williams continues his ascension and becomes more consistent at the FT line. A potential 1st round pick.
   
   
5. Roach gets stronger and more consistent. Gets his A:T close to 4:1 by making the easy pass to the right guy at the right time.
   
   
6. Moore gets more consistent. Continues to play like he did at the end of this past season. A potential 2nd second round pick.
   
   
7. Baker becomes a consistent three point shooter, hitting closer to 40%.
   
   
8. Coleman becomes a solid frontcourt backup, providing solid defense, rebounding, and screening.
   
   
9. Brakefield carves out a needed role on the team.

Duke would have two lottery picks (Banchero, Griffin), a chance at four first round picks total (Banchero, Griffin, Williams, and Steward) and maybe one second rounder (Moore). That is a ton of talent to work with and lots of flexibility. None of the above is that far out of a reach.

[CDu]

Top story lines, in order of need, for Duke to get back to being a national contender for next year:

1. Banchero is as good as he is projected to be, a lottery pick. A man amongst boys.
   
   
2. Griffin is as good as he is projected to be, a lottery pick. Really solid two-way player with size and skill.
   
   
3. Steward gets stronger and more consistent. Hits close to 40% from 3. A potential 1st round pick.
   
   
4. Williams continues his ascension and becomes more consistent at the FT line. A potential 1st round pick.
   
   
5. Roach gets stronger and more consistent. Gets his A:T close to 4:1 by making the easy pass to the right guy at the right time.
   
   
6. Moore gets more consistent. Continues to play like he did at the end of this past season. A potential 2nd second round pick.
   
   
7. Baker becomes a consistent three point shooter, hitting closer to 40%.
   
   
8. Coleman becomes a solid frontcourt backup, providing solid defense, rebounding, and screening.
   
   
9. Brakefield carves out a needed role on the team.

Duke would have two lottery picks (Banchero, Griffin), a chance at four first round picks total (Banchero, Griffin, Williams, and Steward) and maybe one second rounder (Moore). That is a ton of talent to work with and lots of flexibility. None of the above is that far out of a reach.

And I would further posit that the bar for “national contender” is lower than that. If the two freshmen are studs and the other 4-5 are even just solid, we are a national contender. In the scenario you describe, we are at the very top of the pecking order.

[Kedsy]

There seems to be a schism among people around here regarding how much we should expect from our sophomores next season, with some saying "they are what they are" and others predicting a huge freshman-to-sophomore leap in performance. Obviously, every player is different, but I thought I'd list Duke guys with similar recruiting rankings who came back for their sophomore season.

Guys ranked in the 20s

Jeremy Roach (#20); DJ Steward (#24); Mark Williams (#25)

Here are all the Duke players since the RSCI began who were ranked in the 20s and came back for their sophomore seasons:

Mike Dunleavy (#26): improved a lot from 2000 to 2001
Daniel Ewing (#29): improved some, but not a lot (but was pretty good as a freshman) from 2002 to 2003
Sean Dockery (#21): improved some, not a lot from 2003 to 2004
Jon Scheyer (#28): improved some, not a lot (but was pretty good as a freshman) from 2007 to 2008
Brian Zoubek (#25): improved some, not a lot from 2007 to 2008
Lance Thomas (#20): improved some, not a lot from 2007 to 2008
Amile Jefferson (#21): improved a lot from 2013 to 2014
Grayson Allen (#24): improved a LOT from 2015 to 2016
Luke Kennard (#21): impoved a LOT from 2016 to 2017
Wendell Moore (#25): improved a lot from 2020 to 2021


Guys ranked in the 30s

Jaemyn Brakefield was ranked #33

Here are all the Duke players since the RSCI began who were ranked in the 30s and came back for their sophomore seasons:

Michael Thompson (#30), transferred halfway through sophomore year in 2004
Quinn Cook (#31), improved-- got a LOT more minutes, though his per 40 minutes were similar from 2012 to 2013
Josh Hairston (#32), improved some, not a lot from 2011 to 2012
Semi Ojeleye (#32), transferred halfway through sophomore year in 2015
Matt Jones (#34), improved a lot from 2014 to 2015
Javin DeLaurier (#35), improved some, not a lot from 2017 to 2018
Joey Baker (#37), should we even include 2019 as his freshman year? either way, he hasn't developed like we hoped


Guys ranked in the 40s to 80s

Henry Coleman was ranked #49

We don't recruit many guys at this level but here are all the Duke players since the RSCI began who were ranked in the 40s through 80s and came back for their sophomore seasons:

Jamal Boykin (#60), transferred halfway through sophomore season
Marty Pocius (#53), hardly improved at all from 2006 to 2007
Miles Plumlee (#81), improved a LOT from 2009 to 2010
Marshall Plumlee (#61), improved but not enough from 2013 (redshirt freshman) to 2014
Alex Murphy (#49), transferred halfway through redshirt sophomore season
Alex O'Connell (#61), hardly improved at all from 2018 to 2019


Ultimately, I'm not sure how much this exercise shows us. Based on the above, I think we can reasonably expect a fair amount of improvement from Roach, Steward, and Williams but the jury's still out on Brakefield and Coleman.

That said, I'm expecting improvement from all of them. I noted this earlier in the season, but from an advanced stats viewpoint, freshman Roach is comparable to freshman Nolan Smith; freshman Steward is comparable to freshman Luke Kennard, and freshman Williams is comparable to freshman Shelden Williams (and isn't that far different from freshman Wendell Carter; and is much better than freshman Mason Plumlee). And I'm sure we'd all be happy with the sophomore versions of all those guys. For Henry Coleman, it wouldn't be farfetched to see a Miles Plumlee-like jump, assuming Henry gets the opportunity to be the 3rd big. For Jaemyn Brakefield, the best comp I could come up with was Alex Murphy, which obviously wouldn't be ideal.

[SouthernDukie]

There seems to be a schism among people around here regarding how much we should expect from our sophomores next season, with some saying "they are what they are" and others predicting a huge freshman-to-sophomore leap in performance. Obviously, every player is different, but I thought I'd list Duke guys with similar recruiting rankings who came back for their sophomore season.

Guys ranked in the 20s

Jeremy Roach (#20); DJ Steward (#24); Mark Williams (#25)

Here are all the Duke players since the RSCI began who were ranked in the 20s and came back for their sophomore seasons:

Mike Dunleavy (#26): improved a lot from 2000 to 2001
Daniel Ewing (#29): improved some, but not a lot (but was pretty good as a freshman) from 2002 to 2003
Sean Dockery (#21): improved some, not a lot from 2003 to 2004
Jon Scheyer (#28): improved some, not a lot (but was pretty good as a freshman) from 2007 to 2008
Brian Zoubek (#25): improved some, not a lot from 2007 to 2008
Lance Thomas (#20): improved some, not a lot from 2007 to 2008
Amile Jefferson (#21): improved a lot from 2013 to 2014
Grayson Allen (#24): improved a LOT from 2015 to 2016
Luke Kennard (#21): impoved a LOT from 2016 to 2017
Wendell Moore (#25): improved a lot from 2020 to 2021


Guys ranked in the 30s

Jaemyn Brakefield was ranked #33

Here are all the Duke players since the RSCI began who were ranked in the 30s and came back for their sophomore seasons:

Michael Thompson (#30), transferred halfway through sophomore year in 2004
Quinn Cook (#31), improved-- got a LOT more minutes, though his per 40 minutes were similar from 2012 to 2013
Josh Hairston (#32), improved some, not a lot from 2011 to 2012
Semi Ojeleye (#32), transferred halfway through sophomore year in 2015
Matt Jones (#34), improved a lot from 2014 to 2015
Javin DeLaurier (#35), improved some, not a lot from 2017 to 2018
Joey Baker (#37), should we even include 2019 as his freshman year? either way, he hasn't developed like we hoped


Guys ranked in the 40s to 80s

Henry Coleman was ranked #49

We don't recruit many guys at this level but here are all the Duke players since the RSCI began who were ranked in the 40s through 80s and came back for their sophomore seasons:

Jamal Boykin (#60), transferred halfway through sophomore season
Marty Pocius (#53), hardly improved at all from 2006 to 2007
Miles Plumlee (#81), improved a LOT from 2009 to 2010
Marshall Plumlee (#61), improved but not enough from 2013 (redshirt freshman) to 2014
Alex Murphy (#49), transferred halfway through redshirt sophomore season
Alex O'Connell (#61), hardly improved at all from 2018 to 2019


Ultimately, I'm not sure how much this exercise shows us. Based on the above, I think we can reasonably expect a fair amount of improvement from Roach, Steward, and Williams but the jury's still out on Brakefield and Coleman.

That said, I'm expecting improvement from all of them. I noted this earlier in the season, but from an advanced stats viewpoint, freshman Roach is comparable to freshman Nolan Smith; freshman Steward is comparable to freshman Luke Kennard, and freshman Williams is comparable to freshman Shelden Williams (and isn't that far different from freshman Wendell Carter; and is much better than freshman Mason Plumlee). And I'm sure we'd all be happy with the sophomore versions of all those guys. For Henry Coleman, it wouldn't be farfetched to see a Miles Plumlee-like jump, assuming Henry gets the opportunity to be the 3rd big. For Jaemyn Brakefield, the best comp I could come up with was Alex Murphy, which obviously wouldn't be ideal.

Minor quibble. I wouldn't characterize Wendell Moore's transition from Freshman to Sophomore as "improved a lot". More like "improved some".

[scottdude8]

And I would further posit that the bar for “national contender” is lower than that. If the two freshmen are studs and the other 4-5 are even just solid, we are a national contender. In the scenario you describe, we are at the very top of the pecking order.

This is a good point... we have no idea what the landscape of college basketball will look like next year, although I imagine it will be muddled if the chaos we're expecting ensues. But there won't be a clear cut top team unless someone like Baylor or Gonzaga is able to somehow convince their seniors with pro potential to return.

Without sounding too much like a homer, I'd argue that the only way there's a clear cut "No. 1" that would be in a clear tier above us (again, assuming our analyses are reasonable and nothing crazy happens) would be if Franz Wagner returns to Michigan. While he's a projected mid 1st rounder, he's also EXTREMELY young for his class and thus has more of a chance of returning than most players in his situation. If that were to happen, and if either Eli Brooks or Mike Smith returns for a super-senior year (which is widely expected amongst Michigan insiders), the Wolverines will return 3 of 5 starters from this year's team (two of which, Wagner and Dickinson, are NBA level talents) along with an experienced senior bench player in Brandon Johns, and add to that the No. 1 recruiting class in the country that includes two lottery talents in Caleb Houstan and Moussa Diabate who would slide right into the open slots in the starting lineup.

Outside of that scenario or something bizarre happening with players using their 5th year, transfers, etc., I can't see a squad that will be a clear tier above what Duke will have in the fall of 2021.

[CDu]

Minor quibble. I wouldn't characterize Wendell Moore's transition from Freshman to Sophomore as "improved a lot". More like "improved some".

I agree with this quibble. When looking at Moore’s per-40 numbers, his 2021 looks a lot like his 2020. Some improvement (less awful from 3, up from awful A/TO to ok). Some improvement yes, but not a lot.

[Kedsy]

Minor quibble. I wouldn't characterize Wendell Moore's transition from Freshman to Sophomore as "improved a lot". More like "improved some".

I agree with this quibble. When looking at Moore’s per-40 numbers, his 2021 looks a lot like his 2020. Some improvement (less awful from 3, up from awful A/TO to ok). Some improvement yes, but not a lot.

Yeah, I went back and forth before I chose "a lot." From an advanced stats standpoint, his PER went from 11.7 to 15.2; his oRtg went up from 95 to 103.5; his eFG% went up 40 points; his defensive rebounding went up (from 11.7% to 15.2%), his steals went up a lot (2.0% to 2.5%), his assists went up (12.6% to 16.6%), his turnovers went down a lot (from 24.7% to 17.4%), and his improvement in conference games is even more pronounced. So I think he's on the cusp between "improved some" and "improved a lot." I could agree with either assessment.

[Steven43]

I certainly remember Bird the way that you do (except that I didn't like the Celtics back then), but Bird's career stats show that he wasn't as great of an outside shooter as I remember. His career three point percentage was .376 and he only made 649 three pointers in 870 games. Of course, the game was different then. Maybe if he played in today's era he'd be a better three point shooter (setting aside his age).

https://www.basketball-reference.com.../birdla01.html

Not trying to start an argument, but I thought the numbers were interesting.

Back then 38% was an outstanding percentage from the 3-pt line, especially when you know that he was guarded more closely than any other player in the league at all times. He was always defended by the other teams best defender and often double-teamed.

When looking at stats context matters a heck of a lot. That’s why I don’t value stats very highly when assessing players from previous eras. If Bird were playing in today’s game he’d be shooting 45% from three, no question.