Way Too Early Top 25 Rankings

[uh_no]

This year's team returns one freshman who better than freshman Jones was (Williams' WS/40, PER, ORtg/DRtg, and BPM dwarfed Tre Jones' freshman year stats)

Jones played on a team with three top-10 picks, and arguably the best freshmen ever. Williams played on a team that didn't make the tournament. Don't get me wrong, I'm hopeful/high on williams like most of the rest of you, but this is an absurd comparison to make.

[English]

Another way to look at next season (and apologies if it has been mentioned before): a comparison with the 2020 team.

The 2020 team was a definite top-10 and borderline top-5 team (5th in KenPom, 6th in Torvik). They returned four bench players and a freshman 5-star recruit from their 2019 team, and added a top-5 recruit, a top-15 recruit who wasn't physically ready for college ball, a top-25 recruit, and a top-35 recruit. This year's team returns one freshman who better than freshman Jones was (Williams' WS/40, PER, ORtg/DRtg, and BPM dwarfed Tre Jones' freshman year stats), two 5-star recruits who were 25+ mpg guys as a freshman/sophomore (Roach/Moore), and a junior version of the freshman from 2019 (Baker). And they add a top-5 recruit, a top-10 recruit who is clearly physically ready for college ball, a top-20 recruit, and a fringe top-100 recruit (and a senior backup center to fill that "DeLaurier" role off the bench). Next year's team returns clearly more talent than the 2020 team had returning, and has a comparable influx of talent. And that team was a top-5 team. So I don't think it's unrealistic to suggest that next year's team should be in the top-5 discussion.

I think everyone can agree that this past year did not go as hoped. But we should also agree that it was an extremely weird year, both nationally and at Duke. It included our worst top-end talent in probably over a decade (which is important as the top-end talent are the guys who do best as freshmen), and the most talented player was in-and-out of the lineup and quit halfway through the season. There wasn't a normal team-building offseason nor a typical preseason schedule, which more adversely affects teams like Duke in the one-and-done era (because we are consistently so young, and because offseason team building is a Coach K strength). So I think some folks are letting an anomalous year cloud their judgement of what next year should be like.

I think next year should be more like our 2015-2020 seasons. In 5 of those 6 years we were a 1 or 2 seed (given where we were rated we would have been a 1 or 2 seed in 2020) in the NCAAs, and the other year we were a 4 seed. Our two worst years (one a fringe top-10 and the other a top-20) were hurt by serious injury/injuries (Jefferson in 2016, Giles in 2017), and even one of our best teams had some pretty critical late-season injuries (Zion, Reddish, White). Despite this, our average yearly KenPom and Torvik rating over the 6-year period was 9, and we would have probably been around 6-8 on average with better health in those 3 aforementioned years. So I think "10/11" feels like the worst end of reasonable expectation, whereas "3/4" feels like the upper end of reasonable expectation. I would see a non-injury worst-case being something like 2016, though even that feels unlikely given what we have returning compared with the 2016 team and given that 2016 included a significant injury on top of 3 of the four top-25 recruits not having strong years. In terms of a best case, a clear #1 or #2 team (depending on Gonzaga's final roster) seems about right. But that's why I said I think preseason #3 to #10/11 feels like a reasonable range, with #10/11 feeling like the pessimistic side of reasonable and #3 being the optimistic side of reasonable.

Yes to all of this, and your reasonable preseason range mirrors mine from an earlier post very closely, but I will also add here that there were no fans (an undeniable Duke competitive advantage at home and on neutral courts, if not also for intensity/fight in road games) AND no gimme OOC games for the team, which as you mention, is a great tool to develop in-game chemistry and transition to the speed of the college game relative to HS/AAU, both also pad the resume. Basically, it sounds like a cop-out to say it because of how things ended for our guys, but for the purposes of projecting forward, throw out the results of the 2020-2021 season.

[CDu]

Jones played on a team with three top-10 picks, and arguably the best freshmen ever. Williams played on a team that didn't make the tournament. Don't get me wrong, I'm hopeful/high on williams like most of the rest of you, but this is an absurd comparison to make.

I would argue that this is a further argument IN FAVOR of Williams. That he was so much more efficient than Jones despite facing more pressure (Jones was such an afterthought for opposing defenses in 2019) is a GOOD thing for him moving forward. I didn’t compare their pure count stats for the reason you mentioned. Basically all the advanced stats liked Williams much better, and that was in spite of Williams being more of a focal point for the opposition than Jones was in 2019.

Jones made HUGE improvements as a player from 2019 to 2020. His 3pt percentage jumped from 26% to 36% and his scoring efficiency improved despite taking on a huge jump in usage and role. His inability to shoot was arguably the only problem that 2019 team had, and it was a big problem for him. I absolutely stand by the statement that Williams was better as a freshman than Jones as a freshman. I would not make the same statement that sophomore Williams will be better than sophomore Jones, though it is possible.

[SilkyJ]

I would argue that this is a further argument IN FAVOR of Williams. That he was so much more efficient than Jones despite facing more pressure (Jones was such an afterthought for opposing defenses in 2019) is a GOOD thing for him moving forward. I didn’t compare their pure count stats for the reason you mentioned. Basically all the advanced stats liked Williams much better, and that was in spite of Williams being more of a focal point for the opposition than Jones was in 2019.

Jones made HUGE improvements as a player from 2019 to 2020. His 3pt percentage jumped from 26% to 36% and his scoring efficiency improved despite taking on a huge jump in usage and role. His inability to shoot was arguably the only problem that 2019 team had, and it was a big problem for him. I absolutely stand by the statement that Williams was better as a freshman than Jones as a freshman. I would not make the same statement that sophomore Williams will be better than sophomore Jones, though it is possible.

Tough comparison to make, but agreed on where you landed and the advanced stats all support.

I’m confused by the last sentence though: what makes you say that about Soph Williams vs Soph Jones? From what I can see, frosh Williams was better in Ortg, Drtg, and WS/40 than soph Jones. So you expect Williams’ advanced stats to get worse as a soph?

[CDu]

Tough comparison to make, but agreed on where you landed and the advanced stats all support.

I’m confused by the last sentence though: what makes you say that about Soph Williams vs Soph Jones? From what I can see, frosh Williams was better in Ortg, Drtg, and WS/40 than soph Jones. So you expect Williams’ advanced stats to get worse as a soph?

I just wasn’t willing to say Williams will definitely be better than the guy who was voted ACC PoY and DPoY. Granted, Carey probably should have been the actual PoY, but Jones was really good in 2020. That said, I think it definitely feasible that Williams provides more value next year too.

[SilkyJ]

I just wasn’t willing to say Williams will definitely be better than the guy who was voted ACC PoY and DPoY. Granted, Carey probably should have been the actual PoY, but Jones was really good in 2020. That said, I think it definitely feasible that Williams provides more value next year too.

Agreed and makes sense. Easier for the little guys to win that sometimes b/c they have the ball in their hands.

If Williams makes just a small improvement to a few of his numbers next year he will be up there on the advanced stats. His freshman year Ortg, Drtg, WS/40 are all in line with Mason’s senior year and Wendell Carter’s frosh year. He could conceivably push Bagley’s frosh numbers, though we’ll see if he maintains his efficiency as/if his usage rises.

[Kedsy]

Agreed and makes sense. Easier for the little guys to win that sometimes b/c they have the ball in their hands.

If Williams makes just a small improvement to a few of his numbers next year he will be up there on the advanced stats. His freshman year Ortg, Drtg, WS/40 are all in line with Mason’s senior year and Wendell Carter’s frosh year. He could conceivably push Bagley’s frosh numbers, though we’ll see if he maintains his efficiency as/if his usage rises.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but Mark's usage probably won't go up all that much. It was already around 21% as a freshman. For comparison, Wendell Carter's usage was around 23%, Shelden Williams ranged from 22% to 26% (as a senior), senior Mason was 24.5%, and Bagley was around 26%. I'll be surprised if Mark's usage goes as high as 26% as a sophomore, but it's not much of a jump from 21% to 23%, so if that's what we see I wouldn't expect a huge drop in efficiency.

[SilkyJ]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but Mark's usage probably won't go up all that much. It was already around 21% as a freshman. For comparison, Wendell Carter's usage was around 23%, Shelden Williams ranged from 22% to 26% (as a senior), senior Mason was 24.5%, and Bagley was around 26%. I'll be surprised if Mark's usage goes as high as 26% as a sophomore, but it's not much of a jump from 21% to 23%, so if that's what we see I wouldn't expect a huge drop in efficiency.

Yep, I agree. Hence my use of “as/if”

[Phredd3]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but Mark's usage probably won't go up all that much. It was already around 21% as a freshman. For comparison, Wendell Carter's usage was around 23%, Shelden Williams ranged from 22% to 26% (as a senior), senior Mason was 24.5%, and Bagley was around 26%. I'll be surprised if Mark's usage goes as high as 26% as a sophomore, but it's not much of a jump from 21% to 23%, so if that's what we see I wouldn't expect a huge drop in efficiency.

I still don't understand this argument. Perhaps I am misinterpreting. Usage rate measures the percentage of plays the player is involved in while that player was on the floor. If the player is on the floor more often - which is clearly virtually everyone's expectation next year for Mark - it is perfectly reasonable to assume that his efficiency may decline. Presumably last year he was played in the most optimal spots for his skill set, hence less playing time. With playing time increasing, it seems to me that optimization might well decrease.

Now perhaps that will be completely offset by him just becoming a better player, period. But perhaps not, too.

[CDu]

Timme returning to Gonzaga. Huge boon for them.

[Wander]

Timme returning to Gonzaga. Huge boon for them.

Get ready for another year of "Is projected 1 seed Gonzaga really that good?"

They should challenge us for best frontcourt – both we and Gonzaga will start a superstar recruit and a great returning player there.

[CDu]

Get ready for another year of "Is projected 1 seed Gonzaga really that good?"

They should challenge us for best frontcourt – both we and Gonzaga will start a superstar recruit and a great returning player there.

Yep, a lot of talent up there. Similar strengths (amazing 1-2 punch up front), similar questions (can the young and mostly unproven perimeter guys step up; can Moore/Nembhard take on bigger roles as key upperclassmen?). Gonzaga will have an easier schedule and thus almost assuredly a better record/ranking. I would definitely rate them above us for now. But both should be really good.

[Kedsy]

I still don't understand this argument. Perhaps I am misinterpreting. Usage rate measures the percentage of plays the player is involved in while that player was on the floor. If the player is on the floor more often - which is clearly virtually everyone's expectation next year for Mark - it is perfectly reasonable to assume that his efficiency may decline. Presumably last year he was played in the most optimal spots for his skill set, hence less playing time. With playing time increasing, it seems to me that optimization might well decrease.

Now perhaps that will be completely offset by him just becoming a better player, period. But perhaps not, too.

The idea of increasing usage implies that the player has to do something different while he's on the floor than he did before. For example, let's take Tyler Thornton. His senior year, he was a very efficient offensive player (133.1 oRtg) but his usage was 7.5%, meaning he didn't attempt very much offense but when he did, he did it well. If Tyler was in a situation where he had to be "the man," up his usage to, e.g., 25%, there's almost no chance he would remain that efficient because he'd have to be doing different things on the court, take more chances, more difficult shots, etc. On the other hand, look at Grayson Allen. As a freshman he didn't play that many minutes, but when he did play his usage was 23.5% and his oRtg was 122.2. He didn't have to raise his usage to contribute as a starter (career usage rate of 24.1%), so it makes sense that his oRtg stayed high (career oRtg of 123.3). Because Mark Williams's usage rate (20.8%) is already around where it should be, we should expect his efficiency to stay up, similar to Grayson.

The additional fact that Mark has already kept his efficiency up while playing starters minutes toward the end of the season (28 mpg in last 6 games; 24 mpg in last 10 games) should make us even more confident that his efficiency should translate well as a starter in 2021-22. It would be much less reasonable (though of course not impossible) to assume his efficiency would decline.

[tommy]

Michigan's Hunter Dickinson declaring for the draft, hiring an agent, but retaining eligibility. Surprised he's even doing that, and I expect he's just going to go through the workouts, get the feedback from the scouts (much of which is obvious) and ultimately return to Michigan.

https://247sports.com/college/michig...515e5eff645d51

[UrinalCake]

I don’t see how anyone could objectively say that our front court is as good as Gonzaga’s. Even if you consider Banchero to be as good as Holmgren (most have Holmgren rated higher), Timme will be one of top players in the country, he averaged 19ppg last year and is older and more experienced than Williams. Yes he had a poor game in the Championship but that’s a heck of a lot more than we’ve proven.

[CDu]

I don’t see how anyone could objectively say that our front court is as good as Gonzaga’s. Even if you consider Banchero to be as good as Holmgren (most have Holmgren rated higher), Timme will be one of top players in the country, he averaged 19ppg last year and is older and more experienced than Williams. Yes he had a poor game in the Championship but that’s a heck of a lot more than we’ve proven.

I think it's totally reasonable to consider the possibility that we have the better frontcourt.

1. Banchero vs Holmgren: pretty much everyone has Holmgren rated a higher prospect, but (a) it is close and (b) most folks think Banchero is more "today ready" physically than Holmgren. The degree of physicality (especially against better competition) remains a question mark for Holmgren going from facing skinny high school kids to college players. It's not at all unreasonable to think that Banchero might have the better year (opponent-adjusted of course).

2. Williams vs Timme: yes, Timme is the more established player. But he's also likely at/near his ceiling. He's underathletic, not great defensively, and not a great shooter who primarily feasted off being the "roll" man in the pick-and-roll and getting uncontested dunks/layups. Maybe he expands his game and starts making 3s, but that's really the only realistic area for improvement for him. Conversely, Williams is younger and with theoretically a lot more room to improve. More importantly, Williams' stats over his last 10 games matched up quite reasonably to Timme's stats over his last 10 non-NCAAs games: Williams averaged 13ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.9 bpg, 1.1 spg, and 70.0 fg% in 24 mpg; Timme averaged 18.6 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 0.5 bpg, 0.8 spg, and 74.2 fg% in 27.2 mpg. If you assume both guys simply hold the same pace as the end of last year but play 30 mpg, their numbers are going to look very similar. If you assume that Williams is the guy with more room for improvement from this year to next AND that he was pretty comparable by season's end, there is a reasonable case to be made that Williams will be better.

I mean, I'd give the expectation edge to Gonzaga's frontcourt. But I wouldn't say it with much confidence either, as I can certainly see a scenario where our guys are better.

[SilkyJ]

I think it's totally reasonable to consider the possibility that we have the better frontcourt.

1. Banchero vs Holmgren: pretty much everyone has Holmgren rated a higher prospect, but (a) it is close and (b) most folks think Banchero is more "today ready" physically than Holmgren. The degree of physicality (especially against better competition) remains a question mark for Holmgren going from facing skinny high school kids to college players. It's not at all unreasonable to think that Banchero might have the better year (opponent-adjusted of course).

2. Williams vs Timme: yes, Timme is the more established player. But he's also likely at/near his ceiling. He's underathletic, not great defensively, and not a great shooter who primarily feasted off being the "roll" man in the pick-and-roll and getting uncontested dunks/layups. Maybe he expands his game and starts making 3s, but that's really the only realistic area for improvement for him. Conversely, Williams is younger and with theoretically a lot more room to improve. More importantly, Williams' stats over his last 10 games matched up quite reasonably to Timme's stats over his last 10 non-NCAAs games: Williams averaged 13ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.9 bpg, 1.1 spg, and 70.0 fg% in 24 mpg; Timme averaged 18.6 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 0.5 bpg, 0.8 spg, and 74.2 fg% in 27.2 mpg. If you assume both guys simply hold the same pace as the end of last year but play 30 mpg, their numbers are going to look very similar. If you assume that Williams is the guy with more room for improvement from this year to next AND that he was pretty comparable by season's end, there is a reasonable case to be made that Williams will be better.

I mean, I'd give the expectation edge to Gonzaga's frontcourt. But I wouldn't say it with much confidence either, as I can certainly see a scenario where our guys are better.

All fair points. Timme and Williams are also very different, which makes it harder to say who is “better.” Do you prefer a crafty, more skilled offensive player with average rebounding and defense, or a more defensive-oriented big man who is a very good rebounder, rim protector, but less refined on offense/less likely to ‘get you a bucket.’

I agree with CDu tho...Timme isn’t likely to get much better on offense (where he’s already quite good), and he’s not going to get more athletic & become a better rebounder and rim protector. Williams is already really solid on D, can get better, and has loads of upside on offense. I don’t expect him to make a huge leap on offense, personally, but I think a decent improvement there is all that’s needed to make him into a really, really good player and take us to the next level given the offensive talent that should surround him.

[Natty_B]

Timme returning to Gonzaga. Huge boon for them.

I think there is a chance (just a chance) that with Timme back some of the Duke hate could start to drift towards Gonzaga. What with Timme and his antics and how people get tired of schools that take advantage of an easier schedule (this is a CFB thing primarily but you see plenty of grousing about Gonzaga not being in a "real" conference). And since Grayson left there hasn't been a Duke guy the internet hated. It could happen people!

[brevity]

Inching toward the preseason, but probably still too early to start a thread.

NCAA: First preseason 2022 March Madness bracket predictions from Andy Katz

Top seeds are UCLA, Gonzaga, Texas, and Purdue. He's not high on Duke (#5 seed in the East, after Purdue, Villanova, Kentucky, and Houston) or the ACC (5 teams in the field).

NCAA: 25 best players returning for the 2021-2022 men's basketball season

The only ACC players on the list are #9 Buddy Boeheim (Syracuse) and #23 Armando Bacot (UNC). There's also #15 Garrison Brooks (Mississippi State, formerly UNC) and #20 Chris Lykes (Arkansas, formerly Miami).

[uh_no]

Inching toward the preseason, but probably still too early to start a thread.

NCAA: First preseason 2022 March Madness bracket predictions from Andy Katz

Top seeds are UCLA, Gonzaga, Texas, and Purdue. He's not high on Duke (#5 seed in the East, after Purdue, Villanova, Kentucky, and Houston) or the ACC (5 teams in the field).

NCAA: 25 best players returning for the 2021-2022 men's basketball season

The only ACC players on the list are #9 Buddy Boeheim (Syracuse) and #23 Armando Bacot (UNC). There's also #15 Garrison Brooks (Mississippi State, formerly UNC) and #20 Chris Lykes (Arkansas, formerly Miami).

the error bars on duke are huge right now. 5 seems a reasonable estimate for a team that just missed the tournament and is losing by far its most productive offensive threat, and (arguably) most effective guard, and bringing in "only" one guy who is pretty surely game ready.

A lot is riding on question marks. how ready are griffin and keels to go? how much improvement will roach and moore show? will williams continue where he left off? That's a lot of question marks to be confident in giving duke a top 4 seed today.