Way Too Early Top 25 Rankings

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm not sure if I've ever seen Seth Davis be correct about any of his college basketball predictions, ever.

Still more of a journalist than Lunardi.

[tommy]

Still more of a journalist than Lunardi.

I guess. Pretty low bar there. Still, measuring each of them in terms of the accuracy of their predictions about basically anything that isn't already obvious, I'd say it's tied 0-0.

[JasonEvans]

I'm pretty sure Seth had Baylor and Gonzaga as the top 2 teams in the country in the 2020-21 preseason rankings...

But so did EVERYONE!

[budwom]

I'm not sure if I've ever seen Seth Davis be correct about any of his college basketball predictions, ever.

Seth strikes me as a genial sort who spends less time scrutinizing Duke than most people on this board...not sure he's got any insight we don't have.

[SkyBrickey]

Fine with me if he wants to underestimate us at #11. We will likely lose some games early that frustrate us all, but if we stay healthy, this team should be hell on opponents by March.

[johnb]

I'm not sure if I've ever seen Seth Davis be correct about any of his college basketball predictions, ever.

Okay, this isn’t a prediction, but it’s a nice Seth Davis article about Coach K/Laettner/1988 from the 2001 Chronicle:

https://www.dukechronicle.com/articl...brating-legend

[brlftz]

I'm not going to get outraged over being ranked at 11. None of our one and done super teams over the last 5 years have made a final four, and I wouldn't say that this group is significantly more talented than most of those. I think caution about the performance of a talented but young and inexperienced team is reasonable.

[uh_no]

I'm not going to get outraged over being ranked at 11. None of our one and done super teams over the last 5 years have made a final four, and I wouldn't say that this group is significantly more talented than most of those. I think caution about the performance of a talented but young and inexperienced team is reasonable.

and in this case, our returning pieces were unsuccessful at making the tournament. Some of the expectations being bandied around in the minutes thread are pretty absurd. I think 10-11 is probably a pretty good estimate.

[Edouble]

I'm not going to get outraged over being ranked at 11. None of our one and done super teams over the last 5 years have made a final four, and I wouldn't say that this group is significantly more talented than most of those. I think caution about the performance of a talented but young and inexperienced team is reasonable.

But the best team doesn't always cut down the nets.

If you don't think the Zion team was the best team in the country before the unc/foot injury, you're crazy (and not in the good Cameron Crazy kind of way)!

[English]

I guess prognosticators are bumping UK and Gonzaga for landing recent transfers/commits. Parrish has Duke at No. 8 (down from 7 last week) in his latest Top 25 & 1. He bumped KU from 9 to 3 based on landing transfers Remy Martin (great name) from ASU and Joseph Yesefu from Drake. Zags are 1, UCLA 2, Nova 4, UK down at 14, and unx all the way down in hell at 17. Other ACC reps are FSU 15, UVA 23, and VaTech 26.

[uh_no]

But the best team doesn't always cut down the nets.

If you don't think the Zion team was the best team in the country before the unc/foot injury, you're crazy (and not in the good Cameron Crazy kind of way)!

The best team also doesn't suffer two should-have lost games to relatively un-memorable teams followed by a loss in the tournament. We were not the best team, before or after the zion injury...despite being by far the most talented.

We were very very very very good...and IMO had a good enough chance to win it all. But we were an incomplete team and not consistent at times. At the time, RJ was often viewed as a black hole, taking touches from a ridiculously more efficient, though perhaps too passive at times, zion. The dearth of consistent three point shooting is also well known.

Based on talent, that team should have never lost a game, and it shouldn't have been close...and yet, there we were.

[brlftz]

But the best team doesn't always cut down the nets.

If you don't think the Zion team was the best team in the country before the unc/foot injury, you're crazy (and not in the good Cameron Crazy kind of way)!

I agree that the best team doesn't always cut down the nets, but I think that's what pre-season rankings are about. Who are the contenders to do that? Against that standard I think this ranking is fair.

[brlftz]

The best team also doesn't suffer two should-have lost games to relatively un-memorable teams followed by a loss in the tournament. We were not the best team, before or after the zion injury...despite being by far the most talented.

We were very very very very good...and IMO had a good enough chance to win it all. But we were an incomplete team and not consistent at times. At the time, RJ was often viewed as a black hole, taking touches from a ridiculously more efficient, though perhaps too passive at times, zion. The dearth of consistent three point shooting is also well known.

Based on talent, that team should have never lost a game, and it shouldn't have been close...and yet, there we were.

Yeah, we never looked right after Zion's injury. In our last 10 games we barely beat Wake, UCF, and VT, let Kenny Goins beat us with a 3, and were obviously not the best team in the country.

[Kedsy]

and in this case, our returning pieces were unsuccessful at making the tournament. Some of the expectations being bandied around in the minutes thread are pretty absurd. I think 10-11 is probably a pretty good estimate.

From a minutes standpoint, those returning pieces were only 40% of last year's team. Next year's team will be an entirely different conglomerate.

When Jim Sumner suggested in another thread that Paolo Banchero could have a Marvin Bagley-like impact next season, it got me thinking. Obviously nothing is guaranteed, both for freshmen and for non-freshman progressions, but statistically our returning players have some pretty decent comparisons to past Blue Devils. Mark Williams, for example, from a statistical standpoint last season was basically junior-year Shelden Williams (albeit with a lot fewer minutes). Wendell Moore's stats looked very similar to junior year Chris Carrawell's. Jeremy Roach's stats were like a young Nolan Smith (better than Nolan's freshman stats but not quite as good as his sophomore stats). And my guess is AJ Griffin has a shot to be something like Jayson Tatum (college Tatum, not NBA Tatum). So if our starting five was actually Shelden, Nolan, Bagley, Tatum, and Carrawell, what would you say then?

I do think depth may end up being an issue on next year's team. I don't have a feel for what to expect from Keels, but after our top six there's a huge dropoff to John, Baker, and Blakes. Ultimately, I think pre-season 10/11 is a bit low. I'm thinking pre-season 5/6 would make more sense. Though in reality, who cares about pre-season rankings? They change drastically throughout the season almost every year.

[Rich]

From a minutes standpoint, those returning pieces were only 40% of last year's team. Next year's team will be an entirely different conglomerate.

When Jim Sumner suggested in another thread that Paolo Banchero could have a Marvin Bagley-like impact next season, it got me thinking. Obviously nothing is guaranteed, both for freshmen and for non-freshman progressions, but statistically our returning players have some pretty decent comparisons to past Blue Devils. Mark Williams, for example, from a statistical standpoint last season was basically junior-year Shelden Williams (albeit with a lot fewer minutes). Wendell Moore's stats looked very similar to junior year Chris Carrawell's. Jeremy Roach's stats were like a young Nolan Smith (better than Nolan's freshman stats but not quite as good as his sophomore stats). And my guess is AJ Griffin has a shot to be something like Jayson Tatum (college Tatum, not NBA Tatum). So if our starting five was actually Shelden, Nolan, Bagley, Tatum, and Carrawell, what would you say then?

I do think depth may end up being an issue on next year's team. I don't have a feel for what to expect from Keels, but after our top six there's a huge dropoff to John, Baker, and Blakes. Ultimately, I think pre-season 10/11 is a bit low. I'm thinking pre-season 5/6 would make more sense. Though in reality, who cares about pre-season rankings? They change drastically throughout the season almost every year.

I respect your posts very much, and I have no reason not to accept your thoughts on this one as they pertain to our team, but next season is going to be such an outlier in terms of the rest of college basketball that it's harder to predict how things will shake out. I would say that having a talented young team puts us at a greater disadvantage next year compared to years past since so many more teams will have talented experienced personnel as a result of this year's free agency.

[CDu]

From a minutes standpoint, those returning pieces were only 40% of last year's team. Next year's team will be an entirely different conglomerate.

When Jim Sumner suggested in another thread that Paolo Banchero could have a Marvin Bagley-like impact next season, it got me thinking. Obviously nothing is guaranteed, both for freshmen and for non-freshman progressions, but statistically our returning players have some pretty decent comparisons to past Blue Devils. Mark Williams, for example, from a statistical standpoint last season was basically junior-year Shelden Williams (albeit with a lot fewer minutes). Wendell Moore's stats looked very similar to junior year Chris Carrawell's. Jeremy Roach's stats were like a young Nolan Smith (better than Nolan's freshman stats but not quite as good as his sophomore stats). And my guess is AJ Griffin has a shot to be something like Jayson Tatum (college Tatum, not NBA Tatum). So if our starting five was actually Shelden, Nolan, Bagley, Tatum, and Carrawell, what would you say then?

I do think depth may end up being an issue on next year's team. I don't have a feel for what to expect from Keels, but after our top six there's a huge dropoff to John, Baker, and Blakes. Ultimately, I think pre-season 10/11 is a bit low. I'm thinking pre-season 5/6 would make more sense. Though in reality, who cares about pre-season rankings? They change drastically throughout the season almost every year.

Agreed. Using this past year as an argument for why next year's team should be not a top-10 seems silly. Most of this past year's team is gone, and this past year had a few HUGE anomalies in terms of driving down our results: the pandemic eliminating offseason and preseason work, which is a strength of Coach K's and inordinately more important for a young team; the Jalen Johnson situation).

The incoming players next year are much more talented than the incoming players were this past year. We're adding two guys who are probably more talented than anyone on last year's team, and another guy who was as talented as the second-best freshman on that team. We're returning more talent than we did this past year (nobody as talented as Hurt, but also way more depth of talent). We're going to have a more normal offseason. And we shouldn't assume that our most talented player is going to yo-yo the roster next year like Johnson did this past year.

This past year's results are thus more or less irrelevant in assessing where we should be rated next year.

[Kedsy]

I respect your posts very much, and I have no reason not to accept your thoughts on this one as they pertain to our team, but next season is going to be such an outlier in terms of the rest of college basketball that it's harder to predict how things will shake out. I would say that having a talented young team puts us at a greater disadvantage next year compared to years past since so many more teams will have talented experienced personnel as a result of this year's free agency.

That's a good point, with all the transfers. Personally, I think talent is talent. "Youth" is often a problem with guys outside the top 10, but players like Paolo and AJ generally hit the ground running. So I guess we'll see. I believe we play several national contenders in November/December, so maybe we'll have a better idea after that.

[CDu]

The best team also doesn't suffer two should-have lost games to relatively un-memorable teams followed by a loss in the tournament. We were not the best team, before or after the zion injury...despite being by far the most talented.

We were very very very very good...and IMO had a good enough chance to win it all. But we were an incomplete team and not consistent at times. At the time, RJ was often viewed as a black hole, taking touches from a ridiculously more efficient, though perhaps too passive at times, zion. The dearth of consistent three point shooting is also well known.

Based on talent, that team should have never lost a game, and it shouldn't have been close...and yet, there we were.

We were also dealing with injuries to two key players (Reddish and White) in the tournament.

I think it's totally reasonable to say that we were, when healthy, probably the best team in 2019. The fact that we were still #4 in KenPom despite Zion's absence and the injuries to Reddish and White in the postseason implies we were probably pretty darn close to the best in 2019 when healthy. We just unfortunately weren't at all deep, so when we weren't at full strength we were greatly reduced.

[MrPoon]

We were also dealing with injuries to two key players (Reddish and White) in the tournament.

I think it's totally reasonable to say that we were, when healthy, probably the best team in 2019. The fact that we were still #4 in KenPom despite Zion's absence and the injuries to Reddish and White in the postseason implies we were probably pretty darn close to the best in 2019 when healthy. We just unfortunately weren't at all deep, so when we weren't at full strength we were greatly reduced.

So glad you mentioned Cam’s injury. I didn’t think it got enough attention then and even less as time goes by. If memory serves me, ATL after drafting him said he was playing with a fractured rib. Duke rarely discusses injuries so at the time fans had little to lock into but it clearly impacted him.

[uh_no]

From a minutes standpoint, those returning pieces were only 40% of last year's team. Next year's team will be an entirely different conglomerate.

When Jim Sumner suggested in another thread that Paolo Banchero could have a Marvin Bagley-like impact next season, it got me thinking. Obviously nothing is guaranteed, both for freshmen and for non-freshman progressions, but statistically our returning players have some pretty decent comparisons to past Blue Devils. Mark Williams, for example, from a statistical standpoint last season was basically junior-year Shelden Williams (albeit with a lot fewer minutes). Wendell Moore's stats looked very similar to junior year Chris Carrawell's. Jeremy Roach's stats were like a young Nolan Smith (better than Nolan's freshman stats but not quite as good as his sophomore stats). And my guess is AJ Griffin has a shot to be something like Jayson Tatum (college Tatum, not NBA Tatum). So if our starting five was actually Shelden, Nolan, Bagley, Tatum, and Carrawell, what would you say then?

I do think depth may end up being an issue on next year's team. I don't have a feel for what to expect from Keels, but after our top six there's a huge dropoff to John, Baker, and Blakes. Ultimately, I think pre-season 10/11 is a bit low. I'm thinking pre-season 5/6 would make more sense. Though in reality, who cares about pre-season rankings? They change drastically throughout the season almost every year.

I think the concern is most people assume the best outcome for every player on the team. Every returning player will play to their best games last year, every incoming freshman will be as good as advertised, every incoming transfer will be able to duplicate their performances on a team with more talent and better competition. In reality, for every Matthew Hurt, there's a Josh Hairston. For every Zion Williamson, there's a Harry Giles. For every Seth Curry, there's a Tape. I'm sure some players will make jumps next year, and some players could be as good as advertised. Maybe it's Banchero, maybe it's not. But I can say I am 100% confident that it won't be all of them, and basing expectations on that happening (as many seem to do), is not realistic.

So if Paolo is Bagley, Griffin is Tatum, and Roach is Nolan...then sure, we'll be very good...but assuming the upper percentiles of outcome for all three (and williams, and moore, and keels, as many are, along with the spate of transfers) is a reach. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see it happen...but the flip side is just as possible.