We should have won in 2018-19

[ElliottHoo]

OTOH where is that kid now?

Kyle Guy! He's in the NBA and was a second round pick.

That having been said, he was picked by and is still with the Sacramento Kings. As a long-time Kings fan, I can confidently tell you that Guy must be repaying some kind of karmic debt, because playing for the Kings means he's in hell.

There are organizations worse at individual aspects of professional basketball, but for my money no team is as solidly and consistently below average at *everything* as the Sacramento Kings. The bright side is that his initial deal is just about done, so hopefully he can sign on somewhere else for next year.

[Nugget]

Cam Reddish was the 6th freshman taken in the 2019 draft. I understand 6 is not as good as 2 (his recruiting ranking), but it's not so far off as to be an explanation why the team lost in the Tournament.

RJ Barrett shot 66.7% on FTs against Michigan State, almost exactly his season average which was (a) better than both Jason Williams and Chris Duhon in 2001; and (b) better than almost half our rotation in 2015 (Okafor, Winslow, and Jefferson). RJ's FT% was also better than Zion's. So I don't believe it was RJ's mediocre free throw shooting that kept the 2019 team from greatness.

Finally, I don't think our weak outside shooting "caught up with us" and caused the loss to Michigan State. For one thing, we shot 33.3% from three in that game, which isn't very good but also isn't so horrible that any reasonable assessment would say it was the reason we lost the game (Michigan State shot worse (31.6%) from three and yet were still able to win). The more likely culprit was one that few people saw coming -- turnovers, on both sides of the ball. On offense, Zion and RJ combined for 12 TOs in that game (in our other 37 games, Duke as a team only averaged 12.7 TOs; in the MSU game we had 17) and on defense, a Duke team that was 9th in the country in steals was only able to force a normally sloppy Michigan State team into committing 7 turnovers.

Losing a tournament game doesn't necessarily expose some fatal weakness. In most cases (including the 2019 Duke Elite Eight game, IMO), it just means you got outplayed in one game.

This seems right and I recall lots and lots of discussion at the time - but the more compelling story of that game was our inability to generate turnovers from a usually sloppy MSU and our committing more than the usual number of TOs rather than our having the normal comparatively poor 3 pt shooting night.

[Kedsy]

Missing the 2019 FF with a generational talent AND an additional top-10 in the country player was a pretty massive letdown. It’s hard to ever assume a title but not getting to the FF with Zion was hugely disappointing. I liken it to 1984 UNC missing the FF with MJ.

1998 was really good but not even the best team in the ACC. Really good team but only a minor bummer.

2002 had a way of just not quite being as good as it should have been. Was not surprised when they bowed out.

2006 had two studs but was otherwise very flawed. Bummer but again not a surprise.

2018 played well in the tourney, lost a coin flip game to a good Kansas team, and arguably got a raw deal on Carter’s 5th foul. No regrets.

2011 was derailed by Kyrie’s injury.

Among the teams that did reach the FF, only the 1999 loss left my gutted. 1994 overachieved getting to the title game. 2004 got hosed by lousy reffing.

Another way to look at it:

The 1999 team was really good. The team was #1 in eight out of 18 AP polls that season, dropping to #4 one week but no lower. Duke went undefeated in ACC play and won the ACC tournament. Elton Brand was ACC POY. The team we lost to in the championship game had been #1 the other 10 weeks.

1998 Duke team went 15-1 in ACC play (so an argument could be made that Duke was indeed the best team in the ACC) and despite its best player missing 15 games with an injury was never lower than #3 in the AP rankings (#1 in 7 of the 19 AP polls). The team had an 18-point, second half lead in the Elite Eight against the eventual national champion.

2002 Duke team had (according to KenPom) both the #1 offense and #1 defense in the country (as well as overall #1), and was #1 in the AP poll in 14 out of 18 weeks, never lower than #3 in the AP rankings. Won ACC tournament.

2004 team was #1 in the AP poll in four of 18 weeks, dropping as low as #6 twice. Won ACC regular season but not tournament. KenPom #1 overall. Lost in Final Four after all three of our big men fouled out.

2006 team was #1 in the AP poll in 14 out of 19 weeks and was never lower than #3 in the AP rankings. KenPom #2 overall. The team won both the ACC regular season and the ACC tournament, and in the regular season beat what would have been its Elite Eight opponent by 31 points. JJ Redick was ACC POY (for the 2nd straight year).

2011 team was #1 in the AP poll 11 out of 19 weeks (never lower than #5) and went 18-2 in the 20 games after Kyrie got hurt. KenPom #2 overall. Won ACC tournament, without Kyrie, with no game being closer than 14 points. Nolan Smith was ACC POY.

2018 team was #1 for five weeks out of 19, and lost in the Elite Eight in OT after our only senior had a shot rim out at the buzzer in regulation. Marvin Bagley was ACC POY. KenPom #3 overall.

2019 team was #1 for eight weeks out of 19 (never lower than #5). While Zion was injured the team dropped to #2 but no lower. Finished 3rd in ACC regular season (mostly due to our three losses without Zion) but won the ACC tournament. KenPom #4 overall. Zion was ACC POY. Lost by 1 point in Elite Eight to KenPom's #3 team.


To me, other than possibly 2018 (which might have been more "heartbreak" than "letdown") it's hard to distinguish any of the above in terms of disappointment or Final Four/championship expectations.

Also, UNC not only missed the Final Four in 1984 with MJ, but also in 1983. Jordan only played in one Final Four in his three college seasons.

[Nugget]

2002 had a way of just not quite being as good as it should have been. Was not surprised when they bowed out.

Worth noting is that Duke 2002 is the only team in the history of KenPom's tracking of data over the past 20 years to finish #1 in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Other than not blowing a 13 point lead against Indiana not sure what more you want them to do to be as good as they should have been.

[DukieTiger]

Worth noting is that Duke 2002 is the only team in the history of KenPom's tracking of data over the past 20 years to finish #1 in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Other than not blowing a 13 point lead against Indiana not sure what more you want them to do to be as good as they should have been.

And in terms of talent, y’all should look up Boozer’s advanced stats in 2002. Eye opening.

He put up more win shares that year, playing alongside Jason Williams and Dunleavy, than Zion did in 2019.

[Natty_B]

Kyle Guy! He's in the NBA and was a second round pick.

That having been said, he was picked by and is still with the Sacramento Kings. As a long-time Kings fan, I can confidently tell you that Guy must be repaying some kind of karmic debt, because playing for the Kings means he's in hell.

There are organizations worse at individual aspects of professional basketball, but for my money no team is as solidly and consistently below average at *everything* as the Sacramento Kings. The bright side is that his initial deal is just about done, so hopefully he can sign on somewhere else for next year.

Guy seems like a cool guy (based on his twitter at least). Guy shot .833 from the FT line that season.

[uh_no]

And in terms of talent, y’all should look up Boozer’s advanced stats in 2002. Eye opening.

He put up more win shares that year, playing alongside Jason Williams and Dunleavy, than Zion did in 2019.

i mean, zion missing 5 games doesn't help win shares....

My point isn't that boozer wasn't crazy, just that using win shares as an absolute comparative tool must be proceeded with with caution. Especially when we're talking 17 years apart.

[Matches]

Worth noting is that Duke 2002 is the only team in the history of KenPom's tracking of data over the past 20 years to finish #1 in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Other than not blowing a 13 point lead against Indiana not sure what more you want them to do to be as good as they should have been.

2002 had, IMO, a habit of putting it on cruise control at times. The loss to FSU sticks out. Don’t get me wrong, it was clearly a really good team, just not quite as tough as its predecessor. (And that’s not after-the-fact revisionist history, I felt that way much of the season.)

When we lost to Indiana I was sad for JWill missing the key FT, and furious at Bruce Benedict because You Know Why, but it didn’t feel like an opportunity squandered the way 2019 did.

[Kedsy]

...but it didn’t feel like an opportunity squandered the way 2019 did.

Would your feelings have been different if the 2019 team had come the year after a championship and the 2002 team had come after only two Final Fours in the previous 14 seasons?

[DukieTiger]

i mean, zion missing 5 games doesn't help win shares...

My point isn't that boozer wasn't crazy, just that using win shares as an absolute comparative tool must be proceeded with with caution. Especially when we're talking 17 years apart.

Oh sure, I understand that. My main point is that Boozer was the 3rd banana on that team and still was reasonably in Zion’s stratosphere in terms of performance (by some metrics). So yeah, 2002 was way more of a disappointment to me than a team that started Javin Delaurier and 4 freshmen.

[AZLA]

You of course can guarantee no such thing. And from where I come from, this post is (with all due respect) called "loser talk."

Considering Duke beat VA and Auburn handily in the regular season, had the top recruiting class, and was a #1 team it's a legitimate point. With all due respect, where you come from, do they know a lot about "loser talk"? BTW -- the entire thread is called "We should have won in 2018-19." Is this then the "loser talk" thread. I think despite some hyperbole everyone is just playing along with the thread and considering alternatives to what was a great team with high expectations.

[Nugget]

2002 had, IMO, a habit of putting it on cruise control at times. The loss to FSU sticks out. Don’t get me wrong, it was clearly a really good team, just not quite as tough as its predecessor. (And that’s not after-the-fact revisionist history, I felt that way much of the season.)

When we lost to Indiana I was sad for JWill missing the key FT, and furious at Bruce Benedict because You Know Why, but it didn’t feel like an opportunity squandered the way 2019 did.

Totally fair points and they square with my (fading) memory of that season as well -- Duke also threw away a game at Virginia that year.

I was reasonably sure that Maryland would have beaten that team in the title game; even though we'd split with them in the regular season (each throttling the other at home), I just figured the title game would be such a holy war for Baxter, Dixon and Blake and that we wouldn't really have had an answer for Chris Wilcox - Jones and Dunleavy were too small to guard him. But, it sure would have been a lot better to find out than to go down to IU.

[Matches]

Would your feelings have been different if the 2019 team had come the year after a championship and the 2002 team had come after only two Final Fours in the previous 14 seasons?

Entirely possible. Also possible that my relatively benign disappointment in 1998 was tempered by it being our return to legitimate contention after the 1995 collapse.

[Music man55]

Considering Duke beat VA and Auburn handily in the regular season, had the top recruiting class, and was a #1 team it's a legitimate point. With all due respect, where you come from, do they know a lot about "loser talk"? BTW -- the entire thread is called "We should have won in 2018-19." Is this then the "loser talk" thread. I think despite some hyperbole everyone is just playing along with the thread and considering alternatives to what was a great team with high expectations.

Don’t forget that Duke team also beat Texas Tech that year. So, they defeated three of the four final four teams that year.

[tommy]

Considering Duke beat VA and Auburn handily in the regular season, had the top recruiting class, and was a #1 team it's a legitimate point. With all due respect, where you come from, do they know a lot about "loser talk"? BTW -- the entire thread is called "We should have won in 2018-19." Is this then the "loser talk" thread. I think despite some hyperbole everyone is just playing along with the thread and considering alternatives to what was a great team with high expectations.

It kinda is, yes. It's a lot of excuses and coulda/woulda/shouldas, which is basically loser talk.

I loved that 2019 team and I do believe that, irrelevant though it may be, if that tournament was to be played 100 times, we'd win probably more than 50 of them. Maybe a lot more, who knows? But the fact remains that you have to win 6 games in the tournament. We won three (and two of those barely). So we got halfway through, and that's all. We had a lot of work still to do, and the bottom line is we didn't get it done. Nobody took it from us, it's on us. As Kedsy pointed out, MSU flipped the script in terms of the turnover battle, and that likely doomed us. "Should" we have gotten the ball to Zion down the stretch? Of course. But we didn't. That's on us. And our failure to do the things necessary to win that game -- not to mention two more against increasingly difficult opponents -- means we did not "deserve" to win that tournament, or that championship.

[uh_no]

It kinda is, yes. It's a lot of excuses and coulda/woulda/shouldas, which is basically loser talk.

I loved that 2019 team and I do believe that, irrelevant though it may be, if that tournament was to be played 100 times, we'd win probably more than 50 of them. Maybe a lot more, who knows? But the fact remains that you have to win 6 games in the tournament. We won three (and two of those barely). So we got halfway through, and that's all. We had a lot of work still to do, and the bottom line is we didn't get it done. Nobody took it from us, it's on us. As Kedsy pointed out, MSU flipped the script in terms of the turnover battle, and that likely doomed us. "Should" we have gotten the ball to Zion down the stretch? Of course. But we didn't. That's on us. And our failure to do the things necessary to win that game -- not to mention two more against increasingly difficult opponents -- means we did not "deserve" to win that tournament, or that championship.

Given that KP gave duke a 13% chance, I think more than 50 is a bit of a stretch...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Considering Duke beat VA and Auburn handily in the regular season, had the top recruiting class, and was a #1 team it's a legitimate point. With all due respect, where you come from, do they know a lot about "loser talk"? BTW -- the entire thread is called "We should have won in 2018-19." Is this then the "loser talk" thread. I think despite some hyperbole everyone is just playing along with the thread and considering alternatives to what was a great team with high expectations.

To me, "loser talk" is 90% complaining about refs.

[DukieTiger]

To me, "loser talk" is 90% complaining about refs.

I always heard that losers go on and on about the refs.

Winners go home and... the saying is escaping me but I’m guessing it’s not ref related.

[Indoor66]

Just the reverse of poker where the winners want to chat and the losers say shut up and deal.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I always heard that losers go on and on about the refs.

Winners go home and... the saying is escaping me but I’m guessing it’s not ref related.

All I can say is in my Duke fandom years, no one talked about refs more than the Terps.