The Elephant in the Room: Lets talk about Jon Scheyer

[dukelifer]

Must confess, I didn’t know it. Maybe I was confused by the 2015 banner?

Or his 2022 FF and some elite 8s. But I guess that is not 1990’s K.

[kako]

Must confess, I didn’t know it. Maybe I was confused by the 2015 banner?

Or the 2010 one (same decade). Or the 3 Elite 8s?

That post smacks of entitlement to me. And not understanding how the game has changed. Or what success is.

9F

[kAzE]

Duke still hasn't lost 10 games this year, and there's no guarantee that Duke will, although it is very likely...

I knew exactly what I was saying, but hey, if it turns out to be untrue, we'll have either won the ACC championship and/or the national championship, in which case, the Shane Ryan tweet looks even more ridiculous in retrospect. I'd gladly be wrong for either of those outcomes

Another thing about the Coach K Coaching tree that's worth pointing out: none of these guys succeeded early on in their coaching careers, but now look at them. Chris Collins and Jeff Capel are having great seasons at Northwestern and Pittsburgh, respectively. Mike Brey will leave Notre Dame as the winningest coach in program history. Tommy Amaker has Harvard always in the hunt for the Ivy League title. Jonny Dawkins didn't succeed at his first stop as a coach, but now has been consistently posting winning seasons now in his 7th year at UCF. I believe Wojo will resurface at some point and achieve something good as well.

Out of all these guys, Coach K still picked Jon Scheyer, so I'm trusting Coach K's judgement.

[Ian]

Must confess, I didn’t know it. Maybe I was confused by the 2015 banner?

Peak K was probably from 1986 to 2004. In which over the 19 year period (18 if you don't count 95) he went to 10 final 4s, 6 title games and 3 titles. From 2005 to 2022, over 18 years, he went to 3 FF, 2 title games, and 2 titles. Even stage 2 of K where he was understandably in decline (none of us can remain at our peak forever) is still really good, and comparable to the other best coaches in the college over that time period. But peak period K was really something otherworldly, his run from 86 to 04 will probably never be equaled again by anyone, particularly 86-94 where over a 9 year period he went to 7 FF and 5 title games.

[CDu]

Now we're all going to wonder which of us you hold in high regard...

Lol, let’s just say that the bar for being in higher regard than Ryan ain’t all that high for me.

[devilirium]

I believe The Elephant in the Room may be Shane Ryan? No? Sure as hell isn't Scheyer.

[CDu]

After reading some Shane Ryan articles over the years, while he can be entertaining at times, I've never thought he had any idea what he was talking about when it comes to basketball.

This. He is a clever guy and can be an entertaining writer. Beyond that?

[Kedsy]

Peak K was probably from 1986 to 2004. In which over the 19 year period (18 if you don't count 95) he went to 10 final 4s, 6 title games and 3 titles. From 2005 to 2022, over 18 years, he went to 3 FF, 2 title games, and 2 titles. Even stage 2 of K where he was understandably in decline (none of us can remain at our peak forever) is still really good, and comparable to the other best coaches in the college over that time period. But peak period K was really something otherworldly, his run from 86 to 04 will probably never be equaled again by anyone, particularly 86-94 where over a 9 year period he went to 7 FF and 5 title games.

Your stages seem somewhat arbitrary. There's no reason to distinguish between 2004 and 2005 or 2006, for example, other than because Duke went to a Final Four in 2004 but didn't in the later years. Same with 1986 and 1984 and 1985, except he didn't fare well in the NCAAT in the earlier years and he did in 1986. Clearly K had more NCAA tournament success in the time period you've specified than he did before or after that time period. But I would argue that NCAA tournament success has a huuuuge luck/chance factor that doesn't necessarily speak to coaching acumen.

In the time periods you've cut out, if you look at the regular season plus conference tournament (but not NCAA tournament), the team's record in the two time periods is virtually identical:

1986 to 2004: 477-116 (80.4%)

2005 to 2022: 471-114 (80.5%)

Obviously, you can't cut out the NCAA tournament, but I don't think Coach K was in decline at all. He just got luckier in the NCAA tournament from 1986 to 1994 than he did the rest of his career.

[CDu]

Obviously, you can't cut out the NCAA tournament, but I don't think Coach K was in decline at all. He just got luckier in the NCAA tournament from 1986 to 1994 than he did the rest of his career.

Yep, this paragraph sums it up quite well. Coach K was an elite regular season and ACC tourney coach from the mid-80s onward. The main difference was that he had an unbelievable stretch of good tourney fortune from 1986-1994, where basically every one of those teams overachieved. And even then, had a possession here or there gone differently, that 9 year stretch might look very different.

In fact, the opposite may be said of the 2015-2022 era. Over that stretch we were 2 possessions from having 4 Final Fours, and maybe 3-4 possessions from having 4 Final Fours and 2 title game appearances. Conversely, if Laettner misses against UConn and against Kentucky, that is 2 fewer Final Fours and 1 fewer title.

It is a very thin line between success and failure in the NCAA tournament, and fortune definitely plays into it.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yep, this paragraph sums it up quite well. Coach K was an elite regular season and ACC tourney coach from the mid-80s onward. The main difference was that he had an unbelievable stretch of good tourney fortune from 1986-1994, where basically every one of those teams overachieved. And even then, had a possession here or there gone differently, that 9 year stretch might look very different.

In fact, the opposite may be said of the 2015-2022 era. Over that stretch we were 2 possessions from having 4 Final Fours, and maybe 3-4 possessions from having 4 Final Fours and 2 title game appearances. Conversely, if Laettner misses against UConn and against Kentucky, that is 2 fewer Final Fours and 1 fewer title.

It is a very thin line between success and failure in the NCAA tournament, and fortune definitely plays into it.

Also it's absurd to ignore the number of changes to the game that occured from the early 2000s to today. Four year players evaporated. Conferences doubles in size. Recruiting and academic regulations became extremely different. Then the OAD era.

It isn't like Duke and K faded and another program took over that dominant spot.

I'm too lazy, but look up the dominant win totals in 1990s, 2000s, 2010s. I suspect you would see a common royal blue theme.

[Ian]

Your stages seem somewhat arbitrary. There's no reason to distinguish between 2004 and 2005 or 2006, for example, other than because Duke went to a Final Four in 2004 but didn't in the later years. Same with 1986 and 1984 and 1985, except he didn't fare well in the NCAAT in the earlier years and he did in 1986. Clearly K had more NCAA tournament success in the time period you've specified than he did before or after that time period. But I would argue that NCAA tournament success has a huuuuge luck/chance factor that doesn't necessarily speak to coaching acumen.

In the time periods you've cut out, if you look at the regular season plus conference tournament (but not NCAA tournament), the team's record in the two time periods is virtually identical:

1986 to 2004: 477-116 (80.4%)

2005 to 2022: 471-114 (80.5%)

Obviously, you can't cut out the NCAA tournament, but I don't think Coach K was in decline at all. He just got luckier in the NCAA tournament from 1986 to 1994 than he did the rest of his career.

While I acknowledge that there is a luck/chance factor in NCAA tourney, I do not accept the notion that K's success earlier in his career vs later is merely a luck factor. I think as a coach he was as his peak in terms of energy, preparation, drive, focus, and an obsessively maniacal competitiveness, than he was later on. Of course, he paid a price for that mania in 1995 that nearly derailed his career and he had to make adjustment in order to coach long term. He was still a great coach in the 2nd half of his career, but not comparable to his peak.

[Norman Pfyster]

Yep, this paragraph sums it up quite well. Coach K was an elite regular season and ACC tourney coach from the mid-80s onward. The main difference was that he had an unbelievable stretch of good tourney fortune from 1986-1994, where basically every one of those teams overachieved. And even then, had a possession here or there gone differently, that 9 year stretch might look very different.

It is a very thin line between success and failure in the NCAA tournament, and fortune definitely plays into it.

Not that I disagree with the overall point about luck being a key factor, but I don't think it's fair to say that the 1986, 1991, 1992 and 1994 teams overachieved, unless you define overachieving very narrowly to say that any winner other than the overall #1 overachieved (in which case, neither the 1986 team nor the 1992 team overachieved). And luck runs both ways: the 1993 team was a Grant Hill foot injury away from possibly winning it all.

[CDu]

Not that I disagree with the overall point about luck being a key factor, but I don't think it's fair to say that the 1986, 1991, 1992 and 1994 teams overachieved, unless you define overachieving very narrowly to say that any winner other than the overall #1 overachieved (in which case, neither the 1986 team nor the 1992 team overachieved). And luck runs both ways: the 1993 team was a Grant Hill foot injury away from possibly winning it all.

I mean overachieved in that even 1 seeds aren’t actually expected to win it all, or even to actually make the Final Four. Only about 40% of 1 seeds make the Final Four, and only about 1 in 6 1 seeds wins the title. The expected tourney game win total for a 1 seed is a bit below 3.5 wins. So all of those teams overachieved relative to the norm for 1 (or lower) seeds.

[cato]

Another thing about the Coach K Coaching tree that's worth pointing out: none of these guys succeeded early on in their coaching careers, but now look at them. Chris Collins and Jeff Capel are having great seasons at Northwestern and Pittsburgh, respectively.

Capel found early success — it just didn’t last. Hopefully his current (relative) success at Pitt continues and ends up being built on a stronger foundation.

[House P]

Peak K was probably from 1986 to 2004.

Yep, this paragraph sums it up quite well. Coach K was an elite regular season and ACC tourney coach from the mid-80s onward. The main difference was that he had an unbelievable stretch of good tourney fortune from 1986-1994, where basically every one of those teams overachieved. And even then, had a possession here or there gone differently, that 9 year stretch might look very different.

While seven Final Fours in nine years is the most successful sustained period of NCAA tourney success outside of Wooden, you could make a very strong case that Coach K's teams were better overall from 1998-2006. Sure, there was less NCAA tourney success from 98-06, but a comparison of regular season and ACC tourney performance isn't really that close.

Final AP Poll Ranking

	86-94	98-06
Year 1	1	3
Year 2	17	1
Year 3	5	1
Year 4	9	1
Year 5	15	1
Year 6	6	7
Year 7	1	6
Year 8	10	3
Year 9	6	1
Average	7.8	2.7

Final Computer Ranking
(86-94 SRS, 98-06 KenPom)

	86-94	98-06
Year 1	3	1
Year 2	11	1
Year 3	3	5
Year 4	3	1
Year 5	5	1
Year 6	4	6
Year 7	3	1
Year 8	3	3
Year 9	8	2
Average	4.8	2.3

ACC Tournament Record

	86-94	98-06
Year 1	3-0	2-1
Year 2	0-1	3-0
Year 3	3-0	3-0
Year 4	2-1	3-0
Year 5	0-1	3-0
Year 6	2-1	3-0
Year 7	3-0	2-1
Year 8	0-1	3-0
Year 9	0-1	3-0
Total	13-6	25-2

[cato]

While seven Final Fours in nine years is the most successful sustained period of NCAA tourney success outside of Wooden, you could make a very strong case that Coach K's teams were better overall from 1998-2006. Sure, there was less NCAA tourney success from 98-06, but a comparison of regular season and ACC tourney performance isn't really that close.

Final AP Poll Ranking

	86-94	98-06
Year 1	1	3
Year 2	17	1
Year 3	5	1
Year 4	9	1
Year 5	15	1
Year 6	6	7
Year 7	1	6
Year 8	10	3
Year 9	6	1
Average	7.8	2.7

Final Computer Ranking
(86-94 SRS, 98-06 KenPom)

	86-94	98-06
Year 1	3	1
Year 2	11	1
Year 3	3	5
Year 4	3	1
Year 5	5	1
Year 6	4	6
Year 7	3	1
Year 8	3	3
Year 9	8	2
Average	4.8	2.3

ACC Tournament Record

	86-94	98-06
Year 1	3-0	2-1
Year 2	0-1	3-0
Year 3	3-0	3-0
Year 4	2-1	3-0
Year 5	0-1	3-0
Year 6	2-1	3-0
Year 7	3-0	2-1
Year 8	0-1	3-0
Year 9	0-1	3-0
Total	13-6	25-2

I was about to say that perhaps the ACC began to slip during this period, and then I recalled how well the ACC performed on the national stage.

This is a great example of how luck factors into perceptions based on NCAA tourney results alone. My Indiana relatives still remember Duke’s last second win on the way to (IIRC) the 91 championship.

The shots that went Duke’s way between 86 and 92 didn’t go their way as often in the NCAAs during this stretch.

Also, players like Dawkins, Laettner, Hill, Hurley and maybe even Battier no longer spent 4 years in college. Getting Boozer for two or Williams for three was a major element of Ks success in the middle of this period.

All of which circles back to one thing: Luol Deng was the most painful loss to the NBA during the K era.

[Kedsy]

While I acknowledge that there is a luck/chance factor in NCAA tourney, I do not accept the notion that K's success earlier in his career vs later is merely a luck factor. I think as a coach he was as his peak in terms of energy, preparation, drive, focus, and an obsessively maniacal competitiveness, than he was later on. Of course, he paid a price for that mania in 1995 that nearly derailed his career and he had to make adjustment in order to coach long term. He was still a great coach in the 2nd half of his career, but not comparable to his peak.

If that is your rationale, why would you include 1996 to 2004 in your time period? Those years clearly came after the near-derailment of his "obsessively maniacal competitive" phase.

Anyway, when I talk about luck in the NCAA tournament, I'm talking both about close games and also about who you play. For example, in the 1986 tournament, Duke played a #12-seed in the Sweet 16 and a #7 seed in the Elite Eight. If they'd played a #4 and a #2 instead of the previous upset winners they actually played, would they have made it to the Final Four? Maybe, but obviously we can't say for sure.

So, here's a quick analysis of the amazing 1986 to 1994 period versus a couple other nine-tournament periods, showing how many upset winners Duke played before the Final Four (by which I mean teams seeded more than one line below the expected opponent; e.g., not #5 instead of #4 or #9 instead of #8, but yes #4 instead of #1 or #6 instead of #3) as well as how Duke fared in one-possession games (also before the Final Four):

1986 to 1994 (two #1s; four #2s; two #3s; and one #5):
Three one possession games (3-0 record); 9 games against upset winners.
Seven Elite Eights; seven Final Fours; two championships.

1998 to 2006 (eight #1s; one #3):
Three one possession games (1-2 record); 5 games against upset winners.
Four Elite Eights; three Final Fours; one championship.

2012 to 2022 (two #1s; five #2s; one #3; one #4):
Four one possession games (2-2 record); 3 games against upset winners (though I grant you that had we not lost two first-round games in this period, we might have played two or three additional upset winners).
Five Elite Eights; two Final Fours; one championship.


I hope we can agree that chance plays a big role in which team wins a one possession game, and also that whether or not you play an upset winner is entirely chance? If so, it's hard to look at the above and conclude that the degree of Duke's tournament success in the 1986 to 1994 period, compared to the other periods, was not affected by a very large degree of luck.

[Jeffrey]

All of which circles back to one thing: Luol Deng was the most painful loss to the NBA during the K era.

My vote, Kyrie. Coach K could have worked magic with Irving’s incredible talent. OTOH, Duke Profs never had a chance with Kyrie.

[Ian]

I hope we can agree that chance plays a big role in which team wins a one possession game, and also that whether or not you play an upset winner is entirely chance? If so, it's hard to look at the above and conclude that the degree of Duke's tournament success in the 1986 to 1994 period, compared to the other periods, was not affected by a very large degree of luck.

From 86-94, Duke either won the title or lost to the team that won the title 7 out of the 9 years. So no, I'm not going to assume they would have lost to some other team even if there were fewer upsets in their path. The point is those teams were generally laser focused and ready to play their best, if they lost, it was only to other great team who were also playing at their peak, it was not luck, of course there were lucky events in their favor, but there is no reason to think those out numbered the bad luck events.

I don't know why people are so bothered by the idea that K late in his career was in decline. Everyone declines are they get old, it's just nature. Why would you think that he would be the lone exception? The fact that in his decline phase he was still one of the best in the game, tells you how great he was overall.

[Jeffrey]

I don't know why people are so bothered by the idea that K late in his career was in decline. Everyone declines are they get old, it's just nature. Why would you think that he would be the lone exception? The fact that in his decline phase he was still one of the best in the game, tells you how great he was overall.

Must confess, I still don’t understand how K was extremely successful coaching the 2008, 2012, and 2016 USA Olympic Teams to a 24-0 record during “his decline phase”? Brown was 5-3 in 2004 and Pop was 5-1 in 2020.