MBB: Duke 59, Miami 81 Post-Game Thread

[CameronBornAndBred]

My joy over seeing Quinn Cook win a title was absolutely amplified by watching him get better and work through his struggles over his time at Duke. Those struggles are frustrating to watch at the time.

Zoubs agrees.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Zoubs agrees.

Nolan too.

I think the OAD era is awesome for offensive power/efficiency, learning about a new player, following players post-college (ie the NBA). It is also great for maximizing your chances in the NCAA Tournament, especially if you are Coach K.

The OAD era is terrible for gaining emotional attachments to players (a biiiiig part of the reason many of us watch sports to begin with), winning regular season titles, hardcore fans who have very little time to continuously learn a new team, and defensive cohesion.

[Kedsy]

The OAD era is terrible for gaining emotional attachments to players (a biiiiig part of the reason many of us watch sports to begin with)

I don't entirely agree with this. At least for me. I get involved enough each season to feel a special rooting bond for Duke's players from that season. I don't have to see them over a span of years. But it's possible I'm unusual in that regard. YMMV.

, winning regular season titles

I completely disagree with this. From 2007 to 2014, despite having many returning veterans and not so many OADs, Duke won just one regular season title, and that was a tie, so no outright regular season titles. From 2015 to 2022 (same number of seasons), despite having relatively few returning veterans and many OADs, Duke won the exact same number of regular season titles (and that one was outright).

The era during which Duke got lots of top 10 and top 25 freshmen and they almost all stayed four years may have been good for winning regular season titles. That era is gone and is completely unrealistic to contemplate today.

, hardcore fans who have very little time to continuously learn a new team

If fans are truly "hardcore," how hard is it to spend a few hours learning the new faces at the beginning of a season? Again, YMMV.

, and defensive cohesion.

Again, mostly disagree. KenPom's final defensive rank from 2007 to 2022, as follows:

2007: 6
2008: 7
2009: 28
2010: 5
2011: 9
2012: 79
2013: 26
2014: 86

2015: 11
2016: 86
2017: 47
2018: 9
2019: 6
2020: 12
2021: 79
2022: 49

In the veteran-heavy years from 2007 to 2014, Duke had four good defensive teams (#5, #6, #7, & #9). The freshman-heavy years from 2015 to 2022 also featured four good defensive teams (#6, #9, #11, & #12).

In the years from 2007 to 2014, Duke had four middling-to-poor defensive teams (#26, #28, #79, #86). The years from 2015 to 2022 also featured four middling-to-poor defensive teams (#47, #49, #79, #86).

The teams towards the middle (2009 and 2013 vs. 2017 and 2022) were a bit better with veteran teams, but not incredibly so, and the others were surprisingly similar. So, overall, while I agree that college players get better at defense as they gain experience, overall team defense seems much more dependent on whether your players are good defensive players or not, regardless of age.

[Edouble]

Nolan too.

I think the OAD era is awesome for offensive power/efficiency, learning about a new player, following players post-college (ie the NBA). It is also great for maximizing your chances in the NCAA Tournament, especially if you are Coach K.

The OAD era is terrible for gaining emotional attachments to players (a biiiiig part of the reason many of us watch sports to begin with), winning regular season titles, hardcore fans who have very little time to continuously learn a new team, and defensive cohesion.

If you just watch the games, you learn who is on the team.

[Papa John]

In addition, the ratio of "complainers" to "applauders"is about 5:1 across the human race.

I'm not sure I agree with this... It seems in many aspects of life, 'complainers' tend to be more vocal than 'applauders', thus they always seem to be far greater in number. There's a reason for the old adage about the squeaky wheel getting the grease...

[UrinalCake]

All Duke really needs from Whitehead are rebounds, defense and outside shooting. Anything else is gravy. Guard play has definitely been an issue and I noticed that teams that successfully speed Duke/Roach/Proctor up are major problems. Duke plays best when they can control a slower pace.

I'm hoping Whitehead can provide a third ballhandler and initiator. Miami showed that a major weakness of ours is having only two guys who can dribble the ball, both of whom are turnover prone and neither of whom can reliably get by a defender without a screen. Mitchell is a forward playing out of position.

[UrinalCake]

If you just watch the games, you learn who is on the team.

Again, it comes down to winning. Nobody had a problem learning who Zion and RJ were. Conversely, did anybody really feel "attached" to Josh Hairston or Javin Delaurier?

[Southgate0809]

Again, it comes down to winning. Nobody had a problem learning who Zion and RJ were. Conversely, did anybody really feel "attached" to Josh Hairston or Javin Delaurier?

I think having a meaningful senior on the team really makes a differences for me. I wish Wendell Moore was that guy this year. I loved the 2019 team, but they unique, so I won't use that year to make any points. Some teams just randomly seem more likable or easy to connect with, but I do think there's a major difference when you don't have a senior that is important to the team. So, I don't mean Joey Baker or Jack White. Not that they didn't deserve appreciation, but it's different when you have Grayson Allen or Quinn Cook.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think having a meaningful senior on the team really makes a differences for me. I wish Wendell Moore was that guy this year. I loved the 2019 team, but they unique, so I won't use that year to make any points. Some teams just randomly seem more likable or easy to connect with, but I do think there's a major difference when you don't have a senior that is important to the team. So, I don't mean Joey Baker or Jack White. Not that they didn't deserve appreciation, but it's different when you have Grayson Allen or Quinn Cook.

I meant on another thread - this year's team has a Senior Year Zion shaped hole in it.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I don't entirely agree with this. At least for me. I get involved enough each season to feel a special rooting bond for Duke's players from that season. I don't have to see them over a span of years. But it's possible I'm unusual in that regard. YMMV.

First post I've read that mentions something like this. Maybe I'm bias, but I suspect a majority have stronger bonds to mutli-year players than OADs, given the correlation of time and attachment. But I may be wrong. Would love to hear other's perspective about this.

I completely disagree with this. From 2007 to 2014, despite having many returning veterans and not so many OADs, Duke won just one regular season title, and that was a tie, so no outright regular season titles. From 2015 to 2022 (same number of seasons), despite having relatively few returning veterans and many OADs, Duke won the exact same number of regular season titles (and that one was outright).

The era during which Duke got lots of top 10 and top 25 freshmen and they almost all stayed four years may have been good for winning regular season titles. That era is gone and is completely unrealistic to contemplate today.

You are assuming every Duke team - regardless of year - and their placement is on equal footing. Here are the same years you used and their ACC preseason ranking vs their ACC Tournament placement:

2007: 2 / 7
2008: 2 / 2
2009: 2 / 2
2010: 1 / 1
2011: 1 / 2
2012: 2 / 2
2013: 2 / 2
2014: 1 / 3
Average: 1.625 / 2.625 (delta: 1.000)


2015: 1 / 2
2016: 3 / 5
2017: 1 / 5
2018: 1 / 2
2019: 1 / 3
2020: 1 / 4
2021: 2 /10
2022: 1 / 1
Average: 1.375 / 4.000 (delta: 2.625)

In the 2007-2014 years, Duke finished, on average, 1 placement below their ACC preseason ranking. In the 2015-2022, Duke finished, on average, 2.625 placements below their ACC preseason ranking.

I'll revise my previous point, which is somewhat similar to the original: OADs lead more underperformance in the ACC reg season.

If fans are truly "hardcore," how hard is it to spend a few hours learning the new faces at the beginning of a season? Again, YMMV.

This is very anecdotal for me. I consider myself in the top 10% of alumni who follow this team. I mean, I'm posting on a fan forum. My wife - a double Dukie - doesn't even bother with learning the names anymore. She tented 3 years in undergrad and 2 years of Campout as a grad. Every year, my core group of Duke friends texts in November and December, "who are these guys?". Again, tenters. Now, are they hardcore fans? Probably not anymore. But the constant change doesn't help with increasing their fandom.

Again, mostly disagree. KenPom's final defensive rank from 2007 to 2022, as follows:

2007: 6
2008: 7
2009: 28
2010: 5
2011: 9
2012: 79
2013: 26
2014: 86

2015: 11
2016: 86
2017: 47
2018: 9
2019: 6
2020: 12
2021: 79
2022: 49

In the veteran-heavy years from 2007 to 2014, Duke had four good defensive teams (#5, #6, #7, & #9). The freshman-heavy years from 2015 to 2022 also featured four good defensive teams (#6, #9, #11, & #12).

In the years from 2007 to 2014, Duke had four middling-to-poor defensive teams (#26, #28, #79, #86). The years from 2015 to 2022 also featured four middling-to-poor defensive teams (#47, #49, #79, #86).

The teams towards the middle (2009 and 2013 vs. 2017 and 2022) were a bit better with veteran teams, but not incredibly so, and the others were surprisingly similar. So, overall, while I agree that college players get better at defense as they gain experience, overall team defense seems much more dependent on whether your players are good defensive players or not, regardless of age.

2007-2014 average / median: 31.1 / 17.5
2015-2022 average / median: 37.4 / 29.5

Averages are similar, medians are not. And based on this, I'd argue OADs have teams with worse defense.

But we aren't going to agree.

I've stated this many, many, many times: I don't have a problem with OADs as much as a lot of Duke fans. I see a lot of the merits (which I posted and which you ignored). But, like any strategy, there are tradeoffs.

I don't know what the best strategy is. I do miss the days when multi-year starters like Nolan, Quinn, Redick, etc came through the program (let's not mention Grayson Allen. If Grayson Allen didn't have his incidents, I'd probably put him in that same bucket). That's probably when I was the biggest fan. I'd assume that has a lot to do with my age., but I think it has a lot to do with these players leaving before they've already arrived.

[Southgate0809]

I meant on another thread - this year's team has a Senior Year Zion shaped hole in it.

Would this be his covid super senior year?

What's crazy about that is that last year (which I think would have been his 4th year) would have likely been his next shot at a title after his freshman year. There was no tournament his would-be sophomore year. Then, Duke caught covid and was ineligible/didn't make the tournament his would-be junior year. They would have certainly made the tournament with him, but would probably have still caught covid at the wrong time. Senior Zion winning a title in Coach K's last year would have been wild.

[CDu]

You are assuming every Duke team - regardless of year - and their placement is on equal footing. Here are the same years you used and their ACC preseason ranking vs their ACC Tournament placement:

2007: 2 / 7
2008: 2 / 2
2009: 2 / 2
2010: 1 / 1
2011: 1 / 2
2012: 2 / 2
2013: 2 / 2
2014: 1 / 3
Average: 1.625 / 2.625 (delta: 1.000)

2015: 1 / 2
2016: 3 / 5
2017: 1 / 5
2018: 1 / 2
2019: 1 / 3
2020: 1 / 4
2021: 2 /10
2022: 1 / 1
Average: 1.375 / 4.000 (delta: 2.625)

In the 2007-2014 years, Duke finished, on average, 1 placement below their ACC preseason ranking. In the 2015-2022, Duke finished, on average, 2.625 placements below their ACC preseason ranking.

I'll revise my previous point, which is somewhat similar to the original: OADs lead more underperformance in the ACC reg season.

I'm not sure these data really support that point. It's essentially one season causing an outlier, and a fairly unique season at that (between a player quitting the team and COVID screwing everything up). If you take out the outlier season, you have an average of 1.29/3.14. Which is basically noise in terms of difference from the pre-one-and-done era. And more to the point, underperforming ever so slightly against what sportswriters (who are not really qualified to assess quality of teams) thought in August is not terribly meaningful.

2007-2014 average / median: 31.1 / 17.5
2015-2022 average / median: 37.4 / 29.5

Averages are similar, medians are not. And based on this, I'd argue OADs have teams with worse defense.

You should not use the median with small sample sizes. It's meaningless. To wit: if you throw out the extreme outlier 2021 season, you get the following: average: 31.4; median: 12. Which is virtually identical (amazingly so) in mean and BETTER in median. So again, I don't think this really supports the argument you are making.

I'd say our teams have fared basically identically in the years pre- and post-one-and-done switch with the exception of the crazy COVID year.

[Kedsy]

I'll revise my previous point, which is somewhat similar to the original: OADs lead more underperformance in the ACC reg season.

Was it really underperformance, or was it that the pre-season prognosticators were unable to properly evaluate a team filled with players they've never seen play at the college level?

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'm not sure these data really support that point. It's essentially one season causing an outlier, and a fairly unique season at that (between a player quitting the team and COVID screwing everything up). If you take out the outlier season, you have an average of 1.29/3.14. Which is basically noise in terms of difference from the pre-one-and-done era. And more to the point, underperforming ever so slightly against what sportswriters (who are not really qualified to assess quality of teams) thought in August is not terribly meaningful.



You should not use the median with small sample sizes. It's meaningless. To wit: if you throw out the extreme outlier 2021 season, you get the following: average: 31.4; median: 12. Which is virtually identical (amazingly so) in mean and BETTER in median. So again, I don't think this really supports the argument you are making.

I'd say our teams have fared basically identically in the years pre- and post-one-and-done switch with the exception of the crazy COVID year.

Okay. Let's take that outlier out. Delta is 1.85. Still a lot higher than the 2007-2014 delta.

Feel free to read the results differently. To me, it's very clear: Duke underperforms in the ACC with OAD teams. 2.625 > 1.00 with full data set, 1.85 > 1.00 when we remove the outlier.

[CDu]

Okay. Let's take that outlier out. Delta is 1.85. Still a lot higher than the 2007-2014 delta.

Feel free to read the results differently. To me, it's very clear: Duke underperforms in the ACC with OAD teams. 2.625 > 1.00 with full data set, 1.85 > 1.00 when we remove the outlier.

Yeah, again, I just don't see how that is meaningful. We've had an average finish of 2.63 vs 3.14 over those non-crazy years. I don't particularly care what Joe Voter said in August. Because that all ignores other stuff that happened in any given year (most notably season-altering injuries), and it places undue importance on what Joe Voter thinks in the first place, which I think is silly. Especially when discussing a team with players that those voters have never really seen before.

Ultimately, the results are what the results are. And the results are strikingly similar.

[CDu]

Was it really underperformance, or was it that the pre-season prognosticators were unable to properly evaluate a team filled with players they've never seen play at the college level?

Not only that, but injuries factor in too.

In 2019, we finished 3rd in the conference, 2 games out of 1st. But all four our losses were heavily affected by injury: the Syracuse OT loss was without our only PG; the two UNC losses and the VT loss were all without Zion. Without those injuries, we win the ACC.

In 2016, we finished 5th in the conference. 3 games out of 1st. But that was in large part because we lost Amile Jefferson early in the season. And one other of our losses came without Matt Jones, meaning we literally played six scholarship players plus Nick Pagliuca. I'm not saying we would have won the conference that year, but we'd have finished higher than we did for sure.

In 2017, we simply never had the team that voters thought we were going to have. Harry Giles, #1 recruit, was barely playable due to his injuries. That team didn't underperform. It just wasn't as good a team for health reasons as folks would have liked. If Giles is anything remotely approximating a #1 recruit in the country, that team finishes WAY better than 6th (and we were only 1 win out of the 2nd spot as it was).

Obviously this year has been heavily affected as well.

Yes, 2011 and 2013 were definitely impacted by key injuries as well. And we'd likely have won the conference rather than finishing 2nd those two years had we not suffered those injuries. But on aggregate, injuries have played a bigger role in our ACC regular season rankings in more recent years. So, again, I think it's impressive how similar our results have been with and without the heavy one-and-done approach.

[sagegrouse]

I'm not sure I agree with this... It seems in many aspects of life, 'complainers' tend to be more vocal than 'applauders', thus they always seem to be far greater in number. There's a reason for the old adage about the squeaky wheel getting the grease...

Agree with you, but I am not measuring inner feelings so much as public expressions.

[mkirsh]

Yeah, again, I just don't see how that is meaningful. We've had an average finish of 2.63 vs 3.14 over those non-crazy years. I don't particularly care what Joe Voter said in August. Because that all ignores other stuff that happened in any given year (most notably season-altering injuries), and it places undue importance on what Joe Voter thinks in the first place, which I think is silly. Especially when discussing a team with players that those voters have never really seen before.

Ultimately, the results are what the results are. And the results are strikingly similar.

Also keep in mind ACC expansion across that period made the schedules less balanced, so some of our results in the "OAD period" were impacted by other teams having easier schedules allowing them to finish a game or two ahead

[lotusland]

I’ve never liked OAD dominant teams. But now, with NIL and the transfer portal, it seems every team is rebuilding their roster from year to year. So I finally found something that I like even less than OAD - unlimited free agency with no salary cap.

[Hartford Dukie]

Jim Sumner with some good additional thoughts about the Miami game and this Duke team. Hope this link works.

https://jimsumner.substack.com/p/som...miami-thoughts