A Dissenting Opinion (Duke)

[TexasZagFan]

Mods, feel free to move at your discretion. I found the article a breath of fresh air.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/04/duke-recruiting-cassius-stanley-coach-k-college-basketball

Why nobody should care about Duke having the best recruiting class again

The Duke Blue Devils have done it again. With Monday’s commitment from four-star guard Cassius Stanley, Duke has locked up its fourth straight No. 1 recruiting class.

This year, every member of Duke’s class is ranked in 247Sports’ top 35. It’s been quite the recruiting run for Mike Krzyzewski who reinvented his roster-building strategy to embrace the one-and-done in 2014. Since winning the title in 2015, no coach has recruited better than Coach K — not John Calipari, not Bill Self, not Roy Williams.

But if last season taught us anything, it’s that Coach K’s recruiting dominance means nothing if his teams can’t win in March.

[gonzagafan62]

Disagree with that precedent lol. It’s means they’re always going to be a team to beat. I don’t think that means nothing, lol. Seems like someone is salty (not saying you at all TZ)

[seacatfan]

I agree with the article. Duke isn't winning regular season league championships, they aren't winning National Titles, they aren't even getting to the Final 4. Largely the same for Kentucky. Relying primarily on one and doners doesn't work very well, there is enough evidence out there to conclude this.

[LTownZag]

I agree with the article. Duke isn't winning regular season league championships, they aren't winning National Titles, they aren't even getting to the Final 4. Largely the same for Kentucky. Relying primarily on one and doners doesn't work very well, there is enough evidence out there to conclude this.

I wish I agreed with you, since I much prefer to be a fan of a team that keeps guys 3-5 years and develops elaborate team play. But I think the evidence is far from clear. It's possible be a very good team and go deep in March with a bunch of upperclassmen 3-4* types (Nova, UNC, UVA) or with young phenom freshman.

Duke has finished as a top-5 kenpom team in half of the past 18 seasons.

In the past 10 years UK, Duke, and Louisville have all won championships and also made at least one additional final four (another title for Duke) with teams that relied heavily on freshmen.

The tournament is crazy and it's a pretty terrible way to evaluate the best team in the nation. A team with 3-1 odds of winning every single tournament game would have a 17% chance of winning a title.

[seacatfan]

I wish I agreed with you, since I much prefer to be a fan of a team that keeps guys 3-5 years and develops elaborate team play. But I think the evidence is far from clear. It's possible be a very good team and go deep in March with a bunch of upperclassmen 3-4* types (Nova, UNC, UVA) or with young phenom freshman.

Duke has finished as a top-5 kenpom team in half of the past 18 seasons.

In the past 10 years UK, Duke, and Louisville have all won championships and also made at least one additional final four (another title for Duke) with teams that relied heavily on freshmen.

The tournament is crazy and it's a pretty terrible way to evaluate the best team in the nation. A team with 3-1 odds of winning every single tournament game would have a 17% chance of winning a title.

I don't see things the same way at all. Duke '15 and Kentucky '12 are the only teams that were powered by Freshmen to a National Title. Granted there have been Fr. contributors on plenty of teams but looking back over the list of National Champs, those are all teams w/ a bunch of veterans. Duke's '10 Championship and Louisville in '13 were very veteran teams, I'm really not sure what you are referring to.

Neither Duke or Kentucky have been to the Final 4 since '15. Duke has only made 1 Final 4 since K went all in w/ one and doners. Calipari had success w/ it initially at Kentucky but he's had diminishing returns. I'd say Tourney results the last 4 years is a trend and not a fluke. I think the whole Final 4 the last 4 years has been dominated by veteran teams.

[rennis]

I think the Final Four has been showcasing excellent defensive teams with average to good shooting abilities the last 5 years. In a one game format you take the veteran defense over the freshmen phenoms nearly every time. In this era of defense and game clock management it's no surprise to me that Freshman laden teams aren't getting it done. And they won't if the rules don't change.

[TexasZagFan]

I think the Final Four has been showcasing excellent defensive teams with average to good shooting abilities the last 5 years. In a one game format you take the veteran defense over the freshmen phenoms nearly every time. In this era of defense and game clock management it's no surprise to me that Freshman laden teams aren't getting it done. And they won't if the rules don't change.

The rules have changed, specifically regarding "freedom of movement." Unfortunately, the whistles are swallowed on March 1 of every year. A sizable number of the Zags' TOs against Tech were fouls that would normally be called during the regular season. We don't practice or play that way, we'd foul out half our team in every WCC game. I'm not sure how we get around it, to tell you the truth.

[LTownZag]

I don't see things the same way at all. Duke '15 and Kentucky '12 are the only teams that were powered by Freshmen to a National Title. Granted there have been Fr. contributors on plenty of teams but looking back over the list of National Champs, those are all teams w/ a bunch of veterans. Duke's '10 Championship and Louisville in '13 were very veteran teams, I'm really not sure what you are referring to.

Neither Duke or Kentucky have been to the Final 4 since '15. Duke has only made 1 Final 4 since K went all in w/ one and doners. Calipari had success w/ it initially at Kentucky but he's had diminishing returns. I'd say Tourney results the last 4 years is a trend and not a fluke. I think the whole Final 4 the last 4 years has been dominated by veteran teams.

Thanks for your clarification. You may be right, but I still think right now that the sample size is small and includes evidence for and against your theory.

On another note - why does this thread only have one star? It seems like a well researched and thought provoking article leading into a solid discussion.
Is there some group of board users that just reflexively downvote the quality of threads related to other teams or something?

[TexasZagFan]

Thanks for your clarification. You may be right, but I still think right now that the sample size is small and includes evidence for and against your theory.

On another note - why does this thread only have one star? It seems like a well researched and thought provoking article leading into a solid discussion.
Is there some group of board users that just reflexively downvote the quality of threads related to other teams or something?

As to the 1 star, it's probably my fault...goes back to the OCC.

ETA: as the one and done rule is likely to end in a few years, the sample size will remain small. I don't expect college basketball to change drastically, as fewer than a dozen top high schoolers will opt for the draft. Nor do I expect it to change the Zags' recruiting in a measurable way.

[Zagceo]

The rules have changed, specifically regarding "freedom of movement." Unfortunately, the whistles are swallowed on March 1 of every year. A sizable number of the Zags' TOs against Tech were fouls that would normally be called during the regular season. We don't practice or play that way, we'd foul out half our team in every WCC game. I'm not sure how we get around it, to tell you the truth.

good teams adapt

Clarke Snax Kispert total foul count in TT game..........3

Clarke with 6 turnovers and 0 fouls.....strangest stat of the game imo

[Ladyzag12]

Duke was the best team in the country this year though. In general I think solely pursuing one and dones vs maybe one top top guy and the rest top 50 guys is a debate worth having. Next year's Duke team will be interesting though because most of their incoming guys are fringe one and done players.

[mgadfly]

I think this is pretty outdated thinking and despite some knowledgeable people on this thread thinking the one and done route doesn't really work for teams, I think the data actually suggests it's done quite well. At least when we are comparing really young teams to the field.

In the late 00's the best teams were usually very experienced (still having rosters recruited when one and done was either not applicable or was in its infancy). Kansas was 53rd most experienced, UNC was 60th and Duke was 69th. All veteran teams. By comparison, GU this season, with plenty of experienced players, ranked 103rd. So those were all incredibly experienced teams winning national championships. The Florida Gators were 102nd most experienced the year before. So in the 00's the last even remotely inexperienced team to win a championship is the 2006 Gators when that great class were sophomores. 2005 UNC was a group of JRs and SRs. 2004 UCONN had a ton of experience too. 2002 champs were very experienced. I don't have the rankings for 2003, but they were closer to the middle of the pack on experience. So from 2002 to 2010, 7 of those 9 champions were extremely experienced. 2 of them were close to the middle of the pack. None were inexperienced teams.

Then we get to the 2010's. Since 2011 the champions have been ranked in order of most experienced: 67, 103, 181, 187, 203, 280, 331, 332, 340

Of the last nine championship teams, 3 of them have clearly been powered by freshmen and could not be argued to be an experienced team under anybody's definition. Only 2 of the last 9 championships have been from teams that are experienced.

This season the six youngest teams in the field went 12-6 and all won at least a game. The six oldest teams went 2-6.

If what we are saying is that the two youngest teams in the field (Duke and Kentucky were 351st and 350th most experienced this season) are probably going to lose out to the other 66 tournament teams and 340 or so teams not built with one and done guys, then yeah. That's probably true. But if those two teams continue to win 25% of the championships and the field win 75%, I don't think that's evidence that what they are doing "isn't working." It's working just fine.

[LTownZag]

Thumbs up for a fantastic post based in information.

Where do you pull up the team rankings by experience level?

[mgadfly]

Thumbs up for a fantastic post based in information.

Where do you pull up the team rankings by experience level?

Thanks. Kenpom.