Duke Recruiting General Discussion

[physicsfactor]

That's when being Roy Williams helps out. If you can seriously ball and are motivated, guys like Coach K and Calipari will give you the freedom to show out early and impress NBA scouts. Roy's rigid system stunts growth IMO, but then he ends up with multiple top-15 players as juniors and seniors even in today's early entry climate.

 

[DurhamSon]

Yeah, I don't think any reasonable mind thinks Jackson or Berry would have been 3/4 year players here. Then we'd be currently having a conversation about recruiting too many "top 15 players"

 

[aiw]

Multiple OADs (non-championships)

2007 OSU Final 2
2007 GT 1st round
2010 UK E8
2011 Texas 2nd round
2013 UK NIT 1st round
2014 Kansas 2nd round
2014 UK Final 2
2015 Kansas 2nd round
2015 UK FF
2016 UK 2nd round
2016 Washington NIT 2nd round
2016 UNLV no postseason (1st round and 1 undrafted, so these guys probably don't count)
2017 UK E8
2017 Duke 2nd round
2017 UCLA S16
2017 Arizona S16

Obviously some of the OADs weren't superstars, but there they all are.

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

Regarding one of the least offensive things about Axe's post ripping on the 2010 team, it's amazing that some people do not understand that aging may have an effect on human abilities. 2010 was 7 years ago. Even the most ignorant fans generally understand that a 40 year old basketball player at the end of his career is invariably much worse than his 33 year old self. The effect of age on an otherwise healthy mind is less pronounced than on the body, and the impact comes later in life, but once we're talking about a 70 year old like K, it's certainly in play.

Phil Jackson is the most accomplished coach of all time. In 2010, he led a team to an NBA title. He's 71 now. He's a laughingstock, completely out of touch with basketball reality and basically the crazy grandfather you try to avoid conversation with because he could make an awful racist joke at any time, anywhere.

There are plenty of Duke fans who will crack jokes about how far Phil Jackson has fallen and how gone his basketball mind is, but who don't recognize the exact same thing happening right under their noses. It's such an identical situation, it's actually incredible not to see it. People get worse at things in life as they get super old. This is something I just tried to explain in a message board post.

If the 2015 title ends up buying K 10 extra years of coaching terrible defenses and ugly offenses, it will have been a neutral event for Duke basketball. Looking at the results given the talent level in 2012-2017 (2011 is difficult to evaluate fairly), including the poor defense of the 2015 regular season, the 2015 tournament run with the 6 games of historically great defense appears to have been a massive fluke. I hope like everyone else here that 2018, with 3 projected early first round picks and a senior preseason AA, will prove this narrative all wrong. I fear it will just cement this narrative as conclusive.

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

There has to be a better way to evaluate teams in the OAD analysis than titles vs. non-titles and purely OAD status. Frank Jackson wasn't any more of an OAD talent than Justin Jackson, other than the fact that Frank wanted to leave after one year. Titles, and NCAAT wins and losses in general are so random.

I would base the analysis on Kenpom overall rating, consensus recruit rankings, and seasons of experience. What do analytical basketball writers do in the summer? Someone like Luke Winn should have already baseball-ized college basketball recruiting with standard formulas to determine the best recruiting approach. There should be an assigned value for each recruit ranking slot like with NFL draft picks.

 

[Devilsforlife]

I think we'll have a much better idea of where K is at as a coach after the 2017-18 season. If the team flames out again and fails to live up to its potential, given the talent on the roster, then 2015 starts to look like even more of a fluke. However, if we reach the FF or bag another title, then the notion that K is in the midst of a steep decline can be put to rest, at least until 2019.

In other words, next year is put up or shut up time for K. As far as I'm concerned, he can coach until he's 80 if he wants; he's built the program into what it is today and I have tremendous appreciation for all his accomplishments. But my level of excitement for the remainder of the K era will largely hinge on how 2017-18 goes.

 

[wtbball21]

Regarding one of the least offensive things about Axe's post ripping on the 2010 team, it's amazing that some people do not understand that aging may have an effect on human abilities. 2010 was 7 years ago. Even the most ignorant fans generally understand that a 40 year old basketball player at the end of his career is invariably much worse than his 33 year old self. The effect of age on an otherwise healthy mind is less pronounced than on the body, and the impact comes later in life, but once we're talking about a 70 year old like K, it's certainly in play.

Phil Jackson is the most accomplished coach of all time. In 2010, he led a team to an NBA title. He's 71 now. He's a laughingstock, completely out of touch with basketball reality and basically the crazy grandfather you try to avoid conversation with because he could make an awful racist joke at any time, anywhere.

There are plenty of Duke fans who will crack jokes about how far Phil Jackson has fallen and how gone his basketball mind is, but who don't recognize the exact same thing happening right under their noses. It's such an identical situation, it's actually incredible not to see it. People get worse at things in life as they get super old. This is something I just tried to explain in a message board post.

If the 2015 title ends up buying K 10 extra years of coaching terrible defenses and ugly offenses, it will have been a neutral event for Duke basketball. Looking at the results given the talent level in 2012-2017 (2011 is difficult to evaluate fairly), including the poor defense of the 2015 regular season, the 2015 tournament run with the 6 games of historically great defense appears to have been a massive fluke. I hope like everyone else here that 2018, with 3 projected early first round picks and a senior preseason AA, will prove this narrative all wrong. I fear it will just cement this narrative as conclusive.

I think most of what you said is accurate and if you want to talk about a lightning in a bottle run, then 2015 is that season, not 2010. Obviously, the biggest issue since the 2010 championship season has been the defensive end of the floor. Only 2 out of those 7 years did Duke have a good defense. 2015 ended on a historic defensive run, but the regular season defense wasn't good.

Remarkably, the 2011 team was an elite defensive team, but really only because of Nolan and Kyle. The rest of those guys were back the following year with Rivers and that team was an abomination on defense. Curry, Kelly and Plumlee figured it out and the following season in 2013, they restored the defense.

You could argue a lot of the defensive issues stem from not having a strong 4 and 5 to either protect the basket with their body or with the threat of a shot blocker. That 4 position where Duke has put more of traditional 3 has certainly paid off offensively, but it's likely one of the reasons the defense has suffered. Combine that with Duke not having a 5 man that can protect the rim since Zoubek in 2010. Duke's defensive woes are all due to giving up points in the paint. They are almost always top 25 nationally in three pointers allowed. They do a great job taking away the 3 and the FT, but it's been a buffet line in the paint for far too long.

It will be interesting to see what kind of defense, Bolden, Bagley and Carter play this year. They certainly have the prerequisite size and athleticism to play good interior defense. Allen should at the least be average on that end of the floor. Not sure what to expect from Trent or Duval.


The only thing I will argue with you on your post is the comment on "ugly offense". The last time Duke hasn't had a top 10 offense was 2008. I know they are stacked with talent, but in that same time period no one has touched Duke's accomplishments offensively. Few offenses have had the success from the three point line as well as getting to the free throw line the way Duke has.

Most Top Ten Adjust Offensive Efficiency Seasons since 2008

Coach K: 9
Bill Self: 6
John Callipari: 5
Roy Williams: 4
Tom Crean: 4
Mike Brey: 4
Jay Wright: 3
John Beilein: 3
Bo Ryan: 3
Greg McDermott: 3 (All thanks to his son)
Rick Pitino: 2
Mark Few: 2
Jim Boeheim: 2
Sean Miller: 2


Just for comparison's sake: Most Top Ten Adjusted Defensive Efficiency Seasons since 2008

Rick Pitino: 9 (7 years in a row)
Bill Self: 7
John Calipari: 6
Tony Bennett: 6
Coach K: 3 (None since 2011)
Tom Izzo: 3
Bob Huggins: 3
Sean Miller: 2
Jay Wright: 2

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

I would certainly not say K has coached bad offenses. I think "ugly" is a reasonable opinion to have of his offenses in recent years, though. His offenses seem to have become more driven by helicopter parents of OADs, recruiting perception and weird, random loyalty to certain upperclassmen than by what would be most efficient for the team.

In 2015, he ran his offense through a player who is now considered 10-20 years out of his proper era in the NBA, OAD Jahlil Okafor, with something like 10x the post-up possession frequency of the best NBA offenses. Even more egregious, he was prepared to go the entire season playing Rasheed Sulaimon, with a 104 offensive rating, over Grayson Allen, who was a few months away from beginning one of the greatest offensive seasons in Duke history. He won the title game largely because Sulaimon and Okafor were unavailable to run his offense.

In 2014, OAD Jabari Parker had 32% usage. I could end it there, and that's insane enough for a program that's always loaded with talent. Parker did admirable work with such high usage, but his offensive rating was higher than only 3 players on that entire team. Those 3 Duke icons were Josh Hairston, Alex Murphy and a freshman Matt Jones.

In 2012, OAD Austin Rivers led the team in usage, admittedly at a non-atrocious 24%, but had the worst offensive rating on the team besides that guy whose place in Duke history is to make everyone else look better by comparison, Josh Hairston. Appropriately, Rivers' redeeming moment that season at UNC was a pure one-on-one iso possession with zero ball movement. This was the way K chose to go all season despite 5 other players on that team being good enough to earn NBA contracts, with 4 of them as juniors or seniors.

In 2017, it took 3-4 months for K to teach OAD Jayson Tatum what a good shot is and why that matters. Tatum's usage was hovering around 30% until K doing his job allowed everyone to see how good Tatum could be, for the final month or so of the season.

This hasn't been a pleasant stretch of Duke basketball to watch, and I think it's fair to question whether all of these offenses came anywhere close to reaching their potential.

 

[wtbball21]

I would certainly not say K has coached bad offenses. I think "ugly" is a reasonable opinion to have of his offenses in recent years, though. His offenses seem to have become more driven by helicopter parents of OADs, recruiting perception and weird, random loyalty to certain upperclassmen than by what would be most efficient for the team.

In 2015, he ran his offense through a player who is now considered 10-20 years out of his proper era in the NBA, OAD Jahlil Okafor, with something like 10x the post-up possession frequency of the best NBA offenses. Even more egregious, he was prepared to go the entire season playing Rasheed Sulaimon, with a 104 offensive rating, over Grayson Allen, who was a few months away from beginning one of the greatest offensive seasons in Duke history. He won the title game largely because Sulaimon and Okafor were unavailable to run his offense.

In 2014, OAD Jabari Parker had 32% usage. I could end it there, and that's insane enough for a program that's always loaded with talent. Parker did admirable work with such high usage, but his offensive rating was higher than only 3 players on that entire team. Those 3 Duke icons were Josh Hairston, Alex Murphy and a freshman Matt Jones.

In 2012, OAD Austin Rivers led the team in usage, admittedly at a non-atrocious 24%, but had the worst offensive rating on the team besides that guy whose place in Duke history is to make everyone else look better by comparison, Josh Hairston. Appropriately, Rivers' redeeming moment that season at UNC was a pure one-on-one iso possession with zero ball movement. This was the way K chose to go all season despite 5 other players on that team being good enough to earn NBA contracts, with 4 of them as juniors or seniors.

In 2017, it took 3-4 months for K to teach OAD Jayson Tatum what a good shot is and why that matters. Tatum's usage was hovering around 30% until K doing his job allowed everyone to see how good Tatum could be, for the final month or so of the season.

This hasn't been a pleasant stretch of Duke basketball to watch, and I think it's fair to question whether all of these offenses came anywhere close to reaching their potential.

I think that all comes down to you not liking the offense rather than it not being effective. The best players deserve the highest usage. In 2014, Parker and Hood deserved the lion share of the touches. The higher your usage the lower your efficiency is going to be. If Parker or whatever high usage player you want to bring up, only took wide open shots they'd have a higher rating but the offense would suffer. There is going to be a decent chunk of possessions during a game where you run something and the defense does a nice job and now you're under 10 on the shot clock and someone is going to have to take a difficult shot. Amile Jeffersons's efficiency was so high because they only went to him and super advantageous situations. If he were given the touches and looks that say a Jayson Tatum was given, he'd be a sub 100 offensive rating player.

My question to you would be, what offense would you like to see Duke run? What other team do you think runs a better offense than they do?

I think we would all love to see Spurs or Warriors style basketball, but I don't think it is possible to do that with 18-22 year old kids. They don't have the experience/IQ to read situations like that nor do they have the prerequisite ball handling, passing or shooting to accomplish it.

 

[rome8180]

I am pretty sure SMTTEM understands usage's inverse correlation to efficiency.

 

[wtbball21]

I am pretty sure SMTTEM understands usage's inverse correlation to efficiency.

Yeah, you're right. K is far from perfect. Just don't think you can realistically complain about the offense. You may not like it, but you can't argue it's effectiveness.

 

[StopThePumpFakesShav]

There has to be a better way to evaluate teams in the OAD analysis than titles vs. non-titles and purely OAD status. Frank Jackson wasn't any more of an OAD talent than Justin Jackson, other than the fact that Frank wanted to leave after one year. Titles, and NCAAT wins and losses in general are so random.

I would base the analysis on Kenpom overall rating, consensus recruit rankings, and seasons of experience. What do analytical basketball writers do in the summer? Someone like Luke Winn should have already baseball-ized college basketball recruiting with standard formulas to determine the best recruiting approach. There should be an assigned value for each recruit ranking slot like with NFL draft picks.

Yeah I agree with this. But would add that there of course needs to be qualitative judgment by staffs in how attractive the player's skill set would be for the next level. You really want to find the highest ranked players possible that have some sort of fatal flaw for NBA GMs if you're trying to get max value. A guy like Amile Jefferson (RCSI #25, limited athletically/below-the-rim player) or Joel Berry (RCSI #22, undersized) are absolutely perfect. Or if you want to go back a little further, Kyle Singler (RCSI #6, not athletic, white) is perhaps the best example.

On the flip side, while jump out of the gym athleticism combined with great size may be an unteachable trait that allows raw players to make the jump to the NBA earlier, it's not all that valuable for a college team to have players with those traits at ages 18-20 unless it's accompanied by well above average basketball skills. You don't really want to use a starting spot on a guy who's going to give you a sub 110 ORating for one or two years and then leave right before he learns how to actually play basketball.

 

[DurhamSon]

Frank Jackson and Luke Kennard were those "flawed" guys. I don't trust any player ranked in the top 30 to stay three years at Duke anymore unless they're absolute scrubs, which of course presents its own share of problems. So to me it's OADs vs sub-30 guys, at which point i'm not sure I trust the current staff to evaluate well enough

 

[StopThePumpFakesShav]

Frank Jackson and Luke Kennard were those "flawed" guys. I don't trust any player ranked in the top 30 to stay three years at Duke anymore unless they're absolute scrubs, which of course presents its own share of problems. So to me it's OADs vs sub-30 guys, at which point i'm not sure I trust the current staff to evaluate well enough

Allen did, Jefferson did. I don't think it's so black and white.

Hindsight is of course 20-20. I'd agree that Kennard was a guy everyone thought was a 3-4 year guy but I think Jackson was pretty clearly a 1-2 year guy. RCSI #14 with incredible athleticism and reasonably developed skills. I think we all assumed 2 years mostly because he was supposed to be the 7th man in the rotation or so and would be overshadowed by the other talent on that team, but he played plenty, especially in the second half of the year.

 

[DurhamSon]

It's also a narrative now that Allen made a mistake not leaving after his sophomore year. As for Jackson, he certainly had enough flaws evident after his freshman year such that it led him going in the 2nd round, even though they didn't stop him from leaving.

For every Amile and Cook it seems like K is winding up with a few Jeters (5*), Matt Jones'(4*, #34), Thorntons, Sulaimons, Boldens, Hairstons, etc And i'll have to see it before I believe it with O'Connell, Javin, types.

Maybe we get an Amile/Cook, or Ryan Kelly (forget Mason/Nolan/Singler staying four years in today's climate). Are we getting 3-4 of them concurrently? I wanted Caleb Swanigan so bad -- especially when we ended up with terrible Jeter instead -- and even he was a two year guy, only cause it's 2017 and not 2007.

As it stands I just think the odds are slightly better rolling the dice on talent than trying to build that upperclassman team of sub-5* guys when we've had so few it feels like that could be actual starters on a title team. Maybe it works 5 years ago when you could reliably keep anyone outside the top 15 for 3 years, whereas now it feels like literally every kid with five stars thinks they are OAD material and is willing to risk the second round to try. At that point I feel the OAD dice roll is better than K's talent evaluation skills of those sub-5* players.

And it has been beaten to death but i'd like to avoid comparisons to schools like UNC that have upperclassman that wouldn't be upperclassmen at Duke or UCLA or UK. Let's see how they truly do going forward with the sub-5* roster they'll finally have.

 

[SeanMayTriedToEatMe]

On the 2014 team, Parker and Hood probably did warrant heavy usage. However, Parker did not deserve 40% more usage than Hood. Think about that discrepancy (32% Parker vs. 23% Hood) and compare it to the hypothetical difference in potential efficiency, if they were given the same usage, between Parker and Hood. I'm not sure freshman Parker should have even been the first option over RS sophomore Hood.

Parker was great, but he wasn't LeBron (30% usage last season) compared to Hood's Channing Frye (19%) or something. K was letting Parker do whatever he wanted in that offense, and when the player is that good and the overall results are that good, you can get away with it.

I understand that higher usage leads to lower individual efficiency, and that younger players can't be expected to execute the highest level of offense. When you think along those lines, though, why would anyone believe an offense is best served with an 18-year-old taking on such a massive burden? The only OAD people would point to as a success story as a freshman who was given usage close to Parker's was Kevin Durant, and even Durant had lower usage than Parker (slightly). I can't rationalize giving any freshman a bigger role in the offense than Durant, but K did it.

Clearly, K was doing something right with that 2014 team, since they had the #1 offense in the country. I just wonder if they could have survived that first round game against the 14-seed if something had been done very differently, not just with the obviously terrible defense, but also with the elite offense that could have been significantly better still. One game doesn't tell the story, but Parker and Hood combined for 20 points on 24 shots and 5 assists to 7 turnovers against Mercer, while Quinn Cook had 23 points on 11 shots and 4 assists to 2 turnovers.

The 2014 offense is probably the hardest one to argue about being "ugly," since its results over the entire season were the best in the country. As for the other examples, I don't think I can ever be convinced that I should have enjoyed watching the Okafor offense, the Rivers offense or anything about the 2017 season, and the objective results were no better than what the usual top 2-5 talent level should be expected to produce.

To the question of which coach out there has run a smarter offense than K does these days, my personal answer is K in 2010. Offense driven by perimeter players who could all pass and shoot, and who all generally took good shots. Each of Nolan, Scheyer and Singler was between 23-24% usage. Bigs set picks, rolled to the rim, went for rebounds, finished around the rim. None of those guys have flourished in the NBA, yet K made it work so well on offense with that group. It wasn't the Warriors, but the basics were there - skilled perimeter players sharing possessions and minimizing turnovers, lots of PnR, bigs who focused on rebounds and layups, and close to zero post-ups. The irony is that 2010 took far fewer 3s than 2014, so K's greatest offensive creation - basically 2010 with more 3s - is still out there for him to achieve. The 2018 roster full of OADs who can't shoot is probably not the one to get there, unfortunately.

At the end of writing this post, I'm simply sad because it's not worth the effort to discuss Duke's defense to this same extent, since it's unrealistic for the defense to be good in any season now.

 

[torontoduke]

Frank Jackson and Luke Kennard were those "flawed" guys. I don't trust any player ranked in the top 30 to stay three years at Duke anymore unless they're absolute scrubs, which of course presents its own share of problems. So to me it's OADs vs sub-30 guys, at which point i'm not sure I trust the current staff to evaluate well enough

Allen did, Jefferson did. I don't think it's so black and white.

Hindsight is of course 20-20. I'd agree that Kennard was a guy everyone thought was a 3-4 year guy but I think Jackson was pretty clearly a 1-2 year guy. RCSI #14 with incredible athleticism and reasonably developed skills. I think we all assumed 2 years mostly because he was supposed to be the 7th man in the rotation or so and would be overshadowed by the other talent on that team, but he played plenty, especially in the second half of the year.

There was some criticism from fans that Frank did not see the floor enough, but I agree with your take.

I thought Frank would be at Duke for 2 years, mainly because all of the 'noise' about him was that he was interested in being a 2-year player in order to better showcase his talents in year two. Since Duke recruited Duval, and FJ's desire to be focused as a PG (add in an impressive showing at draft combine), I can understand his thinking in leaving after 1 year. Even w/o a 1st round slot, he seems to have made out alright.

He would have made Duke so much better in 17/18, but oh well.

 

[torontoduke]

It's also a narrative now that Allen made a mistake not leaving after his sophomore year. As for Jackson, he certainly had enough flaws evident after his freshman year such that it led him going in the 2nd round, even though they didn't stop him from leaving.

For every Amile and Cook it seems like K is winding up with a few Jeters (5*), Matt Jones'(4*, #34), Thorntons, Sulaimons, Boldens, Hairstons, etc And i'll have to see it before I believe it with O'Connell, Javin, types.

Maybe we get an Amile/Cook, or Ryan Kelly (forget Mason/Nolan/Singler staying four years in today's climate). Are we getting 3-4 of them concurrently? I wanted Caleb Swanigan so bad -- especially when we ended up with terrible Jeter instead -- and even he was a two year guy, only cause it's 2017 and not 2007.

As it stands I just think the odds are slightly better rolling the dice on talent than trying to build that upperclassman team of sub-5* guys when we've had so few it feels like that could be actual starters on a title team. Maybe it works 5 years ago when you could reliably keep anyone outside the top 15 for 3 years, whereas now it feels like literally every kid with five stars thinks they are OAD material and is willing to risk the second round to try. At that point I feel the OAD dice roll is better than K's talent evaluation skills of those sub-5* players.

And it has been beaten to death but i'd like to avoid comparisons to schools like UNC that have upperclassman that wouldn't be upperclassmen at Duke or UCLA or UK. Let's see how they truly do going forward with the sub-5* roster they'll finally have.

Believe in Javin. I am a belieber.

 

[StopThePumpFakesShav]

It's also a narrative now that Allen made a mistake not leaving after his sophomore year. As for Jackson, he certainly had enough flaws evident after his freshman year such that it led him going in the 2nd round, even though they didn't stop him from leaving.

For every Amile and Cook it seems like K is winding up with a few Jeters (5*), Matt Jones'(4*, #34), Thorntons, Sulaimons, Boldens, Hairstons, etc And i'll have to see it before I believe it with O'Connell, Javin, types.

Maybe we get an Amile/Cook, or Ryan Kelly (forget Mason/Nolan/Singler staying four years in today's climate). Are we getting 3-4 of them concurrently? I wanted Caleb Swanigan so bad -- especially when we ended up with terrible Jeter instead -- and even he was a two year guy, only cause it's 2017 and not 2007.

As it stands I just think the odds are slightly better rolling the dice on talent than trying to build that upperclassman team of sub-5* guys when we've had so few it feels like that could be actual starters on a title team. Maybe it works 5 years ago when you could reliably keep anyone outside the top 15 for 3 years, whereas now it feels like literally every kid with five stars thinks they are OAD material and is willing to risk the second round to try. At that point I feel the OAD dice roll is better than K's talent evaluation skills of those sub-5* players.

And it has been beaten to death but i'd like to avoid comparisons to schools like UNC that have upperclassman that wouldn't be upperclassmen at Duke or UCLA or UK. Let's see how they truly do going forward with the sub-5* roster they'll finally have.

I don't think the recent misses are cause enough to abandon the only chance at program stability. I also think we should continue to recruit great OADs like most of us do. Balance between the two approaches is I think what most people want. If we have a class of four guys, having two amazing OAD talents plus two guys ranked in the 20-40 range (that based on skill sets aren't huge threats to leave before their junior years), that's my ideal.

I agree UNC comparisons are dumb because they don't get OAD commits. I think the better current comparisons for my desired approach are Kansas and Arizona, but perhaps with slightly greater emphasis on OADs- those schools seem to often have one great OAD at a time rather than two.

 

[torontoduke]

IMO - I think there may be balance in OAD and long-term contributors (though not necessarily in the 20-40 player rankings range) with the 2017 class.

Need some long-term depth in the frontcourt in the upcoming 2018 class.