What if Duke played the Golden State Warriors?
March 9, 2019 4:02 PM Subscribe
What if Duke played the Golden State Warriors? What kid of score would be most probable or realistic?
My son asked me this question a minute ago (we're watching Duke / NC right now). Is there any precedent or other data that could give us an idea of what the score might look like? Obviously GSW would win, but by how much?
My son asked me this question a minute ago (we're watching Duke / NC right now). Is there any precedent or other data that could give us an idea of what the score might look like? Obviously GSW would win, but by how much?
Duke with or without Zion? Pro or college 3 point line?
I think it'd be an epic slaughter. Zion's main contribution is controlling the paint, which GSW doesn't really care about that much anyway. They'd rain threes all day and Duke's not a good enough shooting team to keep up. While K has gone deeper into his bench in Zion's absence, he'll historically only go 7 guys deep in a game, with the two guys coming off the bench not getting a whole lot of minutes. I think you'd be looking at something like an NBA all-star game score for GSW vs 90s for Duke, but that's pulling things out of thin air.
posted by LionIndex at 4:40 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
I think it'd be an epic slaughter. Zion's main contribution is controlling the paint, which GSW doesn't really care about that much anyway. They'd rain threes all day and Duke's not a good enough shooting team to keep up. While K has gone deeper into his bench in Zion's absence, he'll historically only go 7 guys deep in a game, with the two guys coming off the bench not getting a whole lot of minutes. I think you'd be looking at something like an NBA all-star game score for GSW vs 90s for Duke, but that's pulling things out of thin air.
posted by LionIndex at 4:40 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
Just in the current UNC game, we're more than 3/4 through the game, Duke has lost a starter to injury, two of their starters have not scored at all (including the injured guy), only 7 players have registered any time for Duke, and their scoring has heavily (more than 2/3) come from just two guys, and one of those guys is a foul away from exiting the game. GSW would eat them alive.
posted by LionIndex at 4:55 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by LionIndex at 4:55 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
This is kind of a nonsense question. Even your median late lottery pick ends up not being very good in the NBA. Duke or any college team would lose to the most dreadful NBA team by however many points the NBA team wanted to win. The quality gap between top and bottom in the NBA is going to be much much smaller than the gap between worst NBA and best college.
posted by JPD at 5:12 PM on March 9, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by JPD at 5:12 PM on March 9, 2019 [8 favorites]
Well, the Dubs have only lost 20 games against NBA teams, so they shouldn't have much trouble with a sub-NBA team. The question is, could Duke (with Zion, I'm assuming) beat a garbage NBA team like the Cavs or the Suns? Still seems unlikely, but it would be a lot closer than, say, Alabama-49ers in football. In basketball, you only need one guy to play out of his mind for 40 minutes to have a chance. And Zion is a guy who could do that.
Without Zion, though, Duke would get run off the court. RJ Barrett is good, but the overall talent level without Zion is G-League at best.
posted by kevinbelt at 5:20 PM on March 9, 2019
Without Zion, though, Duke would get run off the court. RJ Barrett is good, but the overall talent level without Zion is G-League at best.
posted by kevinbelt at 5:20 PM on March 9, 2019
Basketball is a much lower variance game than football so the chance of a fluke win is better for Bama than Duke.
posted by JPD at 5:23 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by JPD at 5:23 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
NBA rules, both teams healthy, both teams trying, dubs win 180-30.
posted by MillMan at 5:35 PM on March 9, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by MillMan at 5:35 PM on March 9, 2019 [4 favorites]
I think it would be kind of like the basketball Olympics, which means it could be closer than the answers above. The U.S. team is often up against teams with about 20% of its talent and experience. Sometimes it takes getting used to to play against vastly inferior competition. Puts you out of rhythm, so wide open shots don't fall. On the flip side, the adrenaline of going up against a vastly superior team can bring out superb concentration in the overmatched team.
In the Olympics, like when U.S.A. Basketball plays South Korea or something, it is often close until halftime, and then the lead opens up in the second half, as the sheer volume of steals, dunks, open shots, and easy baskets overwhelm the other equaling factors.
Like some of the other commenters mentioned, incentives matter. If GSW treated it like a meaningless exhibition game, it could be close. If they treated it like a playoff game, Duke wouldn't have a chance in hell. But why would they treat it like a playoff game?
posted by Buddy_Boy at 5:41 PM on March 9, 2019 [4 favorites]
In the Olympics, like when U.S.A. Basketball plays South Korea or something, it is often close until halftime, and then the lead opens up in the second half, as the sheer volume of steals, dunks, open shots, and easy baskets overwhelm the other equaling factors.
Like some of the other commenters mentioned, incentives matter. If GSW treated it like a meaningless exhibition game, it could be close. If they treated it like a playoff game, Duke wouldn't have a chance in hell. But why would they treat it like a playoff game?
posted by Buddy_Boy at 5:41 PM on March 9, 2019 [4 favorites]
This oral history of the Dream Team has a great anecdote about exactly this situation.
Training for the 1992 Olympics, an all-star, all-pro roster lost to a team of college stars, only to come back the following day and absolutely destroy them.
posted by Coffeemate at 7:17 PM on March 9, 2019 [6 favorites]
Training for the 1992 Olympics, an all-star, all-pro roster lost to a team of college stars, only to come back the following day and absolutely destroy them.
posted by Coffeemate at 7:17 PM on March 9, 2019 [6 favorites]
The Only Rule Is It Has To Work is about baseball, but it has a lot of discussion about the difference between pro and semi-pro players and teams.
posted by inkyz at 7:54 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by inkyz at 7:54 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
One NBA rookie remarked that the difference is that in the NBA everyone is as good or better that you. In the NBA you are one of 450-600 athletes drawn from all over the world (where men are tall enough). In college you are one of thousands of varying ability. I once heard that less than 1% of college players makes the pros.
So yes the Warriors would win, but probably take the Duke kids out to dinner.
posted by Cranberry at 1:02 AM on March 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
So yes the Warriors would win, but probably take the Duke kids out to dinner.
posted by Cranberry at 1:02 AM on March 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'm seconding the above that Dubs are sniffing 200 and Duke doesn't break 50, for the reasons explained by JPD. The Pelicans' bench would mop the floor with the best college team in history.
posted by saladin at 6:30 AM on March 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by saladin at 6:30 AM on March 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
The usual variant of this question is "legendarily good college team vs. basement dwelling pro-team" but the answer's still in the same order of magnitude.
For hoops, especially, this is not about some magic quality of being a pro, it's about there being ~3x as many top-tier D1 basketball programs as there are NBA teams, and NBA teams drawing from (let's call it) 8x the pool of potential players (considering age ranges at which basketball players can be in top form, and the fact that there are lots of non-NCAA developmental options for foreign players, but pretty much all the top foreign players will come play for the NBA given the chance). That means any given NBA teams should have 24x the concentration of player quality. It also means that, for want of a better way to think of it, NCAA teams' opponents are almost always going to have weak links that NBA teams' opponents almost never will. The strategy and tactics of NCAA play is going to be to exploit those gaps and it will leave them completely unprepared for NBA opposition.
When you play this mental exercise out for baseball and football you get some additional factors favoring the pros -- the returns on experience that tend to make the late 20s and early 30s the best years for lots of baseball players, and the returns on physical training that can lead someone simply to be much stronger at 25 than at 20 for a football player.
posted by MattD at 7:03 AM on March 10, 2019 [2 favorites]
For hoops, especially, this is not about some magic quality of being a pro, it's about there being ~3x as many top-tier D1 basketball programs as there are NBA teams, and NBA teams drawing from (let's call it) 8x the pool of potential players (considering age ranges at which basketball players can be in top form, and the fact that there are lots of non-NCAA developmental options for foreign players, but pretty much all the top foreign players will come play for the NBA given the chance). That means any given NBA teams should have 24x the concentration of player quality. It also means that, for want of a better way to think of it, NCAA teams' opponents are almost always going to have weak links that NBA teams' opponents almost never will. The strategy and tactics of NCAA play is going to be to exploit those gaps and it will leave them completely unprepared for NBA opposition.
When you play this mental exercise out for baseball and football you get some additional factors favoring the pros -- the returns on experience that tend to make the late 20s and early 30s the best years for lots of baseball players, and the returns on physical training that can lead someone simply to be much stronger at 25 than at 20 for a football player.
posted by MattD at 7:03 AM on March 10, 2019 [2 favorites]
Basketball is a much lower variance game than football so the chance of a fluke win is better for Bama than Duke.
I asked a kinda related question about the relationship between upsets and average total scores in a sport. The shared conclusion of yourself and the asker is exactly what I found: The high scores in basketball mean that the chance of an underdog winning is low.
That gives no insight into the asker's question about predicting the spread, though.
posted by clawsoon at 8:15 AM on March 10, 2019
I asked a kinda related question about the relationship between upsets and average total scores in a sport. The shared conclusion of yourself and the asker is exactly what I found: The high scores in basketball mean that the chance of an underdog winning is low.
That gives no insight into the asker's question about predicting the spread, though.
posted by clawsoon at 8:15 AM on March 10, 2019
A couple years ago there was a VERY popular question in basketball circles (in fact it's kind of a recurring question)-- whether Kentucky (then featuring Karl-Anthony Towns, Devin Booker, and friends) could beat the Sixers who were something like 0-10 to start the season. There were about a million articles written on this topic. To be honest I totally ignored this "debate", but there's a lot there (from experts, players, statisticians etc) if you want to explore.
posted by acidic at 10:18 AM on March 10, 2019
posted by acidic at 10:18 AM on March 10, 2019
Also, Duke lost to UNC.
posted by glonous keming at 10:23 AM on March 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by glonous keming at 10:23 AM on March 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
Twice!!
posted by JPD at 11:30 AM on March 10, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by JPD at 11:30 AM on March 10, 2019 [2 favorites]
The answer is the same as the perennial "What if 'Bama played an NFL team?" and the answer is the same. They would get demolished. And not even in a fun to watch way which is why you've never seen it.
posted by East14thTaco at 5:41 PM on March 10, 2019
posted by East14thTaco at 5:41 PM on March 10, 2019
Something that hasn't been highlighted yet is that the Duke players are young, and basketball players improve as they practice more, physically grow and mature into their mid-20s. Not only would a pro team kick the ass of Duke's team, a hypothetical reconstituted Duke team with all these same players but 5 to 7 years from now (assuming they all stay healthy and playing and training at the highest levels they can) would kick the ass of the current Duke team.
In the NBA last season, players 21 and under averaged 0.055 win shares per 48 minutes, while the average for players ages 25 is 0.112 win shares per 48, about double. (And this is biased in favour of the younger players, because only the very best players 21 and under actually make it to the NBA; a 25 year old is about twice as likely to be in the NBA as a 20 year old). This 2:1 gap in win shares is similar to the gap between the best teams and the worst teams in the NBA; so the score between this Duke roster in 2019 and the same roster in 2025 is going to be about the same as the score between a game between the GSW and, say, the Cavaliers this season -- if both teams were trying to win.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 10:13 AM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
In the NBA last season, players 21 and under averaged 0.055 win shares per 48 minutes, while the average for players ages 25 is 0.112 win shares per 48, about double. (And this is biased in favour of the younger players, because only the very best players 21 and under actually make it to the NBA; a 25 year old is about twice as likely to be in the NBA as a 20 year old). This 2:1 gap in win shares is similar to the gap between the best teams and the worst teams in the NBA; so the score between this Duke roster in 2019 and the same roster in 2025 is going to be about the same as the score between a game between the GSW and, say, the Cavaliers this season -- if both teams were trying to win.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 10:13 AM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Earthtopus at 4:37 PM on March 9, 2019 [1 favorite]