It's not really smart to argue that placement in a series is the determining factor in the delta between placements. For example, take the following series of numbers:
- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- 1, 4, 9, 16, 25
- 1, 8, 27, 64, 125
- 1, 16, 91, 256, 625
Would you say that 16 is about equal to 2 and about equal to 1? You might, but smart people wouldn't because they'd look to the value those rankings encapsulate rather than the raw rankings themselves.
You've already gone so far as to say Duke had the #2 recruiting class in 2011, so why not just say that Duke got Austin Rivers (5*, top 5 consensus) and four 4* players (none ranked higher than 28)? Is that much different than UK's class with four 5*s, including top 10 guys AD, MKG, and Teague? Yes. Yes it is. 2018 was similar but reversed: Duke had 3 top 5 guys among their 5 commitments (four 5*s); UK feasted on guys ranked 9-22. Those are meaningfully different, and much more than your shallow "analysis" would suggest. And it's not exactly controversial to say that AD/MKG/Teague/Wiltjer >> Austin "My Dad Promised Me $40m" Rivers and crew, or that Zion/RJ/Reddish/Jones >> EJ/Hagans/KJ/IQ, Duke's 2019 NCAA Tournament struggles notwithstanding (really Duke disappointed more last year with a loaded frontcourt and Grayson than this year w/out upperclassmen shooting/support; AD's team needed Lamb).