🏀 KuBuckets Archive

There are days and events that are important in every walk of life. For Christianity, it was certainly the birth of Jesus. For the United States, it might have been the signing of the Constitution. For mankind, maybe it was Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, or perhaps the defeat of Nazi Germany. For some folks, it could be the release of a new Star Wars movie. For others, it might just be a new pair of pants.

T0day is a day for a large contingent of KU basketball fans to bask in the warmth of beautiful affirmation. Its a day to mark on your calendars.

Today, December 18, 2015, Bill Self blessed many that post at kubuckets.com with some stunning words. Here are the wonderful and glorious words:

Bill Self - "I do think we need to shoot a higher percentage of threes. I do think we need to play to our strength, which is shooting the basketball."

Bill Self - "Last year, we kept trying to force it to become something we probably weren't."

I apologize if I don't ooze with humility at the moment. But may I ask a very simple question:

Isn't this exactly the foundation of everything I (and others) have been suggesting since the beginning of the 2014-15 season?

I feel at peace.

@KUSTEVE Personally, I think Traylor has played over Mick because Self has held out this false hope that Perry will be a back to the basket scorer. Thus Mick up top didn't make a lot of sense. Even last week Self was referring to Ellis needing to play bigger -- as if it is magically going to happen. Self knows better.

Another interesting item -- two falls ago, Self specifically said that Mick and Ellis did not match up well together on the floor because they were a lot alike, and he referenced needing a physical presence to pair with Ellis (presumably a nice way of referring to Ellis relative softness).

I think that prejudgment prejudiced Self's view of Mick last season.

Further, I think Self obsesses on certain details. The paralysis by analysis. Overthinking some things while ignoring the "net" contribution. That could have doomed Mick early because there might have been some "micro" item that Self just really didn't like.

@jaybate-1.0's "peculiar" theory is as good as any.

@KUSTEVE -- @jaybate-1.0 is always on to something. Like the chess master thinking 46 moves ahead.

The comments regarding Withey not being a sure thing bring back some memories there -- good point. The parallels between the two are certainly striking. Personally, I think if Mick did get 15-18 per game, and Self committed to him, we'd have a very fine rotation player that seems to meld well with the strengths and needs of this team.

The "easy button" thing seems way obvious here.

I would toss this in regarding Mickelson, his field goal percentage at the rim this season at the rim is 75%, which is consistent with his at the rim percentage of 70% last season., and which is consistent with this field goal percentage at the rim his sophomore season at Arkansas -- three season at 70% or more. Seems to be another positive element. His freshman season he was at 59%.

Finally, I think that the production over a full season is a valid question. But the times he's played more minutes, and his time against better opponents, doesn't seem contrary to our current evidence. Further, the WUGs performance provided the informational foundation to what we're seeing now.

Again, seems like a perfect fit in our post rotation.

Mickelson's performance the other night against Oregon St. got me thinking about rim protection. One of the complaints that many had last season was that Kansas lacked a rim protector. The argument was made that our defense functioned better with someone on the back line of the defense to defend the rim, and make up for defensive lapses. In 2014-15, we were sorely lacking in that department, and I believe it greatly impacted our performance in certain games.

That got me looking at Jeff Withey's stats and comparing him to Mickelson. Somewhat similar players -- Self called Mickelson a "poor man's Jeff Withey" or something like that. But is Mick really a couple notches below Withey, as that statement might imply?

Hunter Mickelson has started the last two games and by and large, he has not disappointed. Mickelson was favored by Self for a good deal of the second half against Oregon St. -- a half which Self called our best half of basketball this season.

Here's how they match-up during their careers at Kansas, understanding the difference in sample size. The non-percentage stats are per 40 minutes of play:

1. Field Goal %: Mick 52.8 Withey 58.2
2. Free Throw %: Mick 85% Withey 72.6%
3. Points: Mick 13.2 Withey 16.2
4. Rebounds: Mick 10.3 Withey 10.8
5. Assists: Mick 1.3 Withey 1.2
6. Steals: Mick 2.4 Withey 1.0
7. Blocks: Mick 5.8 Withey 5.4
8. Turnovers: Mick 2.2 Withey 2.4

What stood out to me in Mick's favor were blocks and steals. I never would have thought that Mickelson would have been near Withey in blocks, let alone having more blocks per minute than Withey -- edging Withey 5.8 to 5.4. Mickelson's average block rate squares with his block rate this season of 5.9.

The big margin was on steals. Mickelson has averaged nearly 1.5 more steals per game than Withey, which essentially ends and creates a possession. When comparing rebounds, which either end a possession for the opponent or continue a possession for the offense, and steals, Mickelson "nets" out better than Withey when combining those two stats. Withey obviously scored a bit more than Mick, which is an important consideration. But when I look at this Kansas team, it is the rim protection element that stands out to me -- and what Mick can offer in that regard.

I'm not suggesting that Mick is a player on the level of Jeff Withey. Give me a choice right now, and I'd take Withey without hesitation. The eye test would also tell me that Withey is the better rim protector. But Mick is in the ballpark, which the numbers support. And style of play? Might Mick be a bit more suited to a team -- this team -- that pushes the pace? I'd think so.

Withey's Player Efficiency Rating (PER) at Kansas was 26.0 to Mick's very solid 23.0. Withey's was over a much larger body of work minutes-wise, of course, which adds to its validity. Mick's PER and stats, though, have been very constant at Kansas and have not dropped off when he gets more minutes.

Withey was/is, of course, more of a true center. The other edge to that sword is that Mick is much more effective away from the rim offensively, as evidenced by the sweet step back jumper the other night. Mick has a different offensive package that Withey. Mick is also more mobile, both guarding on the perimeter and running the floor, and he clearly has a knack for the steal (and creating some possessions along the way). And surprisingly, as note above, Mick offers a block rate just a bit better than Jeff Withey.

There is a gap to be bridged to Cheick Diallo. If someone were to say to you that you could have Jeff Withey standing on the back line of this defense, alternating with Cheick Diallo, what would you say? Well you might just have that in Mickelson. For 30 minutes per game? Nah, let's not get carried away. But 15-18? That might be more like it. And with Diallo likely getting better with every minute he's on the floor, that will likely be all that we need.

A valid question that has been asked is, "how is this team any different than Kansas' 2014-15 version?" A big part of that might be Diallo and Mickeson manning the back line for Kansas. Something we certainly didn't have last season.

@REHawk Right, I like Fran, but how many times did he say that players couldn't redshirt in the Ivy league?

@jaybate-1.0 You said, "I like Bragg finally."

My only question is, affectionately of course, what took you so long? We're a big tent so all are welcome.

I think the two things I appreciate most about Bragg are his nose for the ball and his overall skill set. As he gets more comfortable, the skills will continue to show through. A guy like this that plays hard with a top shelf skill package -- seems like a player Self might have a hard time keeping on the bench.

Like Diallo, the more he plays, the more he'll improve.

And you are damn right. Diallo and Bragg make a national title a very real possibility.

@jaybate-1.0 Right. When you look at Wesley's game, it reminds you that skill is actually required. Lots of guys that look the part.

The worst walk-on to play a significant role for Kansas basketball in at least in the last 30 years, but a walk-on that was absolutely crucial to bridging minutes gaps during an incredible season: Justin Wesley.

As a note, there haven't been a lot of walk-ons to play -- but the gold standard (Clint Normore) creates a high bar. God bless that top of the key three.

@REHawk One man's heresy is another man's logic ... you're just following the trend lines. I do suspect Ellis will be a 25 min guy, though. But what's nice is that Bragg is so obviously ready that we have great flexibility. Self has put him on the low block a number of times.

@ralster Right, TRob and Perry are much different players -- much like that Sleep Number bed. But I really like the way Perry fits in with what we're running now, particularly since he can stretch the floor. An alternative way to beat opposing post players. Something TRob couldn't really do, and didn't really need to do.

@ralster @ParisHawk As I look at our perimeter now, our depth is the asset vs. '08. I think this '15-16 group are better scorers, better shooters, more versatility, and more ability to match up vs. varying opponents. Matching top 4 vs. top 4, that's the issue. '08 has an advantage with three ball handlers, and Rush and Robinson as plus defenders (with Robinson being 6'3" ). This season, we have five guys, realistically, that could shoot 38% or better from three. In 2008, Collins was ok, and Robinson of course wasn't much of a shooter or scorer. I would also say that Mason and Graham are strong assist to turnover. Turnovers don't bother me a lot though when playing aggressive, and with pace, because you might lose 6-8 seconds on the clock and you've really lost nothing (you've just failed to gain). That was strength of 2008 -- pace and easy baskets (lobs -- they were the original lob city).

I'd say our perimeter group this season is more explosive offensively. Defensively? Advantage 2008.

Top 4 vs. Top 4? Our group has to prove it.

Edit** I said above Robinson was 6'3" ... he was 6'1"

@drgnslayr We're about 5% better at the rim this season than last. That despite Ellis being just over 3% worse at the rim this season than last, around 56% (far below all of the other post players). Ellis really is the main culprit. Selden is improved by about 6%, fyi. Gotta finish near the rim.

We clearly pass the eye test -- but the subject of "if" raises it's head. "If" we continue to play offense the way we've been playing it -- the style of offense; and "if" Self doesn't shut that down and move to what he did at the end of last season or require "pound it inside"; and "if" Self sticks with the primary post minutes (75ish of 80) going to Mick/Ellis/Bragg and adding in Diallo -- then yes, no doubt, this is a national championship team.

But you probably knew that was exactly what I'd say.

Our perimeter group is terrific. Best as a group we've ever had at Kansas. Ever.

Agree on Xavier. I saw them beat USC (DVR'd it .. fast forwarded through a little bit of it though). Looked pretty good to me. But I've heard analysts talking about them as a top 5 type team.

@benshawks08 Never too late to come back to this topic. Good points … If Self sticks with this style of play, and continues to play Mick/Ellis/Bragg and gets Diallo up to 20 minutes, I definitely am fine with what we have this season. My bigger question is whether Self would be playing Davis regardless of his skill set. Lots of unknowns. But right now, if I had to make the choice, I'd take Davis. That said, if Diallo were to stay two seasons, and I knew that now, I'd take Diallo. Further, if we win a NC this season, of course, I'd stick with Diallo.

@BeddieKU23 He is the one that got away -- it appeared to me that paired with Bragg, that would have provided perfect 1-2 punch in the post. But like you and others, I do like what we have and I'm very content (assuming Mick/Ellis/Bragg/Diallo are the main minutes guys).

People who would have loved to have seen Montana.
!Sam Neill.jpg ↗

@globaljaybird Correct ... the 46.8% was from his junior season. Thanks

If Selden shoots 5.5 threes over his next 20 games (which is his current rate) and shoots 41% on those attempts, his total season percentage after 29 games would be 46.8%. That just happens to be the exact percentage Mario Chalmers shot his senior seasons. That might be coming back to earth, but coming back to earth would have a very soft landing. Seems plausible. On the other hand, for player shooting over 100 threes in a season, that's about as good as it has been on 3s since Self took over.

@jaybate-1.0 With both Selden and Mason, I recall Townsend as being the one working with both of them between their freshmen and sophomore seasons. Selden getting his shot off the front/top of his head, that pull back thing; and with Mason getting the ball off the palm of his hand hand and into his fingertips more. With Selden, the change from year 1 to 2 was obvious from a form perspective. The benefits are showing now and showed last season, as well. With Mason, I recall seeing some photos of him shooting last season and the ball still seemed to be on the palm of the hand. Not sure it matters since his shooting really did improve. My recollection is Townsend.

@ralster - Yea, I was kind of wondering how Greene's demeanor was in the locker room. He does allow blow bys. The thing that seemed noticeable was that Self subbed Greene in before Svi last night. And obviously, as @jaybate-1.0 pointed out, they didn't even play in the second half.

You point out exactly what freaks Self out -- the blow by that lead to a foul by a teammate. If there's one thing (other than getting the ball stolen right in front of the bench) that freaks Self out, it's that. And Greene did that. Self just last week made mention again of Greene's lack of defense. Greene seems to be moving fine now. Laterally, though, he's a "putty stepper" -- meaning, his ball side foot seems like it's stuck in putty when the offensive player makes a move around him. I've heard it called many things, none good. This was really an issue for Andrew White, too, for example, in a way -- he had heavy feet.

@jaybate-1.0 noted that they shot 16 threes, referencing the rate before "everyone got hurt" last season. That's right. The delineation I recall is that we were 21-4, and were shooting over 17 per game. Then, our attack changed. I recall this stat like the back of my hand. We shot 11.5 thereafter through the ISU game in the Big 12 tourney.

But one thing I think is really important is why we were clamoring for more three pointers -- because the balance of our attack was stagnant. Remember, we looked really bad trying to feed the ball inside -- both in man situations and zone (remember the first Baylor game). This season, not so much. Personally, I'm completely content with our three point rate right now given the way the balance of our offense has looked.

@BeddieKU23 Yea, I bet Self had that famous energy discussion .. sounds like it from the post game. We kid about energy. Whether it's energy, playing with urgency, taking the floor with a purpose, or giving concentrated effort (my preference in terminology), it's all the same. And it's important.

I'm glad you and @Hawk8086 pointed out Mickelson -- and please Mick, don't shoot threes. Step back 16 footers on the baseline? Sure. Just not three pointers. Anyway, I was very encouraged by Self's comment after the game that he felt the "core" players that played the second half played great. And Mick was one of those.

@lulufulu I'm going to rematch after the Chiefs game. I'm kind of interested in the first half, too. Self said after the game that the game was the best and worst of Kansas. First half must have been the worst. Still interesting parallels to the Utah games last season. Kind of in a mirror, where it was best/worst, just reversed by half. I noticed Self did have his watch back on in the second half, though. But that second half run was epic. It just fits our team so perfectly.

@AsadZ You (and @jaybate-1.0) are right, it's not sustainable. But did you see Self's quote last night? He referenced the 2012 season and that they played seven guys at most. Clearly, that group was different, though. And he did play an eighth (Justin Wesley) quite regularly. On that team, we bulls inside. This team is more fluid. And on the perimeter, we have many more options. Greene and Svi will continue to be in the mix, I'm quite sure. Last night was a game situation where that core group -- Graham, Mason, Selden, Ellis, Mick, and Bragg -- just played great. I'm sorry I say this too much, but we have the best collection of perimeter players in the country. Five of them can all get good minutes. Vick, however, is the odd man out right now (injury or suspension notwithstanding). I understand your point to have another guy ready. I just question 1) is Vick even capable of PG duty, and 2) whether Self would go that route, or would simply use Svi or Selden in that role to spell the healthy PG in your scenario.

@DinarHawk This is absolutely the way this team can get to the final four. Terrific basketball. Like @KUSTEVE said, not just running a Creighton like offense (really living and dying by the three), but shooting a good rate with other options. And .. think about this .. we could still have a developing post feed game. Two guys, Bragg and Diallo, provide that potential upside as the season progresses. No, we won't have a good post feed game. But maybe a number of times a game in the right situation. And the way Bragg can feed from the top, that can give us that option too (Bragg just needs to dial it back just a touch on trying to thread the needle, but a he's a terrific passer).

Bragg has a little point forward in him.

@KUSTEVE said "I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being as good as we could be by the end of the year. Play that 2nd half a full game, stop blowing big leads, and we’re national champions. It’s all right there for us." Bookmark this page. He's dead-on right. We've got more upside.

@wrwlumpy Saw your post below, so did a quick edit to add this -- do your remember after Fran Fraschilla visited a couple KU practices, he said Bragg was more advanced. @jaybate-1.0 called Diallo "sushi" -- maybe seared at least. As you said, we have some upcoming games to continue to mold our final post piece.

@IlBastardo @bwag @ralster @tundrahok @AsadZ Thanks for your posts .. VERY much appreciated.

@jaybate-1.0 -- you are right, you can't overvalue coming from behind. The calmness and confidence that can create mentally for a player. That then puts them in a better position to simply play the game. As @ralster mentioned, decision-making. If a player mentally is not distracted by the big picture (the score, being behind), all that can flow much more easily. A freer mind = a better player. I agree, this comeback was important that way. We withstood a team that played very well in the first half, when we weren't playing well. We did the same a bit in the first half against Vanderbilt. And, of course, uh, Harvard (but let's forget that one). Frank was the engine, as you pointed out -- the will to win. I am confident we can bank on that, night in, and night out, from that guy. Truly our most important player.

But Wayne Selden? Wayne freaking Selden. I still am amazed by the complete transformation in his jump shot from year one. Coach Self should show video of Wayne then and now to recruits. Just give it a little time.

Has Self made a deal with the devil? Has he met on common ground with the evil that is outside shooting, and the perceived negatives that flow with actually making shots?

Perhaps. It might just be a tentative deal. One that hinges largely on our continued ability to score in the paint -- without the luxury of the conventional post feed and resulting back to the basket hoop. Self, in his post game tonight, said that the second half against OSU was the best we've played this season.

Whoa.

@DoubleDD posted a thread today about Fool's Gold. Interesting timing. The game today was at the same point in time as the Utah game last season, and both at the Sprint Center. The Utah game was really the Fool's Gold game, not Texas Tech (which is the more famous one).

At halftime of the Utah game, we led 39-21. In that game, we were 5-8 from three in the first half, we destroyed Utah with our shooting ability, and were 12-20 from the field. During a half time interview, Self singled out Perry Ellis using the Fool's Gold phrase. He was clearly disturbed with our inability to score inside. He was ticked off and we were up by 18. Very importantly, he was ticked off even though we had played great defense, and had only given up just 21 points. After half, we were just 1-3 from three point range. It was obvious the three point shooting was scrapped. We continued, possession after possession to try to jam it inside. In the second half we were 6-23 on field goals. Of course, Utah came back, tied up the game, and we nearly lost. Utah outscored 39-24 in the second half. For the game against Utah, we scored just 10 points in the paint.

The Utah game highlighted Bill Self's post feed focus. Suffice it say that we weren't then, and we aren't now, a team that could/will score reliably on the conventional post feed.

Ah, but tonight was different. Has Bill Self accepted this style of play?

Well, what did Kansas do after halftime? We shot the ball more. We shot more three pointers. We played a style of play that matched our talents. We found ways to score in the paint without back to the basket scoring. Self permitted his "best shooting team" to blow the doors off of Oregon St. by doing what it does best -- shoot the ball AND play fast.

All with Self's apparent blessing.

The best moves made by Self coming into the season were moving Selden to the three and starting Graham. This has clearly done what Self envisioned. We move the ball well, we create off the dribble, we get the ball up and down the floor, and we play with that ever important pace.

In our second half run, here's how we took it to Oregon St: Mickelson got it going with a fall away jumper. Next, Mason hit a two point jumper. Mick hit an 18 footer. Mason scored on a drive, then Graham on drive. The two drives were done quickly when very little shot clock had expired. Then DG hit a 17 footer and Selden scored on a fast break. And what do you know, the game was tied at 48. More to follow -- Ellis hit an a 18 footer, and then Mick fed Ellis, inside/out, for an open three pointer. Self tossed in some pressure, and DG got a steal and an easy layup. Kansas is up 55-50.

That is your 2015-16 Kansas Jayhawks. And Bill Self just said that the second half against Oregon State was the best we played this season.

Pace, shooting, and playing to our strengths. Some excellent pressure, some terrific and disruptive defense. And nary a back to the basket hoop to be found. We can score in the high/low, post to post, every so often. Ellis can and will get baskets inside as the season progress. But we got our points in the paint -- the necessary easy baskets -- by attacking and playing the game on the run. Transition points. Good ball movement inside. This time, Kansas was able to get into the paint for 34 points based mainly on an attacking style, and playing the game at a high pace (compare to 10 points in the pace against Utah last season).

Our defense helped create our offense. This can't be overlooked. Self has to love that.

With that, our coach didn't shut down our outside game tonight. He didn't look to the post feed to bail us out. He accepted our maturing identity. No, not with a warm hug. But more like a firm handshake. It appears that we have a tentative deal. Could it unravel? Sure. But it's looking good right now.

Whatever it is, we see what we've been discussing -- play to your team's strengths. That's what we saw tonight. The "best shooting team" shot the ball, but a team that can drive the ball and attack, did just that. And it disrupted our opponent defensively.

In the off season, some asked for changes. I was focused on tweaks. Tonight we saw a game nearly opposite in many respects than the Utah game last season. The biggest opposite was the approach of our coach.

Is the post feed dead? It's too early to make that call. But we're trending strongly in the right direction. Regardless, the good old high/low can work. We can score inside/out as we demonstrated tonight. We can of course shoot the ball and shoot it well. And we can attack and create baskets in the paint to get easy baskets, to provide the balance that Self desires (and requires). This team can also play some pretty disruptive defense.

My friends, does this team have an identity that is beginning to solidify?

@JayHawkFanToo You said, "For example, do you know who are the leading rebounder on the team? Well… the leading rebounder is Lucas with 6.5 RPG in 15.2 mpg, Perry is second with 5.5 RPG in 25.5 mpg. Now, do you know ho the third leading rebounder is? Would it surprise you to know that, Traylor, the player that you think should not be even playing division I basketball is the third leading rebounder on the team with 4.7 RPG in 17.7 mpg? Of course you would never mention this because it does not fit your narrative…and we all know that you are always right and the rest of us are always wrong…oh well."

This is what we need as far as facts and stats. It's discussion. It's supporting your thoughts.

So you know, you are looking rebounds per game. Rebounds per minute, or per forty minutes, shows you the productivity. Prior to OSU, in order, it was Lucas, Diallo, Bragg, Traylor, Mickelson, Ellis, in that order, fyi.

Again, though, going to the stats as you have done can be used to prove my position wrong. I would very much encourage that.

I also hope you don't think that because I disagree with you that I "hate" you. Have a good evening.

@wissoxfan83 To answer your specific question, no, I do not. And I have addressed this topic before from folks that assume because someone criticizes, that they want someone fired. I said the following after MSU game when there was suggestion that he be fired or resign: "Regarding coach Self, though, think of coach Self as your brother. He’s one of us. He’s ours. We’re his. We’re in this together. if you truly think he should be fired, that’s fine. But I’d ask that given everything that you know and what he’s done for this program, is that what you would do if you could make the choice? My personal view is that the discussion points are focused on “how can we improve.” “We” includes Self."

My scoring system has nothing to do with the regular season. The information I provided, as stated in the post, is related solely to performance in the NCAA tournament. It made no comment on the regular season.

My personal view is that the 1997 regular season was amazing. But the massive failure by perhaps the best KU team cast an inescapable pall over the entire season. It was perhaps the most painful loss I can remember as a KU fan. The loss to Maryland in '02, loss to Syracuse in '03, and loss to VCU in '11 were in that ballpark for me. I do not look back fondly on the 1997 season because we didn't achieve what that team appeared destined to achieve. It was, again, a massive failure in my book. That made the fall even harder. It's also why 2012, 1991, and 1993 seasons might be less painful as far as FF losses. I look back very fondly on the 2012 season -- incredible.

@DoubleDD Uh oh. Those troublesome stats and numbers again ..

The question asked by @dylans and @benshawks08 is a great furtherance of the discussion.

First, regarding Duke, @benshawks08 is right on. Duke is (-11). With that, the positive is an extra NC in that time period. Coach K is exactly with Self -- 4 seasons of "+" or break even performances, and 8 are below "-" seeding line. I would be real interesting to see how teams that are elite or have won NCs in the last 12 seasons have done relatively speaking.

Second, @dylans' point about the seeding process is probably a good one too. Kansas has maybe been over seeded a couple of times and I don't think they have ever been under seeded. The Wiggins team probably should have been a #4 seed w/o Embiid. But no way we should have lost to Stanford. I can't think of another time we've been over seeded though?

I also think that our conference has been overrated a bit, which could lead to minor over seeding. But hard to tell.

@SoftballDad2011 My comment leading into my post was more meant to ready one, with a little levity, for what they were about to read -- thus the red pill reference. When you say "lol" that indicates to me that you don't view the comment seriously. It makes you laugh. @doubleDD was correct. The "like usual" portion is correct for the last three seasons. And you missed Connecticut. They've been to the title game three times since '03, winning all three.

Regarding folks that disagree with me, I usually use statistics, citation to game performance, and relevant information. Rarely do I resort to personal stuff (though I have a few times -- I think I said someone was acting like a teenage girl once at least). Heck, I went through 16 possessions to show why a player really didn't play as good as the coach claims, and some folks will angrily respond as if I'm lying. And it builds up. The more I respond, the more they get riled up and defensive. That's why I made my post this week after the Holy Cross game and avoided posting on my own thread. I do that sometimes to just read what folks say. It's easier to digest opinions without thinking about responding. It's truly how I open my mind.

What has ever given you the impression that I am not open minded and willing to change my opinion? Recently, I have made a complete 180 on Wayne Selden. I wanted him taken out of the starting lineup. After his WUG game performance, my mind changed. Why? The dude performed. On Mickelson, it has taken me a while to get on that bandwagon.

"No rank Frank" is my favorite player. Who would have thought that? I never thought Kevin Young would never be a viable starter. Wrong and wrong. Meaning I was wrong.

The problem for some is that my opinion has not changed on Traylor or Lucas. The reason why it has not changed is because I'm right -- to this point. Lucas' rebounding is making an impression. But my mind is open. When I'm convinced either player should be more than the 5th or 6th rotation big, I'll be more than happy to voice that opinion.

Further, I would think that my comments on offense and the need to adapt to one's talent would evidence the ultimate in flexibility. But I guess espousing the opinion of flexibility demonstrates rigidity. I don't know.

Here's the thing -- I won't back off when I think I'm right. That always offends people, on every topic. When someone shows me that I'm wrong, God bless them. I'll be more than happy to concede.

And @wissoxfan83 goes where some regularly go. I'm a critic. I like to analyze the issues. If I go to the actual game video, look possession by possession, and show why Bill Self is full of hot air, that doesn't mean I hate him or want him fired. That doesn't mean I don't like someone, or that I want them fired. In fact, I've posted the opposite many times. I responded pretty firmly recently when that topic came up.

One poster made a big point this week of claiming I "hate" in bold Bill Self and two players on this team. He suggested instead of posting, I should just post that I "hate" them and move on.

He doesn't get it. That may be the way his mind works, but I can disagree, criticize, and analyze without hating someone, wanting them off the team, or wanting them fired. Again, this stuff always puzzles me. That poster lacks all objectivity because he does not feel like he has the knowledge to criticize or second guess Bill Self. Quite the opposite, I do feel that I have the knowledge to criticize Bill Self. That bothers him -- and it bothers him that he can't refute me with much more that "Bill Self says so."

The fact is, if folks care to pay attention, I literally agree with Bill Self on most everything. 90% might be conservative.

I presented factual information above that cannot be refuted. The information, however, can be compared for context, as @benshawks08 and @dylans have suggested. That's a "discussion" in my humble opinion.

@jaybate-1.0 Question - your composite 3 reference confused me in the other thread a bit. Your composite 5 reference, I thought, meant the "5" … meaning the 5 spot. Are you referring to the spot, or the number of players?

If you are referring to the number of players, are you counting five non-Perry Ellis guys, -- Lucas, "______", Bragg, Mick and Diallo as your composite 5? Or if it's by position, how do you determine who is playing what position?

@DoubleDD - You know, the funny thing with Coach Self is that at times he appears to completely disregard the statistics -- I say "at times", because, in his heart of hearts, his favored scheme really is the best formula to win by the stats. The two point shot near the basket has proven to be the best formula in the college game, IF (and very big IF) you can score reliably at the rim.

And that was the disconnect last season. It does not appear to be the disconnect this season. It seems Self is uncomfortably comfortable with our three point shooting right now. It's interesting you bring up Fool's Gold today, because he first pulled it our last season at halftime of the Utah game -- at Sprint Center, this same weekend.

@SoftballDad2011 I'm unsure why you "lol". Please read below with an open mind. Your opinion might change. First, take the red pill.

In the last three seasons, we have underachieved in the tournament by a total of 6 spots. "Chalk" for a 1 seed is the final four; for a 2 seed, it's the elite 8; for 3/4 seed, it's the sweet 16.

In 2013 as a 1 seed, we were eliminated in the sweet 16 (that's -2); in 2014 as 2 seed in the second round (that's -2); and in 2015, as a 2 seed, same result, eliminated in the second round (that's -2). They now call the second round the third round, but same difference. As a 2 seed in the last two seasons we haven't made it out of the first weekend.

In Bill Self's 12 season at Kansas, he has met or exceeded his seed line just four times -- this is red pill stuff guys -- just four times in 12 seasons.

In 2004, KU got to the Elite Eight as a 4 seed (+1); in 2008 as a 1 seed we won the national championship (that's a +2 -- getting to the NC game is +1, and winning it, which is similar to advancing, is another +1); in 2009 as a 3 seed we got to the Sweet 16, which was chalk; in 2012, we got to the NC game as a 2 seed (+1).

Other seasons -- seed/elimination round (+/-): 2005 3/First Round (-2); 2006 4/First Round (-2); 2007 1/Elite Eight (-1); 2010 1/2nd round (-3); 2011 1/Elite Eight (-1).

The total for Bill Self in 12 NCAA tournaments is a net (-10). That is reality. You can try to explain it away, give excuses, but that his what it is when simply looking at NCAA tournament success.

So in 12 NCAA tournaments, we have underachieved our seed line 8 times.

That discussion is only related to performance in the NCAA tournament. Of course, you've got to get there. Self has gotten us there every season. Of course, to get a high seed you have to win. Self has won. So with that, Self may be a victim, to a degree, of his own success. If we hadn't won so much in the regular season, we wouldn't have had such a high seed line.

So, I looked at that. If we reduced our seed line each season by one … meaning if we were a 1 seed, I assumed us as a 2 seed; and if we were a 2 seed, then I assumed us being a 3 seed -- Bill Self's net would still be a (-2). And really, the NCAA analysis is just related to that performance (this in contrast to Bill Self in the regular season, where he might be the best regular season coach in the NCAAs).

Some folks really like the eye test. I do to. Monumental NCAA tourney failures were 2010 and 2011. A big failure was 2013. All three seasons were potential NC teams, with 2011 being the one that really got away in my book. The last two seasons weren't as epic, I don't think. Just bad.

A national championship this season makes all of this, really, irrelevant -- at least for a few seasons.

@ajvan @drgnslayr - In a tweet earlier this week, someone responded to Jesse's article on the minutes distribution and said Jesse was ridiculous for thinking this effected recruiting; Jesse responded and said he wouldn't have said if he didn't talk to folks that were in the know. In this recruiting culture now, where Schnider Herard, for goodness sake, will demand playing time his first year, this is just a given.

@Statmachine completely agree .. we're better this season without Jaylen Brown messing this up.

It's December 11, we're Kansas, and we have the #99 player inked.

John Gasaway has a little recruiting write-up regarding Kansas, Bill Self, and freshmen ... just info. Here the link ↗

Here's a quote from Gasaway's article:

"Up until the start of the 2014-15 season, Self was more or less indistinguishable from Coach K or John Calipari in terms of giving playing time to elite freshmen. Now he routinely entombs the nation’s top recruits in escrow until just before Christmas even though doing so hands a potentially damaging negative-recruiting gift to rival programs. Why? A lifetime ago at Illinois, Self’s teams shot an above-average number of threes. Now the coach has what may turn out to be the best perimeter shooting team of his entire career, and he still won’t give a green light. Why?"

@benshawks08 Oh, I love the weave. Don't get me wrong. It was just at the end of last season we were using to way, way too much -- perpetually. It seemed like our base offense sometimes.

@BeddieKU23 You said "You have 4 guys (Selden, Mason, Graham, & Greene) who are all very capable of shooting at least 40% from 3 this year. Selden & Greene could flirt close to 50% the way they are shooting."

Very true. Ellis also shot 40% last season.

We have guy on staff that shot 50% from three his senior season, Aaron Miles.

But I definitely think 45% is doable for both Selden and Greene. Selden's shot looks terrific. He is shooting himself into the first round.

Living by the three is less risky than living by the post feed with this team. It was the same last season.

What we have different this season that might satisfy coach Self is creating shots in the paint by playing fast (vs. the "bad ball" perpetual weave, drive it 80% of the time).

Living by the three and playing fast, getting easy baskets that way might just do it offensively as far as our coach is concerned.

An important consideration in per minute stats is whether the player is playing rotation level minutes. That's what's made reading Mick so difficult -- until the WUG.

When a player plays regularly, it all balances out. They get the Michigan States and the Loyolas.

This season we have a pretty nice cross section of teams so far -- from Chaminade to MSU.

But really, I think what everyone will see when you study the per minute stats and opponents over the last few seasons is that the opponent is largely irrelevant. A guy might do great vs. Iowa State, but suck against Texas Tech.

I looked randomly at Selden last season -- best scoring games were vs. Florida, ISU twice, and Baylor. Bad game vs. TCU. A good one vs. KSU and TT, and a bad one vs. both. I think you'll see that the inconsistency is consistent throughout. Three of Perry Ellis' worst games were TCU, Lafayette, and Temple. I recall Wiggins having a pretty bad game vs. Texas Tech and a great one against Iowa St. Why? Who knows? But again, you will see that throughout.

That is not to suggest that stats accrued vs. crème puffs might not have less value than the good teams.

But look at our dilemma. Harvard was apparently the Boston Celtics to our Kansas squad, where Holy Cross was a pud. Which team is worse? Is Harvard really a crème puff?

Most players are going to have ups and downs. The per minute stats, I think, are great evidence for rotation level guys, and better indicators with each successive game and season (coupled with he eye test). For my money, the only guy really arcing upward on the eye test is Wayne Selden - the only guy where the pattern seems to have changed. Otherwise, past performance is most indicative for future performance. That does not mean they won't improve, which players obviously do, it just means we're in relatively the same ballpark as we were in prior seasons.

This was perhaps the most pleasant game I have watched in, oh, three seasons. Here's why:

1. Play at the pace that best fits your team.

2. Play a style that best fits your team.

3. Play guys that play the pace and style that fits your team.

4. Play guys who have a net impact.

5. Play the best players.

Quasi-snarky questions that I have (please take them in the good humored manner they are intended):

1. Did Holy Cross beat Harvard by one point?

2. How did we beat Holy Cross by over 30 and struggle against Harvard?

3. Didn't Holy Cross supposedly have a really big guy (a lug) inside?

4. Why do the folks that don't think Diallo and Bragg should play "hate" them so much?

5. Were there two players that combined for 34 post minutes in a 6 point win vs. Harvard and combined for 0 post minutes tonight in a 30 point win vs. Holy Cross?

6. Is Bill Self a genius based on his personnel decisions tonight?

7. Will Bill Self be ticked off tonight because we made shots?

Other observations:

1. After trying to jam it inside the first three or four possessions of the second half, we lurched back to our first half style of play and bounced back after Holy Cross' quick start. Terrific, really.

2. Hunter Mickelson was terrific in the first half steal, tip aways, blocks, contested shots, rim protection. When someone does not score, this is the type of positive impact that changes games. Withey-like in many ways. I do not know how anyone can ignore what they saw in the first half. Eye test? If it's a multiple choice, check the box next to Mick.

3. Brannen Greene was moving very well, and did a nice job on defense but for the under screen lapses pointed out on the broadcast. He may be challenging Svi for the 4th perimeter guy. It's a nice contest. Glad to see Self bring Greene back early (as I predicted he would do, I might add). Perfect.

4. @drgnslayr posted a thread regarding pace of game. It could not have been more on point. This game was lesson in pace and in style of play. The only time we stagnated was when it appeared our focus was solely on getting it inside. When we simply run our offense, move the ball around, and shoot when open, this is a beautiful thing. All this requires is Self to accept it. And it can all be inside/out. I sense moderation from coach Self. Why? He didn't call a timeout and flip out after we stopped really looking for the post entry pass in second half. He accepted it. Embraced? Don't know. But all we need is acceptance. Quite frankly, our offense looks terrific. Again, the key is Self accepting this team's identity. It's his best shooting team, better than last season to be sure. Ride this horse. And focus on pushing the pace -- PACE, PACE, PACE. We might lose some games because we don't have a back to the basket horse. But we can't change that. We can win this way, and we can win a national title this way. Our rotation guys shot 11/18 from three. Our pace of play -- playing fast -- can cover games when it's 5/18, just like some back to the basket scoring can.

5. Perry Ellis was wildly quiet, and wildly efficient. Called for two bogus foul calls. A very solid night. Business like. How in the world does he get whistled for a foul on that block? Amazingly bad.

6. Loved the LeGerald Vick quick hook. It made me reminisce a bit, tears almost welled up. It's good to see our old coach has still got it in him . Somewhere, Anrio Adams is watching with his girlfriend, saying, "Hey, hey … baby, come look, that was me. That was me!!" LeGerald, you are watching this season.

7. We have the best collection of perimeter players in the nation. No doubt. Our focus needs to be on permitting that group to win games for us. Further, the post rotation should be geared to support our superior talent on the perimeter. That is exactly what we saw tonight. We have three guys, Bragg, Diallo and Mick, that can improve our game inside vs. where it was last season (they weren't here or didn't play). But that will be a progression. They are the three that have a chance to be better in a couple of months. Our other options are who they are. The other options were here and played -- and we couldn't score inside. Logic says the former option is better than the latter. And these other options can really exploit the high/low. Did I say how much I love the high/low? These options also fit best with our best style of play.

8. There is an easy button. It doesn't work every time. Bumps, pot holes, mistakes, etc. But in the end, we'll be better for it. As Bill Self said, "play the best players." By the way, Bill Self was a genius tonight. Don't you think?

@jaybate-1.0 So what you are saying is what everyone assumes (I would think) -- that the bigger the sample size, the more valid the stats?

@JayHawkFanToo I kind of thought I was in a discussion with @benshawk08 and that the PER is a quite relevant piece of the puzzle and his very relevant eye test comment. The Cliff example seems interesting, at least to my small brain. But you have been quite reserved in your prior replies, I figured this was coming at some point -- and I know you are diametrically opposed to my position.

I respect you and your opinion. I'll keep this all in mind.

At the very least, I'll try to limit my posts to a 12 bullet essay.

@benshawks08 One thing that I find very interesting is that Self many times goes against the stats. A good example is the Player Efficiency Rating. It is a well respected, advanced stat that uses a number of metrics to measure a player's total contribution. It a great, all in one stat.

I don't think any stat is ever the total picture, and the eye test is very important. I tend to think the stats do match the eye test a great deal of the time, and particularly with the one, most polarizing player on Kansas.

Last season, I felt that Cliff looked very good in his time on the court. I posted about it many times. I even said a few times that he was our best performer overall. Folks said that Self knew what he was doing. Fine.

However, Cliff's Player Efficiency Rating (PER) last season was the best on the team among regulars. The best.

Our regulars, in order:

1. Cliff
2. Ellis
3. Oubre
4. Mason
5. Greene
6. Graham
7. Lucas
8. "______"
9. Selden

This seemed to square, for me, exactly with the eye test except that I would have had Mason over Oubre and Selden ahead of "_____". Again, this is related to net production during minutes on the court.

I felt Greene should have been starting over Selden as we moved into January. I said that. I suggested making him the 6th man off the bench because he was playing so badly, to change his perspective, to get him reenergized -- I don't know why Self didn't do that, to be honest.

Actually, I think the PER stat provides us exactly what our best starting lineup should have been last season given the structure of the team. That may not always be the case, and probably isn't.

By the way, Mickelson, who wasn't a regular, would have been 2nd behind Cliff. After Maui, he was near the top this season. I haven't checked it though recently. One of the reasons I am a big Hunter Mickelson fan is that, first, he looks good on the court. Many good qualities that we saw in Korea. Further, his stats back it up.

I really like your comment -- "Not to mention aspects that there are not even stats for, like hustle plays, correct positioning, energy exerted, energy given to the team, good passes that lead to missed shots, hockey assists"

The eye test is really, really important.

@JayHawkFanToo You said, "Right now, Bragg and Diallo are not better than Lucas, "______" or Mickelson. No one should disputes this either after watching Bragg and Diallo at the Harvard game."

I'm looking at all games all players have played.

With that, I dispute your comment regarding "_" and in large part Lucas. I don't regarding Mickelson. Actually, in his time on the floor in two games, Diallo has been perhaps one of our most productive players. Bragg has had more minutes under his belt and thus more ups and downs. Diallo, when you look at his minutes played, has been better than all three of our vets.

Oddly, I'd say that our best player (per minute) has been Brannen Greene, for what that's worth.

Both he and Diallo have only two game sample sizes, but they have been pretty good in their time on the floor. I'm not big on two game sample sizes though.

Holy Cross is quite a test. They beat the juggernaut Harvard Crimson by a point. We better be very careful how we construct our lineup. Certain guys just aren't ready for crunch time in a contest like this. I sure hope we play a 60-50 game here. If we just go out and make shots, then that will give us a false sense of security on our other phases of the game.

@justanotherfan "I remember well the night the Brady Morningstar is a top defender argument died. It was the night Jacob Pullen dropped 30 something on KU in a KU loss. Morningstar never guarded Pullen that night. That exposed the truth."

This is some beautiful stuff. It's sometimes harder to slay mythical dragons than the real thing.

And I remember when Morningstar guarded Lacedarius Dunn at AFH. I was at the game. Brady couldn't hang with him. Dunn scorched us, scored higher than his average, and Self still said Morningstar did a good job. Something about Dunn "just making shots" or something like that. I'm a little hazy there.

@dylans - question, would you rather go to battle right now (like tomorrow) with Lucas and "_____" on your team, or Diallo and Bragg. Both teams would get Ellis and Mick, too.

@dylans Wow ... when you put it that way, I guess I don't value national championships as much as I thought.

@SoftballDad2011 I'm completely cool with disagreement. And I don't have any quibble with the concept that Diallo and Bragg aren't perfect, and that they made generic mistakes. I don't see either as a panacea. They are just the better players. I have never advocated playing either ahead of Ellis or Mickelson, for example. And just so it's clear, I just think the 20-25 minute ranges makes sense for both.

And I think that you are ignoring how we played when we stretched our lead. How we play is a most critical element, as we saw last seasons, right?

You miss my point. You said:

"But I FIRMLY believe, based on what did happen in the game that had Bragg or Diallo been on the court instead of Lucas during crunch time that we would have lost.

Do you see that word "crunch" -- as in crunch time? That's different than what I asked. And it goes to the point I have made on net production. The scope of the entire game.

Do you think if Lucas had not suited up for the game, would we have lost -- to 1-5 Harvard? @BeddieKU23 gave his response. Anyone else?

I do see you've drank the "making shots" Kool-Aid. That's blue pill stuff. Just be mindful.

@SoftballDad2011 Harvard was eating us up? Respectfully, I don't know what you were watching, quite frankly. Why is it that we ignore what occurred from 13:00 to 9:22 of the first half when we were eating them up. Why do we ignore our style of play and what was successful?

Self made the switch to Lucas after one play, which I documented. That's it.

Please explain how Harvard was "eating us up" before Superman came to our rescue? We were up 30-16 when Diallo exited in the first half.

And by the way, I take because no one has ponied up a response from my prior post, does anyone ... ANYONE ... think we would have lost to 1-5 Harvard IF Landon Lucas simply didn't play? Anyone?

How you win is a very important indicator of your future success.

And, of course, the discussion since Saturday has really been about how we play, for anyone paying attention. Do we muddle around and play a tight, lower possession game because Self thinks that's the best way to play? Do we give up our identity to suit our opponent? Do we compromise what is our strength because 1-5 Harvard says so?

Bill Self actually said he would have rather beaten Chaminade 60-50 than to give up 72 points. We won 123-72 and Bill Self would rather win 60-50. He completely ignores points per possession and how we crushed our opponent in that category. And how points per possession is the one stat that ultimately determines a basketball game. This simple statement by coach Self is quite demonstrative.

It is short sighted tunnel vision to simply rubber stamp "a win is a win." I mean, you can. But if you want to look further, if you care to analyze the why and how, it goes deeper. How you win is incredibly important. This all rears its head in March when we blame losses on "bunnies" or "incorrect seeding" or what have you. But we can ignore that if we choose to.

And for anyone paying attention, Bill Self said this last night:

“My assistants ... we talk about this all the time ... just because somebody is projected to be something doesn’t mean they can’t get it, but they also have to earn it,” Self said. “There’s other kids who have busted their butt for two or three years who are trying hard, too. I’m a big believer that the best players play. Over time, though, usually freshmen will prevail if they are talented enough.

The highlighted portion is exactly what I said this weekend.

However, coach Self, as noted in the prior portion of the quote, said exactly what I suggested this weekend as well -- that he is giving deference to guys in large measure because they have "busted their butt for two or three years". Veteran guys don't earn it by being the best players. They are given preferential treatment in the face of better players.

And if you're paying attention, Self is admitting that Diallo and Bragg are the best players, right?

It must pain some to see this.

@KUSTEVE "Dead men walking" -- interesting comment. You are more optimistic than I.

@justanotherfan Great analysis there on the possessions. You are exactly on point. The issue is and always has been points per possession. That is the only way you win. Scoring more per possession than the other team.

Self's comment after the Chaminade game made me wonder -- when he said he'd rather have a 60-50 game, than give up that many points. And we gave up something like .8 per possession or whatever. Great defensive performance.

As the team with superior talent, we would thus want more possessions. More possessions mean, theoretically, that the best team has a progressively better opportunity to win, right?

If we're playing UK in 2012 as we did, though, we'd want lower possessions. We were not the better team.

On the playing time debate, I'm very interested in the next five games to close out 2015. I sense that our discussion will be much different by that time.

@jaybate-1.0 You said "This flatly ignores recent and accumulating neuro scientific research indicating very young persons (most < 23) with incomplete neural net development may not be able to learn certain things simply because they lack the neural nets needed. Put another way, the acid bath of experience cannot burn in nets that aren’t there."

This, however, ignores the body of evidence we have in college basketball. I'm sorry, I can't subscribe to this theory.

How can we really spend time arguing that a championship seeking team (the NC) should play two low skilled, unranked guys that can't figure a way to the ball in the hoop?

The difference in the other situations you cite are 1) freshmen actually playing behind good players (Marcus Lee was the #19 Rivals player, for example), and 2) LSU doesn't have much talent around those guys.

Playing freshmen post players should be easier here given that we have the best collection of perimeter players in the country, and we have Ellis, and we have experience to supplement them in foul up situations.

You're making this way too complicated when it isn't complicated.

So if the "neural net" whatevers are so messed up, how is it that Okafer, Anthony-Towns -- you fill in the blank with guys less talented -- are some how able to function?

Or that Ben Simmons, who is cited by you inferentially, is lighting it up?

Of course, I don't think Diallo or Bragg is Ben Simmons.

This is a silly exercise because Bill Self is not "on to" something, and he doesn't know more than the rest of the college basketball coaches. This is really the best evidence to support the concept.

Why is it that Bill Self has two high level recruits, for the second season in a row. that are languishing in the extreme low end of playing time vs. the top 25 recruits?

Oubre, Cliff, Bragg, Diallo.

I wonder when he did play Wiggins out of the box if his neural nets weren't firing, or why Self played him?

Hit the "easy" button: Play the best players. And this doesn't mean that the other options don't play at all. They could certainly have their roles.

@BeddieKU23 So you think that Diallo/Bragg are "legitimately stuck behind upperclassmen"? Ok, Ellis. After that, how do you define "legitimate"? Would Justin Wesley qualify, for example, if he were here? Curious more than anything.

Article by @Jesse-Newell at cjonline --- here's the link ↗

In the article, he notes the minutes per game for the top 25 Rivals players. Seems like we've been here before.

TOP 25 FRESHMEN MINUTES PER GAME (FROM RIVALS.COM RANKINGS)

1. Skal Labissiere, Kentucky 22.3

2. Ben Simmons, LSU 35.6

3. Jaylen Brown, Cal 25.3

4. Brandon Ingram, Duke 26.9

5. Cheick Diallo, KU 11.5*

6. Diamond Stone, Maryland 19.1

7. Ivan Rabb, Cal 24.5

8. Malik Newman, Miss. St. 27.5

9. Jamal Murray, Kentucky 33.0

10. Isaiah Briscoe, Kentucky 30.1

11. Henry Ellenson, Marquette 29.8

12. Allonzo Trier, Arizona 23.6

13. Antonio Blakeney, LSU 31.4

14. Derryck Thornton, Duke 24.9

15. Stephen Zimmerman, UNLV 23.1

16. Chase Jeter, Duke 8.1

17. Ray Smith, Arizona (Injured)

18. Tyler Dorsey, Oregon 29.3

19. Caleb Swanigan, Purdue 27.3

20. Jalen Brunson, Villanova 25.0

21. Carlton Bragg, KU 11.6

22, Dwayne Bacon, Florida State 28.2

1. Jalen Adams, UConn 18.1

2. Justin Simon, Arizona 5.0

3. Luke Kenard, Duke 20.2

Of the 25 players, 1 is injured. Of that 24, our two highly ranked freshmen are #21 and #22 in minutes per game. But then again, the big men in front of them getting minutes at Kansas are top flight players, right?

@jaybate-1.0 That was really not my question .. I was asking if you thought we would have lost if we simply didn't have Landen Lucas vs. Harvard? That's a bit different than playing Diallo and Bragg 20 minutes each in the second half, which I was not advocating.

For example, Ellis 25 min., Diallo 20, Bragg 20, Mick 15.

I think we win by 20 -- but who really knows. I definitely think that Diallo and Bragg would/will have some really rough moments.

I do think you're underestimating the talent level of these two players if they were just allowed to play. It seems that we (collectively) underestimate the ability of players to assimilate and contribute simply because we're used to how Self handles freshmen. Other places just handle freshmen differently. Harvard started three freshmen, on a team that nearly beat us.

Here's some good example. If we would have landed Tyler Dorsey, what do you think his role would be? He'd be on the bench, and as a freshman. Learning, ready, and supposedly not ready. With Oregon, he's averaging 14 points a game. How about Ivan Rabb? Would he be languishing behind Lucas and "_____"? Averaging 12.5 per game. Or Zimmerman 10/9. I've already pointed out Tyler Davis' stats. My point is that simply because Bill Self doesn't play someone doesn't mean he couldn't otherwise be wildly successful. But I acknowledge that just because a player is highly ranked doesn't mean that Self should play him. It has a lot to do with who is in front of him. For example, Tyler Dorsey. If he was here, he'd be sitting and probably should be. I just compare Diallo/Bragg to those getting minutes in front of them.

@jayballer54 Your question makes sense .. I just don't think he trusted Vick in that situation, much like he didn't trust Diallo or Bragg.