@tundrahok Alors on peut parler avec le joual mon chum!
Thought I'd share so you guys could have a nice chuckle. I saw a reddit comment arguing that us losing (barely, to Houston) with DaJuan then winning (also barely, against UCF) without him these past two games proves that he makes us worse. 😂
Clearly a foul on the floor and he threw his hands up afterwards. In real time it can be hard to tell but with the replay it is obvious
I don't care what the haters think. They have a right to be wrong. What I do care about is DaJuan getting healthy so he can make our team better, whether all our fans understand how he helps us or not.
I have a friend who is a DaJuan hater. He still won't admit that he is wrong. Lesson: don't try to convince them. Proof won't change their mind. Just be glad he is on the team. It's better to have a good player certain people think is bad than a bad player certain people think is good.
We survived. I am glad. Please come back soon DaJuan
How serious is DaJuan's injury?
@kuballin10 I didn't really watch NFL football until around 2010 so I can't comment on Brady's entire career. But my take has always been that he is a very good QB but not necessarily better than other greats who have fewer super bowls. For instance, I would argue that Drew Brees is as good as TB if not a little better, but that TB with an elite defense is obviously going to get better results than Brees with a bad defense.
@dylans Yeah but they are not equally prestigious. Plus they sometimes give mvp to a non-qb.
Plus they once gave opoy to Drew Brees.
@kjayhawks No one will agree with me on this but they really should make three different, equally prestigious MVP awards: one for a QB, one for a non-QB offensive player, and one for a defensive player.
An elite QB will always make the most positive impact of a single player. Having the third or 4th best QB is a way better asset than having the best RB in the league. So it makes sense that the best QB deserves MVP. But also, the best non QB offensive player or the best defensive player deserve credit, especially in cases where they might be better at their job than any QB in the league, even if their job isn't as important as the job of a QB.
I will never be able to prove it, but I believe that Josh Allen could have and would have taken down Tom Brady in the playoffs multiple times and won multiple super bowls had their careers overlapped more.
We are a lock to make the tournament, so I guess we have nothing to play for
The only other thing I will share with you guys after such a frustrating loss is a cliche but also very true.
Relax. It's just a game. It's normal to be frustrated but it's still just a game. Spend time with your loved ones. Spend time doing something else you enjoy. Remember, you all have rich lives outside of KU hoops.
Edit: Not trying to be preachy. Just trying to put something in our heads that I know I would do well to remember more often.
Oh boy.
Really frustrating to play an otherwise great game and choke like that.
The only reasonable takeaway is: We have to have more poise at the end of games.
DaJuan this, KJ that, Hunter whatever is just not relevant today.
This game could go either way. Without KJ I think its logical that Houston is favored
The media guide lists kuballin10 as standing 6'3" 🤔 Interesting
@approxinfinity Great points. I do agree that the context of minutes matters. My only disagreement is that I don't believe that having your best lineup out there for the first four minutes of the game matters that much. I am much more conerned about the last four minutes of the game or even the last four minutes of the first half.
@kjayhawks I would like to play 4 guards, especially if AJ has turned a corner. My only concern would be that this team has practiced 3 guards all year
@kjayhawks No. There are 80 minutes per game available at the 4 and 5 spots. We have 3 players that rotate at those 2 spots. 80/3 is 26.67 if my math is correct.
@approxinfinity It matters for pressing buttons. Maybe some players or combos play with more confidence with the label "starter". Maybe some players have a chip of their shoulder because they are on the bench. Maybe bringing a certain player off the bench can reinvigorate a team. But beyond that, it does not matter. If a good player does not start but still plays plenty of minutes, there is no need to panic about that player's role on the team.
They are not that similar.
Flory gives us better rim protection, rebounding, and post-scoring.
KJ gives us better perimeter defense, ball-handling, ball-movement, and the ability to defend without fouling.
Neither one gives us shooting or floor spacing.
I believe their minutes (and Hunters) should be based on who is playing well on a given night, match-ups, and foul trouble. Ideally they all average between 25-30 minutes. Who "starts" and who doesn't is completely irrelevant outside of pushing buttons.
@kuballin10 No. Bill often chooses veterans over more talented younger players. He does so because he believes them to be better players at that moment in time, not out of stubbornness.
Flory and KJ both deserve minutes and they both play. KJ plays a little more, but Flory is often in foul trouble, so it is what it is.
@kuballin10 I know you think DaJuan is bad but do you really not think he is at least a good passer?
@kuballin10 Even if we assume that is true, one example in 20 years does not establish a pattern of stubbornness.
@BShark If true (which I am skeptical of) it was a mistake too but hindsight is 20/20. Nobody expected Knecht to be so good and Timberlake to be so bad.
@BShark Thanks for the scoop. If it is true that Bill stopped recruiting Nelson and opted to bring back Zach Clemmence instead, that is indeed a mistake.
But it still doesn't prove a long-standing pattern of Bill being stubborn about whom he plays.
@BShark But we did recruit Ingram and Nelson. As far as I know Self's philosophy is never to promise minutes to anyone. Maybe that philosophy hurt us with Nelson and Ingram, but I think the fact that Self recruited Nelson and Ingram shows that he is not too stubborn to recruit others to play the same position as KJ.
@kuballin10 DaJuan started those early games because of Jalen's DUI suspension. Then Jalen replaced Remy because Remy was playing through an injury/missing time. When Remy got back to full health Bill didn't want to tinker with our starting lineup anymore, but still gave Remy lots of pt.
With DaJuan on the roster we landed Remy (the top transfer portal pg of his season) and Elmarko Jackson (5* pg recruit). He didn't hurt recruiting.
With KJ on the roster we landed Udeh, Ejiofor, AJ, Rylan, and Hunter. He didn't hurt recruiting either.
@kuballin10 Thanks for the reply. Here's my rebuttle: even if Bill is wrong about DaJuan and KJ, it still doesn't mean that he is stubborn, as he has a long track record of picking the right guys, sometimes picking more talented young guys over veterans he likes and trusts, and sometimes not. It would just mean that DaJuan and KJ are exceptions to the rule.
But, I really don't think Bill is giving minutes to DaJuan and KJ out of loyalty. Let's look at the track record:
DaJuan
freshman season: Did not start. Played backup point guard.
sophomore season: Bill did not plan for DaJuan to start. He recruited Remy Martin. Remy Martin got injured. DaJuan started. When Remy came back they split minutes.
junior season: DaJuan started. Bobby Pettiford was his backup. DaJuan clearly deserved the start over Bobby Pettiford.
senior season: Bill Self brought in 5* recruit Elmarko Jackson. He tried to start them both together but Elmarko was not playing well and got benched. DaJuan ended up playing 38 minutes a game because Elmarko was borderline unplayable.
super-senior season: Bill brought in Diggy and Shak. DaJuan is much better than Diggy. I think he is also better than Shak (though I like Shak), plus Shak joined us late due to injury.
KJ:
freshman season: Barely played
sophomore season: Bill gave KJ, Udeh, and Ejiofor equal chances to win the job at the 5-spot for the first couple months of the season. Udeh and Ejiofor have both probably surpassed KJ as players now, but at the time KJ proved himself to be the best option. He started at the 5, and Udeh and Zuby backed him up.
junior season: Bill started KJ at the 4. We really didn't have another player on the roster who had an argument to start over him. Parker Braun?? Start Elmarko and slide Furphy to the 4?? No thanks. I wish Udeh and Zuby would have stayed. But they didn't. I think it's because Bill chose Hunter over them. I think it has nothing to do with KJ.
senior season: Averaging about 28 ppg, which might be a little high but nothing excessive. I recall you saying you thought he deserved about 25 mpg, so the extra 3 is nothing to freak out about. You could argue that starting Flory or even Rylan at the 4 would be better, but it's hard to fault starting KJ with how he has defended.
At the end of the day, there is no season in which you can say "Wow! Look at who is not getting minutes because of DaJuan/KJ!! This is clearly minute mismanagement!!"
@approxinfinity Good points! The portal does change things. But I think my point is that the idea that Bill is stubborn regarding who he plays still stands.
Now that the portal exists, the ideal approach (development over the long run) is more difficult. In order to make up for that we will have to hit in the portal and with oad more than we miss. But Bill will continue to have the same challenge of choosing which players to give minutes to. The evidence suggests he is good at this.
There are many people who believe that Bill Self has a history of stubbornly choosing to play less talented players over more talented players because they are "more experienced" or have "earned his trust", even if these players Bill trusts are not as good as the younger more talented players. People believe this for any of the following reasons:
-
They incorrectly interpret the player Bill Self has playing fewer minutes as being a better basketball player than the player Bill Self has playing more minutes. This is often due to the assumption that a player with more long-term potential is the better choice in any given moment. (example: jOSh SeLbY wAs bEtTeR tHan TyReL ReeD iN 2011)
-
They make an unwarranted assumption that playing a talented but still developing player will make him develop at an unprecedented rate and make him reach or near his full potential by March. (example: Had Bill started Cheick Diallo over Landen Lucas, he would have developed at a historically quick rate, from an athletic but raw project into a star, all in-time for March Madness!)
There are many examples of why this is wrong. Darnell Jackson was a better player than Cole Aldrich in 2008, despite being less talented. Bill played Darnell over Cole all season. In 2020, future NBA starter and champion Christian Braun was on the roster, but so were older wings Marcus Garrett and Isaiah Moss. Bill started Garrett and Moss and had Braun come off the bench. Braun stuck around and developed into a star, but it took three years instead of three months. The results speak for themselves. Other examples would be Tyrel Reed playing over Josh Selby in 2011, Landen Lucas playing over Cheick Diallo in 2016 and Travis Releford playing over Andrew White III in 2013.
Contrary to popular belief, these were all correct decisions. Christian Braun’s freshman self would not have transformed into his junior self by starting over Marcus Garrett. Examples abound, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Some might argue, “well, it worked out those times, but choosing the more experienced player isn’t ALWAYS the right move. In some cases, Bill needs to go with the more talented player.”
Yes! That is absolutely correct. That is why Bill often DOES go with a younger and more talented player. The cases in which he does this are not random, but are the cases in which the younger and more talented player is better than the older and more experienced one.
In 2010 Brady Morningstar, a veteran starter from the previous year returned. Bill Self started freshman Xavier Henry over him.
In 2011, Self initially turned back to Morningstar, until Josh Selby became eligible after a suspension. After two games of kick-ass play by Selby, Self gave him Morningstar’s starting spot. Then Selby became injured, missed some time, and came back a different player. He could no longer score or defend, and he turned the ball over at a high rate. In this case, Self continued to start Morningstar. Hmmm, it seems as though Bill just starts the better player instead of stubbornly starting a favorite.
Other examples of Bill going with the newcomer over a veteran who had his trust are: Udoka Azubuike over Landen Lucas (until Doke’s injury), Josh Jackson over LaGerald Vick, Mario Chalmers +Brandon Rush + Russell Robinson over Jeff Hawkins.
Clearly, Bill does not refuse to play newer but less talented players over veterans. People who want to discredit Bill and his decisions just ignore the cases in which he does.
It is quite obvious, that Bill chooses to play the best players. Sometimes that is the veteran, sometimes its the young guy.
Having cleared up that misconception, I also want to clear up something else. Many people seem to think that choosing the wrong rotation players is the only possible cause of an early exit in March. They argue, in essence:
“Had Bill Self started player X over player Y, player X would have developed into a star rapidly and would have carried us to a successful run in March. While starting player Y may have been fine for us to have a great regular season, his deficiencies kicked-in in March Madness.”
When such people make this argument, they are either making one of the two mistakes listed earlier in this text, or they are making mistake number 3:
- They fail to account for the fact that bad luck, an uncharacteristically bad performance, injuries, or a choke job can result in an early exit in March.
For example, in 2011 and 2017 we choked. We did not have the toughness to handle the elite 8. We had more talent and better players on the court than VCU/Oregon, but we crumbled, bricking shots we normally make. The leap of faith that Josh Selby and Cheick Diallo, who were not good players prior to the tournament, would have shown up, kept us from choking, and been tournament heroes simply has no basis. There was certainly bad luck in these exits (VCU and Oregon both had career days from 3), but we still could have and probably would have won, had we played with poise.
In 2016 and 2023 I would argue that it was more bad luck than choking (although it was a little of both). In 2016, despite being the best team in the country and the number 1 overall seed, we were given the second-best team in the country and the only team that could beat us (Villanova) as our 2 seed. We played a close game, that could have gone either way, and they took the cake. In 2023, we were given an 8-seed that had underachieved all season and had top-10 talent. Plus, before facing them, our coach had to go to the hospital. These factors caused us to lose. Playing DaJuan (who had 12 points, 5 assists, and 2 steals) and KJ (who had 14 points) instead of Pettiford and Ejiofor did not cause us to lose that game.
As someone who tends to be suspicious of extremist beliefs, I think Bill is a good coach and do not want him to be fired. However, my one criticism of him is that he is bad at mentally preparing us for the NCAA tournament. We won it twice, which is great, but I think we would have won 4 or 5 titles under him had we consistently played as well in the tournament as we had in Big 12 play. There are, in my opinion, too many examples of us playing our worst game of the season in the elite 8 (or an earlier tournament round) for it to just be happenstance. We choke. A lot.
But that is really the only reasonable criticism one can make of Bill Self. The internet notion that he is too stubborn and gives favoritism to older players is objectively false.
Now, using my psychic powers, I will guess that all replies to this will fit into the following categories. I will reply to replies in order to classify each one. I can explain if requested to do so.
A. Agreement
B. Agreement in general but disagreement with a minor detail
C. Disagreement due to misinterpretation of who the best players in a given moment are
D. Disagreement due to the assumption that playing a talented but young player will develop at warp speed if given more playing time or a longer leash.
E. Disagreement due to the false belief that an early March exit is due to mismanaging player minutes.
That year Traylor, Greene, and Frankamp combined to play 957 minutes. All of these minutes came off the bench. I would argue, that giving a substantial part of these 957 bench minutes to Andrew White III would have made him a part of the rotation. There are others who, bafflingly, disagree with this. This is the last statement that I will make about the feasibility of giving Andrew White rotation minutes 11 years ago.
I would have liked to see AW3 get rotation minutes, as he proved at later stops that he was a hell of a player. Oh well. Sometimes things just don't work out and that is fine.
@Texas-Hawk-10 Selden, Wiggins, and Ellis were starters. White didn't need to start to be part of the rotation. He could have played off the bench without usurping any of those players. That is a basic and objective fact and I am surprised I have to explain that.
@Texas-Hawk-10 Those three players combined to average 20 mpg. Give all those minutes to AW3 and he is part of the rotation.
@Texas-Hawk-10 I would have played him over Brannen Greene and Connor Frankamp
@MoonwalkMafia Fair enough. But in what way was Self stubborn about Jamari and Cliff?
@kjayhawks Yes. Getting Rylan and AJ going would help a ton. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. But many simply assume that playing them more will get them going. Bill is handling them in his own way. Maybe its the right way and maybe its not, but I would trust him more than I would people on the internet.
The take that Brady Morningstar, who shot 57% from the field, 41% from three, averaged over three assists, was a great defender, and started on a team that went 35-3, was a bad player certainly is interesting.
Here is a counter-argument: Brady Morningstar was a good role player who choked in the tournament.
Once again I put to you the question,
But, let’s assume that you are right and that Cliff was better than Jamari. What would you have had Self do differently? Bribe the NCAA so that Cliff wouldn’t get suspended?
@approxinfinity KJ is not a good rebounder, which is disappointing. The past few weeks, he has been elite at the "stop the other team from making a basket" part of defense. Hunter is a better defender than he was last year but still is not elite. Flory is a higher upside defender than Hunter but also is prone to fouls. KJ, Flory, and Hunter should all play, and the way the minutes are distributed in a given game should be determined by matchups and who is playing well.
@approxinfinity That's a good question. If Rylan and AJ never get going I think the answer is pretty obvious. KJ at the 4, try to build around an elite defense and figure out ways to score enough to win games. But if Rylan and/or AJ figures it out I think things change. Maybe split time between KJ at the 4 and a 4 around 1 lineup. Or we could play things situationally. But at the end of the day, its all about tradeoffs. Is having the superior 4 around 1 structure worth the tradeoff of sacrificing KJs defense? It depends on whether another guard steps up and if so, to what extent.
@approxinfinity To quote a fellow bucketeer, "I think you kind of missed the jist of my post." I never said KJ was a guard. I said that Bill wants to play 2 bigs this year and not play 4 around 1.
I see.
For better or for worse, Bill has decided to go 2-bigs this year. I don't endorse this option, for I think 4 around 1 has been established as the better option. But, on the other hand, no matter what the combination is, having KJ play the 4 helps our defense tremendously.
@approxinfinity That is fine to think, but the facts don't support this take. We have a significant amount of data that shows that we are better with KJ in the game than with AJ or Rylan.
@MoonwalkMafia That was the one good game Cliff played in all of conference play. That is an example of cherry picking.
Jamari could stay in position better than Cliff. He could switch onto guards (and Cliff could not). Again, NONE OF THIS IS TO SAY THAT JAMARI WAS A GREAT PLAYER.
But, let's assume that you are right and that Cliff was better than Jamari. What would you have had Self do differently? Bribe the NCAA so that Cliff wouldn't get suspended?
@BeddieKU23 Well, we are clearly a better overall team with KJ on the floor than off. 28 minutes is not excessive. 35+ is. If Flory and Hunter are playing great then I have no problem with KJ playing fewer minutes. But if not then there is nothing wrong with 28 minutes from KJ.
@kuballin10 Good morning. You made a lot of interesting points and I will try to respond succinctly.
Cliff was a liability on defense. Much worse than Jamari. There is a reason no NBA team wanted to draft him.
There is no reason to bicker about Cliff vs Jamari anyways because Self started Cliff in hopes of helping him click, but then Cliff got suspended and Self had to play Jamari.
Under-achieving in March has much more to do with choking than it does not having a talented enough lineup out there. If you can go 30-4 or whatever in the regular season you are good enough to beat anyone. But you could lose to anyone if you choke.
KJ has both strengths and weaknesses. I am well aware of both. His biggest strength is defense. The KSU game suggests that his defense helps us more than his lack of shooting hurts us.
You are right about Bill Self having longer leashes with some players than he does with others. Everyone makes mistakes so you can't yank everyone after one. Players that Bill assesses as good are indeed allowed to play through mistakes more than players Bill believes are not as good. Bill gives all his scholarship players chances to earn his trust. He then assigns levels of trust according to how well he thinks they play.
This often results in younger players, who have not had the same chance to earn Bill's trust, having shorter leashes than older players, even in cases where the younger player has more talent and potential than the older player (recall: more talent and potential does not guarantee superior basketball abilities in the present moment or the near future). But Bill does allow young but talented players to have a chance to earn his trust. If they come in, play hard, and do a few good things alongside a mistake, they probably won't get yanked. But if they do nothing positive and then make a mistake, they will get yanked.
Should Bill give players who are not as good a leash that is equally as long as better players? I would argue no. The system of reward when things go well and punishment when things don't has been a backbone of human development, and is the basis for rearing children and economic growth. But, reasonable minds can disagree. A case could be made that allowing certain players to play through several mistakes would help mentally.
Also, arguing that our 2022 title wasn't legit comes across as a desperate attempt to discredit our program. To be more convincing, you have to acknowledge our success and argue that our short-comings are still enough to cancel it out.
Like I said, very succinct response lol. Rock Chalk.
People complain about Bill's minutes distrubutions for 2 reasons
1) They do not understand the difference between talent and impact on the game.
2) They do not understand trade-offs.
I talked about talent vs impact above. I will explain tradeoffs here.
There are certain traits that fans want to see in their teams basketball players. If players have such traits, they think that those players are good. If not, they think they are bad. But, these few traits fans judge are not the only traits that impact a game. So a player lacking in a desired trait might be exceptional in other traits. If this player is given minutes instead of someone who has a more desired trait but does not have other traits, it is a trade-off. You trade one skillset for another. Because there are no perfect players, and because every player has different traits and abilities, all playing time
decisions involve trade-offs. A coaches job is not to roll out a perfect team, but to analyze the trade-offs and get the best one possible. This will inevitably involve the sacrifice of certain traits being on the floor.
Many of you will claim that this is obvious, but it is clear that not all of you understand it well enough to incorporate it into your opinions of our players and of how our team is managed.
@SlimShaddy54 True! I sync Hanni and Gurley to my tv every game.