🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Word is the two major violators are Arizona and Louisville. I could see both getting hit with post season bans, but I think if that happens, that's also where it stops.

The NCAA jut doesn't have enough marketable teams to have more than one P5 team from each P5 conference on a ban at any one time. They simply can't afford it. And part of me thinks the NCAA will be hesitant to hit Arizona with a penalty because they need west coast TV markets. The NCAA tournament needs to draw west coast eyeballs. With the Pac-12 down, and Gonzaga having a limited following, its really hard to attract that interest.

The money train is slowing down. It won't take much more to derail it completely.

This whole money train is about to go off the rails. There's too much money in too many people's hands at this point. You cannot stuff the genie back into the bottle. I don't think KU gets sanctioned, but only because they would have to sanction a lot more teams than just five or six. They would basically have to sanction most of the P5 teams, and if they were to ban half the P5 teams from the NCAA tournament that could destroy the tournament.

I think the 2020-21 squad will look really good. I just don't know how the 2019-20 group will look. We will be hoping for breakouts from several guys, or guys playing above their history or pedigree to be an Elite Eight/Final Four type of team. But I think this is a Sweet Sixteen type team that could run to the Elite Eight with the right matchups. KU should win the conference (possibly by a comfortable margin). So in that respect we are back, but this is not a national championship or bust type of team, and probably won't be a one seed.

rockchalkwyo said:

KirkIsMyHinrich said:

Apparently he who must not be named is with us in spirit.

🐦 View Tweet

What does “no kappppp” mean? Sorry dumb question I know

kap means kidding or joking, so no kap means no kidding, or no joking.

Marco said:

@FarmerJayhawk I think that Braun - and I agree that he has to put on weight and work hard - will be a pro, ditto Enaruna and McBride.

I see Braun as a Svi-lite type of player. If that's his ceiling, he won't play in the NBA, but he will be a very good college player.

I see McBride as a Devonte-lite type player. Again, if that's his ceiling, he won't play in the NBA, but will be a very good college player.

Enaruna, I don't have a good projection on him. He seems like he has more room for growth physically and athletically, so he could be on the verge of breaking out. He could also be Carlton Bragg, where he always seems to be on the verge of breaking out.

Crimsonorblue22 said:

@justanotherfan I was trying to think how long cousins was out, do you remember? I thought he had a pretty quick recovery.

The folks at ESPN and Fivethirtyeight.com have all the answers.

This article ↗ has a nice little table in it.

It is possible that it was inevitable. It's also possible that the additional strain from the calf injury put too much stress on the Achilles. Or perhaps the Achilles was the problem the entire time, but it was causing the calf to flare.

Either way, there's almost no chance Durant plays during the regular season next year. The quickest he returns would be February of 2020, but I doubt whichever team signs him would want to take that risk and push him to play that quickly, particularly since Durant will turn 31 this fall. More likely he misses all of next season, and returns in the 2020-21 season.

This changes a lot about how next year in the NBA plays out, regardless of who wins the title this season.

@BShark

McBride concerns me because of his size. He's small and somewhat slight. I can't really compare him to Frank Mason because he's two inches taller, but about 15-20 pounds lighter. Frank was built like a bulldozer. McBride is built like a sportscar.

For guys built like that, they always have to maintain a speed and quickness advantage because they don't have the physical strength to create space with power and explosion. You can create space either way, and obviously the greats can do it with all four, but most have to use one or two of those.

Think about a guy like Allen Iverson. He was always a blur, so even though he was small, his speed and quickness was elite, so he was difficult to handle.

On the other side of things, a guy like Frank Mason is quick and fast, but he has some power that allows him to bull his way through guys, particularly as he matured at the college level.

In between you have a guy like Conner Frankamp. He was a tremendous shooter, but he wasn't elite from a quickness perspective or from a strength perspective. As a result, he was never able to maximize his elite shooting in college because he could not create the necessary space to operate.

For McBride, I think that's his challenge. He's a D1 level player with a clear elite level shooting skill. The question is whether he has the ability to create space to allow him to capitalize on that or not.

For Braun, the same questions exist. Because of his height, he doesn't have to have the elite speed and quickness, or even the top notch strength and explosion. But at the same time, because of his height, he needs to be able to use that to get his clean looks to take advantage of his shooting, otherwise he will get bullied by 6-3 guys who take away his airspace.

I like Braun's size, particularly if he can play at the 2. I like both Braun and McBride's shooting. But they both have to demonstrate their ability to use their athleticism to access their skills, otherwise their skills are more or less going untapped.

With guys ranked in this range, I tend to take a wait and see approach. I think Braun and McBride will both translate well to the college game, but I thought we would get more out of Anrio Adams and Brannen Greene than we did, too. McBride could be Frank Mason, or he could be Naadir Tharpe (on the court). It's hard to project guys in that range because the outcomes are so broad. Some guys ranked there end up as All Americans and NBA players. Others wash out without ever making an impact.

Both Braun and McBride seem to be smart, thoughtful, hardworking players. That should help

@BShark

17 for Dotson is pretty ambitious. Of course, if he does that, then he is in the Sherron Collins zone.

I am worried that we will see Dotson more likely around 12 or 13, with Moss and Azubuike about the same. At that point, getting to the 77 you envision is a much longer road, and we will be depending on a lot of unproven guys to do it.

I'm not sure we have anyone coming in that even has the history to suggest they could put up 15 plus a game for KU.

That's the one thing that worries me about this team. Not that they will be bad - they won't be bad. But that they will look better on paper than they are in real life because they just won't quite be able to get over the hump. And that doesn't even address what happens if the perimeter shooting falls apart.

Moss fills a big hole on the perimeter, but I still feel like we are a player short.

We are building a team of very solid players up and down the roster. What this team lacks (still) is a true difference maker. Maybe Devon becomes that guy. Maybe Agbaji? But likely, KU puts together a very solid team that has issues closing some teams out because they lack a true go to guy.

I worry that unless Devon Dotson becomes something like Sherron Collins, we may be on the verge of witnessing that.

One of the things that makes dynasties hard to sustain is the luck factor.

This Warriors roster has been in place for about 5 years now, as far as the main guys. Through that time, the team stayed relatively healthy, while it was their opponents often felled by injury.

In the first Finals matchup, they drew a Cleveland team that was missing Kevin Love, and Kyrie Irving got hurt in Game 1.

Kawhi missed most of the 2017 series against the Spurs. OKC didn't get them at 100%. Houston had them on the ropes last year before Chris Paul went out with an injury.

Eventually, that injury luck runs out. It just so happens that it has all run out at once for Golden State.

And remember, Kawhi isn't 100%. He looked like he was playing on one leg in Game 1. Kyle Lowry can barely catch with his left hand because of a thumb ligament injury that will probably require surgery.

It's just that for the first time during this run, Golden State is more banged up than their opponent.

Moss is a solid three point shooter. He was a good, but not great player at Iowa. Around better talent, I could see his numbers improving a bit at KU, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Moss should average about 12 points per game here. I don't expect (and you shouldn't expect) him to average 16 or 17 a game. He's not that type of player. He can go off for 20 something, but he can also be limited to less than 5.

Moss is a good piece to the puzzle, but I am still not sure where this team gets the bulk of their scoring from. If you say Moss, I point to the problems he had at Iowa. He's best featured as a secondary scorer, not the guy you run your offense through. I hope that's how we use him so we get peak Moss, rather than the Moss that sometimes struggled at Iowa.

Crimsonorblue22 said:

@approxinfinity drake ruins the nba for me! Yelling racist crap at the players, owners pushing players, yep all that.

The yelling racist crap happens at the college level, too. There's just less of a forum for the players to speak out about it.

And if you substitute booster for owner, well, that happens at the college level, too.

There is no Drake equivalent, but that's probably for the best.

Also, the TV ratings, as I mentioned before, do not include Canada. Game 1 of the finals was the most watched NBA game in history for Canada. So was Game 2 (broke the Game 1 record).

More than one fifth of the Canadian population tuned into each of the first two games of the series. Expanding to markets outside the U.S. is ultimately good for the NBA, so they are probably thrilled with these numbers despite the ratings in the U.S. being down.

The NBA set an attendance record every year from 2015 to last season. This season, the percentage of attendance held steady, but a couple of teams moved into new or reconfigured arenas, resulting in about 140,000 fewer available seats for the season. Even with that, NBA attendance this season was the fourth highest EVER.

The league also set a record for sellouts (760), merchandise sales, global digital subscriptions, and total video views (over 11.5 billion).

While the NBA may not be popular here because there isn't a local team, the NBA has never been more popular as a league and the numbers bear that out.

Also, the NBA isn't just popular here in the U.S. It is becoming more popular in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Even if the U.S. market is saturated for the NBA, global growth potential could help the NBA double its profits over the next 25 years.

@Fightsongwriter

Improvement in any area, whether athletic or otherwise, involves two components. The first, obviously, is work ethic. No one improves without work.

The second, though, is just as important. That's natural ability. There was a study of chess masters and grand masters years ago. They wanted to see how much difference there was in the two tiers of players. What they found was that both tiers practiced roughly as much, and both could recognize roughly the same number of game situations (piece groupings on the board). The difference was that the grand masters were always quicker to recognize those situations and their various options. There was an ability gap that transcended practice time.

The same has been seen in other academic and athletic pursuits. The gap between the elite and near elite is not about practice. The elite are just naturally a bit better.

Marcus Garrett is not a natural shooter. He's a darn good basketball player, but not a natural shooter. Can he improve? Sure. Will he improve enough that defenses don't sag away from him? Much less likely considering he has basically been the same shooter since he was in high school.

Marcus Garrett is a 30% perimeter shooter. Maybe he can move that up to 33%, but chances are if he improves, his improvement will be in the areas where he already excels like rebounding, passing, and defending rather than shooting.

Crimsonorblue22 said:

Didn't Travis "fix" his shot?

Releford was a big time scorer in HS. While his shot wasn't great, he never had many issues. He became a better shooter over time, but the skill was always there. It just needed refinement.

Garrett is different. He shot 30% from three as a senior in high school. He shot 62% from the FT line. He averaged about 13 points a game.

Garrett is a good player in a lot of ways, but he has never shown a good ability to put the ball in the basket.

That's the red flag to me in betting on significant improvement. He's never even really flashed that ability, so to expect it over a full season is a stretch. He may very well improve, but if he shoots better than 32% from three I will be even more impressed with his work ethic and dedication.

One other factor hurting the ratings is that Toronto, at least as I understand it, does not count in the ratings. Typically you have two U.S. markets locked into the Finals. This year you only have one. If the Finals were Golden State against Philly or Boston (or even Milwaukee) the U.S. ratings would go up because people in those cities would tune in at a higher rate.

Garrett certainly could fix his shot. Guys have improved their shooting touch before. It is not unprecedented.

It is, however, unlikely.

Garrett is pretty far along in his career and has never shown touch, either from the FT line or the perimeter. That suggests he is simply a poor shooter, not a guy that is an adjustment away, or just needs more repetition.

If KU does play a big lineup with Garrett, they have to attack the offensive glass. That is their only hope. That UNC team was a dominant offensive rebounding squad, and they still had very little margin for error.

BShark said:

CLANGA time if Garrett, Silvio and Doke all start. Will be brutal.

I don't know how you build an effective offense with those three on the floor together for long stretches. I would sag Garrett's man into the paint and deny entry passes with him, basically playing him in a zone in the lane.

If Garrett can't consistently punish that type of defense, we could have some awful offensive performances regardless of who the other two players are because the defense would be so compact.

drgnslayr said:

What are the rules concerning a player wearing wrist guards all year?

It might help his FT%s, too, forcing him to straighten out his shot.

Inquiring minds want to know...

I think he can wear the soft kind. I think the hard ones are illegal.

Big men that are injury prone rarely reach their potential. I hope that he can stay healthy long enough to see how far basketball can take him.

I have said before that the issue for KU recruiting lower ranked players is location. Some want us to be like Michigan State, ignoring the fact that Michigan HS basketball produces dozens more D1 recruits than Kansas does. Izzo can pursue an OAD, then fall back to recruit a local kid. Self doesn't have that option, because often there is no local kid to recruit.

If there were, I would see this as viable option. But without more local talent, it just isn't happening.

@jayballer73

Lets do a quick thought experiment here. Let's say rather than recruiting DeAndre Ayton, we focus on recruits in the range that you outline, so we are looking at Jeremiah Tilmon, Dan Gafford and Jalen Hill. All three of those guys signed in state.

Tilmon has been solid so far, 8 points, 4 boards as a freshman, 10 and 6 as a sophomore.

Gafford has been better. 12 and 6, then 17 and 9.

Hill has been disappointing. He missed his freshman season with the China shoplifting incident. Averaged 4 and 6 this past season.

So we target all three of those guys. Gafford is the best, but good luck getting him out of state and away from Arkansas.

Same story with Tilmon and Mizzou.

Maybe we land Hill, but he's easily the worst of the three and he likely has very little impact either last season or this past season even if he doesn't get suspended.

And that's assuming we get him. We could just as easily recruit that next group and still strike out because so many of the guys in that range stay regionally close to home/ in state.

We don't gain a recruiting advantage by pursuing that range of recruits, and we likely don't get impact players like you will recruiting the top 20-25.

We basically become a higher level Iowa State.

jayballer73 said:

BShark said:

justanotherfan said:

If a top 20 prospect busts, you get Quentin Grimes. If a lower prospect busts, you get Anrio Adams. One guy you can still play every night, and he can come through big in some games. The other is borderline unplayable.

The guy you recruit that's ranked 50 something better be legit, otherwise you get nothing.

This is spot on. There is generally a better floor the higher up the rankings you go.

True - but you have to get them 1st - you spend the entire yr battling all the other blue bloods and then when you strike out - - - you REALLY strike out. - you have spent your year on upper tier guys and then you lose and by then you haven't given the middle tier guys a sniff - -now they not gonna give you one.

This is true of every recruit. Its not like if Bill Self walks into the living room of any kid ranked between 30 and 80 that kid is going to immediately sign with KU. We have to recruit that kid, too.

That kid may want more PT, too. That kid may want to stay closer to home. That kid may want to go to another school, too. Its not like players 30-80 only have one scholarship offer.

It's not automatic that we sign whoever we want just by recruiting lower ranked players. We could still strike out. We could end up with only one or two guys instead of three or four. And because those aren't high end guys, we may not be able to make up for that.

If a top 20 prospect busts, you get Quentin Grimes. If a lower prospect busts, you get Anrio Adams. One guy you can still play every night, and he can come through big in some games. The other is borderline unplayable.

The guy you recruit that's ranked 50 something better be legit, otherwise you get nothing.

I think Braun will be effective in time. But if I were projecting his freshman scoring numbers, I would take the under on 6 ppg.

Now, there is a possibility that he ends up being a key floor spacer in a role similar to what Grimes had last year (perhaps one his game is more suited for).

You can sag off the ball if you are covering a non shooter. After Garrett had those big games driving, teams started doing just that. It changes the available passing angles and really negates the drive to sag off a few feet.

Garrett is a good player with some clear flaws. Putting him at the point won't erase or even hide those flaws.

Garrett's best use is as a cutter that works from the wing in, or along the baseline on the weak side. From there, you couldn't sag off him or use his man as a free safety because he can finish and he would be a very dangerous offensive rebounder if left alone.

Garrett's limitations mean he is beat served by being on the perimeter less, not more.

dylans said:

Hard reality is even the few guys who make the nba don’t often last very long. It’s hard to hold on to that wealth as a youngster and how many last more than 10 years? (I heard the numbers recently on guys in more than 14 years and it’s not many- don’t recall exactly or I’d quote it)

There is a lot of life left after 29.

Thing is, most guys cannot play in the NBA unless they are at their peak, so for most people, that means their NBA window will close at 29 or 30 because of talent anyway. Adding an extra year or two of earnings on the front end of that (going pro at 19 or 20 vs. 22) makes good financial sense.

There is a lot of life after 29. Maximizing earnings now could make life a bit better later on.

I honestly don't blame Q for leaving. He did not benefit from his time at KU and leaves a worse prospect than when he arrived, similar to what happened to Malik Newman at Mississippi State.

It just never quite worked out at KU for Q. I wish him success wherever he lands.

We saw this past season what the KU floor is under Self. Third place in the league, first weekend tournament exit. That's about the worst outcome we will likely see under Self in terms of regular season and postseason results.

The question is what is the ceiling? Next year, its S16 or E8. That's probably as far as that roster can be expected to take us in a best case scenario. The floor would be second or third in the league, with a first weekend exit from the tournament.

Honestly, I don't know where we go from here. We have to adapt, but I am not sure what that looks like going forward.

BigBad said:

Going to college made Zion more money. He got a ton of exposure that wouldn't have happened overseas and his advertising value has skyrocketed. The American consumer believes in the competitive level of college basketball. Footage from overseas always is received as "those players are not as good". Only real basketball nerds like us understand that those pro leagues are actually more competition.

Five years ago I would have agreed with you. But Zion was famous before arriving at Duke thanks to YouTube. There's nothing stopping a high level recruit from going overseas for a year while having a strong ad campaign either stateside, or in Australia or Asia (the Asian market is huge). It may be more lucrative long term to go to Asia and launch a campaign there just based on the population difference.

BShark said:

@justanotherfan Agree.

Great thread from Sam Vecenie: 🐦 View Tweet

Interesting stuff here. This could become more of a trend. Players are worth more than a scholarship, that much is clear.

This has been coming for a while. I have posted on this board numerous times that college hoops needed to rethink its structure. There are other options out there and more kids are starting to take those other options.

Eliminating the OAD rule is a solution about five years too late for college basketball. That won't solve the problem now. The ability to earn a salary, plus endorsements is too lucrative. A guy like Zion Williamson could have made millions last year on an endorsement deal alone.

The trial has just brought more light to how much its worth to get even a mid tier recruit. Its no surprise that some of these people are starting to believe that money should go into their own pocket instead.

KirkIsMyHinrich said:

@Bosthawk A 4.0 and around a 1500 SAT score are minimum requirements to get into Stanford. And you'll probably need more than that to get accepted. When I did my undergrad in engineering, there were 4.0-GPA high school students who failed general courses. High school GPA doesn't mean much.

For an athlete at Stanford, that easily gets you in. That gets him in anywhere.

I am gonna be honest - unless Agbaji and Dotson take big steps forward, the freshmen come in ready to contribute immediately or Garrett has fixed his jump shot, the ceiling for this KU team is Sweet 16 or Elite 8.

There just isn't enough punch in that backcourt to make a Final 4 run. KU should be able to start a new conference title streak, but this roster probably isn't a title contender.

KU will be good next year. Perhaps even very good. Probably will spend most of the year in the top 10 good. But that's the ceiling. This likely won't be a great team.

Royals should start looking to move the veterans that won't be around beyond 2020. They will need those reinforcements when 2024 rolls around, so they should stockpile talent now. That was the mistake they made in 2011and 2012. They didn't trade away guys that weren't going to be around past 2013, so they didn't have depth to extend the run.

drgnslayr said:

@justanotherfan

I like your reasoning. Did Virginia have 1 or 2 elite athletes? I can't recall.

Virginia had Deandre Hunter, who is pretty widely accepted to be a lottery pick in this year's NBA draft.

I don't think they really had a second guy quite on that level.

drgnslayr said:

FUNDAMENTALS VS ATHLETICISM

Back to this...

Question for all...

Would you rather have a good athlete who knows the game, knows "Self ball", or would you rather have an extreme athlete who is weak on fundamentals and Self ball?

At the college level, because everyone is not an elite athlete, you can get by with average to above average athletes that know the game well. So for KU, I would take the good athlete that knows the game, provided he is a good enough athlete. But at that point, you're asking that guy to be certain he is never out of position or beaten on a play, because he won't have the speed/athleticism to recover.

However, you can't have a team full of just average to above average guys. You need one or two elite level guys. You don't have to have five or six of those (though it won't hurt), but you need at least one NBA caliber player on the roster, probably two just to be safe.

At the NBA level, the athletes win out because everyone is just too athletic to hide any lack of athleticism, no matter how well you know the game. You can't hide anywhere out there, so you better be top notch because the NBA is about forcing guys to do things they aren't necessarily good at.

@Kcmatt7 and @BShark make great points about recruiting being a long process. Because of that, you start watching these guys as middle schoolers, and start recruiting them as freshmen and sophomores in HS.

A kid that is the 30th or 40th best player in his class as a freshman in high school may flat out stop developing, at which point he may not even be a top 200 recruit as a junior. At that point its too late to get back into the running with guys that have gone from being unranked to high level, and that kid isn't P5 material at that point.

Once kids start growing and getting more athletic in HS, they really can take off.

For example, Cleveland State thought they had a pretty solid combo guard out of Chicago. Then that kid grew eight inches in a summer and turned into Anthony Davis as we know him. When KU started recruiting Joel Embiid he was hardly ranked in the top 100. Then he just exploded. Basically went from being a project to being a lottery pick in less than 24 months. On the other side of things, Zach Peters was a nice recruit for KU. Injuries kept him from ever playing a P5 level game.

Ochai Agbaji is another good example. He was barely a D1 recruit entering his senior year. He developed so quickly that KU was lucky to land him. Often, that type of player lands at a mid major instead because its their best offer. But for every kid that develops rapidly, there are ten others that peak and never improve.

@Kcmatt7 makes a tremendous point about playing time. We act like only higher ranked players want to play, but that is just not the case. EVERYBODY wants to play. College sports, unlike HS sports, is a lot of work. Putting in that kind of time and effort to sit on the bench is not something most people want to do. Especially if they are good enough to play somewhere else, whether that's dropping down from P5 to mid major, or from D1 to D2. I had a friend that went D2 because he knew that he would be playing as a freshman and likely starting as a sophomore. He was good enough to crack a D1 rotation, but it may have taken him two or three seasons to get serious minutes.

And regardless of saying you won't recruit over a player, the reality is that every year, you're recruiting over what you already have. Let's do a quick exercise:

Say this year your roster has two PG, two combo guards, three true wings, a combo forward and four post players. You have a junior PG and a freshman PG. You have a senior combo guard and a sophomore combo guard. Two of your wings are juniors. One is a sophomore. Your combo forward is a freshman. Two senior post players, a freshman and a sophomore. So your squad is perfectly balanced with three seniors, three juniors, three sophomores and three freshmen. You need to replace your three seniors. What do you recruit?

Obviously you're going to recruit at least one new post player because you have two senior post players. But you also have two young post players. If you recruit a new post player that comes in and is better than your two current players guess what, you have now recruited over your in house talent. And because you have two seniors, you will probably have to offer four or five post guys. You have to recruit guys that are good enough to play eventually, maybe even right now because you don't have a ton of depth inside.

On the perimeter, you're graduating a combo guard, so you have to go get another perimeter player, whether that's a PG, combo guard or a true wing player. But again, let's say you miss on your top combo guard targets, but there's a really good PG out there that wants to come to your school. Now your current freshman PG is not happy because he's stuck fighting this guy for a spot in the rotation and he's already (presumably) sitting behind your junior PG.

Saying you won't recruit over guys is impossible. Saying that you won't recruit over a certain level is impossible. KU recruits the top players because KU is a top school that can recruit the top players. If KU avoids recruiting those players, they risk missing out on more than just OADs.

The rise of the three has everything to do with the dominance of the big man from yesteryear, but the rise of the three did not come from the NBA down.

It worked its way up.

A few months ago I was watching some old videos of high school state title games. I ran across a game from the mid 90's. I think it was the state title game, not sure which class, but probably 5A because I think one of the teams was McPherson. Anyway, McPherson (I think) started the game in a zone defense with literally all five defenders inside the three point arc. They had some good players on that team, so getting a good, clean shot inside the arc was basically impossible. If you remember back to the 90's, that was how a lot of teams played.

If you had a good big man, you could overcome that because you could warp the zone, but if not, you were probably stuck hoping for a mistake from the defense, or forcing up challenged shots in the paint. Those were your basic options offensively because not many teams used the three point shot.

But not every HS team has a good big man. Most don't. A lot of HS teams don't even have a true big man, as their biggest guy is maybe 6-3 or 6-4. But every team has a couple of decent guards. Some have more than that. And so a lot of teams in HS started spreading the floor playing four and five out. I remember Ty Lue's HS team playing basically 5 out in the mid 90's, with nothing but guards. Everybody could shoot and handle. I'm not sure they had anybody on that team over 6-2 or so. But they were a handful to guard because they could space the floor. If they tried to pound it inside with a traditional lineup, that team probably would have been okay (they had some really good guards, obviously), but not a state contender in Missouri. But spacing the floor like that, they went deep into the state playoffs in Missouri.

A few years later Wyandotte had a similar team that went deep into the state playoffs, and I don't think they had anyone over 6-3 on that squad.

Then you had the rise of the dribble drive motion, which is based on the old motion concept from Indiana, molded around the three point line with shooters that can handle or shoot on every kick out. That was actually developed by a HS coach in California who didn't have any size on his roster.

Well, what happens when guards are getting better and better at the lower levels of basketball, and learning to shoot the three as a weapon? They don't stop playing like that as they move up. They just continue to improve. And then Steph Curry happens at Davidson. All of a sudden David(son) can match up with Goliath (or at least get to the Elite Eight) because of a transcendent three point shooter.

NBA teams had started to scheme ways to get corner threes by now, having identified those as an extremely valuable shot. The corner three was so valuable that corner three specialists started popping up as a way to prevent teams from doubling the post from the corners. It also led to more spacing, creating driving lanes for talented slashers. Concepts like "gravity" (the ability to keep your man close to you even when you didn't have the ball) started to emerge. Good shooters had gravity even without the ball simply because you could not leave them to help on a drive, and the value of the three point shot made it preferable to give up a layup rather than an open corner three.

Then Morey-ball hit the NBA and it was time for the next evolution. There are basically three high value shots in basketball if you break down the percentages. Dunks/layups, threes and free throws. Everything else is low value because its still worth two points, but converted at a much lower rate.

The next transition is coming, but this time it will come from the top down. The NBA was the last to embrace the rise of the three because every NBA team had skilled interior players. Every NBA team had guys that could hit two point jumpers at a decent rate. There wasn't a necessity like there was at the HS level, where most players cannot consistently make shots when they are closely guarded.

NBA coaches are now developing defensive rotations and schemes to run guys off good three point shots. Once that type of defensive rotation trickles down to the college and eventually HS levels, we will see the mid range game open back up. It's all about counters and adjustments.

Threes were undervalued for a long time, and now they are on the verge of being overvalued. Once that happens, guys that can pump fake, take one dribble and pull up consistently will become incredibly valuable. That is the next evolution. We have already seen with the Rockets losing the last two years to Golden State that Houston's strategy works well during the regular season, but stalls in the playoffs when teams can strategize ways to take away their quality catch and shoot looks. The next adjustment is to evolve from a straight catch and shoot to a pump and pull up game.

We aren't headed for a game full of Durant's because we don't have enough Durant's in the world. The average height of an NBA player has stayed relatively flat for almost 30 years. The only difference has been that the margins have trimmed - fewer players over seven feet or under six feet, and almost everyone in the league between 6-2 and 6-10 (about 97% of the league).

If anything, we are heading for a day when everyone is interchangeable, with most players between 6-4 and 6-9 as the game further condenses. More and more players that are similar in size and skill. Fewer smaller guards, fewer big big men, tons of in between sized players with similar skillsets.

KirkIsMyHinrich said:

Joel is listed at 7'0'' and 250 lbs. I think it's probably 7'2'' and close to 300 lbs.

People around the NBA say Embiid is closer to 280 now. That picture suggests he's definitely more like 7-1 or 7-2.

BeddieKU23 said:

KU recently offered 5 star guard Cam Thomas of Oak Hill. Master Bucket getter is all you need to know here

That's a great description. He's not super quick, or super athletic, or really big, or anything else. He just puts the ball in the basket over and over and over.

Now, he's not overly small, or unathletic, or slow by any means. But the thing that stands out about him when you watch is that he puts the ball in the basket all the time.

@wissox

I get your frustration, but no matter what news source you could have checked over the last six weeks, you would have gotten the same story - Grimes is gone. I'm not even really sure how much traction the "Grimes could be back" story really has, but that may be because I already accepted that he was gone, which every credible report until this week would have told you.

The trouble with stay/go and recruiting is that 100% of the reporting is based on rumors and speculation. There's just not a lot of 100% solid information. A student athlete says something, then everyone analyzes it. Their dad wears an orange shirt - they must like Texas. Mom wears blue the next day - looks like Duke is in the mix. They order biscuits and gravy for breakfast, must like the SEC schools. Its all rampant speculation based on random facts that may not even mean anything.

I follow recruiting the same way I follow politics - ignore the pundits and talking heads. Pay attention only to what the person says or does. If they say they enjoyed their visit to KU, it means exactly that. They enjoyed their visit. It doesn't mean they are ready to commit. It just means they had a good time over the weekend. That's better than having a terrible time, but they might have also had good visits at their other schools.

Until Grimes says something more, I am going to presume that he is going to stay in the draft. Things could change. There could be injuries, subpar performance, breakouts, whatever. But Grimes is in right now, and my guess is that he will stay in until he says he isn't.

@drgnslayr

Most teams don't have the depth to foul someone all the time. Even if you used walk ons, what you would sacrifice offensively to have a guy in there that can't contribute offsets the gain of the missed FTs. That's why teams usually only do the fouling in the second half, or for limited spurts.

If you wanted, you might be able to scheme Doke out of a game by strategically fouling in stretches. Foul him every time for two or three minutes at a time to break up KU's offensive flow, then go back to your regular sets.

Other notes from physical testing:

Dotson has the fastest lane shuttle so far (2.8 seconds). His standing vertical and max vert (30 and 38.5 inches) are very solid for a guy his size.

Grimes did not do well in the leaping department. A disappointing 27.5 in the standing vert, and just 36 in the max. Grimes has not run yet.

No one has bench press numbers yet.

Grimes finished with 9 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists, 3 steals and 2 turnovers.

Without having seen the actual game, I can't put that performance into any real context.

@drgnslayr

Kareem is one of the 25 best players of all time.

Wilt is one of the 10 best players of all time.

It's that simple, really.

@Crimsonorblue22

You can track stats here:

https://stats.nba.com/game/0921900001/ ↗

So far in his game, Grimes is 3-6, including 1-3 from 3PT, 2 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 turnover. 7 points in the first half.