🏀 KuBuckets Archive

AL Central is down now because Chicago, Detroit and Kansas City are all in the midst of a rebuild. Chicago is the furthest along on their rebuild, so they should start winning in two years, around the time that Cleveland starts to fall off. Detroit and Kansas City are about three years behind that, with their best minor league talent still down in A ball, so they are about 5 years from being truly in contention, around the time that Cleveland is starting their full rebuild and Chicago is peaking.

Minnesota is in the worst shape, to be honest. They aren't really rebuilding at this point, but they also haven't really peaked. I don't see them surpassing Cleveland now or Chicago in two or three years, so their best chance may already be behind them (2017 Wild Card loss).

That's the tough thing about small markets. You have a relatively short window to win in. The Royals maximized their window the most (2 World Series, one title). Tampa, Oakland and Pittsburgh all had longer windows, but only Tampa made it to the World Series, and none of them won a title. Once that window opens, you really have to push everything into one or two years because that chance may be gone quicker than you think.

That's why I like what Milwaukee has done this year. They realize that this may be their best shot at the playoffs and potentially the World Series either this year or next year. Now, maybe they don't win it, but its smart to focus on the next year or two rather than extending the window long into the future, with no guarantee of payoff.

If I were ranking, I would have to start at the bottom with Prohm.

He has never done anything of note.

Weber would be 9 because he usually has a couple of good years at a program before they fall off.

Kruger would probably be next. He's a good coach, but he also tends to fall off after a few years, then move on to a new school.

Boynton hasn't had a ton of success yet. I think in a few years he will be a few spots higher.

Smart is another solid coach with up and down results. He has re-made his squad almost on the fly. I think they are about to have a nice run.

Dixon, Beard and Drew all have interesting situations, but they have been able to succeed.

Huggins wins wherever he goes. Period. He had a long, successful run at Cincy, and he's had a nice run at WVU.

And of course Self ranks at the top of this list.

@Kcmatt7

Since I haven't seen the contract, I can't really say. Some contracts include a clause that is broad enough that if it suggests he "should have known", he can be fired. In that case, tOSU would not have to prove actual knowledge.

If the contract requires tOSU to prove actual knowledge, that's a much higher burden, obviously, and one that they likely cannot meet.

However, there also may be a clause that requires him to have oversight over his direct reports. There's not much dispute here that his assistant coach did some awful things. If Meyer is responsible for reviewing and reporting that behavior to his superiors (the police calls are the best proof of that) then he failed in his duty either by not keeping track, or by not reporting. I don't know if there is such a clause in his contract, but if there is, he is toast.

Lots of angles here, all of which are dependent on the actual contractual language.

If this is true (and the growing evidence suggests it is) as @Texas-Hawk-10 said, Meyer will be untouchable. His career will basically be OVER. You can't hire Art Briles now. Urban Meyer will be in that same boat. You can't look the other way in a situation like that and hope no one finds out because when someone inevitably finds out, it will all be over. It is over for Urban Meyer unless he can somehow prove he had no idea what was going on.

A couple of observations.

1. @wissox is doing some tremendous work in the education system. Inner city schools are often strapped for resources at every level, from books and lab equipment to sports facilities. It takes a special person to work in that environment, and @wissox is clearly one of those people. Thank you for what you do!

2. The reason I am so passionate about police violence against African Americans is because every time I see one of these situations I know that it could very well be me. Many on this board would argue against that, but several of these incidents that led to the shootings occurred during otherwise routine traffic stops(studies ↗ show that minorities are stopped at a higher rate than whites, and searched at a higher rate than whites, even though those searches turn up contraband less frequently than when whites are searched). I've been stopped by the police more times than I care to count, so I know what it's like to be in that situation, where I know that the officer can shoot me dead, then claim he feared for his life, and no one will ever be held accountable for my murder, like Philando Castille.

Pointing to black on black crime doesn't solve this. When black on black crime occurs, someone can be held accountable for the crime. When police violence occurs, NO ONE is held accountable. The current Department of Justice is getting rid of the department that investigated police departments ↗. There is no interest in holding anyone accountable for these things. That makes it much different than crime, which is being actively investigated and punished.

And that is why I (and many others) speak out against this. If officers were being held accountable, there would be far less outcry. But officers are rarely even charged in these situations. Even when they are dismissed from one police department for potentially inappropriate behavior, they often just get a job at another police department because many law enforcement agencies will accept a resignation, even under bad circumstances, and allow an officer to leave without making a permanent note in the officer's personnel file.

Think of it this way - if a day care worker was mistreating children, you would not want that worker to simply be able to resign from a position at one day care facility and move across town, or to the next county, or across the state line, and immediately get a job at another day care facility. Studies ↗ have shown that the overwhelming majority of complaints regarding officers focus on a handful of officers. Most police officers are not bad. Let me repeat that since some on this board think I am anti-police.

MOST POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT BAD

In fact, I would do so far as to say the majority are good officers trying to do their jobs the right way. The problem is that many departments refuse to eliminate the worst officers from the force, instead soiling the dignity and reputation of their good officers to protect the bad ones. Why are we, as a society, okay with this?

@Kcmatt7

I agree. This is a first step for sure. It is not a final step. Ultimately, the NBA will have to put in restrictions like casinos do - players and immediate families cannot gamble on any NBA game, no exceptions.

The only way to make sure that players/officials/coaches/team personnel are not involved with betting and all of the dangers associated with betting (such as Tim Donaghy) is to regulate it through the league.

@drgnslayr

I think Vick has a strong year. I think he probably equals his numbers from last season, but more efficient - so still 12 points, 5 rebounds, 2 assists per game, but shooting 50/40/70 with 1 turnover per game because he simply won't be called on to do as much.

I feel the same way about Doke, but think his scoring will drop a little. He probably will only average 10 or 11 per game, because Dedric Lawson is just a better natural scorer. However, Doke may very well shoot 80% or more from the field because he will get dunks and layups. I see a lot of 4/5 or 5/6 from the field nights for Doke, but I don't see many 12/15 or 8/11 nights because those shots will be going to Dedric a lot of times. As a result, I imagine Doke shoots 79% or 80% from the field, but on less shots than last year (probably about 200 instead of 270). Can Doke make 160 out of 200 shots? I think so. I also think we are going to find out.

@JayHawkFanToo

I am a lawyer. Because of that, I read and analyze things a certain way.

Your first statement, which I refuted with a few minutes on Google was as follows:

I know of many players that quietly do a lot of outstanding community work without looking or asking for the limelight or credit but the more vocal protesters do nothing.

You even wrote it in bold so it would stand out.

So I looked up the most vocal protesters - Colin Kaepernick, Malcolm Jenkins, the Bennett brothers, Brandon Marshall, plus Marcus Peters for some local flavor - and posted links that I found after doing a simple Google search about stories of them doing community service.

You attempted to respond in two ways. First you tried to re-frame your statement, saying you were talking not about community work, but work focused specifically on the police violence issue. You said:

Here, I was talking about discussing the issue at the center of the protest, not charity work,

That would have been a good argument, except that, as you yourself had to admit

Malcolm Jenkins and Anquan Boldin spoke to congress about >police brutality.

Excellent, there is one that wants to make a difference although change will not come from congress where members are more interested in their own welfare and r-election that solving issues.

I can't help that Congress is lousy. They make our laws. These players went to try and make change happen, which was something you specifically said they did not do.

Jenkins also did a ride along with Philadelphia police.

Excellent. I posted on different thread before that everybody should do this one time to understand what being a police officer is like. I did one and I now how a lot more admiration and respect for the work they do.

Brandon Marshall met with Denver police to begin a dialogue between urban communities around Denver and the police.

Again, excellent and a good step toward finding common ground and a solution to the problem.

These were things I directed you to. Yet, you said in your initial response that I hadn't cited any of that work.

You also said that:

I don’t need you to tell about the good work players do. My comment was about the protesting football players and most of your references are about basketball players.

That was easy to dispel because, well, math.

These were false or misleading statements that I called you on, but that you don't want to acknowledge.

You then tried the old tactic of moving the goal posts, claiming that you were talking about all protesters, not just the "more vocal protesters":

So we have what…a small handful of players, 3? 4? 5? addressing the issue? Where are the rest of the hundreds that protested during games? I can post 100 links about 3 or 4 people and it is still about 3 or 4 people and not 100, right?

There were a number of players that met with the NFL regarding donations and charity work to address this issue. You can find stories about that here ↗, here ↗ and here ↗.

But that doesn't change the fact that this is not what you initially said. A timeline:

1. You said "the more vocal protesters do nothing"
2. I disproved your statement
3. You claim I didn't address your initial statement, and said I provided more links to basketball players.
4. Several other posters on this board point out that the links I posted address those concerns.
5. I point out that 14 is more than 8.
6. You claim that it's not just the more vocal protesters, but all protesters.

It sad, honestly. If we were two opposing lawyers dealing with an issue in court and that same scenario played out as I listed above, you would likely be in line to be informally admonished by the court, or possibly formally sanctioned.

It's okay to be wrong if you own up to it. It's not okay to be wrong and change the topic.

So, given that, are you now ready to acknowledge that your statements were either outright false, or at least misleading, or will we continue to have to wait?

I do have a response about that article, by the way. But it can wait.

@drgnslayr

With the talent on this team, Vick is probably the fourth or fifth most talented player on the roster behind both Lawson's and Grimes at the very least, and likely Azuibuke and possibly Dotson. Simply put, I don't know that we want Vick to try and take over games when there are other, more talented guys that can take over.

We want Vick to play his role, which I believe he can do to an exceptional level. I believe Vick can lock in and be a tremendous defender, and probably shoot around or over 40% from three. If he plays that role, that could go a long way to helping KU get to the mountaintop this year.

JayHawkFanToo said:

@justanotherfan

I don’t need you to tell about the good work players do. My comment was about the protesting football players and most of your references are about basketball players.

For those who didn't click through my links, I linked to three articles about Colin Kaepernick, 4 about Malcolm Jenkins, 2 about Marcus Peters, 1 about Brandon Marshall, 2 about Michael Bennett, 1 about Martellus Bennett and one about Arian Foster. I also linked to four articles each about Lebron James and Steph Curry.

So @JayHawkFanToo, that's 14 articles about football players and 8 about basketball players. 14 is more than 8. Your statement was either outright false or at least misleading.

Again, this is what I wrote...

“If this issue is so important, I always wondered why is it that all these players that kneel on company time don’t do it on their own time? They have the money, resources and connections to set up events like town hall meetings or press conferences to discuss the issue outside the football field but I just don’t see this happening.”

The Kaepernick article about his donations shows the types of organizations he has supported, including organizations that work on things like fighting mass incarceration, assisting single mothers, mental health treatment for former inmates, and organizations combating police brutality.

Malcolm Jenkins and Anquan Boldin spoke to congress about police brutality.

Malcolm Jenkins' foundation works with high school students in New Orleans to improve graduation rates and provide resources for under-resourced communities.

Jenkins also did a ride along with Philadelphia police.

Brandon Marshall met with Denver police to begin a dialogue between urban communities around Denver and the police.

Martellus Bennett and Michael Bennett donated all of their profits from 2017 jersey sales to after school programs and inner city garden projects, as well as inner city schools as a way of expanding education opportunities.

Kaepernick, Jenkins, Marshall and the Bennett brothers have been among the most consistent protesters.

Again, the articles I linked to addressed what you said specifically. Your statements were, again, either outright false, or at least misleading.

Now, maybe you can give your opinion on the article I cited.

I will give my opinion on the article you cited, but only after you acknowledge that the statements that you made, which I cited above, were either outright false, or at least misleading. Otherwise, you do not merit my response to your question.

@Kcmatt7

If Beaty is making progress, you shouldn't fire him. If Beaty isn't making progress, you should fire him.

I don't think that decision should be made beforehand.

@Kcmatt7

Nothing is lost. But when making that decision, shouldn't the question be "what is gained?"

The best candidates, guys like Mike Sanford, Neal Brown, Jason Candle, Mike Norvell and Seth Littrell, aren't going to be available to even talk midseason, as they all have head coaching jobs currently. It's fairly likely that all of those guys will be coaching and may have a bowl game upcoming, so late December is the first opportunity to really hire a new coach.

I'm not advocating for Beaty to keep the job past this season, but I am also not advocating for a midseason dismissal. There's nothing gained by getting rid of him midyear in my opinion.

That doesn't mean that Long shouldn't be getting his list ready, as @kjayhawks suggests. That's a very good idea, in fact. But whether you fire Beaty in October or December, the situation remains the same.

@Woodrow

Most recruiting sites have a tab for each school that lists who they are considering and who they have offered.

Here's ESPN ↗

Here's 24/7 ↗

@JayHawkFanToo

Read this ↗. Or this ↗. Or this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, or this ↗.

When you finish that, then read this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, this ↗, and definitely this ↗.

dylans said:

@justanotherfan Arebt most of the eastern schools older? Might that skew the all time win totals? Or is it close enough?

It's actually fairly close overall. The list is here ↗ for perusal.

The top 20 in terms of seasons goes like this:

1. Temple (122 - East)
2. Kansas (120 - West)
3. Purdue (120 - East)
4. Illinois State (120 - East)
5. Michigan State (119 - East)
6. Indiana (118 - East)
7. Penn (118 - East)
8. Syracuse (117 - East)
9. Cincinnati (117 - East)
10. Oregon State (117 - West)
11. Ohio State (117 - East)
12. Iowa (117 - West)
13. Akron (117 - East)
14. BYU (116 - West)
15. Washington (116 - West)
16. Vanderbilt (115 - East)
17. Kentucky (115 - East)
18. UConn (115 - East)
19. Bradley (114 - East)
20. K-State (114 - West)

Those early seasons don't carry nearly as much weight as you might imagine. In the first 9 seasons of KU's history, coached by James Naismith, KU played 115 games total. For perspective, Devonte Graham had 122 wins in his KU career.

There are 5 "Power conferences. In those 5 power conferences, there are 65 total schools. I think we would all agree that the chances a non-P5 team will win a title is incredibly low. The last to do it was UNLV back in 1990. The last to make the title game was Butler in 2011. So it is an incredible uphill battle for a non-P5 school to make the title game, let alone win it.

Of the P5, the two conferences based primarily west of the Mississippi are the two smallest conferences. There are only 27 P5 schools west of the Mississippi. The other 38 are all East of the Mississippi. The numbers dictate that basketball power will consistently reside east of the Mississippi.

Taking it a little deeper, the list of schools with the most victories goes like this:
1. Kentucky (East)
2. Kansas (West)
3. North Carolina (East)
4. Duke (East)
5. Temple (East)
6. Syracuse (East)
7. UCLA (West)
8. Notre Dame (East)
9. St. John's (East)
10. Louisville (East)
11. Indiana (East)
12. BYU (West)
13. Utah (West)
14. Arizona (West)
15. Cincinnati (East)
16. Illinois (East)
17. Texas (West)
18. Purdue (East)
19. Western Kentucky (East)
20. Penn (East)
21. Washington (West)
22. West Virginia (East)
23. Villanova (East)
24. Oregon State (West)
25. Princeton (East)

That's 17 of the top 25, 8 of the top 10 and 4 of the top 5.

If more population was further west, particularly in the Plains and Rockies, I think the distribution would be more even, but that's just not the case.

@JayHawkFanToo

I don't. There are just more schools East of the Mississippi than there are west, so that would be expected.

From 1939 to 1979, the following "West" schools won titles:

Oregon, Stanford, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma State (A&M), Kansas, San Francisco, Cal, UCLA, UTEP (Texas Western). That's 10 schools.

Also remember that those western schools were helped in the 50's and 60's particularly because a lot of eastern schools would not recruit and play black players because the SEC and ACC would not schedule integrated teams. As a result, Bill Russell, who was from Louisiana, went to San Francisco and led them to a pair of titles. Elgin Baylor, who was from Washington D.C., went to Seattle. Texas Western had an all black starting five. KU got Wilt. UCLA got tons of black players from all over the country.

I think that the cultural shift (ACC and SEC allowing black players) allowed them to recruit more players from those areas - would Russell, Chamberlain and Alcindor really have gone all the way across the country had they been able to play closer to home?

There's not much reason to fire Beaty mid season, honestly. Unless he completely loses the team, he should finish out the season because the next candidate won't be available until the season is over anyway, and most schools won't let you contact their coach until at least the end of the regular season. There's no benefit to firing Beaty at the halfway point.

Among blue bloods, KU has the fewest titles, and also has the fewest titles. Obviously, those two things are related.

Kentucky has never gone more than 20 years between titles (1958 to 1978). North Carolina has never gone more than 25 years (1957 to 1982). KU went 36 years (1952 to 1988) and then went another 20 before getting the third title.

From a national perspective, the lack of national titles really cuts into KU's standing among the national powers. I think that's why lots of people at the national level put Duke into the blueblood conversation with KU, UNC and UK. Duke has more titles than KU does, and won 3 titles between KU's titles in 1988 and 2008, along with three more title game appearances, and three other Final Fours. Comparatively, KU had zero titles from 1989 to 2007, two title game appearances and two other Final Fours.

KU needs to string together some Final Fours, Title game appearances and titles.

KU should be good. We all know that.

But the way this writer goes about analyzing why the Hawks will be good is flawed. He isn't accounting for minutes distribution, shot distribution or anything like that. Vick and Azuibuke likely will see their averages stay the same or even fall because the Lawson brothers, Moore, Grimes and Dotson all have to get minutes and shots. Chances are the shots and minutes leaving from Newman, Graham and Svi will more than be absorbed by the newcomers and redshirts. It's likely that Doke and Vick do not have expanded roles this year.

jaybate 1.0 said:

@justanotherfan

One thing Vegas teaches: when the odds are stacked against suckers, suckers tend to lose.

In Vegas, the odds are always with the house, but you can still win sometimes. The odds are just the odds.

Every path is hard until it isn't, or vice versa. You have to play the games. Upsets happen to make a hard path easier, or an easy path ends up being tougher than you thought.

Kcmatt7 said:

Trade looks like a decent return. Still passed on $3M salary though... Probably could have gotten more if we had eaten it. But Royals will be Royals.

This is the problem with the deals the Royals have made. They should have absorbed the rest of the salary for the Brewers if it meant getting a better return. Refusing to eat salary is shortsighted. You're building for the future here.

mayjay said:

@JayHawkFanToo As previously noted, the NCAA has stated that the Newton approach will not be the rule in the future--kid will be held responsible regardless of lacking actual knowledge when a family member solicits and receives money.

That's a dangerous rule to put into place. That allows you to punish a student athlete even if they had no knowledge and gained no benefit.

At this point, I'd be in favor of the Big 12 doing a challenge with the Big East and the Pac-12 as well as the SEC. The Big 12 needs as many revenue producing opportunities as possible for the non-revenue schools (K-State, Iowa State, West Virginia). Give those schools a way to schedule another nationally televised non-con game.

Heck, I'd like to see the Big 12 do a football challenge as well for the same reason. The conference has to stay economically viable.

@jaybate-1.0

The difference is one of philosophy.

Jay Wright encourages his guy to keep shooting, even if they are shooting poorly. He doesn't bury them in the bench or yank them out, so they keep shooting and improve.

A lot of coaches see a guy shooting >33% and yank him out, or tell him to stop shooting. It undercuts that player's confidence and he stops shooting, or struggles in other aspects (defense, ball handling) because he's lost confidence in his shooting.

Mikal Bridges and Donte DiVincenzo both shot poorly as freshmen, but still saw their roles stay consistent on the season. As sophomores, they saw their minutes increase and their percentages go up. Last year, both of those guys hit on 40% of their attempts while hoisting over 200 threes each.

That's a credit to Jay Wright's coaching. Those guys struggled with shooting as freshmen, but he kept encouraging them to shoot (even while playing Bridges 20 mpg on a national title team).

That's a huge confidence boost to shoot below 30% as Bridges did while playing decent minutes for a team trying to win a title, and yet never be discouraged from shooting.

How many D1 coaches can/would do that?

@jaybate-1-0

Wright got ahead of the game. His teams have been playing with the long ball for a while, but without the quality of shooters that they have had recently. As a result, they were a decent, but up and down team. Adding more consistent shooting changed their team. Wright hasn't really changed his style. It's just that his style ended up being where the game was going. Now everyone else is chasing him instead of the other way around.

I'm guessing Cunliffe goes D2 to play immediately rather than sit again. If that happens, he will be a star at that level.

Having a solid line could help this team get to the 3 or 4 win mark, which would be a mark of some real, tangible on field progress.

@JayHawkFanToo

Vick's athleticism and versatility make him a great matchup against a variety of teams. He can handle being in the middle of a zone or stationed as a shooter on the perimeter. He can guard multiple guys. He can rebound. Vick (and KJ) add an element to this team that a lot of other teams do not have with guys being able to be versatile.

@drgnslayr

If you want a "big" lineup, you could go Grimes, KJ, Dedric, Big Dave and Doke. That lineup still effectively fills out each position. There's some spacing issues with that group, but it could work for short stretches.

JayHawkFanToo said:

Interesting, several analysts now claim the the 3 top team in the League ↗ will be the Celtics, Raptor and 76ers who are all in the East...scroll down to item 5 on the link.

I think you might be misreading what the analysts are saying. They are saying that any of the three (Boston, Toronto, Philly) could be a top three team, but that they still believe Golden State and Houston will be top 3 teams.

@DoubleDD

Given the amount of controversy the last couple of days stemming from the Trump-Putin meeting, this is why you do not meet one on one.

No one knows what was agreed to, and there's no notes or written documentation to fall back on. All we have is whatever Trump and the interpreter remember. That's poor practice.

bskeet said:

1. Hide your tracks. The days of groups claiming responsibility for this or that is over. Boasting attracts heat. The new enemy prefers to operate more or less guerrilla-style in the shadows. The victim may not even realize they were cut until they are significantly impaired, let alone who cut them.

Excellent point. Beyond that, operate as a quasi-state.

One of the reasons the US has struggled in the war on terror is because there is no one to attack outright.

We weren't attacked by Afghanistan. We were attacked by terrorist groups based in Afghanistan. Innocents are mixed with perpetrators.

The US military is designed to fight other national armies. It is not built to fight quasi states or non states. Guerrilla style groups aren't confined to a specific bit of land. They move.

On the internet, its even worse. A hacking group can be in Russia today, Latvia tomorrow, Cyprus the next day, etc. They are moving faster than we have planned to react. The means used to attack can bounce around as well, pinging servers around the globe in seconds to initiate an attack, then fade back into the shadows before we even realize there was a breach.

Welder is too liberal for Kansas. I'm not sure Welder will even be the Democratic nominee.

bskeet said:

We're in the middle of a world war. It's just being fought on a new theater -- information.

This is so true.

A data hack can shut down critical systems for hours. Every year, businesses are hacked or have an information security breach. For businesses that have a security breach, many of the smaller ones are completely out of business within one year.

Identity theft is real. I am sure everyone on this board knows someone that has had to deal with identity theft, whether it was credit card fraud, bank account fraud or simple credit fraud.

This is a war being fought both domestically and internationally, but it isn't getting nearly enough attention.

@BigBad

Garrett is a much worse offensive player than any of the guys Metcalf listed there.

@drgnslayr

Since Cal went to UK (2010 season), here are the teams with the most Final Fours:

1. Kentucky - 4 (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015)

Tied for second

Villanova (2016, 2018)
UConn (2011, 2014)
Duke (2010, 2015)
North Carolina (2016, 2017)
Louisville (2012, 2013)
Kansas (2012, 2018)
Michigan State (2010, 2015)
Wisconsin (2014, 2015)
Michigan (2013, 2018)
Syracuse (2013, 2017)

Duke and Villanova have won titles in both Final Four trips they have made. So did UConn, but they have posted losing records more often than they have won titles since 2010. But they also only have two trips. Kentucky has only won once, but has been there four times. That's not exactly unproven, or fanbase dreaming. The current Final Four drought at Kentucky (three seasons) is the longest since Calipari arrived in Lexington. Duke went four seasons between trips, and hasn't been back in the same amount of time as Kentucky. Nova has gone twice in three years, but didn't have a trip since 2009 before that. Izzo has the same droughts as Coach K. Self had a five season drought between 2012 and this past season. Roy Williams went from 2009 to 2016 without a trip to the Final Four.

That doesn't mean Kentucky will automatically make it to the Final Four this year, obviously. But they certainly have a team that is capable of that.

@JayHawkFanToo

Being even a marginal NBA starter is a tall order, one that most collegiate players wouldn't achieve.

Josh Jackson's athleticism and skill level (non-shooting) guaranteed a certain floor for him at the pro level. He's both a superb athlete and a good ball handler for his size, with solid passing ability and vision, as well as athletic enough, with a high enough BBIQ to be an above average defender and offensive player.

Remember how often Josh Jackson just seemed to be in the "right place at the right time?" He has a great understanding of basketball, which he arrived on campus with.

KU really didn't change anything for him. He was a top 5 pick either way. Had they fixed his shot, that would have been helpful for him, but his NBA trajectory was neither improved nor harmed in his one year at KU.

@JayHawkFanToo

Several reasons for that.

1. Lower level of athleticism. Jackson is a great athlete that was able to dominate bigger guys with his quickness and overwhelm guards with his size.

2. Lower level of skill. Jackson is a good ball handler, so he can get where he wants to against collegiate players much more easily than in the NBA. Jackson shot 55% on all twos in college. He shot just 58% at the rim in the NBA.

3. Shorter three point line. Jackson shot 37% from three in college. He shot about 36% on long twos in the NBA. His shooting didn't really get worse from that range. It's just that, with his jump shot issues, stepping out further makes those issues matter a lot more.

Jackson's performance in the NBA shows how big the gap is between college and the NBA, even from the P5 level.

Hurt defending at a high level is making me much more comfortable with his floor at the D1 level because it means guys won't be able to basically play him off the court because he will be at least a serviceable defender, maybe better than that.

Josh Jackson shot 26% last year from three. That's pretty terrible.

His handles and passing are good enough to be a facilitator (poor man's Ben Simmons perhaps). That may be the best option for the Suns.

Last year Ben Simmons attempted just 11 threes. He did not make a single one. He outproduced Josh Jackson for one very simple reason, however. He only shot twos, and he shot most of those near the rim. 99% of his attempts were twos. 78% of his shot attempts were within 10 feet. Only 54% of Jackson's shots came from that close. Not only that, Simmons shot 74% on shots within 3 feet, while Jackson shot just 58% (NBA average is around 60%). Because of that difference in both distribution and efficiency, Simmons shot 55%, while Jackson shot 42%.

But Jackson is skilled enough to be a very good finisher inside. If he redistributes his shots to include about 45% from within 3 feet, 75% within 10 feet, and 90% from 2 point overall, his percentages would rise from 42% to about 46% with no improvement in his overall percentages, and his scoring would go up from 13.1 to 14.4 assuming that more shots at the rim would also mean more FT attempts. If FT attempts stayed flat, his scoring would still improve from 13.1 to 13.8. That's not insignificant. And again, that's just re-distributing his shots, not improving as a shooter at all. If he got to slightly above league average at the rim and redistributed his shots to around 45% at the rim (let's say shooting 62% within 3 feet), is worth nearly half a point in scoring to him and gets him above 14 points a game. Add in extra FTs and Jackson is close to 15 a game, which isn't far off the 15.8 Simmons averaged last season.

@DoubleDD

I'm not against sitting down with other countries to discuss things diplomatically. I wasn't against the North Korea meeting, and I am not against meeting with Russia.

What I am against is one on one high level diplomatic meetings. The stakes are too high The risk is too great. You can have one on one meetings to set up the high level stuff, but when its showtime, you need all hands on deck.

I am very much pro diplomacy. I want Trump to be successful in these meetings because eliminating the nuclear threat from North Korea, or ending Russian aggression in Eastern Europe are both things that will make the world more peaceful. But I think Trump cuts the chances of success down drastically by going it alone. We've already seen this backfire with North Korea, as I said before, and without anyone in the room, there's no one else to help keep Putin honest even if they do come to a deal one on one.

Is the method I described the only way? No, of course not.

Is it the best way (i.e., most likely way to lead to success)? Probably.

nuleafjhawk said:

I just like to flap my lips and see what comes out....

So do I. I just take up more space to do it sometimes.

@BeddieKU23

I think that both New York (Robinson) and Cleveland (Preston) got steals with guys that were not eligible to play last year. Robinson might end up playing like a top 5 pick. Preston may end up playing like a first rounder. Those are steals to get those guys for a second round pick and a two way contract.

@approxinfinity

I think Phoenix wanted to see what Jackson could do offensively as the primary option. They already have Booker as their primary scorer, and Ayton will get touches in the paint, so Jackson won't have that same role in the regular season. If Jackson could shoulder the primary scorer load, you have a really special team with Booker, Ayton and Jackson, and the Suns are ready to start thinking about competing. But if Jackson is going to be a defense first player, you know you need one more scorer before you are ready to compete as the Suns. Summer league is all about roles. Jackson was probably asked to be aggressive offensively since he has an established NBA floor with his defense. Now its just a matter of figuring out what he can do offensively.

JayHawkFanToo said:

@FarmerJayhawk

He was projected bottom of first round, probably will not help him to skip the combine, only top players get away with it. Whoever is advising him is not helping; I see China in his future.

Mitchell Robinson finished up summer league averaging 13 points and 10 rebounds per game, along with averaging 4 blocks per game (a summer league record).

He played extremely well this summer and made plays you just don't see big men make.

DoubleDD said:

Hanging and talking to Russia was just fine when Obama, Hillary and the gang were running the show. Hell they even agreed to sell the evil Russian empire uranium. Yet now, OMG don't let President Trump talk to Putin alone. Just Crazy. The Hypocrisy is off the charts.

Tossing aside the politics for just a second, you have highlighted the big issue here in your own statement:

OMG don't let President Trump talk to Putin alone.

In critical negotiations, you never meet one on one. EVER. Particularly with a party that may be hostile. You don't meet one on one to do a business deal at higher levels. You may chat about terms, but when things are being agreed on, there are multiple people from both sides in the room.

You have multiple people there to make sure that every detail is remembered and to be sure that everything that was agreed to was understood by both sides.

Meeting with Putin one on one is a mistake whether you agree with Trump's policies and approach or not because you have to make sure that what Trump believes was agreed to (or what Putin believes was agreed to) was actually what was agreed to. This is especially important when there is a language barrier.

I've negotiated contracts before with a language barrier. There are always three or four people on either side to be certain that every agreement is understood and that there wasn't anything lost in translation. You have to remember that in a translated dialogue, if I say something to you, it gets translated and actually spoken to you, then you respond in your native language and that gets translated and repeated to me. For complex terms where there is no direct translation (a common problem), often this means it takes three or four back and forth exchanges to clarify what each side means.

During this time, both sides are taking notes on each exchange, just in case there is confusion later on. That's a safety feature of having multiple people in the room.

To do this one on one, you lose that.

We already saw this become an issue with the North Korea meeting, with North Korea now disputing what the President says they agreed to. With no one else in the room, there isn't a check on that.

That's a poor way to negotiate.