@jaybate-1.0 I don't know all the particulars of the beef, but the staff of M0-Kan Elite/Spiece has no love lost for Bill Self and has directed a number of players that took unofficials as jrs to other teams including Ojeleye, Clayton Custer (ISU), and the big one WCS (UK). They're pretty much in control of the JoCo/eastern KS pipeline. You'll be shocked to know Mo-Kan is also in Nike's back pocket. If I can find it, there was a brief video of Cauley-Stein shortly after he committed to UK talking about how much he hated KU fans. It was made after an AAU game by some recruiting hobbyist, so who knows if it's still around (I mean surely it is somewhere, but who knows if it can be found), so this goes beyond the normal shoe influence. They really don't like him and take extra measures to poison the well of potential targets.
Duke has released Semi Ojeleye ↗ to transfer. They had him listed at 6'8" and 230 lbs. Ojeleye was interested in KU, but never recruited as we had an overabundance of wings (also, it's well known that Self has some enemies within the in state AAU world). As far as recruiting goes, this is significant for three reasons: 1) we're unlikely to sign a SF in this class, 2) it frees up some room for Brandon Ingram to commit to Duke (which I think will now be incredibly likely), 3) given his size and skill set, he'd be an excellent back up if we miss on Bragg, which is looking more and more likely each day. I'd love to sign some size in the next class, but getting Ojeleye now and having him sit out a season means he can slot right in after Ellis leaves and alleviates some of the need for another big, as he can play both forward spots. I'd easily take him and a good center for the year. He hasn't named any potential schools just yet.
@JayHawkFanToo said:
"There are a lot of ways to interpret what the stat means. @Jesse-Newell has said he thinks it denotes toughness, guys hanging in there and gutting out wins. I interpret it to mean just the opposite."
And this defines the fallacy of the approach. Math, and by extension statical analysis, are by definition "exact sciences " and as such, the results are what they are, unbiased and not open to interpretation. The fact that you see it the exact opposite than Newell would indicate that it is not the result of an objective approach but a subjective and biased one and hence, open to interpretation. An interesting excessive, no doubt, but a pretty useless one nonetheless.
Statistics is simply the science of applying mathematical calculations to a set of data to determine future probabilities. It's inherently based on empirical evidence. Models are proved out by how well they match reality over time. If my comment left you with the impression that I believe the luck stat is somehow open for interpretation or somehow not an objective measure, that's poor wording on my part. I don't. Jesse is making a mistake because he's being biased in reading the data. Team's can't force themselves to be lucky. Over time, a team exhibits that exhibits luck over a particular period of time will also exhibit the opposite and it will average out. There isn't a way to manufacture luck. 'Toughness' isn't translating itself into something else. Self has just had a few teams win a little more often than statistically probable. That's all that's being suggested by the stat and all I'm trying to point out. What I probably should have said is that you can come up with lots of hypotheses with what the causes of luck are, but there is only one answer and it's something that can be proved out with data.
I'm going to take these points one at a time:
@HighEliteMajor said:
The best teams are not the teams the blow teams out regularly. Stats don't measure character, and chemistry, and what it really takes to win consistently.
No, stats don't measure character, chemistry, or other intangibles. They measure results and compare them to the results of other agents engaged in a particular activity. But if you have a group of teams that produce a similar number of wins against similar competition, on the whole, when they began to play one another, you'd assume that the ones that beat their best opponents by the largest margins most frequently would prevail more often than not. And if you did so, your assumption would be rewarded more ofthen than not too.
Winning close games does not point to being less fundamentally sound. You say that is what is attempting to be proven. Those two events -- close games vs. being less fundamentally sound have nothing to do with one another. The entire discussion assumes that connection to have validity. I have coached several teams in each sport .. baseball, football, and basketball. And the best teams I've ever coached played a lot of close games, but had the knack for regularly winning close games (and did not regularly blow people out).
This is a nice anecdote, but completely irrelevant. More on why in a second...
Winning more close games doesn't point to a lack of fundamental soundness. Playing more close games than what teams similar to you does, however. The idea isn't to quantify what is, but what isn't. What is it that you lack that is allowing weaker teams to hang with you more often than your peers? If it's your style to play in a way that keeps games close inherently (like playing slowly), then yes, you're going to wind up playing more close games than teams that don't, but that's not what the comparison is based on. If you're not like your peers, that's meaningful. The fact that you'd refer to the result as a 'knack' just goes to show it's a factor you don't consciously control. In fact, in this context, you can use the terms 'knack' and 'luck' interchangeably. KU has the most 'knack' this season of any D-1 team. In 1988, their 'knack' got them title. But however you describe it, I would think you'd be disconcerted with your team if they're regularly putting in close performances against teams they should handle easily.
UConn was 40th in scoring margin last season. But I understand the circular nature of this discussion .. "oh, that's not what we're trying to show." Or "the NCAA tourney is luck." Or whatever.
There's nothing remotely circular about this discussion. Of course the NCAA tournament isn't 'luck' or 'all luck' or anything of the sort, but I think anyone would be able to plainly see that luck, or the term I prefer, variance, plays a bigger part in determining the NCAA tournament champion than it does with say, a conference champion. Because it is single elim, you have less of a margin for error in the tournament, and thus events that are totally out of ones control, such as a bad call in the example above, have a bigger impact on that outcome than in other circumstances.
Here's what the article said: "A measure of the deviation between a team's actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It's a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky)."
That is just complete b.s. A team "should not win (or lose) all of them"? Right, they "should not." It's just a fundamental flaw to assume that it is "luck" when they do. The mistaken premise is the assumption that they "should not." That does not consider that good teams, the best teams, actually "should."
Do you actually understand what Oliver and Pomeroy are saying? I'm not trying to be condescending, but your comment makes no sense. It might be true that given two statistically similar teams where one has played and won a lot of close games, and the other hasn't that the team winning close games is actually better. It might be true that it's because of character and heart or whatever. But when you're talking about 351 teams and 15 seasons, it becomes harder to swallow that everyone who's won more games than similar teams playing similar schedules is just more virtuous than everyone else.
Kenpom's statistics rate which teams are the best based on the results they actually produce, so he'd agree that the best teams should win close games more often than the lesser ones, but he's already taking that into consideration. It's when they are actually playing more close games than comparable teams and winning that he's quantifying as luck. But perhaps it's better to defer to what the actual inventor of the metric himself says:
The principle behind the method - that a team's won-loss record is closely related to the number of points it scores and allows - should be no surprise. It just makes sense that teams that win 60 games outscore their opponents by more than teams that win 50 do. However, one of the things that the Correlated Gaussian Method has added is that consistency also plays a role. Teams that win 60 games do not have to outscore their opponents by more on average than teams that win 50. They just need to be more consistent from game to game.
On the other hand, luck resulting from 'well-timed scoring' is a weak force in the NBA. It doesn't separate the good teams from the bad teams; it just separates two teams of similar quality. Taking the luckiest and unluckiest teams in the NBA, we usually find a total deviation of 10 to 13 wins. Luck has a place in basketball, just as the weather has a place in football and as Wrigley Field has a place in baseball. Each has an effect on the game, but, in the long run, the better teams win with or without the advantage or disadvantage of such factors. (In the short run, like the playoffs, luck can be pretty important. Witness the 1995 Houston Rockets.)
Occasionally luck plays a major part in a team's season. The '85-86 Clippers won 32 games, while their point totals led to an expectation of only 21 wins. A third of their victories (!) came out of the Twilight Zone. The '86-87 Clippers came back to reality, going through a pitiful 12-70 season in a daze. The '86-87 Warriors exceeded their Pythagorean projection by eight games, winning 42 instead of 34 games. They, too, crashed the following season, winning only 20. Both the Clippers and Warriors lost key personnel in their follow-up seasons, but neither ever showed any signs of life anyway. This sort of collapse can be seen throughout the history of basketball, but it's also seen in baseball (and probably other sports). The baseball people called this the Johnson Effect. It's the same effect in basketball so it gets the same name.
It assumes that good vs. luck is defined by the margin of victory. Only someone who has not been around sports would even consider that as a measuring stick. It ignores the concept of consistency, which is a key component of great teams.
NO, not even close. He's assuming that teams that are more efficient offensively and defensively will produce greater margins of victory (adjusted for tempo) on average than teams with similar styles that have played similar opponents. Consistency is entirely the basis for this conclusion. If it were just margin of victory, you'd have a point, but it simply isn't.
Look, I know I won't convince you. So I'm not even trying.
You won't convince me because your arguments are uncompelling, not because I refuse to be swayed. If you have a valid point, raise it. I'm all ears.
Not sure how much you've coached, or been in that situation. But you certainly approach it with a certain arrogance .. perhaps one that is lacking from practical experience.
Arrogant, eh? Pot, may I please introduce myself, Mr. Kettle. I bet we both seldom walk into a room and think we aren't the smartest guy there.
I've seen this stuff first hand. I coached a basketball team, and we rarely won by double digits. But we never lost. We beat teams that would blow out the teams that we beat by a handful of points. Same in football. Style of play dictated that in some years, we were going to have smaller margins of victory. And certainly in baseball, where a pitching/defense teams .. such as the Royals .. are not going to win by large margins. But the Royals, actually, were not a "lucky" team. They had perhaps the surest of things, a lockdown bullpen. The baseball team I coached this past summer couldn't seem to blow anyone out, but we kept winning, and kept getting tourney trophies. We were consistent.
I don't particularly care if Ken Pomeroy has never even dribbled a basketball in his life, but I'm going to go out on a very short and steady limb and guess that you, me, and Pomeroy have coached the exact same number of D-1 basketball teams as one another. Do I have that right? It makes no difference to whether or not his assertions are valid. What matters is how consistently his model makes valid predictions, and what he claims that rate to be. No more, no less. But now to revisit the issue of UConn and raise that of the Royals.
It's incredibly easy to say, now that the season is over, that it was obvious or predictable that such and such an outcome could result. Anyone can do it. It takes no insight, so your assertion that the Royals weren't 'lucky' for factors that you can now name holds no weight. Predictions are what matter and you seem to believe that coaching experience is required to make accurate predictions about who future champions will be, and that statistical predictions are rubbish. Why, then, did no pundit who actually was a former D-1 coach predict UConn's ascension to greatness prior to the dance? Not one even had them in their Final Four predictions. With the Royals and the Giants, it was the same story. Not a single professional pundit or former coach picked either team to make the World Series, let alone both of them. In fact, I can't find even one example of a pundit advancing both teams beyond the first round of the ALDS and NDLS respectively. Pointing out that UConn, UK, the Royals, and the Giants were all 'lucky' should be a no-brainer regardless of who's insights or intuitions you trust. Nobody saw it coming for a good reason. It was highly unlikely.
When one connects margin of victory and luck, it denotes a lesser level of skill or "earning it." And a lower reliability in repeating the result. And that just isn't the real world of sports. It ignores one important variable -- consistency. Great teams have consistency. And that ain't luck.
Luck and 'earning it' are mutually exclusive ideas. I know that UConn earned their national championship because they have a banner ready to hang that says so. The Giants have a trophy in their stadium. As I've already said, consistency is factored in with the luck stat. It's all predicated on the results that statistically similar teams produce. Consistency is accounted for by default because the data derives from actual results. If it wasn't, advanced statistical models for anything, sports or otherwise, wouldn't work. This isn't to say that statistical models are flawless or that statisticians don't make mistakes. They do, but they try to account for that, and these models are constantly being revised in order to make more accurate predictions. When a statistician says that he's 90% certain an event will take place, he's also saying he expects to be wrong about 10% of the time. The worth of a model can be shown when, over time, the predicted value does or does not indeed correlate to that assertion.
I think, honestly, that you're umbrage at the descriptor 'lucky' is completely irrational. Being lucky doesn't diminish your accomplishments. You can be a great coach, and still be lucky. I'm very willing to bet that all those games you coached with close margins of victory you still never escaped defeat every time, probably losing at least once because a ref or an ump made the wrong call. If have gone undefeated in all your endeavors, great, but then do us all a favor and get rid of that bum Self because I and every other one of the Jayhawk faithful are champing at the bit for a run of NCAA Championships that would embarrass the ghost of John Wooden.
As I said above, luck, by it's very definition, refers to things that one can't actually control, but that those who do better at managing what they can control are more often poised to capitalize on good luck, and insulated from bad luck, and that the people who don't or won't control things that they could are the ones that constantly bemoan it. The only reason to think that there's no such thing or that those who profit from it are somehow less deserving (or the corollary that those who failed to do so are entitled to recompense) is if you truly believe that all factors within an outcome are yours to control, but I somehow I can't convince myself that the portion of some landfill that is dedicated to my losing Power Ball tickets doesn't exist because of my lack of gumption.
This is a fundamentally flawed premise because it assumes that you are playing the same competition and luck is allowing you to win. 20-30 years ago a game between a major conference program and Mid-major was a one sided affair; now...not so much and mid-majors beating a major conference team are common place; scores are getting closer and closer every year a result of the parity that exists in the sport . If KU switches to an all punch bag schedule, they would win by 20+ points most every game or it could switch to a tougher schedule (like now) where it still wins by virtue of being the better team, but score margin would only be in the single digits, does this mean that KU is lucky?
As I said above, of course not. But SOS is already factored in. You can't just pull one stat out of a set of data and say it's bs while ignoring the way it's compiled. The whole purpose of the stat is to identify why you have an outlier and how likely that is to last. There are a lot of ways to interpret what the stat means. @Jesse-Newell has said he thinks it denotes toughness, guys hanging in there and gutting out wins. I interpret it to mean just the opposite. How man times have you seen KU under Self run up a huge lead only to get complacent and allow the opposing team to get back into the game? How many tournament exits were predicated or punctuated by not stepping on the throat of an opponent and then falling apart at the last second? Hell, in 3 of 5 meetings with MSU under Self, Kansas has had a considerable lead under the 6 minute mark and watched it slowly be picked apart.
I think what's especially sad is that this has the real possibility of ending Poythress' dreams of playing in the NBA. He's an amazing athlete that's been saddled with being a tweener, too small for the 4, but not enough perimeter skill to be a 3 (sound familiar?). But it's tough to come back from an ACL injury, and the way the NBA drafts these days (more on potential of up and coming young bucks than proven commodities), his lack of skill development, age, and now this are going to make it really hard for him to stick. Young men like him sacrifice so much to get that chance. It would be tragic if it never came.
@HighEliteMajor said:
So, folks that do stats are just way smarter than everyone else? We just simply don't understand what they are trying to do, so we can't question the value or validity?
Lucky because you win close games? Hogwash and bullsh**. Great teams win close games. Champions win close games. And I don't need a statistical lecture to know that.
Well, you definitely misunderstood the post, so what am I to conclude? I don't think that people who are versed in statistics are way smarter than everyone else, the same way I don't assume that people can speak Mandarin Chinese or know how to work on a Cessna engine are smarter than everyone else. They just have a particular skill in a particular field. You can question the validity of their conclusions all you want, but when you don't have that skill and you comment on their work, you can wind up looking foolish just as quickly as I would trying to correct someone's Chinese.
Yeah, great teams win close games more often than less great teams. That's not the point of the stat. What a higher luck stat indicates is that you're playing a lot more close games and winning. In other words, if you win a lot of games rating high in the 'luck' category, it points to being fundamentally less sound. You're winding up more lucky than good because actually good teams wouldn't be playing as many close games to begin with. The best teams are the ones that consistently blow out their opponents, right? Hats off, though, for proving my point.
@JayHawkFanToo said:
So...every time yo win by 10 or less, luck is involved? I don't buy it. When two disparate teams play a large margin could be expected; however, when two top 20-30 teams play the result will usually be a lot closer, normally single digits; good teams manage to win the close games.
You either don't know what luck is, then, or you don't understand statistics fundamentally. The reason close games get counted as 'lucky' by KenPom and others is because when games are close, variance and noise are bigger factors in determining the outcome. Consider a WVU/Syracuse game from 2011 that was decided by a point. WVU had the winning shot pulled off the cylinder, but the ref didn't call the goal tend. WVU got unlucky. They couldn't do anything to make the ref make the correct call, but they left themselves vulnerable to that by being in a tight game. Or consider what it means to be a 40% 3pt shooter. It doesn't mean you go miss-make-miss-make-miss every game. You could go 2/3, 1/2, 1/7, 2/3 over the span of four games and still wind up at that percentage. But if the cold game is also a close one, again, that's exactly what it means to have bad luck. The better or tougher team doesn't always win.
If you have a margin greater than 10 points, though, that's high enough that you can rule out statistical noise as a significant factor in the outcome.
Will Rogers and the public at large just don't understand what guys like Nate Silver and Ken Pomeroy are trying to do. If you really know statistics, then you know that the only people that can be fooled by manipulating them to 'say whatever you want' are people that don't understand how the information is derived. It's like any question of logic; it's not just what you ask, but how you ask it that determines the validity of assertions made with the data. In other words, garbage in, garbage out. And Sagarin isn't saying that early predictions are meaningless, he's just saying that predictive models become more accurate the more data they have to work with, which I think would be self-evident.
Lastly, nobody makes their own luck. By definition, luck is a factor of elements and/or circumstances beyond one's control. The difference is that some people set themselves up to capitalize on luck when it happens, and others curse themselves for not.
@drgnslayr said:
"Unsure why Self viewed him as a bad option tonight."
Self knew this would be a physical game. It always is with Georgetown, and playing at Georgetown meant soft officiating in some areas. Svi doesn't have the strength to play physical ball... yet. This game should be motivation for Svi to develop a good relationship with Hudy.
------------------------------------for some reason the quote isn't displaying properly-------------------------------------------------
As someone who was positively gushing about Svi a week or so ago, I'm not actually that surprised he was out for much of the game. @drgnslayr makes an excellent point about the physicality of the game, but I'd also point out that against Florida, we witnessed the first real and crucial weakness Svi presents in his inability to defend the pick and roll game well. Some of that is due to contrasting styles in European and American basketball (Euro bigs are more pick and pop than pick and roll guys, typically), but some of it is due to Svi simply being 17 and having to guard quicker guards through tougher screens. He'll be fine. I don't think it was the turnovers that kept Svi out, as pretty much everyone was coughing up the ball all night. Self clearly wanted two pgs on the floor when possible to help, and given the way Georgetown was defending the paint and Green was shooting it, it just wasn't Svi's time to shine.
None of that diminishes Svi, nor the praise I and others have had for him. Svi is still very much a work in progress, but it's the combination of his potential on top of his already very strong fundamentals and high BBIQ that had me going to begin with. Nothing has changed in that regard. We'll be seeing plenty of Svi this season.
@HighEliteMajor Recruiting Apocalypse is a real possibility, but I don't think a very likely one. The nightmare scenario is Perry, Wayne, and Cliff build their stock high enough to come out, Oubre comes out against any common sense (like Selby did), and we're left holding the bag when every recruiting battle breaks toward UK or a West Coast school. I think the guards would be fine (although we'd be thin), but Mickelson's shown no progress since UArk and I'm thinking he'll ultimately be a bust for us. The even worse nightmare is that the 'P' word becomes the standard and it's basically everyone else picking over UKs leftovers even more so than that's a reality today.
@Lulufulu I think Cliff goes and Oubre stays. I think Cliff will project late lotto to late 1st round and be well advised to take his chances while he can 'cause undersized 4s never improve their draft stock by coming back. If that happens, I expect we sign Diallo.
@JayHawkFanToo Being NBA ready has never stopped anyone from leaving (don't make me mention Selby twice in one post). The draft is all about boom/bust, and every GM thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. As you mentioned, we have 2 schollies available and Self wants to sign 3 guys. I'm optimistic about Selden righting his ship and getting done this year along with Cliff, so my guess is we'll have 4 to give and use only 2 or 3. 11 seems like the ideal size for a team anyway, as long as you've got it spaced correctly. Hope that's how it breaks.
Ok, so I've been gone from the site for a while, but HEM brought up where we are in recruiting the other day and I've got the time, so here's my weigh in:
Obviously the early signing period came and went with out even so much as a whimper on the recruiting front, and understandably, that's left some posters both here and on the old site on edge. This year is such a mixed bag and reminds me a lot of the position we found ourselves in between the 2011 and 2012 seasons. We're in on a very narrow, but elite number of players, but pretty much everyone else has decided where to land. This is a little odd after last couple years where all but a handful of players decided early, and KU was able to clean up pretty well, but these things are cyclical, I suppose.
The biggest and more apparent threat to KU recruiting this year is Calipari's platoon system and whether or not it proves to be attractive to the incoming recruits. By his own admission, the platoons are just a gimmick to keep Cal's freshmen happy after the unexpected return of the Harrison Twins and Dakari Johnson, but if it pays dividends and UK can put the full 7 of 10 players currently projected into the league ↗, there's a real chance that we get swept in the head-to-heads with UK in the class of 2015 and then are relying on the transfer/carousel/Merv Lindsay wire to come up with more bodies. That said, I don't think that's the most likely scenario today, and based on Calipari's recent behavior, it doesn't look like he's counting on that either. With all of that established, I'm going to break down on who we're still in on, what kind of player they are, where we appear to rank with them, and what odds I'd give to them signing. This list will be based on the offers list from Verbal Commits ↗.
1) Marcus LoVett, Jr.
Stop me if you've heard this one before: Bill Self is recruiting an undersized, underweight, low-ranked/unranked PG after striking out with better options. If that scenario gives you heart burn, there are two good reasons not to panic: 1 Frank Mason; 2 Devonte Graham. With the unfortunate departure of Conner Frankamp last month, our PG situation for the next 3 years has become pretty much solidified. LoVett wouldn't necessarily be a bad addition to that, but anyone we're looking at in this class should strictly be considered depth, as I don't think Self is going to hand over the keys even if we sign a combo like Malik Newman or Tyler Dorsey. LoVett isn't without his strengths. Although not a great shooter, he is a great passer and has very good control over the ball. But like all undersized players, he's a real defensive risk, and like many young PGs, he dribbles way too much for his own good. The sick moves he can bust out in highlight tapes will turn into bench minutes really quick against competent D-1 defenders.
Given that we've only offered him very recently and given that we haven't made any kind of real push for the kid, I don't think Self sees adding another ball handler as a priority this season, meaning for the time being at least, he trusts the situation of Mason/Graham with Svi and Selden as the emergency relief. Between that and the near guarantee of being a career backup or being recruited over, I'd say the odds of signing LoVett are pretty low, and even if he did sign, it would be to his detriment. He's carrying an offers from UCLA and SDSU, and given their PG situations and his West Coast lineage, I expect him to choose one of those schools.
Odds to KU: 25%
2) Malik Newman
Is it enough to say Kentucky and be done with him? Actually, things are a little bit more complicated with him than that, but that doesn't change where my mind is on him much. UK already signed combo Isaiah Briscoe and SG Charles Matthew to compliment an all but guaranteed to be returning Tyler Ulis and Devin Booker, so they have a really good backcourt lined up already, plus it looks like Antonio Blankeney will be spending time in Lexington next season, as well. Given that, you'd think we'd have an in, but that's where the platoon thing comes back to haunt us. Even if Poythress or Lyles returns, there'd still be room for another 3 as both of those guys are really more face up 4s than anything, so the situation is very fluid for Cal. Self won't platoon and really only wants to play 4-5 perimeter guys anyway. Given who it looks like we'll get back right now (I actually believe that Selden will get his rehab sorted out enough to come out this year, so that's Oubre/Greene/Svi/Mason/Graham), I don't see any real benefit for Newman in terms of coming here, and really, he'd just be bumping Greene or Graham in all likelihood.
As for his strengths and weaknesses, all I will say is that Newman is a combo, the best player at his position in this class, and his ranking is fully warranted.
If you've taken a look at the 'Crystal Ball' feature on CBS' 24/7 sports ↗, you'd see that UK is a heavy favorite for Newman, as well. Now, myself, I don't put a ton of stock into those predictions because most of the contributors to the site are guys like Matt Scott, enthusiasts that have parlayed their hobby into a day job, but not real experts of any kind. If you do take a look at them, though, the two guys really worth paying attention to are Jeff Borzello, CBS' resident recruiting guru, and Jerry Meyer, a seminal member of the site before it was purchased by CBS. Those guys tend to actually be in the know when it comes to recruiting information, and Meyer is especially reliable. He sees Newman at MSSU, and barring the return of platooning, I think that's the most reasonable guess at this point.
Odds to KU: 5%
3) Tyler Dorsey
The other combo and West Coast guard Self is looking at this year, Dorsey is a former Arizona commit that makes no bones about his desire to play point, and his frustration at getting cut by the USA Basketball team that Stumpy was assistant coaching. Dorsey is very much the poor man's Malik Newman, but that could bode well for us as a long term option. He doesn't have Newman's length, strength, handles, or touch, but he's still all-around solid in the areas that matter. He needs to get stronger, work on his handles and passing, but as an upperclassman, he's likely to be a real force.
According to what I've heard as of right now, Dorsey really likes KU, but the reality of the opportunity to play the point is what's keeping him thinking. Every indication is that it's down to us and Cal(ifornia), and that he'll commit sometime this winter. Honestly, I think this one's a coin toss. I think he could realistically be a point option as an upperclassman, but the patience and willingness of kids these days to play their way there can't be relied upon. At Cal, he'd be joining Jabari Bird and Jordan Matthews, with Tyrone Wallace's senior season being the only thing between him and full control, as all of the Bear's other guards are crap. One way or another, Dorsey is likely to have to wait for his gratification, at least a little, but if I were placing a bet, I'd have to go with Cal at this point because there are just so many more unknowns if he chooses KU. They may not win a ton of games, but at Cal, he'll be able to do what he wants and get a lot of minutes without having to look over his shoulder at who might be recruited over him.
Odds to KU: 45%
4) Jaylen Brown
Why is Self putting so much energy into recruiting small forwards right now? Better question: why have so many elite 3s signed with Kansas in the past two seasons when Self's offense put's next to no emphasis on that position?
Jaylen Brown is basically a stronger version of Andrew Wiggins. Great size and length for position? Check. Spin moves and freakishly athletic dunks? Check. Lock down D? Check. Relies entirely on his athleticism to get by? Check. Dribbles too high and away from his body? Check. High potential/low foundation? Check.
Okay, okay. I'll lay off Wiggins. I actually really loved having him on the team, and I think, even though it didn't pay off during his lone season at KU, there are dividends to be had if he wins Rookie of the Year and becomes an NBA All Star. We're waaaaay overdue for another. Seriously, though, we have Svi, and I don't know why we're bothering with this guy. He's a fantastic prospect, but not the sort of player I'd want to build a team around, especially a OAD. Wiggins was really a lot better than Brown, and love or hate the hype, he brought an injection of interest to KU in what might have been the first real rebuilding season for Self in his tenure here. Brown doesn't even have that and we have a glut of guys that can do more, if just not as flashy.
As for signing him, I'll say we don't. Between him, Newman, and Blankeney, I don't think all 3 could co-exist with who UK already has without Booker or Ulis transferring, so their situation looks like a real Mexican standoff. Any two could probably work, and Blankeney will undoubtedly be the first to pull the trigger, but I bet it's Newman that follows suit, if either do. Brown is looking at UCLA and is taking his last two officials at UNC and Michigan. UK is the front runner in the twitter sphere, but when the dust settles, I'm thinking Brown winds up in yellow, whether bruin or wolverine.
Odds to KU: 5%
5) Brandon Ingram
Stop me if I've already used the 'Stop me if you've heard this one before' joke. Ok. Everything I've said about the futility of recruiting Jaylen Brown applies to Brandon Ingram, although Ingram is a much more fundamentally sound player. The only reason I can think of that would make his recruitment make sense for KU is if Self wants to play him at the 4 a la Julian Wright. Ingram has decent handles and court vision for his size, plus can score with his back to the basket, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility, but he's also not going to soar in for dunks over players trying to take a charge. In a lot of ways, he's like Kelly Oubre with less athleticism and a better J. I don't know if he'd struggle with the speed of the D-1 game the way Oubre has, but if Oubre grows over the season and comes back, we really have nothing to offer Ingram, and he has very little to offer us.
Compounding matters with Ingram is that he's a life long Puke fan, and all indicators point to him not venturing too far from Tobacco Road. I think the only reason he hasn't committed to Duke already is the enormous logjam Duke has in their back court. K has already signed Luke Kennard and given who is likely to be back next season (Tyus Jones, Matt Jones, Grayson Allen, Semi-should-probably-transfer-Ojeleye, and Rasheed Sulaimon), there really isn't any immediate use or need for Ingram there either, as K doesn't platoon (jesus, I sound like Dick Vitale!). That leaves UNC and NC State as the remaining hometown options. I'll say UNC for now and call it good.
Odds to KU: 1%
6) Ivan Rabb
Finally we get down to some genuinely good news. If you'd asked me in October where we stood with Ivan Rabb, I would have said 'outside looking in.' Then seemingly out of nowhere, Self pays the young man a visit and at the moment, I'm thinking top 3. At a long and lanky 6'10", Rabb would bring a lot more size to the 4 position than we've been accustomed to under Self. Given what happened against UK this year, and the fact that we have MSU queued up for next year's champion's classic, that added length would be very welcomed. At his best, Rabb actually reminds me of Joel Embiid. He's a little too skinny, but has great hands, timing, patience, and really good footwork. He doesn't have JoJo's grace, and I don't know if he has Jo's mean streak, either, but if anyone can pull off an impression of an impression of Olajuwon, Rabb's the guy. On the downside, in addition to being too skinny, Rabb likes to score face up , despite his good feet. He doesn't have any real goto move with his back to the basket. He's also a little soft. Still, with some Hudyization and seasoning, he'd be a real force for KU.
What is perhaps most exceptional about Rabb right now isn't necessarily his talents, but the tepid reaction he had to Big Blue Madness. Although his HS coach downplayed his lack of enthusiasm as simple exhaustion ↗, he points to Halloween in the list of events more exciting than visiting Lexington. That, his enthusiasm for Cal(ifornia, again) ↗, and his mother basically saying Ivan doesn't necessarily see himself as an OAD (same article) leaves a lot of operating room for KU, and we haven't even had our official yet. Were I to venture a guess at who the remaining schools are in Rabb's top 3, I'd say it's us and UCLA. Zona could be there as well, but with Brandon Ashley and Kaleb Tarc likely to finish their senior years in Tucson, PT could start to be a real consideration. At any rate, I like where we're positioned with Rabb right now.
Odds to KU: 35% with plenty of room to grow
7) Cheick Diallo
Diallo is a guy I identified in 2012 as a young up and comer to covet. Time has only strengthened that stance. Diallo is a physical specimen nearly on par with Wigs. Blake Griffin dreams of one day having Diallo's bounce, quickness, and energy. Diallo is also tough and nasty. He's got swagger to spare and played through a back injury last summer because his teammate Thomas Bryant (more on him later) just couldn't carry the load. Diallo blocks shots. Diallo cleans glass. Diallo dunks everything. Diallo is raw, but sick. Sound familiar? Diallo is the cheetah. Cliff Alexander is the lion. Being a little more terrestrial, Alexander has struggled against length so far (mostly UK and MSU), mostly because that baby hook of his is still in utero. Diallo will probably struggle more against the back-down type of bigs (Okafor, Josh Smith, Cameron Ridley) when defending, but should be able to get them foul'd up on the offensive end. Diallo is more desirable.
The big 3 in Diallo's recruitment are us, ISU, and UK, and from what I hear we're the frontrunner, but I think that depends heavily on Alexander or Ellis joining the Association. Alexander will probably get there, but as an undersized 4, there's a very strong possibility of slippage if he doesn't get his minutes up. Ellis isn't on anyone's radar to go pro this season, but if he can keep up what he did in Orlando and show some ability to score against length (Use a turnaround jumper, dammit!), he can play his way into a mid 1st rounder, but that's his ceiling. Perry will still project as a SF to most NBA teams, and then only as a career back up, given that he can't defend elite 3s on the perimeter. That clouds things significantly, but not terminally.
ISU will make a good push for Diallo, but if we've got post minutes, I think he's ours for the taking.
Odds to KU: 50%
8] Carlton Bragg
Bragg is another big I've been pretty high on. In terms of pure skill set, he's probably the most talented 4 his class. If I could compare him to a Jayhawk player, it'd be Darrell Arthur: great scorer, good defender, above average athlete. He's mostly a face up, attack off the bounce type right now, but scores at all levels, good BBIQ for his position, and would fit very well in Self's system. His J is pure, his touch supreme, but he lacks focus sometimes and has no nasty that I've seen. He's better than Perry was at the same point in time, but faces many of the same challenges, right down to the questionable height (almost definitely not 6'9" ) listing and limited length (though he should be a better defender). As such, Bragg is at least a TAD, but could be a 4 year starter too.
Throughout the summer, KU was where I saw Bragg. That's changed recently. The aforementioned Jerry Meyer still has Kansas as his prediction, but the grapevine says Cal(ipari this time) has made Bragg a top priority and is making the push. Illinois and UCLA are also involved, but I don't consider them much of a threat. Bragg is down to two schools in actuality, and I can't say that we're the favorite among them. Bragg would probably also be willing to platoon (I hate that that's a thing now), so the allure of PT isn't necessarily there for us. If our ties to Adidas are worth anything on the recruiting trail, then we can make up the distance. But big shoe has failed to deliver us on a number of bigs lately (Chris Walker, Tarc, Tony Parker), so I wouldn't cast my lot with them. The lone glimmer of hope at the moment is Thomas Bryant.
Bryant was offered, but never really recruited by us. He basically worked his way down to just Syracuse without committing. But just this week UK offered, even after Bryant's mother opined that she didn't think it was a good fit for her son. Cal missed on Henry Ellenson during the early signing period, and clearly he's not satisfied with just Skal Labissiere signed up so far. The move on Bryant could just be hedging bets, but it could also indicate losing ground with another target. Unfortunately, I don't think UK is falling behind with him, so unless something changes behind the scenes, Carlton Bragg is looking like a Wildcat.
Odds to KU: 40% (if that seems high, remember, it's a two man race)
9) Caleb Swanigan
Swanigan only barely merits mentioning here in that we've offered him and technically, he hasn't cut us yet, but I think that's only a matter of time. No one believes he's seriously considering the Jayhawks right now, and there's been no activity that contradicts that. Furthermore, as a wide-bodied, but undersized center, I don't see him as a great fit. Self's bigs are usually the sort that can get up and down quickly. Swanigan, for all his strength and rebounding prowess, wouldn't really keep up with our schemes too well. He's considering MSU and UK, and honestly, he's the perfect sort of fit for Izzo, so I say let them have each other. If we get desperate, though, there is still time enough to horn in on his recruitment.
Odds to KU: 0%
10) Stephen Zimmerman
Zimmerman is another unexpected bright spot on the recruiting trail. He's a super athletic 5 with awful hair, but high potential. He's actually a lot like UT's Myles Turner, swapping some range for better athleticism. He's very quick on his feet and gets up incredibly well for his size. He's got great length too. Like Turner, he's more of a face up player than a back to the basket guy. He's also pretty good at putting the ball on the floor, as long as he limits himself to a couple of dribbles. He's on par with Cole Aldrich or Sasha Kaun in terms of shot blocking ability. He's a little on the lean side, but has a good frame to build. Still, the biggest knocks against him are that he's not a back to the basket scorer, and that despite good physical size, he's awfully soft, shying away from contact, and not rebounding as well as you'd expect. He needs to work on his footwork too, but the whole of his short comings aren't things you can't say about most elite prospect bigs at this stage.
Zimmerman's looking to OAD and he wants big minutes too. In other words, no platoons (and that should be the last use of the word from me in this post, and hopefully the remaining season). Wherever Zim plays, he's planning on being on the floor 30 minutes a game. That makes the source on Zagsblog.com that says UK is NOT in Zim's top 3 ↗ all the more credible, and when UK offered Bryant, Zim was the player I assumed Cal was making up for. The other thing the Zimmerman's have been pretty vocal about is the strength and conditioning situation wherever he goes. That's another great point in the KU column. If there's anything to be worried about with recruiting Zim at this point, it's that we probably can't over come Ellis and Alexander both returning, but I'd consider that a pretty good problem to have. Still, I've consistently heard that he wants to stay out west, and until our post situation becomes clear, I'm going to have to consider that the default position, so I'd put UNLV up front for the time being. Still, we're very much in this one.
Odds to KU: 30%
Bonus) Thon Maker
Thon Maker is a 7ft small forward based on his current skill set, and a member of the class of 2016. He's been in the news, however, on speculation of whether or not he'll reclass to join the class of '15, with a decision pending in January. For my money, anyone who talks about reclassifying this much is going to do it. It's just a matter of when. But when that does happen, Self will be in a very good position to capitalize.
Maker is exceptionally athletic, with incredibly long arms and legs. He's also got unbelievably good handles for a guy his size. He can score at all levels and is a superb shot blocker, using his agility and length the way God intended. Maker has the potential to make Anthony Davis seem like just an ugly chump. Still, Maker is insanely thin and frail. He can't back down or prevent being backed down, and his slight build leaves minimal optimism about building bulk. Likewise, he hasn't learned to assert himself as much as he could on the offensive end, and needs to work harder on the glass. With his natural gifts and some good coaching, he could put up 15/10/5 kind of numbers in short order, but it will take work. Also, even if he looks like a 3 when he plays, he probably shouldn't play one. His J just isn't there, and he's got too much size and grace to waste out on the perimeter.
As I said, KU is in really good position to capitalize if and when Maker makes his move. Maker has already been on an unofficial, and coach Townsend has visited his school now on a couple of occasions. Nonetheless, Cal smells blood in the water too, and UK has made a big push recently. Also Maker visited Mizzou once, and that just automatically docks a couple points in my book. Provided I'm right about reclassifying, I think it will be a two-horse race between KU and UK, unless something changes soon. There are other schools involved, but none of them have put in as much effort just yet. We'll see how it shakes out in January.
Odds to KU: ???
Svi is pretty much a handful of tweaks away from being the best player in a Jayhawk uniform since Paul Pierce, and I say that without hyperbole. If through this year and next summer he gets a little stronger, gets a little more consistent with his j, and finishes just a little better, he will be the player of the year next season (provided the team isn't too balanced). I've honestly never seen a freshman that plays at his level of BBIQ. He plays like a junior 6 games into the season.
@HighEliteMajor said:
Jaybate summarized better than I, as per usual.
@HighEliteMajor said:
check out the numbers. Before last season, I believe it was 18 of the last 25 tourney champs were number 1 seeds.
I'm familiar with the numbers. But it's the logic that concerns me. It's usually raining when lots of people are carrying umbrellas, but none of us believes that a mass of people holding umbrellas will cause it to rain (I hope). #1 seeds to win more often, but that's an affect of the best teams usually earning a #1 seed, not an affect that having that seeding has on those specific teams. In other words, you can take any #1 seed and put them at any other seeding in the tournament and expect to get about the same outcomes on average. That comes because talent and consistency are ultimately what drives wins in any competition. If Loisville 2013, UK 2012, Duke 2010, UNC 2009, or KU 2008 were each seeded as #5s instead of #1s, their odds of winning it all don't change beyond the statistical margin of error for predicting such a thing. Thus, a statistician would understand that to mean having a #1 seed doesn't produce any effect.
Florida's '06 title is a perfect example of this. Computers had them at #1 all year long, pretty much. They received a #3 seed and weren't significantly hindered in pursuit of that championship. The next year, they were a #1 and did the same thing. The only difference between the years when the number, not the underlying talent, and that's all that matters. If Self is sacrificing needed development in order to maintain seeding, he's falling into that same trap of thinking umbrellas cause rain.
@HighEliteMajor said:
That is a bit inconsistent with the value of a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney, and the high percentage of champions that result.
It's not inconsistent with the value of a #1 seed because a #1 seed has no real value. You'd have to reseed a #1 seed to something ridiculous like a #7 before you'd significantly affect the probability of the #1 reaching the FF or winning the title. If Self won't take losses in order to preserve seeding, he's on a fool's errand.
@HighEliteMajor said:
@Crimsonorblue22 Ok then, leave your best free throw shooter on the bench. Your comment doesn't make sense. The point is that you can try to get it to Greene; or, by default, you have a poor free throw shooter (Traylor) on the bench. It also makes it more difficult for them to stop the ball from going to Mason, which they did. It is common-place to take out poor free throw shooters late.
In fact, I just read that Self was getting ready to put Greene in, but changed his mind.
Well HEM, since I like to pick bones with you so often, let me take this opportunity to say, I agree with you completely and emphatically. Playing Traylor late made no sense to begin with (Alexander is a better shot blocker, better post defender, less turnover prone, and a better free throw shooter), and keeping him in there to hit 1 and 1 free throws when you're up by only 3 is straight playing with fire. I'm glad it worked out and in some ways I'm glad that Self was willing to show that much confidence in Traylor (especially after the egg he laid the previous game), but I really wouldn't want to see him do it again. Ever.
@drgnslayr said:
The guy who seems most lost today is Wayne... and I think that has to do with the fact that he is being asked to do different things this year... like play at different positions.
Wayne's lost? Not the Wayne I've seen. That same Wayne that missed 10 shots today made 5/6 FTs, grabbed 5 boards, and added 2 assists, a steal, and a block. After getting off to a shaky start, he held Denzel Valentine to just 2 pts in the second half. Wayne is always going to be a volume scorer, but he contributes in all areas of the game (a poor man's Marcus Smart) and has shown consistent and total improvement in all aspects of his play (including his shooting form, despite the misses). Even with the bad performance against UK and weak shooting today, he's managed to improve all of his stats except FG%.
The only question I have about Wayne is "is this a shooting slump, or has Wayne's ability to finish gone the way of Elijah Johnson?" Obviously, my hope is that once he sees the ball fall through a few time, the plug will become uncorked and he'll finish strong (a la Releford at the beginning of the 2013 season), but the fact that he's missed 3 dunks this year (one in the exhibition) because he couldn't get the ball over the rim is disconcerting. Hopefully, with more rehab, he can get his strength back. Time will tell.
Although the 2pt jumper is the worst shot in basketball, it's also the most under-utilized weapon at the college level. If you look at NBA teams, they shoot a lot of 2pt jumpers, and a lot of the NBA all stars are the ones who can make those looks with a high degree of consistency. Of course, there are very good reasons for that difference (talent level, shorter clock, # of iso plays), but the way modern college teams are coached, 2pt jumpers are hardly defended at all (you'll notice that on screens defenders that switch drop into the lane to defend the roll rather than close out to prevent the pop). So if you have or can cultivate players who can consistently knock down looks from the horns or the short corners (areas where jump shooters are usually given spacing), you can put yourself at a real advantage, especially when you're over matched on interior size. Last year, Tharpe was actually a really strong pull up shooter (50%). Graham showed flashes of this the other day against UCSB. Mid rangers certainly aren't a good substitute for 3pts, as HEM demonstrated, but they are easier looks to manufacture and can be a real killer if you can exploit them.
@wrwlumpy said:
Hopefully Time Warner Cable won't have the exclusive rights.
The Armed Forces Classic is put on by ESPN, so no, Time Warner doesn't own broadcast rights to it. It will be on ESPN proper.
@JayHawkFanToo said:
I am not sure that works for all providers any more. As you know, your provider has to be a subscriber of ESPN3 and to access it you have to indicate your provider and sign with the Id/password of your provider which in time allows ESPN3 determine your location.
ESPN can determine who your provider is, but they rely on your IP address to determine where you're viewing from (their contract for broadcast rights is based on where the viewer is not where their subscriber is located). So you set up the VPN but don't connect, then login to ESPN3, and you'll get the blackout message. At that point, connect to the VPN. ESPN has already authenticated you as a valid user, but checks your IP and sees you as being in Florida or Chicago (you need to use a US location because they don't support European cable networks). After you launch the stream, disconnect from the VPN (cause it's godawfully slow) and the stream will continue sending data normally. I'm one Consolidated in OP, but it hasn't been an issue for me.
If you're feeling the burn of ESPN3 blackouts, find a free VPN to connect to outside the blackout zone and use that to launch ESPN3. Free VPNs are really slow, but ESPN3 only checks where you're connecting from when the stream launches, so you can launch the stream, then disconnect from the VPN and enjoy KUBBall at normal broadband speeds. That's what I've been doing to watch the exhibitions and late night. Time Warner can kiss my butt as far as that goes.
@HighEliteMajor I think there's a big difference between a single elimination tournament and a multi-game playoff system. The longer a series goes, the more you can mitigate statistical noise (what we usually deem as "luck" ), and thus, the more likely the best team is to emerge the victor. Obviously no system can eliminate luck completely (nor would I want one that did), but it'd be foolish to think that the NCAA tournament is really a great indicator of who the best team is in any given year. That said, the matter of luck and the way the tournament format emphasizes it is what makes March Madness March Madness. It also makes those years when you do break through all the more precious. Basketball is also a lot more like baseball than football in that the affects that any given individual player exerts on the whole team are much, much greater in forming a particular outcome, and thus, one bad game by a couple of key players is way more likely to torpedo the whole effort (although, of course, QBs have a massively disproportionate affect in football, most other positions can be covered for in one way or another).
So I don't think there's anything wrong with saying in 2014 in particular, UConn was more lucky than good (and UK too, for that matter). I would say the same thing about Zona in 97, KU in 88, or NC State in 83. That's not to say there aren't plenty of years where the best team dominates the dance (Florida in 06 and 07, UNC 09, UK 12), nor that there aren't a lot of worthy teams that get there too (UConn 11, Cuse 03). But as often as 1 seeds win the whole damn thing (a stat you're very fond of pointing out), it's actually fairly rare that they're playing fellow 1s for the title.
@JayhawkRock78 No. Conner wasn't an AA. You're thinking of USA basketball U-17 where he lead all scorers on a team featuring Jabari Parker and Dakari Johnson.
Based on Self's statements, as well as Conner's, it sounds like this move is more driven by his dad than a real dissatisfaction with the program. Conner made it known that he and his father's goal was for him to make the NBA within 2-3 years, and it's clear that he wasn't on that trajectory at KU (but given his physical limitations, I think it's questionable at best he'd be headed that direction anywhere else). I sincerely believed this was outside the realm of reasonable possibilities, though, given how dedicated other local kids have been to the program (Releford waited his turn without ever questioning it. Perry played behind Kevin Young and even Traylor, at times), but that simply adds to my suspicions that his dad is the driving force behind the move (much like we saw with Micah Downs). It may also signal an impending commitment from Tyler Dorsey or Marcus LoVett, but I think that's less likely (and LoVett in particular I wouldn't expect to challenge Frankamp). However it plays out, I'm sure we all wish him well.
Are golf shirts a possibility? Also, what are you thinking for a logo. I know the people that run a certain mammary obsessed KU twitter feed got into trouble for releasing branded merchandise a year or two ago. I like the idea, but I'd hate for you or anyone else to suffer at the hands of an IP attorney.
It's back up now.
Freakin' great. ESPN in all their genius has decided to cutoff the feed of the men's scrimmage.
BTWs, anyone like me who lives in the ESPN 3 blackout zone and doesn't have Time Warner Cable, I can highly recommend OPENVPN. You have to find a US server out of the blackout zone, but it's not too difficult to set up (just find an ovpn file and drop it in the config, then use the tool in your system tray to connect). That said, sessions are often logged and when you're running your IP traffic through someone else's servers, there's no telling what they're doing with the data. Suffice it to say, don't login to anything sensitive while you're connected to anything like this (email, bank/credit card, etc). Anyway, enjoying Late Night and plan to watch the exhibition games like this too.
@HighEliteMajor Dorsey is definitely the most likely, but I wouldn't rule out Bragg. Initially there were conflicting reports about whether or not he was going to sign late and even when it came from his mouth, he's only said that that's where he's leaning. I wouldn't put any money on him committing or anything, but I also wouldn't be floored by the news.
The competition for Bragg appears to be dwindling ↗, and frankly, I think he's our best shot for a post prospect. After him, I think it's Diallo. Calipari is making a big push on Zimmerman. I don't know if that means Cal thinks he's behind or he thinks he can close, so make of it what you will. Swanigan is a guy we could probably get involved with during the season since he's not planning on committing until late, but I doubt he'll ever be a focus. I don't think we've actually offered Kapita, but he may have been scouted or expressed interest. Aside from them, Thon Maker has rekindled talk of reclassifying ↗, and I think it's more likely than not given his age, that he recently changed schools, and the frequency his people keep bringing up the subject. If it happens, I think we're in the best position to capitalize on the change, just as we did when Wayne Selden reclassified.
@HighEliteMajor said:
I would trade Alexander right now for Karviar Shepherd. Straight up ... IF .. IF .. he had played for Self last season as a freshman. Would you? Would you rather gamble on a highly talented guy that has a year under his belt in Self's system, over an unknown quantity? Instead of Shepherd, think Marcus or Markieff as sophomores.
I understand that you're making a totally different point here, so don't take this as a comment on OADs at large, but in this particular case, I actually would take the frosh Alexander and here's why: Alexander got ejected from a game last season with two technicals, and suspended from the next. Karviar Sheperd got T'd up once last season, and it was for hanging on the rim after a missed dunk.
Now I know what you're thinking; how the hell is getting ejected from the game a good thing, right? But Self's best big men have tended to be the ones with that level of passion. TRob got T'd up 4 times his jr season (and honestly, it probably should have been a couple more), taunting, walking over opponents, and overall just fighting for his portion of the hardwood (he even threw an elbow and was ejected from one of his first NBA games). The Morris twins as jrs stopped getting mad at bad calls or rough play, and simply got even (and though I would have never admitted it at the time, they were master cheap shot artists). JoJo got T'd up 3 games in a row, going so far as to put a fist to a jaw.
Who didn't get T'd up? Wiggins. He had some amazing games, but he never put the spurs to anyone. I don't remember Xavier Henry ever getting one. Selby too. McLemore's only T was doing a goofy dance after hitting a 3 in the Big 12 tournament. That's not to say that you have to get T'd up a lot to be a great player, or that you want guys just running roughshod and getting thrown out of games, but when push comes to shove... Well, shove someone, dammit. Let the Marcus Smarts of the world take their flops, or scowl at the refs. I want the kid that's going to stand his ground. Alexander may be raw and he more than likely won't develop to his full potential in one year at KU, but I have no doubt in my mind that he's going to play hard, hit hard, and be fearless on the court. OAD or NBA long shot, I want a team of what Kelly Oubre called 'savages'. I'm hoping he and Big Cliff are true to their words, and that gives me hope for a better ending to this season than last.
@jayhawkbychoice Elite pgs make plays on both sides of the ball. They shoot well, can get to the paint at will, can make the wow play when needed, but will make the easy play when it's available. On defense they contain their man and disrupt the flow of the opposing offense. Statistically, he'd have a 40%+ trey and an A:TO of at least 2.5. On defense, close to 2 steals a game and maybe a rebound or two. Sherron Collins was definitely the height of elite pgs in the Self era. RussRob and Chalmers both qualify, even if Chalmers played off ball more often. Tyshawn was close his senior season. Tharpe could have been if his D improved at all in 3 years at KU.
@Crimsonorblue22 Bingo.Bragg is more Darrell Arthur. Diallo is more like TRob minus the bulk: high energy, supreme athlete, but very very raw. I think the ESPN blurb is a little misleading. Bragg's back to the basket game is definitely a work in progress, but he's hardly raw. He can put the ball on the floor, face up, and finish going right. He doesn't have a great drop step or any of the Embiid/Dream-shake moves, but shooting form, rebounding, passing, and solid fundamentals are all things he has today. He also has a much better feel for the game than TRob did out of HS.
@BeddieKU23 I wouldn't sweat the French connection here. Diallo also commented that that assistant's French was pretty much merde. Diallo is a Norm Roberts project, and Norm's been killing it lately, delivering Embiid, Selden, and Oubre on their visits. Let's hope the trend continues...
@globaljaybird said:
not be a finesse guy at all. Anyway I'm hoping he's more of a Kaun or DJack type guy, with the added dimension of an outside shot. I can also for see HCBS swiftly planting his can back on the pine if the outside shots don't fall. Habits are hard to break so I can't imagine Bill's "quick hook' to me much different than in years past.
Hate to say it, but you're going to be sorely disappointed by Mickelson if you think he'll be anything like Kaun. Kaun was a lot bigger, stronger and more athletic. Mickelson was a pretty good shot blocker at UArk, though foul prone, but from an offensive standpoint... well, what offense? He could finish a lob or get the occasional stickback, but he had no back to the basket game. As for his face up, his J is okay out to 15 feet, but he lack's a triple threat game, so unless he's being sagged on in a zone, don't expect him to be punishing teams face up.
@drgnslayr Actually, at the NBA draft combine Aldrich measured 6'9" flat-footed, but 6'11" in shoes, which is how I always play basketball, so I don't think it was a huge fib on KUs part (and youza are those some thick soles on his shoes). Also, it's never been clear to me if players report their height for the roster or the coaching staff/university does. But it doesn't matter much because your effective height for basketball is really a matter of wingspan and reach, not how tall you are from the heel to the top. Aldrich actually did have crazy arm length (7'5" span/9'3" reach). @jayhawkfantoo may or may not be right about Traylor's acute height, but I'm pretty sure Traylor's arms and vertical are a longer/higher than Ellis', and he's a lot bigger than Barkley's 6'5" listed height. His bigger problems with defending were always not fouling and not getting backed down by heavier players. Traylor needs to either use his quickness more or bulk up so that he can stand his ground.
@HighEliteMajor said:
acclimation, right? Is there any perimeter player that we want to chase off? I want Svi at the 2 next season. My bet is that Svi next season will be better than Newman. We don't have a need for an OAD in the perimeter spots. I'll pass.
The number one recruit for KU is Carlton Bragg. He's the best fit. If we must get a post OAD, too, so be it. But Bragg should be the priority, in my humble opinion.
You'll be glad to hear that Bragg is pretty sweet on KU too. Self loves him cause his skill level is so high and they(Self and Roberts)'re telling him how if he comes to KU, they'll build around him (and they'd be smart to. He's a Darrell Arthur-type talent). In the Bragg/Diallo/Zimmerman sweepstakes, I think that we'll only walk away with one commit, but I'd bet the house that that commit is Bragg. The other two would be nice, but Bragg is a 'franchise' type at the college level.
As for perimeter guys, I think we have a decent shot at Dorsey, but I doubt Newman or Brown matriculate.
@Statmachine I see that on their site, but it's unsourced and not being reported anywhere else right now. I'd chalk that up to a typo until I see it somewhere else, given that he's scheduled for an in-home and late night. They still show Indiana and Louisville involved with him, so goes to show how accurate their information is. Diallo and Bragg are our best bets regardless.
@drgnslayr said:
Made me think we have a hotter iron in the fire.
Carlton Bragg/Steve Zimmerman/Cheick Diallo take your pick. I wasn't overly impressed with Stone anyway, and I don't really get how he managed to become so hyped. He has the build of a Jared Sullinger or Jahlil Oakafor, but without the accompanying skill to make up for the underwhelming athleticism. In my mind, Diamond was always fool's gold.
@BeddieKU23 said:> he went there. Really surprised he didn't take his visit to KU or Baylor as he was high on them as well.
There's one domino of the 3 man class gone. Who replaces him now?
Zimmerman is likely to headed to Arizona either with Ivan Rabb together or if Rabb somehow doesn't go there. Look at the list of Zona kids that have come from their AAU team and tell me that KU or any other program involved really has a chance. I could be wrong but that AAU team is like
Yeah, gotta say, Davis was a big surprise. It was only a month or so ago that he said in an interview that Zona and KU were his top choices. Recruiting turns on a dime, I guess. I've heard both ways about Zimmerman: he'll stay out west, or he's hot on KU. Personally, I think he stays out west, but I also thought we were in pole position with Davis, so shows what I know...
@justanotherfan I agree with you about Bragg, but not Davis. The thing that drives the OAD bus is "potential", and that's something that Bragg has in spades, but Davis... not nearly as much as the ESPN blurb suggests. Even if Davis gets down to say, 250-260ish and can play 30 minutes a game, he's still not an elite level athlete by NBA standards, and that means he's going to have to show a lot of polish and consistency before the league will take him on. Polish and consistency are words I hear associated with upperclassmen way more often than freshmen. Davis is a bare minimum two-year player and more likely a three-year guy. Bragg is a borderline two-year guy, but an OAD lean.
Also, your comment about looking outside the top 30 doesn't ring true to me. Yeah, guys outside the top 30 are all but guaranteed to not OAD, but most of the guys in the top 30 won't either. In fact, out of the top 10, the guys most likely to OAD, only about 65% of those guys have ended up doing it since the rule started in 2006, and once you get outside the top 10, that number drops precipitously.
@approxinfinity Is there a way to migrate the old data? Do you have access to the DB? I'm a programmer by profession and would be more than happy to volunteer my services migrating the old data to the new version. And to echo others, I fully support whatever you decide and I really appreciate the effort you've put into this site. Thanks.
Just to clear the air about Tharpe's landing in the D-League, the reason for it is that he has no other choice, really. Although it's been suggested that Tharpe was forced out (and he may well have been) and that his decision to pro, as well as the earlier chatter that Europe would be an option, is evidence of that, the reality is Tharpe did try to transfer to a school in or near the Boston area, but was unsuccessful. The only public D-1 college in the area is UMass and they were interested, but couldn't offer him a scholarship because they'd hit their allotment. As for the other three, Providence (RI) and Boston College are Catholic universities, and, although non-denominational, Boston University is supported by the Methodist church. Unsurprisingly, these schools were unwilling to extend an offer to a kid that was rather publicly caught fornicating with a married woman. The D-League was basically all Tharpe has left (and if he's lucky he can wind up on the Springfield Armor, if they're still around).
While we all marvel at all the athleticism these kids bring to the game (and to the fans) we should respect the risk they take on by playing at the level they play at. I know I totally respect these guys and what they do.
Go JoJo!
@drgnslayr there are probably not enough stars in the sky for me to favorite that sentiment as much as I'd like to. It's so easy for us as fans to take players for granted (especially those on the lower end of the talent spectrum), but for what they gain from it, there is enormous sacrifice on their parts and we all too often benefit more from that while having to put no skin (or bones for that matter) in the game, so to speak. Well said.
Before we all go into full-fledged freak-out mode over this, here's a little more information about navicular fractures ↗:
The navicular plays an important role in maintaining the medial longitudinal arch of the foot. Commonly, fractures of the navicular are not evident on plain radiographs. This often leads to a delay in diagnosis, which may result in prolonged disabling foot pain in individuals, particularly young athletes. The 4 types of navicular fractures are (1) cortical avulsion, (2) tuberosity, (3) body, and (4) stress.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Cortical and tuberosity avulsion fractures
Avulsion fracture, the most common fracture of the navicular, is often associated with ligamentous injuries and results from twisting forces on the mid foot. These fractures are commonly treated conservatively, except for avulsion of the posterior tibial tendon insertion (tuberosity fracture), which may be repaired operatively, especially if a proximal dislocation of 1 cm or more is present. An avulsion of the posterior tibial tendon insertion must be differentiated from an accessory navicular (see Other Problems to Be Considered).Fractures of the navicular body
Fractures of the body are commonly associated with other injuries of the midtarsal joint. Sangeorzan et al categorized navicular body fractures into 3 types, as follows[6] :Type 1 is a coronal fracture with no dislocation.
Type 2 is a dorsolateral to plantomedial fracture with medial forefoot displacement.
Type 3 is a comminuted fracture with lateral forefoot displacement and carries the worst prognosis.
All navicular body fractures with 1 mm or more of displacement require open reduction and internal fixation.Stress fractures
The rest of this article primarily discusses the diagnosis and treatment of navicular stress fractures, which are usually sports-related injuries.In 1855, Brehaulpt first described stress fractures in military recruits who were subjected to long marches. As more civilians took up physically demanding sports, the incidence of stress fractures has increased in the general population. Towne et al first described stress fracture of the tarsal navicular in 1970.[7]
In athletes, navicular stress fractures are of particular concern because they are underdiagnosed and can lead to significant disability if the diagnosis is delayed.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8] In a study by Torg et al in 1982, the average time between the fracture and diagnosis was estimated to be 7 months.[9] Given the significant improvement in outcome with early diagnosis and proper treatment, navicular stress fractures should be considered in any athlete with midfoot pain. In a 2006 study by Saxena and Fullem, navicular stress fractures took up to 4 months to heal posttreatment.[10]
Fracture-dislocation of the navicular may occur in athletes.[11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18] This uncommon injury generally requires reduction and examination for stability via fluoroscopy, with the patient under general anesthesia. If the postreduction examination findings confirm stability of the navicular, treatment with a non–weight-bearing cast may be sufficient; otherwise, internal fixation is required.
For excellent patient education resources, visit eMedicineHealth's First Aid and Injuries Center. Also, see eMedicineHealth's patient education articles Broken Foot and Cast Care.
It sounds like how serious the injury is depends a lot on how long the pain/injury went undiagnosed. If Joel hasn't been caused pain by this (and it looks like it was the Cavs doctors that actually found the injury), then it may be a minor fracture. However, this bone is part of maintaining the arch of your foot perpendicular to its length, so if it was hurting him, it might also have been the real culprit of the stress fracture in his back, not the knee hyper-extension we saw vs TCU. One way or the other, we should all pray for his sake that it's not serious.
Another thing to consider is that since stress fractures seem to be a recurring problem, it could mean he has some type of deficiency that affects his bone strength. If it is something as simple as vitamin D deficiency, it may be easily correctable. He might even be able to use the same medicine they give menopausal women undergoing estrogen therapy to protect them from osteoporosis.
@globaljaybird / @KUSTEVE - Is it not completely inevitable that either CF, Graham, or Mason transfer? One of them. There seems to be no way they all can co-exist for their careers here. So the competition ensues.
The transfer rumor was a whole lot of nothing. One of CF's friends made a public comment that he'd fit better in Creighton's system and the rumor mill quickly escalated it to 'CF is transferring to Creighton'. That's nothing worth raising your blood-pressure over.
As for an inevitable transfer, not necessarily. If all three can make it through the season (maybe one can ride the redshirt) and Selden and Oubre depart as expected, we'll have the perfect mix of back-court players: 2 pgs, a 2/1combo, and two 2/3 combos. They could all coexist as long as we don't sign any back-court players that are going to demand instant minutes.
I'm kind of thinking that the dunks won't come quite as easy next season.
I guess I'm most curious about his post moves and footwork. We saw a highlight video of Embiid that showed a guy who could handle the ball, use his left hand, and who could get hoops by his footwork. We saw a guy with a package of skills that screamed "impact."
@DoubleDD - One word to describe Alexander right now? "Freshman"
@HighEliteMajor Embiid's talents were undeniable coming in, but Alexander is nothing like Embiid and I'm not remotely concerned that that matters much. As has already been pointed out, his Curie team managed to defeat Okafor's Whitney Young in an awesome 4 OT outing. He was also clutch in upsetting the No. 1 HS team Montverde Academy which featured 4 ESPN top 100 players (including Ben Simmons, DeAngelo Russell, Noah Dickerson, and Justin Gibbs) in a tournament featuring top HS teams. His game is all athleticism and power, but he does have a great free-throw stroke and soft shooting touch. For all of the similarities, he's a lot futher ahead than this guy, and he turned out alright:
TRob Brewster Academy
[link text](
And while he doesn't have his handles, his post game is similar to this guy's, but with superior athleticism and length:
Julius Randle Prestwood Christian Academy
[link text](
In other words, although he may not be destined to be a consensus All American, there's every reason to believe his game will translate to the collegiate level.
I can get with the general premise here, and even Self has recently opined that he'd be more likely to play small with his incoming talent, but there are a couple of things worth considering:
We don’t have senior Tarick Black and rim protector Joel Embiid. Instead, we have 6’8” Cliff Alexander and the inclusion of Traylor, Lucas, or Mickelson as the 3rd post player. The third post player will still get big minutes. Shifting small for a larger percentage of game action will limit the 4th post player’s minutes more substantially.
Our knee-jerk reaction is that 6'8" is undersized for an NCAA 4 (let alone an NBA big man), but it's important to remember that not all 6'8" are created equal. Big Cliff is nearly the exact same dimensions (wingspan and standing reach) and weight as TRob. TRob definitely wasn't undersized for his position at the college level (and now that he's been given a decent chance to show what he can do, he's proving that he can defend well against NBA size too), and TRob didn't come to us with Big Cliff's rep as a shot blocker (and as good a rebounder). Alexander played with and against the much bigger Jahlil Oakafor, and if you watched the Nike Hoop Summit, you know he did a great job defending much taller bigs. In other words, Alexander's 6'8" isn't Perry Ellis' 6'8". The bigger question with Alexander is how quickly he'll learn to score against NCAA size. Will he be able to bully his way to the rim the way he did in HS? I think he will (Julius Randle was able to and doesn't have near Alexander's length to back up the beef, although Randle has more skill).
When Self called Mickelson a poor man's Jeff Withey, he wasn't wrong, but that's like saying Mark Zuckerberg is a poor man's Bill Gates (the former is only worth $23B compared to the latter's $77B ). Mickelson is likely a better shot blocker than Joel Embiid. The freshman block record that Mickelson set at Arkansas was done while only playing 16 mpg. His bock rate clocked in at 13.3%, good for 8th in the nation that season. That was the same year JW had a nation leading 15.2% block rate and Anthony Davis was considered a terror for his 13.7% block rate. Embiid was only able to block 11.5% of shots while on the floor. Now, while it's obvious that Mickelson in now way compares to AD or Embiid in terms of overall talent/impact, I don't think he's an unknown quantity. His block rate did drop considerably when Mike Anderson took over for Pelphery, but that was due to 1) Anderson having Mickelson gain weight and 2) Anderson's up and down style of play which looks to cause TOs rather than defend shots. Maybe most KU fans aren't familiar with his game, but I've seen Mickelson play in person enough to be confident in his defense (my father teaches at Arkansas and I usually attend games when I visit), especially now that he's back down to about 225 lbs. Offensively, he's not going to wow anyone, but he can hit a hook shot or finish a lob. Self has raved a bit about his J, but he's only slightly better than the NCAA average of hitting 36% on jumpers. He's probably a better threat against a zone compared to Traylor (being taller and having a decent J), but I don't see Bam-Bam's minutes dropping off too much either.
So again, while I agree that maximizing our talent will likely mean playing some small ball (and why not use Greene as a stretch 4? Ellis is really more of a 3 than a 4 already), I don't think we lack depth in the post the way we did in 2012 or 2013. We just don't have much offensive talent coming off the bench compared to last year (unless Traylor adds a J and a turnaround this off-season).
On the Perry Ellis debate:
He's probably reasonably close to 6'8" if draftexpress is to be believed ↗, but the more concerning fib is that he's listed at 225, but doesn't look nearly that size (I'd believe 215 tops). Compare Marcus Morris' guns to Perry's. They're similarly size players ↗ (although Marcus is slightly taller, they have nearly identical wingspans and reach), but Morris has about 15 - 20 lbs on Ellis. Perry and Marcus also possess similar games (3pt shooting, attacking off the dribble from the high post), but Morris was able to develop a sweet turnaround J on the block to help him score over taller defenders, and Perry has demonstrated no such tools to date. If Ellis really wants to maximize his draft potential, he should take a few strokes from Georges Niang. Despite being both shorter and a worse shooter ↗, Niang's bevy of shot fakes, turnarounds, and sheer patience (as well as +15 - 20 lbs) allow him to do a much better job of scoring over size than Ellis.
@wissoxfan83 I've been told that there is no greater risk with this kid, than signing a kid from the good ole USA. So majority rules. No greater risk.
Signed,
Enes Kanter
I guess, @HighEliteMajor, it depends on how you define risk. Did recruiting Enes Kanter expose UK to more risk? I wouldn't say so. Yeah, he was disqualified from amateur status, but that all happened before the season and it's not like UK didn't have plenty of great front court talent besides him. In that sense, even if there's a greater chance that Svi isn't allowed to compete, we're less exposed because there is relatively little need for him in our back court. And it's also not the case the UK incurred any penalties in terms of games stricken. If there's any question about his eligibility, I'm sure Self will be prudent and hold him out of competition.
As far as a European flight risk (a la Pappapetrou), it could happen, but American players do this too (see Josiah Turner's transfer to SMU or Aquille Carr and Seton Hall). Also, while I don't know the specifics on Pappapetrou, given that Greece was/is going through unprecedented economic turmoil, I don't find it difficult to believe that his family might have urgently needed the money. The Ukraine doesn't have the greatest economy in the world, but the fact that Svi's parents are both employed professionals gives me solace. It's also not that different from players that transfer out of homesickness or in search of greener pastures.
Academic eligibility is a question mark because of the whole needing to pass an additional test, but like my first statement, even if he doesn't pass, we're really no worse off in the back court. So that wouldn't be much different than the McLemore/Traylor/Anderson situation (particularly the Anderson part of it), only we're not as exposed as we were then.
The risk of losing another player to transfer is definitely there, but that's the same anytime we land multiple top players at the same position (like the aforementioned Downs/Rush affair). I think everyone is aware that the possibility exists that we add this kid, he plays for a year, then bolts for Europe all while spawning a transfer. It'd be unfortunate, but how damaging it really is depends on who and whether or not it's something we can shore up on the recruiting trail/transfer market, and/or who's left on the team after the fact.
The real worst case scenario would be that Svi is ruled ineligible after a title season and we have to remit a title. Truly that would be devastating, but that could happen with anyone (the McLemore scandal of last season certainly raised some hairs, but ultimately seems to have petered out). I'd be more afraid of this if A) I thought we were a real title favor (I'll reserve judgement on that until after I see us compete against UK) or B ) the NCAA appeared to have any teeth theses days. The former is a nice problem to have. The latter, however, is something that I become less an less concerned about the more often that scandals come and go and nothing is done about them. From our own McLemore-gate or Pot-gate to Duke's watch-gate or Cuse's Pot-gate, there seem to be a lot of these things that spawn headlines each season and that, ultimately, nothing ever comes of. Even something the level of Miami-FL was so badly mishandled, it's tough to take the threat seriously. I'll wait to see the full fallout of OSU's mess before I either pronounce NCAA rules enforcement dead or revived. I suspect, however, that it will continue to limp along as the gimped worm that it is.