@HighEliteMajor Wheter you trust Self or not, let's just hope for two great years out of this kid. And yes, National Title PLEASE!
konkeyDong
383 posts
Pretty good read on the potential benefits of signing Mykhailiuk from the Shiver ↗. I pretty much agree. At worst, there doesn't seem to be an incredible downside to going after him. But we'll see if he goes to college at all...
@HighEliteMajor @DoubleDD Thanks both for chiming back in on this topic. To answer your rebuttal ddd, I think that's kind of the crux of things. Is the reason white guys own the high jump because that's where they choose to compete or is it because there is something about being Northern/Eastern European that makes you a better high jumper? I simply don't think the answer is as self evident as you and HEM do.
I get that it's easy to try to explain away the obvious... We rely on silly explanations to make us feel better.
I take particular umbrage at a statement like this not because it's not PC, but because it's antithetical to scientific inquiry. Being satisfied that what you see is all there is to something is the fastest path to not just ignorance, but regression. Two hundred years ago, people actually believed that flies and maggots were something that was generated directly by the process of decay, as in, they were an inherent part of biological matter, not a wholly external entity. It wasn't until someone thought to let a piece of beef rot in a vacuum chamber that people figured out something else was going on. From there, germ theory (and literally billions of saved lives) was a stones throw away. Taking at face value that blacks are just automatically more athletic is bad for science (it teaches us nothing about genetics), bad for sports (it teaches us nothing about athletics), and bad for humanities (it teaches us nothing about our behavior). All claims demand scrutiny and all alternatives should be given equal consideration until such time as they fail to be plausible.
The races are not the same. Does anyone really think that we are all the same and we are essentially spray painted? How stupid is that.
No. But this is a straw man. The question isn't are all races exactly the same or not. It's specific to the question of athleticism. Does athleticism at large favor one race? Does the correlation of performance in all sports to the races that are over-represented in them prove that those groups are better genetically adapted to them?
A very good doctor friend of mine (who happens to black) pointed out to me that there are number of genetic conditions that afflict folks based on race. He has no qualms in agreeing to the differences.
He reminded me that blacks have a significantly higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than other populations. It afflicts 1 out of 500 blacks, but only 1 out of 36,000 hispanics. Most all research points to malaria as the source of the genetic alterations, and thus blacks in Africa were much more susceptible. That is, simplistically, the sickle cell itself helped ward off malaria. Thus those with the sickle cell trait were more apt to survive malaria. Malaria, over the history of man, is considered one of the largest killers. This trait continues in blacks today. It is not hard to imagine that other adaptive, survival of the fittest, traits would continue through today. The sickle cell trait is more prevalent in areas where malaria is an issue, it's just more focused on blacks.
This is a good point to bring up and it bears discussing. Yup, the sickle cell trait is one that's found primarily in people with Sub-Saharan ancestry and yes, it's beneficial to fighting malaria. At no point, however, have I denied that this is how genetics work. I believe in science and statistics. I believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection. I believe that people adapted to the environments that they lived in over millions of years. No question. But this doesn't help your case as much as you think it does. Malaria, after all, is limited to a narrow band of the world. Because sickle cells can resist malaria, but also can cause other circulatory problems, places with malaria favored sickle cells (because you're more likely to be killed by the virus than the sickle cell), and places without it favored non-sickle cells. That said, traits like speed, agility, and strength are universally beneficial. Having European genetics in and of itself is no reason to prevent someone from developing these traits geographically/evolutionarily speaking.
Below is a link to an author he was aware of, and an explanation that is worth reading. Just as information.
I'm glad you brought up this book (Taboo by John Entine is where this information comes from). It's a good read and it brings up a lot of information about genetics and race insofar as it relates to athletic performance. However, the research and statistics quoted in the book neither represent the final word on the genetic science, nor do they fully account for all factors and considerations. Let me bring up one specific claim mentioned in the book and article:
Blacks of exclusively West African ancestry make up 13 percent of the North American and Caribbean population but 40 percent of Major League baseball players, 70 percent of the NFL, and 85 percent of professional basketball.
The problem with this claim is that it isn't actually true. The way Entine counts 'exclusive' West African ancestry is to assume that includes anyone who traces their roots back to the slave trade counts (this book was originally released around 2000, btw, and I don't know if he's released a more updated version recently but the attribution on the cite appears to be from that edition), but more recent data suggests that our average Western Hemisphere dwelling black person has significant European ancestry ↗ (58% of US blacks have European ancestry equivalent to having at least one white great-grandparent), and it's unclear/unknown if all black slaves were exclusively from West African countries.
It's also worth noting that although the books general claim is that West African ancestry gives a competitive edge in some sports and that there's science that supports those claims (and I'm not saying there isn't), it also suggests that other races have characteristics that benefit them in other sports/athletic endeavors as well. My bigger criticism with this book, however, is that it draws too broad of conclusions based on the data it cites. The closest thing that there is a scientific consensus to is that a specific gene common in West African ancestry (but far from exclusive to it) that allows people of that genetic grouping to dominate sprinting sports has been identified ↗.
Entine overreaches, imho, including jumping sports as well, though. As I included in my links above, although black men do hold a majority of records in the long jump and hurdles, high jump records are largely held by Eastern/Northern Europeans. Although a number of black men possess exceptional vertical leaps (MJ's was about 48" ), the highest recorded (although somewhat disputed) belongs to a French man of Persian ancestry by the name of Kadour Ziani, at 60" or 5'. The next best (and better documented) belongs to a Cuban by the name Leonel Marshall Jr (the high jump record also belongs to a Cuban, and in either case, being Hispanic, Cubans trace their ethnic origins largely back to Europe).
There are other studies in other sports that are dominated by white people that try to draw biomechanical/genetic conclusions on why white guys rule there. One such study was by a team of Duke researchers about whites and swimming, and concluded that things such as white's average height advantage and having slightly more body fat compared to Sub-Saharan blacks (supposedly increasing buoyancy) are what make them better. But this, HEM, is why I brought up Michael Phelps to you. If the Duke research is true, and Phelps represents the pinnacle of European advantage in swimming, why, with his Tyshawn Taylor-esque proportions (the two are the same height and have the same wingspan) and clearly good 'burst' speed, could Phelps not have become as good or better a basketball player as TT?
He also pointed me to that there have been multiple studies regarding athletes and muscle development, etc. His opinion was that discussion is constrained by the "everyone is the same mentality."
I think it's worth repeating that the PC/'everyone is the same' argument is a straw man to what I'm discussing, and that I think we are having an open discussion about race/genetics and it's affects on athletic performance and it's one that I've enjoyed (even if that's not true for the rest of everyone else. Sorry to hijack the thread, all, but this is the only time I've ever been able to have this discussion with, essentially, strangers). There probably aren't too many places on the internet where a group of people with disparate political/social/economic opinions could have a discussion like this without it degenerating into a real flame war (even if some of our language seems inflammatory to the other).
Anyway, it's not that I think everyone is the same with only superficial differences, it's that I don't think the notion that black people have the market cornered on elite athleticism (even if you limit it to burst speed, agility/change of direction, vertical jumping, distance jumping, throwing/shooting, body control) is well supported by the best genetic science. Even if it is true that West African/Sub-Saharan ancestry provides for some things, it certainly doesn't appear to cover all bases. European ancestry appears to bring a lot to the table as well. As it relates to basketball specifically, European ancestry appears to me to actually be favored with vertical jumping, upper and lower body strength, and height (yes, even in American, white males are the tallest group on average).
If basketball were solely about who could move the fastest in quick, (mostly) linear bursts, a book like Taboo would be awfully damning. But like most professional sports, it's a lot more complicated of a game than that. Given that I don't believe the research supports the idea that black athletes are either necessarily more prevalent per capita, nor that they possess a monopoly on genes that could/do give a competitive advantage in the sport (or in sports in general), I'm forced to look at other factors that may bias those numbers. I think there's good support for my hypothesis. Part of the problem I have with your position, guys, is that the aforementioned 'speed gene', although more common among West African blacks, is a mutation that also occurs in white people, so if it's true that more white people are spending just as much time and energy as black people on becoming the next Lebron, even if the gene is present at a lower rate, white people should still be churning out lots of athletes that can compete at the highest levels of basketball with black athletes. I think the reality is that they probably do, but for reasons of culture and socio/economics, the best white athletes tend to compete more in other sports. Now, I don't expect to necessarily sway anyone with my arguments, but I don't like having my case misrepresented by people trying to put words in my mouth either.
Lastly, I leave you with a bit of anecdotal evidence that I in no way claim represents the best data or is statistically significant, but it does reflect why I think white people really aren't putting as much effort into being the best basketball players compared to blacks: Professionally, I'm a software developer (as I write this at 2am on a Sunday, I'm supporting server updates). In my career and in my personal life, I've encountered what I believe is an inordinate number of really tall people (4 men, all of them white and nerdy) who had never played a game of organized basketball (or any other sports really) in their lives. The heights of these men range from 6'7" to 7'0" (really 3 guys 6'8"ish and one footer). Despite having been that tall since being freshmen or sophomores in HS, none of them was ever even asked to tryout for their basketball team. All of them are/were overweight to some degree. Again, that proves nothing as far as the white Lebron at IBM scenario, but I buy into the idea that those giant guys wouldn't have been ignored by their HS's basketball coach had they been black.
Anyway, HEM and ddd, please feel free to respond if you have more to say on the matter, but I'll leave my part in the discussion at that. Thanks all for bearing with us.
For instance it is a proven fact that Black Americans have a different muscle structure than do their white counter parts. In a study it was proven that Black Americans are indeed more explosive in running and jumping. This is a reality.
@DoubleDD The thing is, ddd, this is far from settled science. While there is some science that shows that there are genetic markers in some (not all) populations of people with West African ancestry (and again, it's unclear exactly how much of the US black population falls into that group largely because of the slave trade) that may advantage sprinters, there are a lot of strikes against this research that are yet to be resolved. For instance, although West African ancestry correlates highly in top sprinters, actual West African nations produce very few of the top sprinters in the world. Also, those sprinters with West African ancestral markers also tend to have genetic markers for European ancestry too.
I liken such claims to those of nutritionist who claim that aspartame (the artificial sweeter in diet pop) makes people fat. They point to studies that show high correlation between drinking diet soda and being overweight, but that's not a causal relationship. After all, people who are overweight often drank sugar-sweetened pop before becoming overweight and only switched to diet pop after the fact.
And if you look at stereotype that 'white men can't jump' (which HEM implied exists for the reason that it's true), it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Compare the top 10 world records for long jump ↗ and high jump ↗. Of the top 10 long jumpers, 8 of 10 are black and 2 of ten are white, but of the top 10 high jumpers, 7 of 10 are white. So white men can indeed jump, often with superior verticality compared to black men. So if those Northern/Eastern European white dudes spent more time on the court and less time on the track, odds are they too could finish elbows above the rim in ways that CF could only dream of. That's been my point this whole time.
@konkeyDong - Holy crap. What did you just say??
@HighEliteMajor Exactly. What did I say?
"Being born with dark skin doesn't give you access to an athletic gene pool. Your heredity does (as well as random chance)."
Your statement "heredity does"? -- isn't that like the end of the argument. Heredity. Exactly.
Yes, end of the argument in my favor. Thanks :)
Perhaps we're overlapping here. I'm not saying the mere fact that someone is black means anything. Black skin doesn't create an athlete, of course. However, I am saying that as a percentage of the population, those high level, superior athletes tend to be black. How can anyone argue with that?
How can I argue with that? Simple. The numbers don't support it. The top athletes in any given sport tend to reflect the skew in participation levels in those sports. Blacks don't play a lot of baseball and whites do, thus, there are a hell of a lot more white baseball All Stars than black (both by volume and percentage). The concentration of talent by race reflects relative levels of participation among the top tier of athletes for a given race in a given sport. Why would it work any other way?
You seriously say that boys and girls are not different, then cite that it is the injection of testosterone they get in puberty. Right. Boys get more. Naturally. Through their bodies. And I'm sorry, I've coached kids for years. The 7 year old boys basketball team will thrash the 7 year old girls basketball team. Are there some exceptional girls that can play with the boys? Sure. Rare. They can't generally keep up. But any later change that occurs is natural. Men and women are made differently.
This is a failure of reading comprehension on your part. Girls and boys are different, of course. But prepubescent boys don't hold a significant athletic edge over girls of the same ages. Your subjective experiences are what they are, but people who have done controlled studies will tell you that you're wrong about 7 year old boys and girls on average. The onset of puberty changes that, of course, but it's a predictable and non-random change. In other words, being born male doesn't make you more likely to be born with heightened athleticism. However, being an athletic male is more advantageous than being an athletic female once puberty kicks in. The population of percentage of potential athletes, however, is roughly equal among genders, and no advantage expresses itself during the period of time that physiology is most similar.
I still believe basketball is a skill driven game. Certain athletes possess both the skill and athleticism. Much skill can be increased by practice. But each has their own ceiling. But athleticism .. the old adage, you can't teach height. Hard to teach a 40 inch vertical, too.
No, the truly superior black athlete you reference is not necessarily going to play the violin as well. Totally different. Explosiveness, jumping, running fast, quickness -- those don't relate to playing the violin. Those are the qualities I'm referring to.
I think you're undervaluing other athletic factors in sports performance, but like I said, I'm willing to drop that line of inquiry.
You can't show me the white Jim Brown, or Bo Jackson, or Lebron James, or Michael Jordan. When you find one, then I'll have scores more black athletes to throw at you. Dominique Wilkens, Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Deion Sanders, etc.
So this is where the rubber hits the road. What you're asking for as a burden of proof doesn't prove anything. That's the problem. It's not up to me to find a million white MJs in order to disprove your hypothesis. If black populations truly have an inherent genetic advantage in terms of producing elite athletes, those advantages should transcend things like participation levels in said sports. But they don't. Sub-Saharan genetics don't make African soccer teams better than European ones on average despite high levels of participation in soccer for all races around the world. Every other sport works the same. You can point to something like testosterone levels (as it relates to muscle development) in men and explain why the best male athletes will always trump the best female athletes, but you provide no similar mechanism for why black populations should hereditarily outperform white ones. And catchalls like evolution don't help your case because it's just as advantageous evolutionarily to be able to 'explosively' outrun a lion on the Veldt as it is to outrun a grizzly bear in Siberia.
My argument isn't that blacks just try harder at basketball because they just do. My argument is that black athletes are more likely to focus effort towards basketball compared to white athletes and that the reasons for that are largely cultural and socio/economic. Now get back to me when you can explain the soccer situation.
@HighEliteMajor Hogwash on top of hogwash. You're suffering from severe confirmation bias, my friend. But to answer your points directly:
"Black people dominate basketball because black people try harder to do so compared to everyone else."
I cannot fathom a more uninformed and patently ridiculous comment. Black people try harder. Right.
So, conversely, are you saying that blacks' lack of effort leads them to their much higher levels (per capita) of unemployment, poverty, and violent crime?
Unemployment and violent crime are biproducts of poverty. Being born poor makes you more likely to be poor in the future for a variety of reasons (including but not limited to access to resources and literal changes in brain development that occur from developing in a stress-heavy environment). What I've said about black people trying harder to dominate basketball is true. An elite black athlete is more likely to invest his time in playing football or basketball rather than anything else compared to athletes of other races. Elite white athletes participate more in other sports. Your assumptions about whites trying to dominate basketball by volume are simply flawed and your reasoning for this is completely shallow.
You ask: "Is a golfer or pro bull rider less of an athlete than a power forward or middle linebacker?"
Short Answer: Yes. Obviously. And by a long shot. It takes much less pure athleticism to do the former than the latter -- see Craig Stadler, for example. Thus my point about blacks being better basketball players. And this is my sole point.The game of basketball, in a large part, is based on a certain type of explosive athleticism. It is exactly why blacks dominate those positions in football which require that -- running back, wide receiver, corner, LB, safety.
In basketball, shooting the ball is more of a skill. Rising above the basket with your elbow at the rim has more to do with explosive athleticism. A black player that can do the latter, can learn the former. Conner Frankamp can never do the latter, nor could a black kid that possesses CF's athleticism.
You yourself have said in the past that basketball is primarily a skills game and that athleticism is secondary to that skill (and cited Bo Jackson's brief and unremarkable basketball career as proof of that). But even if you're reversing course on that position, you lack a cogent definition of 'pure athleticism'. Even if you boil athleticism down to things like running fast and jumping high, and consider elements like hand/foot-eye coordination, judging distances, and fine motor control skills (after all, aren't talented violinists better at using their digits more quickly and precisely than the rest of us?), you fail to address why being black doesn't give a pronounced advantage in a sport that values speed/explosivity/power/endurance, such as soccer (a sport played all over the world), if these are things that elite black athletes have truly cornered the market on. You've stated that if blacks played more hockey they'd dominate. So why not soccer?
You say, "Blacks play more basketball than whites per capita." Per capita is irrelevant. Your argument is that blacks succeed in basketball because culturally they focus on achieving in basketball. But more whites focus on that than blacks (numbers, not per capita), and the number of blacks at the highest level far outweighs the number of whites.
Not just play more per capita, but invest more hours. In other words, an elite black athlete is more likely to have spent his time playing basketball as opposed to another sport or another endeavor altogether. Your perception that the abundance of white people means they're automatically more engaged in a given activity is simply wrong. And leaves out the self-reinforcing mechanisms of specialization. As I stated, black populations are more concentrated in urban environments compared to white populations. An elite black athlete is more likely to be born in a basketball heavy environment where he's going to encounter people like himself. Is it any surprise that the least talented of the Wiggins brothers is the oldest (a D2/NAIA player) and the most talented the youngest (a future NBA top 5 lotto pick)? Of course not. The youngest benefits from being able to compete against the eldest his whole life.
Some don't like stereotypes -- but the phrase "White men can't jump" is there for a reason.
There is a reason that the phrase 'white men can't jump' exists, but it's existence and it's verisimilitude are independent qualities. The reason for the phrase persists is because there are people like you who buy into its veracity without criticism. It's as irrelevant a point as you can bring up.
Again, I think you make pointless arguments -- citing Michael Phelps, and orchestras.
Learning to play the violin, my friend, is much different than being born with inherent athletic explosiveness.
Learning to play the violin requires every bit as much hand-eye coordination and physical dexterity as success in any sport. What separates the greatest violin player from the run of the mill is a combination of the effort they've put into playing and their ability to translate their physical advantages into better performance. So if what you're suggesting is true, superior black athletes should also be better strings players because all of that fast twitch muscle tissue in their fingers should really let them shred the cello. However, it's whites and Asians that dominate the world of orchestral music.
Just like men are born stronger than women. Some men are born stronger, faster, and more athletic than other men. It just so happens that based on centuries of evolution, some black men can achieve, generally, a higher level of explosive athleticism than white men. Exceptions for sure. But the rule, for sure.
And here you've revealed the depth of your ignorance. Males aren't born stronger than females. Prior to puberty, there's really no significant difference between the athletic abilities of boys and girls. Some are, some aren't, but people don't bother gender segregating most sports for young kids because it makes no difference. However, with the onset of puberty, the disparity in testosterone takes off in favor of males, and with it the accompanying increase in muscle mass, strength-to-weight-ratio, lower average body fat %, etc. There is a cause and effect. But athletic females still out perform less athletic males because testosterone isn't magic, after all. But what you've suggested here isn't that like saying testosterone makes men more athletic. What you've suggested is something akin to saying 'the abiltiy to grow facial hair is what makes men more athletic'.
And remember, black folks are black because they lived in very warm climates. The pigmentation differences in our skin are a direct result of the climates and exposure to sun of our ancestors. Cloudy, cool = pale Irishmen? Is it that hard to figure out that the physical differences in people inherent to world regions where the races originated centuries upon centuries ago may be tied to the physical requirements necessary to survive in those varying regions of the world? And that those differences maintain in large part still today?
Genetics dictate race, not the other way around (and while we're on the subject, although climate does affect skin color, it a surprisingly short amount of time for that trend to shift gears. It's part of the reason blacks in the US are much lighter than blacks in sub-Saharan Africa). Being born with dark skin doesn't give you access to an athletic gene pool. Your heredity does (as well as random chance). What you do with that affects your actual outcomes in life, which is why, all along, I'd point you back to the fact that blacks invest more time and energy into dominating the sport of basketball than whites. If white athletes gave up skiing and snowboarding and hockey and wrestling and golf and bull riding and lacrosse and baseball, etc, etc, etc to focus on basketball and football at the same rates that black athletes do, you'd see levels of performance in those sports closer to the general population. You're just ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary or creating proof out of nothing.
Look, I get that I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, but as you're often fond of encouraging Self to do, why not try opening your mind and being less stubborn?
I'm w @HighEliteMajor on this one. I've played and watched a lot of basketball and the black players typically seem to have a higher ceiling.
@VailHawk It's not what you see that matters, it's what you don't see (as is the gist of every Gatorade and Nike commercial). You take for granted that black players have higher ceiling ignoring the circumstances, choices, and effort that brought them to where they are in life. Black people dominate basketball because black people try harder to do so compared to everyone else.
Maybe we should invite Donald Sterling to join this conversation :)
Funny, @wissoxfan83, but this isn't about racism. I don't think HEM's a racist. I haven't used the word or implied it at any point. And even if I did, there would be nothing to be gained by throwing the word around. It's unproductive and stymies conversation. I think a bigger part of race relations problems in this country exist because people are afraid to talk about racial topics for fear of that label.
We all do understand that there are many, many more whites in poverty than blacks, right? The logic that black "need" it more is absolutely absurd. Perhaps we aren't understanding percentages. There may be more blacks as a percentage of their population that play basketball, but volume favors whites.
The idea that the "white" Lebron James is actually working at IBM is also absurd.
@HighEliteMajor The idea that a white kid born with the potential to be the next Lebron wound up working in a cubical at IBM or trading stocks on Wall Street is far from absurd. Yeah, I doubt IBM has anyone with that talent today, but Lebron wasn't Lebron until he became Lebron, so to speak.
Are there more poor whites in this country than blacks? Of course. In fact, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation ↗, in total, there are about twice as many white people that live at or below the poverty line than compared to blacks, although blacks fall below that line at nearly triple the rate. Athletic ability knows no socio-economic class, though, so assuming the same percentage of the population of whites and blacks is born with potentially elite athleticism, you're still far more likely to be born black, athletic, and poor than white, athletic, and poor. So yes, I think you're far more likely to put your eggs in the athleticism-to-escape-poverty-basket when you're black because you're more likely to wind up with the right combination of incentives. It's the same affect that causes poor blacks to sell crack even though working at McDonald's would be more profitable on average ↗. Even when athletic whites fall into this rubric, they're more likely to invest energy in other sports (see statistics for MLB players below, or consider when the last time you saw a black Nascar driver was).
But the issue at hand isn't poverty, it's the over-representation of a minority in a few sports. In the year 2011, whites made up 65% of the US populations, blacks 13%, Hispanics 16%, and Asians 5%. In the same year black players accounted for 78% of the NBA and 67% of the NFL, and whites 17% and 30% respectively. In the same year, whites accounted for 62% of MLB players, and blacks just 9%. So why do blacks dominate the NBA but not MLB? As I stated above, it's cultural factors. Blacks play more basketball than whites per capita. And whether or not white people have an advantage on sheer numbers, there are still going to be more black people who have played more hours of basketball in their life times than members of other races and that is primarily a cultural phenomenon. A greater percentage of blacks live in inner cities, where, as @drgnslayr pointed out, basketball dominates the sports culture. Likewise, there are a whole lot more inner city blacks living below the poverty line by both percentage and real volume.
All that said, HEM, regardless of my rebuttal, the evidence you use to build your argument is weak in the first place. After all, blacks, the supposedly superior athletes, accounted for two thirds of the NFL's population compared to less than a third for whites in 2011, yet the number of teams in that same year that started a black player at QB, ostensibly the most important, skill intensive, and athletic position in the sport: 5 of 32 (last season it nearly doubled to 9 of 32). If the chocolate creme truly rises, as you suggest, why do these genetic supermen flounder at that position? (The other position white players dominate? Kicker!). And how do you compare relative levels of athleticism of disparate sports/positions anyway? Is a golfer or pro bull rider less of an athlete than a power forward or middle linebacker? Do you really think that if 6'3" Michael Phelps had put the same amount of effort in his lifetime to playing point guard rather than swimming he'd have no chance to be drafted to the NBA? Or that 6'3" Tyshawn Taylor could have broken Phelps' swimming records by virtue of changing sports at an early age? Even if you think that race gives a genetic advantage to basketball and football specifically (rather than say, polo), why is it that soccer is played the world round, yet European and South American teams dominate the World Cup? Surely explosivity, coordination, and power would advantage black soccer players if these were inherent properties.
The bottom line is, you're taking for granted what you see without asking yourself how it got to be like that in the first place. See my comments about blacks in the rap industry. (Honestly, do you think they're better at rhyming?) I went to the KC Symphony with my wife and her parents this evening (I find it boring, but I'm an uncultured swine). Although the majority of the orchestra was white, Asians were heavily represented in the strings section (almost half of the players, even though they only account for 5% of the general population, and I'm sure even less around Kansas City). There were no blacks that played in the concert. I don't conclude from this that Asians are somehow inherently advantaged violinists compared to blacks. That's ridiculous. I simply conclude that A) more Asians are taught to play classical string instruments as children for cultural reasons when compared to blacks and B ) part of those cultural reasons is that more of the Asians that immigrate to this country represent the best and the brightest from those countries (a phenomenon we call 'brain drain'. After all, immigrating to the US isn't easy with the Pacific Ocean in your way), so they'd be more inclined to both value the classical arts and have the affluence to push their kids in those directions. It's not hard stuff, HEM. Just never take what you see for granted.
You make no sense. I think if blacks played hockey they would dominate hockey. My point is that blacks, generally, are much better athletes. That's all.
You don't think that there are general differences between the races when it comes to athletic ability?
@HighEliteMajor I think there are genetic difference between related ethnic groups, but no, these don't extend to 'races' as a whole. For instance, Nordic males are, on average, taller than most other males regardless of race. The same is true of some African tribes. But look at the Hutus in Rwanda. They're short. They wouldn't make very good basketball players on average because of that height disadvantage. It has nothing to do with 'race' which is only meaningful when used in one of two ways: to refer to skin color, or to refer to species. Given that all people are the same species, then no, I don't accept your proposition that races have different athletic abilities because there's a lot of genetic variation among people of the same skin color to begin with.
And regardless of how many white kids play basketball, there are a lot fewer white kids that need to succeed in a sport like basketball in order to get ahead in life, whereas for black kids, it's a different situation. Hispanics and South Americans play more baseball and soccer, and therefore, are over-represented in those sports at the highest level. Texans place more emphasis on football. Canadians on hockey. It's cultural. That's the only difference. When the negro leagues first integrated, it's not as if whites got driven out of baseball or black dominated the sport. And nowadays, fewer blacks participate, and there are fewer great black players. There's no mystery or PC conspiracy. Numbers, plain and simple. What you're suggesting is as silly as saying something like 'there are more black rappers because black people are better at rhyming than whites'.
@konkeyDong That is a bunch of baloney. Politically correct nonsense. I suppose you think men and women are the same, too?
Sexual dimorphism is a very real phenomenon. Look between your legs for proof of that. Political correctness has nothing to do with it. Or do you think that black people can't play hockey?
Whether there are as many unathletic black people as unathletic people of other races is completely irrelevant. The high level black athlete has demonstrated his/her superiority. Look at the NBA. Proof is in the pudding. Look at skill positions in the NFL. Look at KU's roster. This is an obvious fact, given blacks account for only about 13% of our population
@HighEliteMajor The proof is in the pudding, but the make up of the pudding isn't what you think. The reason black athletes are over-represented in a couple of sports (namely basketball and football, although running sports might be included too) has more to do with a relative lack of alternative opportunities than any inherent or genetic advantage. As blacks are proportionally over-represented in high-paying professional sports, they're proportionally under-represented in areas such as college enrollment, business, finance, and politics. If you ask a bunch of young black men what the best way is to get rich or be successful in life, invariably you'll get a lot of responses involving becoming professional athletes. That's it. Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Kidd are/were no less athletic than Lebron James or Chris Paul, but a greater percentage of young black men are working harder to become the next Lebron compared to young men of other races. And it's not like the athletes in sports dominated by white people (tennis, hockey, figure skating, swimming) or Hispanics (baseball, soccer) or Asians (gymnastics, martial arts) are any less athletic. Those just aren't sports that have traditionally attracted a lot of black young men (insert swimming joke here). So while it is probably true that the competition that Mykhailiuk isn't what he'd have faced in say, Chicago Public league, or in the NCAA should he matriculate, it's not because Eastern Europeans aren't black enough. It's because they likely dedicate a lot less time to becoming superior basketball players the same way that kids from central Florida devote a lot less time to learning to skate backwards.
Nice video, but he was playing U16 -- against guys what, 15 and under? I didn't see one black kid on the floor, either. Perhaps a different level of athleticism, if I might invoke a racial fact.
It's Eastern Europe. There aren't a lot of black people period, but I can assure you, there are just as many unathletic black people as there are unathletic people of other races.
What about the kid bolting for a Euro team after the season, which seems to be a reasonable alternative for him? Some Ukranian kid is going to come to Lawrence for two years?
Why not come to Lawrence for two years? Kaun stayed for 4. And there are plenty of European players that live out college careers in podunk American towns. While there is some risk that he could come for a season then go pro in Europe, I think that's the least likely scenario (and hey, what's stopping Selden or Ellis or anyone else doing the same?). The only reason to eschew money now and come play in the US is the proposition that playing NCAA ball is the best way to get exposure for the NBA and thereby maximize future earning potential (same reason most people go to college at all). If getting paid now is really more important, he'll probably just elect to do that. If it isn't, the only reason to go to school for one year and quit when you can't get drafted is that you had a totally disappointing/unremarkable season, in which case CF or Greene will probably have surpassed him anyway. Otherwise, he can come in, vie for a spot this year, and already have a role carved out for the year beyond.
This is not directed at you kD, but just in general -- I just do not understand the belief that we have to have a certain guy, and the next talented guy is the best guy to have, and then the corresponding disregard for high level guys committed to the KU program.
I certainly agree that we don't need this kid, but if we can have a role filled for the season beyond next, why not? Isn't that what makes a program kid? Assuming Oubre and Selden go pro after this season, we'll have 4 guards total. Although that's ideal for a rotation, it's very limiting in terms of injury insurance or in being able to show different looks on either side of the ball.
What we need is quality post players. That's where we're lacking. Jamari Traylor for goodness sake is our projected first big off the bench. Didn't Stanford just gameplan to take advantage of his weaknesses offensively?
I'd much rather us hold the scholarship for a solid, highly rated, program guy; unless we can get a quality post player.
We could certainly use another quality big for the season, but I think that's unlikely. We've already lost out on Egbunu, who would have had to redshirt, and Lawrence (who will probably go back to NY) too. I was hoping Luke Fischer might back out of his transfer to Marquette when Buzz Williams left, but that hasn't happened and so far there's no Tarik Black types that have come onto the market.
That said, how does he not fit the bill of 'highly rated program guy'? We're talking about a Wayne Selden-type signing. Unless you know something we don't, he's no more a flight nor NCAA violation risk than anyone else on the roster. I understand being soured on the hype that Wiggins got and the fallout in White leaving, but weren't you not so long ago beating the 'Self can't recruit' drum? We've settled that you're a fan of the 'good but not too good' signings. We have the opportunity for one. What's the problem, then?
Am I missing something? This potential signing makes absolutely no sense at all ... unless ... unless he actually can play the point and be a "lead" guard as Self has recently used the term. Not a "combo" guard, but the "lead" guard.
Assuming he can't be the "lead" guard, it makes no sense. An NCAA violation or suspension waiting to happen. Who does he play in front of and displace from the rotation? Another guy that might only be here one season, or who could leave anytime to go home and play pro. Plus, he will only be 17 during the season. Should be in high school.
I just want to see that he can handle the ball like a point guard. Then it becomes interesting.
Given that he's only turning 17 this summer, he'd have to wait 2 years to be drafted by the NBA. So yes, you're missing something. The offer makes perfect sense. If he can come in and dominate, he dominates and KU benefits. If not, we have him for a whole 'nother year after the likely departures of Selden and Oubre. Win-win.
Although there was some speculation that Zach Peters left KU after his concussions because of issues with teammates (and that may well be the case in reality), it looks like those head injuries were a very real problem for him because he's announced that he's giving up basketball altogether ↗. I'm sure we Jayhawk's wish him well. It's a shame he'll not be able to live out his dreams, nor live up to the potential I saw in him, though.
It looks like Jermain Lawrence ↗ is trying to get released by Cincy. If he succeeds, I hope Self makes a run at him. He's an uber-athletic combo-forward and given that we now have two schollies going unused, there'd be nothing lost making a run at him. The other guy I think we should reach out to, although we're likely too late, is USF's John Egbunu. He's a 6'10" center that put up decent numbers in his freshman campaign ↗. Although there are a lot of great bigs in next year's class that we've offered, we'd be well served getting a replacement lined up for Big Cliff asap. Either of these guys fit the bill for the sorts of players that excel in our system.
Post edited to fix formatting
In the postmortem of the season, I threw down a gauntlet to posters clambering for change in Self's system. I said that it wasn't enough to enough to simply make claims about what was a better way to run a team, or to rely on maxims and buzz words as justification for comments. After all, saying Self got 'out coached' in such and such a game, whether it's accurate or not, doesn't really say anything meaningful about why a loss happened or how it could be prevented in the future just as much as saying 'Self is a genius' when he wins is not in any way instructive. @HighEliteMajor took up that gauntlet, to his credit, and offered a seven point plan and why he thinks his changes are better. Unfortunately for me, I have been super busy the past few weeks and have only had time to drop in some recruiting nuggets as I got them, so my apologies HEM, but here's my response:
As many of you have know, and some of you, oddly enough, have criticized me for, I'm a numbers guy. I'm sure we're all familiar with the phrase 'lies, damned lies, and more statistics', but the fact of the matter is that numbers don't lie, people do. Yes, numbers can be manipulated selectively to reinforce a wrong headed point, but the beauty part of statistical evidence is that when someone offers a set of compiled data, it can be reviewed, revealing omissions, errors, and falsehoods. To that end, I'm going to quote some numbers from kenpom.com ↗, hoop-math.com ↗, statsheet.com ↗ and refer to some of the ideas for KU's offense that Jesse Newell brought up ↗. Here's HEM's original list:
Expanded Zone Offense: No surprise here. Our zone offense is stagnant many times. Two simple elements of focus, and a third necessity. First, more active screening. By and large, KU’s zone offense only screens near the top of zone for the lead guard, or on the back line to set up a lob dunk. Active screening across lane and at the wing can create more seams for penetration and lanes for entry passes. Second, ensuring that our lineup always has a clear and present three point threat. The classic zone buster. Always. And free that zone buster to shoot. Third, we have to have skilled scorers at the high post. Can’t beat the zone if you’re feeding a guy who can’t score from the free throw line.
Pace of Game: When coach Self arrived, there was this fear that he would play a slow brand of basketball. It isn’t a fear any longer -- it’s just fact. Self doesn’t not really encourage a fast paced game. He may say that he wants a faster pace, but his actions discourage it. Turnovers cause you to find the bench. Quick shots? Look out for the hook. Who throws the ball in? Oh, the guy we have designated to throw the ball in. Press? Nope, too risky that we’ll give up an easy basket. Aggressive press break? Not the usual gameplan – slow, methodical passing. Random, targeted trapping? Rarely – simple man to man will do. Note to Self: Take advantage of your athletic superiority. When you play a slower game, you permit less skilled teams to remain a part of the game. Strategic use of the press is a must. Is there risk? Sure. But there seems to be more risk in being conservative, particularly in March. Further, playing at a faster pace regularly will make it much easier to deal with teams that play fast in the tournament.
Valuing The Basketball: This change is important. I understand that the easy approach is to simply conclude that all turnovers are bad. However, in my view, the over emphasis on valuing the basketball has inhibited our offensive growth -- it has been a horse collar to this team. It is a climate of unacceptability that appears to make guys play tight. Yes, turnovers are not good. But they aren’t always bad. In fact, 15 turnovers can be much better than 7 turnovers. It all depends on the amount of possessions in a game and the pace of the game, and what that pace of game does to your opponent. A team that doesn’t turn the ball over is usually not playing aggressive enough. This goes hand in hand with the prior paragraph on Pace of Game. Increasing the pace will generally increase turnovers. But that change in pace will also affect our opponent. If we are playing a team that wants to play slowly, there is usually a reason why. The most common explanation is that it’s because the opposing coach knows that the fewer possessions, the more chance that he has to stay in a game against a team with more highly skilled players. Wouldn’t that be what you would do if you played KU? To me, this is why we have been susceptible to upsets. Coach Self permits opposing teams to dictate pace and style of play. The Texas Tech game at Lubbock this season was a classic example. UNI was another. Coach Self would be well served to adjust his mindset and be willing to accept more turnovers. Again, we don’t want turnovers. But sometimes, turnovers are indicative of aggressiveness. It is a necessary evil, but not one to overreact to.
Take Advantage of Match-ups: Undoubtedly, this is an area where our current system fails – unless, by default, we have a match-up advantage on the post. Sometimes that match-up might be our shooting guard isolated on his defender, or our point guard taking a smaller guy to the block, or Ellis taking a bulky four man out on the wing. Taking advantage of match-ups to exploit scoring opportunities creates a more dynamic offense. This is a pretty simple concept, but one Self’s system routinely fails to incorporate. Similarly, playing small creates incredible match-up problems for opponents. We saw it first hand against MU in 2012. We simply couldn’t have Withey and TRob on the floor together for long stretches due to MU having Kim English at the four. Self is resistant to playing anything but a conventional attack. Sometimes match-ups dictate something different.
Be Bold: Coach Self is notoriously slow to adjust. His belief, which is not an uncommon coaching trait, is to most times “do what we do”, with faith that it will prevail. I just ask coach Self to trust his instincts. If it appears that an adjustment might work, side with boldness instead of the conservative path. We have history that supports that, too. On our final four run in 2012, coach Self boldly utilized the triangle and two. I think with the 2012 team he felt that because of the lack of depth, he had to think outside of the box. Boldness includes pressing, playing small, going with the hot hand – anything that rocks the boat. My suggestion is to always think out of the box. What limits boldness? Fear and arrogance. Fear that moves will fail, and arrogance that “system” will ultimately prevail. I ask that coach Self discard the chains that limit boldness.
Accept Zone Defense: This is came up early in the season – many, including myself, felt that an “all in” switch to zone defense with our personnel would have been the best move for the Jayhawks. We had a young team. We had a big, back line defender in Embiid. We had a three who was long and athletic. We had a point guard and four that couldn’t defend. And we had a post player (Black) who was in constant foul trouble. Coach Self is a strong believer in man to man defense. But that strong belief prevents him from freeing his mind. This past version of the Jayhawks was by far the worst defensive team at KU under coach Self. There was simply no way Self could cover for Tharpe, and the numerous times he compromised our defense. Then, on the back line, Ellis was soft and largely ineffective. Add to that a team devoid of veteran defensive leaders who had played under Self, and our defense was a disaster. We played multiple teams that ran zone. Louisville ran large doses of zone on its way to the 2013 title. UConn played zone. UK played some zone. Florida played lots of zone. But somehow, coach Self concludes that zone won’t work here. That simply lacks any logic. Brilliant coaches run it. Championship teams use it. Somehow other teams can run both. But we can’t. Zone defense needs to be accepted as a realistic alternative.
Cultivate Three Point Shooting: One concern is that coach Self fails to cultivate three point shooters. There doesn’t seem to be a urgency on Self’s part to play a dead-eye shooter. And shooters are faced with the famous quick hook. Cultivation of three point shooters requires a coach to understand that a shooter needs freedom. It’s not like a power forward pivoting and scoring on a post move. A shooter has to have a mind that is free of doubt. A coach has to offer freedom, has to accept misses, and has to accept shots that may be taken before a post entry pass is attempted. Just a touch more flexibility. Three point shooting can, and many times does, dominate the college game. In March, there are times when you catch a hot shooting team. We have to be prepared to have an answer. For KU to play at its maximum potential, there has to be a bit of leniency here by coach Self. We’ve seen vaunted three point shooters struggle here. Giving the shooters a touch more leeway is a great start.
-
Expanded Zone Offense: I don't have much to say about this other than that, prior to this year, Self's teams haven't uniformly struggled to attack zones effectively. In fact, beating zones has been a real strong point in the Self era, including against teams the play zone as their primary D. The 2007 team beat Florida's zone. The 2009 team lost to Syracuse only after Boeheim switched to man D. The same was true of the 2012 team when they faced Baylor for the third time that season. That said, none of these suggestions are bad, but I think the real difference this year was more on the personnel end and less a matter of the strategy. As our shooters improve and as we get more leadership and better play out of the PG spot, we'll see the return to form.
-
Pace of the Game: Saying that Self plays a slow brand of ball really is completely untrue. KU teams under Self have finished in the top 100 of adjusted tempo in 9 of 11 seasons. The two slowest? The 2005 team finished #163 in Kenpom's tempo rating, and the 2008 team finished 136. The fastest was the 2011 team, finishing at 55. Now, it is true that Self's teams play significantly slower than William's brand of ball, but it's not like we went from being Paul Westhead's LMU to being Bo Ryan's Wisconsin. We went from being a secondary break team to a mixed tempo team. Further, that slow down may actually be a good thing. Just doing an overview of NCAA champions in the years that Kenpom covers, only 3 of the past 13 finished in the top 25 for tempo. Not surprisingly, those teams were Roy's two UNC title teams, which both finished in 8th place for tempo, and Maryland's 2002 team which finished 16th. Not only do most other championship teams play slower than Roy Williams, most of them play slower than Self does too. In fact, the median tempo ranking for the rest of the title teams is 142.6. Even factoring in everyone, it raises to only 112.2. If the goal of this exercise is to examine changes that would improve our chances at cutting down the nets, then I suggest to you that the tempo doesn't matter much, and if it does, recent history would suggest that playing more deliberately is the way to go. I'd also point out two other things that raise my eyebrows. HEM suggests that playing at a faster pace will help us deal with teams that play at a faster pace in March, but those teams are the ones that we've tended to beat. Every team that has upset us has played at a slower average tempo than us not a faster tempo (including VCU). I'd also point out that pressing slows the game down rather than speeds it up. While there are teams that both press and play fast (Maryland comes to mind, as do Mike Anderson's teams), increasing the tempo of the game is usually achieved by shooting quickly. Although it may seem like pressing gets teams 'sped up', it actually reduces the number of possessions in the game. Why? Well, although it's true that you can either get a quick steal and score while pressing or get punished by a good press break, what happens on most possessions is the pressed team simply gets the ball past the halfcourt line and the pressing team falls back into their halfcourt defense. This does make teams run their offense in a shorter amount of time, but the reality is that they just end up using more of the shot clock, not that they actually shoot faster than they would were they not pressed.
-
Valuing The Basketball: I'll say, this if a first in the history of college bball, suggesting that a team overvalues the ball. While I get the point that not all TOs are bad and that the sheer number of TOs doesn't tell the story, statsheet does, and it's not good for this theory. The average TO% for title teams in the past 13 seasons is 18.6%, and that number's been trending down recently. Self coached teams in that span (including Illinois) have averaged a 20% TO rate. The only teams to finish with over a 20% TO rate on the season and an NCAA title were the back-to-back UF teams that finished at 20.9% in each of those seasons. Now, I get that there could be an argument made that giving a kid the quick hook makes them play tight and makes them more TO prone, rather than less, but that's the only way to justify not taking corrective action. Whatever conclusions you draw from that, though, it's clear that we need to turn the ball over a lot less than we have been. Unsurprisingly, this is the same thing Newell concluded in his article about improving our offense.
-
Take advantage of Match-ups: I generally agree here and recent talk from Self makes me the he does too. He's talked about playing one of our many wings at the 4 for an extended period. This may be his plan for AW3, and would explain why his transfer hasn't been announced yet. He also talked about trying Selden at the point to create Deandre Kane/Marcus Smart type mismatches there. Selden wasn't particularly good at posting up smaller guards (and this was only tried a little bit at the beginning of last season), but it's certainly something he could add to his game this year.
-
Be Bold: Boldness isn't something that's easily measured, so I don't really have much to say for or against it statistically, but the suggestion to 'always think out of the box' gives me pause. Thinking outside the box certainly can be good, but the box exists for a reason. Boldness is salt. A little goes a long way. Too much, though, is the fastest road to ruin.
-
Accept Zone Defense: I definitely felt like we needed to have a zone D that we could run without Embiid in the game, but I certainly wasn't in favor of an 'all in' switch to zone. Although this team was the worst defensive team of the Self era, let's not overstate the problem. That worst team finished ranked 34th in defensive efficiency on Kenpom. That's not title team material, but it's not an all-hands-on-deck situation either. It's also not strictly speaking true that Self is anti-zone. His past teams have played some zone, but generally, he's reserved using it for games where we're having trouble guarding a player (like Derrick Rose in 2008 or Robbie Hummel in 2012). Clearly, though, time is spent on it. He had a 3-2 zone this season, but the big problem was that it was worse than the below-standards man D. I thought he could work a triangle and 2. HEM thought a 1-3-1 would be best. Either way, though, my guess as to why zone went away this year altogether is that the 3-2 went so abysmally that Self gave up on spending time on it when there were so many other things that demanded attention with this team. As for how it affects our post season, 8 of the past 13 title teams played man to man as their primary half-court D, and of the ones that played zone, 4 of 5 were zone/press teams (Maryland, UF x2, and 'ville). Syracuse is the lone straight zone team to win it all in recent history. It makes sense to me, though, that zone press teams are more successful given what pressing does to begin with. The biggest problem with running zones is that they can be exposed by shifting the ball around, so if there's less time available to open up a seam in the zone, there's a lesser chance that it gets scored on. Given that, if you truly want to be all in on zone, then a zone/press is probably the way to go. @jaybate 1.0 has suggested that morphing Ds will be the future. He may be right, but statistics don't exist for the future, and no team playing a true morphing D has won it all yet (though Florida used a mix of zone and trapping man after the press). That said, I'm fine with zone as an 'as needed' option. To date, no one has shown me the data to suggest that switching up to 'throw off' the opponent is a significantly better plan.
-
Cultivate Three Point Shooting: Newell touched on this point and there's no denying it: KU under Self has pretty consistently had a lower 3PA% than most teams and certainly every other championship team. Now remember what I said about numbers not lying, but people doing it? Newell doesn't quite lie, but he makes a critical error in explaining why he thinks shooting more threes is important. He points out that given the NCAA averages for shooting % on 2pt and 3pt field goals, 3 pointers are more efficient, yielding 1.035 ppp vs .97 for 2 pointers. This, however, is a really misleading statistic because it lumps all 2pt shots together, when there are really two distinct types: shots at the rim, and 2pt jump shots. Most stats lump these things together, but the good folks at hoop-math break it out (unfortunately, though, they only have 3 years worth of data), and when you see the break out two things become clear: first, the reason 2 pointers are less efficient as a whole is that the average FG% on 2pt jump shots isn't much higher than it is for 3 pointers without the added benefit of the extra point; and second, the 3 pointers that Self is giving up are largely becoming shots at the rim, and these shots are a LOT more efficient than even 3s. Looking at this year's numbers alone, KU took nearly 5% more shots at the rim than average D-1 teams and shot over 6% better on those looks for a total of 1.34 ppp on those shots. Even average teams get 1.21 ppp on shots at the rim, so I think Self's dogged determination to get the ball inside to score really is the best idea. That said, we do still need credible 3pt shooters to keep defenses honest, and that's something that was sorely missing this year. Even our guys that were designated gunners didn't shoot all that well, and we finished slightly under the average for a D-1 team from deep. Does that mean accepting quick 3s? I'm not sure that's the answer. If I had a subscription to Synergy Sports and the time, I'd figure it out, but I'm out of luck on both counts. What I will say is that all too often I saw our shooters pass up open 3s to go back inside after the ball came out. They should all have the green light at that time, I would hope. There were also a few times (like Mason's needless shot fake and drive to the basket after Traylor's steal off the press during the Stanford game when there were two defenders in the paint and no one near him) where players should obviously have taken a quick 3 rather than looked to go inside. That said, I only recall players with carte blanche shooting immunity after they'd become highly trusted (the Morris twins as Jrs were allowed to take trailing 3s, Sr. Tyshawn could should as much as he wanted, EJ wasn't gun shy, and even Selden didn't get benched for shooting quickly this year), so it's really an individual thing as best as I can tell.
If HEM's message to Self this off-season is 'free your mind', my message is 'do the maths'. Newell pointed out to an irate poster in his article that data-driven paradigms in sports are really only in their infancy. There's a long way to go and a lot that can be achieved with new models. As key as someone like Andrea Hudy has been for KU's consistent success, we may be in want of a brain builder to match what we've gained from our resident body builder. With the resources and data at his disposal, I'm sure Self could get a lot more out of a good quant than what I can glean just from reading raw data.
Lastly, @jaybate 1.0, I saw your post about network models of guard play and I'm totally intrigued but haven't had a chance to give it much thought. Keep it in the back of your brain for the fall, cause I'm sure I'll want to revisit it then.
People may or may not pan out for different reasons, and may have lackluster, or underachieving performances or seasons for different reasons. The analyst in me hates when people lump lackluster-type of play or players together. I want to know why in each separate case.
@ralster That's the Anna Karenina principal: star players are all alike; every lackluster player is lackluster in its own way.
@drgnslayr The only big I'm aware of that we've expressed interest in that could come in and play right away is JUCO standout Akolda Manyang ↗, but we haven't offered him and it looks like he's planning to come out next year, not this year. Given the depth of quality big men in next years class, I doubt we'll be offering.
Just read this on ESPN. Funny how this has all worked out in 24 hours.
Not so funny, it was an obvious choice. Go to NC State and compete with Cat Barber or come to KU and compete to start. I won't say that Graham is a lock to beat out Mason and Frankamp, but I will say, I won't be surprised if that's what happens. The most important thing is that we bring the real leadership to the PG spot that we lacked the last two seasons. That's not to slag off Tharpe or EJ. They're both good people and gave a lot to the team that I love, but it was clear that neither of them was ready for prime time with regards to being HGIC at KU.
According to Paul Biancardi:
(@PaulBiancardi) From several sources close to PG Devonte Graham it appears that his decision between Kansas and N.C State should be happening this weekend . ↗
Tharpe bolting, then Graham moving up his time table for commitment? I think we know where he's going....
Ellis averaged 22.3 ppg on 66% shooting over his HS career for a team whose scoring average was in the high 60s. Simple math would tell you his usage rate was approaching or exceeding 50% when he was on the floor. Given that he was doing the work of 2.5 players on offense, I think I've made a fair statement.
@jaybate 1.0
I don't think he needs to start over Mason or Frankamp on day 1, but the fact of the matter is if we don't land Graham now, we'll be hard pressed to have another PG of his caliber on the roster until the start of their senior seasons.
There's a big difference between setting a screen in a set play, and being able to create for your teammates in the post. I'm not saying he never does any of the dirty work, and Ellis isn't a bad teammate by any measure, but he just doesn't have the skills right now to make his teammates better. If he catches the ball in the low post, he looks to score over the D whether it's reasonable or not, and when he does pass out of the post, it's usually not to create, but just to re-position or move on. Compare his post play to what Marcus and Markieff did together, or even Young and Withey and the difference is night and day.
I'm probably not reading that correctly, or reading into it or something, but my personal take on our early demise in the post season was - Tharpe being in the twilight zone, Wiggins not showing up for the Stanford game, Embiid out with injuries and Bill Self being a teensy bit stubborn.
I'm not trying to lay the blame for the loss to Stanford on Ellis at all. That was a group bed crapping. It's just an observation about one weakness of Perry's game and the ways that he could improve on that aspect of it.
So there's good news and bad news as far as finishing this class. I'll start with the bad: Myles Turner to UT. I said earlier that we should know the weekend after the JBC where Turner was going to go, and the people that I talk to all said they'd heard UT is in pole position. That shouldn't be any surprise because there is a lot of general buzz in that direction. Waaaayyyyy earlier in the year I'd heard that Turner was dying to come to KU and ready to commit at late night if he liked what he saw, but when that trip fell through, KU lost momentum with him in a huge way. Now, the info that I gathered was pre-in home, so there is a chance, but Self would have had to put on one hell of a show for Easter dinner in order to save this one. It's a shame because Turner, although not a great back to the basket player, could have really solidified the post situation for us going into next season. He might have even been the best 3 baller on the team (yes, even with CF projecting to get more PT). Instead, our best bet at having a rim protector that can reliably make up for perimeter permeability is Hunter Mickelson and who knows if he'll be ready?
So now the good news: Not only has Devonte Graham blown up (he went from being unranked and unrated by ESPN and Rivals to being a 4 star 30s ranked player by Rivals and 4 star post-grad by ESPN), but apparently he's also very hot on KU. He's good friends with Na, and if there's one thing that that kid could do to redeem himself in the near term, it would be using those connections to get Graham on campus. The big competition is considered to be NC State because he's from Raleigh originally and they would have use for him as an immediate back up for Cat Barber. While Graham doesn't have Barber's speed, his size, defensive ability, and court vision are things worth coveting, especially compared to our current guard core:
[ ](
Landing Graham is especially important because the elite talent at the pg spot is looking incredibly thin for the class of 2015. We're after a couple of guys, including the uber-talented multi-year-looking player Jalen Brunson, but we aren't leading with any of those guys that I know of (Michigan is considered the odds on favorite for Brunson). Graham also looks more comfortable with the whole 'coach on the floor' aspect than our current guards. One of the biggest problems we had this year (and last for that matter) was that the team was too quiet. Na doesn't take control and huddle the guys up (heck, Selden was yelling at him by the end of the season), Perry's quiet (and not a great teammate in a lot of ways *), Wigs was quiet, Joel's English can be difficult to understand... With our incoming crop, though, I'm expecting that to change. Big Cliff and Oubre have intensity to match Selden's, and I think that can draw something out of Mason. Graham also fits into that scheme nicely.
The only real downside to signing Graham would be an almost guaranteed transfer by one of the guards, although we've been expecting an announcement to that end anyway (although White could redshirt given we're very unlikely to be out of schollies now). It would also probably mean that Tharpe winds up with no role on the team as a senior (if Self has any sense whatsoever), which would be highly unusual. If Tharpe transferred, I'm not sure if that would help or hurt in terms of getting Graham. All of that, of course, depends on NC State and UV not being able to turn Graham's head. If they do, I'd consider that a bigger loss than missing on Turner.
- While I don't think Perry is a bad person or player (at least on offense) or that he treats his teammates poorly, he tends to work purely solo in the post. He doesn't look to do big to big passing, nor does he dive to the basket when his fellow post goes baseline. One of the reasons Traylor and Black were waaaaayyyy more effective when they were on the floor together than with any other tandem is because they worked together the way post players are supposed to, which is something that can be attributed to the real familial love that those to guys have for each other (same stuff we saw from Withey/Young, TRob/Withey, Morris Twins, etc). For whatever reason, Perry doesn't seem to have that kind of bond with anyone else. My guess is that it's both from his shy and reserved personality, as well as his being used to having been the whole offense for his HS teams. But that, some ball fakes, and mastering the turnaround jumper would make him a master of scoring over the type of bigs he struggled with all last year, and that ultimately meant our demise early in the post season.
I recall that Self said he didn't play White as much in 2012-13 because of ball handling. Selden is a worse ball handler than White.
@HighEliteMajor Are you sure about that? By any measure I've seen, not only is Selden a better ball handler than White, it's not even particularly close. White is significantly under a 1:1 A/TO and takes half as many shots inside the arc as Selden. Selden's numbers weren't great, but compared to White, he's Chris Paul.
Good call @jaybate 1.0 on the knee, but now the probability of 100% recovery gives me pause because, when you speculated about this, I pointed out that Selden had been wearing gear off and on since he was a HS jr. Does that mean we can expect more of this? A minor, but chronic condition?
@icthawkfan316 I think if Mickelson will have a significant role on next season's team it will be because he comes back to form as a rim protector. If what Self says is true, that's nice, and we know from Self's initial comments when he transferred that Mickelson is 'a poor man's Withey', but I don't see him getting a lot of minutes just for being a face up scorer. I'm interested to see if he's recovered his agility at all after adding a ton of weight between his frosh and soph campaigns.
Just info -
ESPN Top 60 for 2015 Point Guards:
-#23 Alonzo Trier - We're recruiting him.
-#32 Jalen Brunson, #55 Kendall Small, and #60 Nick Noskoviak - We are not recruiting them.
That info is incorrect. We have very much offered Brunson. I don't know his level of interest, but several sources indicate that he's holding KU paper.
@KULA It also doesn't hurt that UConn had three guys finish the season shooting over 40% on a minimum of 120 3pt attempts. Next worse (Boatwright) was a 37% shooter from deep...
@jaybate That's about the most fantastic analogy I've ever read related to any sport of any kind. Huge PHOF!
@HighEliteMajor The 'not really a pg' thing is a cop-out excuse and yes, an overused one. The guy that runs the short clock offense (when the ball goes back to the perimeter and the shot clock is in single digits) is the pg. The guy who brings the ball up under pressure is the pg. If that guy can't do these things well, it just means he's bad at his job. A taxi cab driver that get's lost all of the time isn't really a railroad engineer that's getting used to being off the rails, he's a bad cabbie.
@truehawk93 I wouldn't sweat Turner (should know by the end of the week, anyway). I think we've got a great opportunity for him and he'd likely slot right into Embiid's spot unless Alexander proved better. At Texas, there's a bit more competition, though I could see him starting over Ibeh and Lammert and moving Holmes to the 3. At Duke, he'd play the 4. Again, not a lot of competition, but there's also not been a lot of noise surrounding him and Duke. Plus, in the NBA, he's going to have to develop a goto back-to-the-basket move, and I don't see that happening as a face up 4 with Coach K. THE OSU has been signing transfer bigs, making me think Matta is out. Little OSU is losing all of its star power (and they didn't do much with it to begin with), so I'd be genuinely surprised if he chose them. He never visited UK or AZ, but saw Phog Allen as a must see. All that makes me bullish. I don't think it's a sure thing, but the signs are favorable.
Selby is an ubber talented player and I cannot understand why he has not gotten an opportunity in the NBA. He was the co-MVP of the 2012 Summer League with Lillard and look where Lillard is and Selby played mostly in the D-League and then a few games in China and Croatia where he was waived due to an injury and I am not sure if he is even playing now.
Selby's fate was sealed when he decided to leave as a projected 2nd rounder. Lillard was a lotto pick, so he's guaranteed a 3yr contract. With that much cost sunk in on that pick, you pretty much have to make a go with him or else, why commit the money. Selby, on the other hand, put himself on the 'perform now or bust' track. The NBA doesn't coax players along. If they don't see improvement year-to-year, they'll drop you and look for the next big thing. The great tragedy/irony of Selby's decision is that he left because his mom worked at a job that only paid her about 30k a year or less and as a D-leaguer, he's probably not done much better (I have no idea how well China pays). He might be making a decent middle class living, but if he'd just stayed for another year or two he could have been a national champion and a millionaire.
@konkeyDong Really?
@KULA Have you ever really watched them? I'm not saying it's the exact same offense that Self runs, but it's a 3 out 2 in hi/lo base. Three guards, 2 pgs and a wing, 1 at the top of the 3pt line, the other two high on the wings, a big in the hi post and a big in the opposite low post with screen action at the wings and high post. The objective is to get the ball into the high post either off the bounce or by passing from the perimeter to collapse the D or simply go to the rim if they don't commit. You have big to big passing options, back screens for baseline lobs, drive and lob off the high screen, pick and roll on the wings... it's all there.They don't run the weave, which I know you hate :), nor do you see a lot of big to big screen and switch, but the framework is the same. The thing that UConn did well during the tournament that KU sucked at all year was getting penetration off the dribble. Without good ball handlers/passers, you have to feed the post from the wing. It also hurts your ability to run screens for the wings because you won't get that pick and roll action and it allows the roll defender to commit to the switch. They also didn't have true post players (Daniels is a combo 3/4. Top 'big' in minutes after him was Brimah), so they de-emphasized post-up play. Anyway, long story short, there are only about 5-6 base offensive sets that you see run any more, so why would you be surprised that another team would use the hi/lo?
We need a new flair to our offense.
We can't just be known as a hi/lo team.
No star PG wants to just play hi/lo.
You know UConn runs a version of the hi/lo offense, right? I don't think that's the problem...
@joeloveshawks I have the same question about the PG we are pursuing.....I posted this on the other thread.
They seem like lower ranked PGs pursued by non-power schools.
Like Tharpe?
That's true of Napier, but Boatwright was a top 60is player and both Walker (a McD's AA) and Lamb were highly rated.
Interesting subject. Glad you bring up UConn here because UConn's system is also a version of the 3 out 2 in Hi/Lo offense run with 2 pgs in the back court, just like Self's. The over-simplified difference between UConn and KU has been that recently UConn has had tough, heady guards who could get to the paint, collapse the D, kick out, feed the post/lob, and create for themselves when necessary. Pretty much like Self's best teams.Ty and EJ worked really well together. RussRob, Chalmers, Rush, and Collins is of course the greatest back court of all time.
The past two years, we haven't had a veteran guard duo like that. When EJ was at the helm, he didn't have another ball handler to play off as BMac could barely dribble and Relly wasn't much of a slasher in the half court. Tharpe can't reliably touch the paint, Wigs had loose handles (not nearly as bad as BMac, but consistently got stripped in traffic), and Selden settled for 3s or passed back to the point too often this season. Mason can get to the paint but doesn't pass nor does he have a mid-range game. Frankamp isn't very quick and probably won't finish at the rim often, but he is heady and has a very nice pull up J and floater.
If KU is going to be back on the road to glory next season, our three frosh guards need to develop or we need to bring in a ringer. I kind of hate to say it about any KU player, but I've totally given up on Tharpe. There is no reason to believe he'll evolve beyond being easily rattled and inconsistent. Even during the worst days of TT, he had upside and phenomenal tools. If he ever could get his brain to work at the same speed as his body, he'd be Rondo. Tharpe, on the other hand, is at best a back up. If Mason will pass off drives and shoot the open 3, he'll be the guy to start. Aside: (Mason had the 3 biggest mistakes of the Stanford game: 1. Passing up a base-line 3 off a press steal to drive into the trees and miss at the rim. 2. making a nice drive off a screen by bam bam and shooting a floater over 3 defenders when he had Selden at the wing wide open for 3. 3. Pulling back the hand-off to Wigs during the chop play to give it to Frankamp, who was shooting better, but had a worse angle and was unable to put up a decent shot. Wigs would have been wide open). As for Frankamp, mostly he just needs to get stronger. He's clearly the highest BBIQ of the trio. If he can become a guard that gets to the rim and finishes, even though he's not very fast, his old-man game can be punishing. Finally, Selden just needs to put the ball on the floor more often. If there's a guard I want to get the ball in his hands when the shot clock dips below 10, it's going to be him. He doesn't have the tightest handle, but he can improve (and will). He didn't chronically get stripped in traffic the way Wigs did. He has a bad habit of throwing passes that guys aren't ready for and overthrowing lobs (he throws to the rim instead of to the corner of the board, but that's correctable), but he is overall the best passer of the guards.
@konkeyDong Now who's copping out? Can I prove my ideas would work? Can I show my work? No, of course not. Because I'm not coaching the team--Duh! You can get as arcane and esoteric with your analysis as you want, but the simple fact is, we keep getting upset by teams we should beat.
Posters keep throwing up the 80+ winning percentage and wins per year. So what? That all goes down the drain if you can't dispatch a lesser team in the tournament. Ask UConn fans if the care how many regular season games they won this year or in 2011. As far as I'm concerned, winning 29.5 games a year doesn't mean a lot if you keep getting upset in the tournament. And I mean really upset. I'd have no problem with Bill if he lost to Syracuse of Florida this year. But to take the court with a roster full of future NBAers and lose to a team with none--that's coaching, plain and simple.
As far as Roy vs Bill, well, Roy didn't continually get knocked out of the tournament by extremely lower seeds. How many times did Roy go in as a #1 or 2 seed and get knocked out by a team seeded 8 or 9 slots lower than him? That's my problem with Bill. Any objective observer would say that Bill just doesn't do a good job of getting his team prepared for tournament games.
@KULA Well, if providing data to back up assertions is considered 'copping out' in your book fine, I'm copping out. You don't have to be crowned head coach to demonstrate that your ideas work. You just have to be able to show that others who are doing the things you propose are having more consistent success. Is that too onerous a burden for you? Take, for instance, your point about Self yelling at players throughout a TO. I've seen nearly every D1 coach in the world do this. It's the norm. When coaches don't do this, it's noteworthy. If that is truly something that hurts Self's performances, why aren't Jim Calhoun, Billy Donovan, John Calipari, et al affected by the same problem for seemingly doing the same thing? That's what I mean by show your work. It's not enough to assert that something is true, you have to be able to show something to back it up. If backing up claims with real data is too 'esoteric' for you, so be it, but I think anyone that completed high school should be able to do this with some proficiency.
As for Roy's record in the tournament, he was upset by a significantly lower see in 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, and was seeded lower than a 4 seed on two of his non-upset early round exits. Self, by comparison, has lost to significantly lower seeds in 6 of 11 trips, but has also never been seeded worse than a 4 seed. 8/14 in upsets/early round exits vs 6/11 when you have a title and a runner vs 2 runners up to show for it I think is splitting hairs. Can we say they're both bad tournament coaches :) Sorry that you don't like Self's style of ball, but any objective observer can look at the data and tell you that Self's system in and of itself isn't the problem, or that at least, there's more too it than simply coming up with a clever pejorative like Okie Hokie Pokie.
Will Obamacare be covering either one of these pills or will it be strictly out of pocket?
Given that tournament losses are birth control around my house, I think they'll have to cover it.
Variance and Delta is exactly what I am suggesting. That coaching and player preparedness is how to deal with the variance. I was just making a suggestion to answer the question you posed. If you take every single game in a vacuum you cant determine whether the player's don't execute the game plan or what the coach has instilled in to their basketball IQ. But when you back away and look at trends you look for the common denominator.
@That Is All
I understand where you're coming from. I'm certainly not trying to attack you. I'm trying to get at the answer. I agree that coaching covers variance to some degree, but you know it can't cover up everything. As for delta, that's being attacked where you're weak. I don't think any coach can cover all of his weaknesses either. At some point, all NCAA title winners are more lucky than good, whether it was in their original seeding, upsets in their brackets, or simply outperforming their average play (put all three together and that cover's Larry Brown's title).
So what does that say, then? Some tournament losses/upsets (by any team, not just ours) are the result of poor game planning. But they're also the result of dumb luck or bad match ups. Sometimes you can make changes as a coach to cover up weaknesses on the floor, but other times, you have too much sunk cost into a way of doing things that you simply have to accept your weaknesses and hope your strengths can overcome them. I've described that as 'leaning in'. @itchawkfan316 and I went back and forth quite a bit on that subject. In the pursuit of that knowledge, how can we learn to tell the difference? What are the signs? What is the meaningful data in that regard? 'Same coach' is a start, but the same coach that wins a lot of games both in the regular season and in the dance (and a title and runner up to boot), so how do we square the circle?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Self doesn't have embarrassing losses on his resume. But there are a lot of coaches that do, so we have to dig deeper. One thought I've had might simply be that Self doesn't so much underachieve in the tournament as he 'overachieves' in the regular season. What I mean by that is because the NCAA relies on RPI to seed the tournament rather than a more predictive efficiency-based metric, there's room to game the system so that you appear to be a stronger team than you are. Consider KU spent the majority of the season on top of the RPI for playing a ridiculously tough schedule despite racking up a lot losses to good teams. The Big 12 finished on top of the RPI in the regular season, despite having no really great teams (everyone was out after the Sweet 16). RPI over-rewards for playing good, but not great teams, and over-punishes for playing bad teams. KU beat a lot of good teams, but no great teams, as well. So one explanation for why we've lost to bad teams is because we've managed to maintain the appearance of not having down years without the benefit of being challenged for position throughout the regular season. I'm not saying by any means that that's a definitive explanation for the data, I'm just throwing out a potential way of making sense of it.
It could truly be that Self just doesn't do good prep for the tournament and has been lucky to have the successes he's had, but I think consistency undermines that argument. If that is true, though, what do you fix? What are the data points beyond the simple fact of losses because losses aren't a predictive feature. We can't learn much from the raw fact that Team A lost to Team B. Those are the kinds of ideas I want to explore.
As for the specific question of turnovers, I don't deny that this team turned the ball over too much, as did last year's team, and the team before that, etc etc. Actually this years team averaged about the same # of to's as the title team and the runner up team of Self's tenure. The two highest TOs per game teams were 04-05 and 05-06, but Self's teams have consistently been in the bottom 3rd for TOs per game. So that could have something to do with preparedness in general, but that could also have to inexperience in a pass-heavy system or over-reliance on 'combo' guards (scoring point guards, rather than pass-first guards). The trick to making an actual point about turnovers is to find the tempo-free TO rate and compare it to past champions (and FF participants) and see if there's anything there. I know I won't get to that tonite, but I'll see if I can sometime this week. So we might be on to something, though.
@DanR is correct. Would a teacher just leave a homework assignment that you didn't do off your average for a class? Would an employer pay your wages for days you didn't show up to work? Is a (hypothetical) team that made the tournament one year in the past 10 and went 3-1 really better than KU because of their 75% win rate in the dance? Or if every season where we've lost to a significantly lower seeded team (more than one seed difference), would you feel better if we'd failed to go dancing instead? It certainly doesn't/wouldn't 'feel' that way to me.
" How, when you watch a game, do you know that a coach failed to give his players the proper preparation vs the players failing to stick to game plan?"
Because when its a recurring problem that spans teams comprised of different plyers it leads back to the coach who is the common denominator.
But when that same coach wins 83% of the time and coaches a program that in the previous 10 seasons has more NCAA tournament game wins (not titles, mind you) than any other program (and is only bested by Calipari in terms of individual coaches), I have a hard time believing he's not giving his players the tools they need to succeed on a regular basis. After all, in that span, with teams comprised of different players, they seem to be able to win at a very high and consistent clip. I don't think that a coach that doesn't teach well can accomplish that over such a large number of games. Surely you aren't suggesting that there's no variance in basketball games, right? And surely you recognize that regardless of system, there's going to be delta's that you can't cover, right?
During the tournament I saw a graphic that was sobering and made me rethink KU’s “elite” status(for the first time in my life). This elite status I believe was the biggest point to the red or blue question. I had always considered KU elite until I saw this:
Since 1990 KU was one of five schools with 10 or more Elite Eight appearances. The other four schools are definitely on my “elite” program list. UK- 13 with 3 NC’s, UNC- 12 with 3 NC’s, Duke- 10 with 4 NC’s UConn- 10 with 3 now 4 NC’s and KU- 10 with 1 NC. All four other schools had at least 3.
@That Is All
That's a fair point, but why lay all of that underachievement at Self's feet? During most of that time Roy was head coach. He capped both ends of his KU career with good tournament runs but had just as many early exit years (whether or not they were upsets) as Self, without any of the glory. I think he's the bigger part of the reason why KU is short about 2 titles.
@konkeyDong Examples on changes have been posted many times but you either failed to read or acknowledge.
Implement variety of zone defenses, 1-3-1, 2-3, triangle and 2. Teach them to the players, practice on a regular basis and execute on game day. Keep teams off balance, mix and match your d
Implement more pressing. It was a pity that we had such a talented, athletic and deep team but Self did not press more. He did it on couple of occasions against WV and Stanford but by that time both games were out of reach.
Create more drive and dish in your Offense, stop doing the same weave over and over again.
@AsadZ I haven't ignored anything. People have suggested changes. I've debated. But what posts like this do is fail to answer the question of why changes are better. Why if a system is winning about 29.5 games a year does it need to be changed? How do you spend more time implementing a variety of zones without losing value in your man-to-man D? Why is mixing up your D strategically superior to excelling at man to man? How do you create more drive and dish when players either don't touch the paint, or when they do, they don't dish? How do you explain the disconnect between the ability of previous teams to succeed in this system if the system itself is the problem? If Self really has no clue how to attack a zone, why could his teams from 2006-2013 beat zone teams regularly? If UConn has a secret that distinguishes their system from that of all other previous champions in recent years, what is it?
It's too easy and shallow to say, 'oh, if you only did XYZ, everything would be perfect'. That's my whole point. It's not enough to claim that the path not taken is automatically better. You have to show your work, so to speak. I'm not interested in 'if only's. That's the gauntlet being thrown down. Every change you make comes with its own set of risks and rewards. There are weaknesses in all strategies and opportunity costs in all choices. Address them and show me for real why it's better. Show me that you can use that criterion in a predictive manner that shows why Team A is going to beat Team B. That's what I'm asking.
I'm not at all against criticizing Self. He clearly did not develop a well rounded team with the talent at his disposal. It was a rickety juggernaut that fell to pieces the moment the lynchpin was removed.And no matter how you slice it, he flat out failed with Naadir Tharpe. Tharpe can't run Self's system to save his life. But that's the stuff that happens around the game. I just find that a lot of the time the criticism is based on assumptions with no real facts to back them up. How, when you watch a game, do you know that a coach failed to give his players the proper preparation vs the players failing to stick to game plan? No coach can greatly improve the product that he's put on the floor from the sidelines. He can run some plays and try to make things happen, but the results of those decisions is ultimately in the hands of the players. I don't claim to have any mystical ability to know what I can't know (what happens in practices, what is actually being said in TOs or in the locker room at half time, etc), but a lot of people around here seem to think they do. I also think a lot of posters are way too willing to accept what sportscasters tell them went wrong in a loss without any skepticism or thoughtfulness. For instance, you yourself had said that we didn't start pressing until the Stanford game was out of reach. That's flatly not true. We were pressing for nearly 10 minutes of the second half when we were down by 7 points. How is that out of reach? Others latched on to the 'no true point guard' comment and said that the game plan should have been to press the whole time. That might be true, but Stanford started getting by the press after about 6 minutes of it. If it was only effective for that long, why would it have been better to do it the whole game? I'm not unconvinced by this kind of stuff because I can never be satisfied, but because I think this kind of Monday Morning quarterbacking amounts to finger pointing. It doesn't give any insight, nor does it offer any real relief.
@konkeyDong asked, "do you want to see Self fired?"
That is the ultimate question, isn't it. It would be a bold move, wouldn't it? Crazy. Asinine. Beyond reason. Who fires Bill Self?
It just depends on the analysis.
Let me ask this -- assume that your analysis concluded that coach Self, through system, scheme, or otherwise was holding back KU from achieving titles -- would you fire Self?
One thing is for damn certain. KU basketball survived before coach Self, and it will survive after coach Self. Coach Self is not KU basketball. We're not some shy high school girl afraid to dump her boyfriend because no one will love her like he does. We are KU basketball.
Everything needs to be on the table.
@HighEliteMajor With all due respect, that's a total dodge. If Self is the man you believe him to be, the man you described, then I say fire him today and don't look back. If you can make that post and can't say the same thing without the slightest hesitation, then you lack the courage of your conviction. As for the question of do I see Self as the man who's holding us back from March succes, it's a resounding no. No. of titles won in the last 11 years under Self: 1. No. of titles won under Williams in 15 years? 0. Larry Brown? 1, but it took him 5 years, just like Self, then he bolted for the NBA leaving violations in his wake (and an unproven replacement who would go 15 years without winning a title). So even if KU isn't the greatness we all want it to be, at worst, Self is allowing us to tread water, and at best (and what is my humble opinion) he's setting us up for it. Does Self have flaws? Certainly. Does he make in game mistakes? Sure. Has he been upset by teams that have no business being on the same court as us. Undeniably. But the fact of the matter is, the same thing can be said for every other coach of any significant longevity at every other program, including those coaches that have won multiple titles.
As for the issue of Stanford itself, can I ask you to swallow a red pill too? Will you recognize that you'd have to be blind to think that that result was an upset by any measure other than seeding? Can you recognize that without Joel Embiid on the floor, we weren't a team that should have beaten Stanford. Can you see that we were a team that was lucky not to lose to EKU? I mean, for the love of God, we got smoked by WVU, burning every TO we had with 17 minutes left in the game and the only thing that kept it from being a complete and utter domination was a fluky (but fun to watch) 41 pt performance by Wigs. If we're asked to embrace the facts, then let's embrace them for what they are. KU was a flawed team this season that managed to coalesce around Joel Embiid's amazing talents. Once he was gone, we were exposed for being a team with no dribblers, no shooters, and no hope in March. I am not at all upset with our performance against Stanford (beyond the fact that we lost), because I haven't deluded myself into believing that without Embiid we were any better than the team that got spanked by WVU, and I recognized on Selection Sunday that we were in a bracket loaded with bad match ups for us. Yes, we relied on a finesse post player. Yes, we relied on going inside. Yes we struggled. Yes we lost, but we lost doing the only thing that gave us any prayer of winning. The only thing I would like to have seen done differently is for Frankamp to have played all of Tharpes minutes (and Mason to get the balance).
Finally, what exactly do you want to see change? And don't tell me that Self needs to be 'more open minded' or 'more flexible'. Those are platitudes, not answers. They are the stock and trade of gurus, psychics, and self help columnists who refuse to offer real solutions in order to escape accountability for the results. If you have specific suggestions, suggest them. Have them debated. It's easy to offer vague proposals because they only have strengths and no weaknesses. It's the reason an unnamed Republican beats Obama in 2012, but Mitt Romney fails. So what do you want to actually happen on the court. What are you seeing that needs to be changed and why is it better than what's happening today. You know my case. My case is that guys delivering you 30 win seasons will, sooner or later, deliver you the number of titles you'd think would be commensurate with that win rate. So what's the secret of losing 10 games and still playing for a title or going 9-9 in conference and cutting down the nets? The ball is in your court, HEM.
@HighEliteMajor Assuming we accept your version of reality, what's the remedy? Do you want to see Self fired?
Acute height doesn't matter at all. No one plays ball with their head. Whether a player is 6'7" or 6'9" in shoes is meaningless. Consider NC State's Beejay Anya, who is only 6'8" but boasts an unheard of 7'9" wingspan and 9'3" standing reach. He plays much more like a footer than an undersized power forward (and if he ever loses enough weight to keep himself in games, he'll be nigh unstoppable).
Wingspan and standing reach are what determine your effective height in basketball because you use your hands to defend and shoot, not your forehead. In that sense, Ellis is pretty small for a 4 because he's only got a 6'10" wingspan and, although I don't have his standing reach, it's a fair bet that he's only in the 8'6" range. TRob, although a tiny bit under 6'9" in shoes, has a 7'3" wingspan and 8'10" standing reach, making him much more comparable to an average 6'10" player (consider he only gives up half an inch reach to Joakim Noah, for instance, who is 6'10.5" w/ bare feet). Coincidentally, Big Cliff is just under 6'9" in shoes and sports a 7'3" wingspan, so he's going to play a lot bigger than either Traylor or Ellis. As for Traylor, his measurements aren't available anywhere, but I'm guessing his reach and wingspan are a little better than Ellis', although he might actually be shorter. Given that he's unlikely to have a significant chance at being drafted, we may never know.
@konkeyDong got to say, Lucas seems to really be fundamentally sound, blocking out, rebounding, post moves. So is Hunter, quicker?
@Crimsonorblue22 As a freshman, Mickelson was (I'm a bit of an Arkansas fan cause my father teaches there). He was also really really light. 6'10" and 210 lbs. Anderson had him bulk up though, and Hunter lost his step. It's part of why he stopped blocking shots so well. Mickelson's fundamentals are decent enough, but he is unlikely to match Lucas at footwork or face up play. It's more, though, that Self is a defense first guy, and all Lucas really brings on the defensive end is good rebounding. When Mickelson signed, one of the things he wanted to work on was getting back to a more agile build. It remains to be seen if he's succeeded at that, but if he did, I wouldn't be surprised to see him jump Lucas in the rotation for that reason.
4) Lucas is one that I was impressed with from a skill perspective, but obviously Self doesn't feel that way yet. He was an emergency only guy. Maybe a reason for that.
@HighEliteMajor
I can tell you exactly why Lucas doesn't play more. His skills are solid, but he's too much of a tweener. But he's not a tweener like Ellis, who is really more of a 3 that can't defend on the perimeter (and is only marginally better in the post), but more in the sense that, despite being 6'9" at 240ish lbs, he's not strong enough to bully for post position, nor is he lean enough and nimble enough to out maneuver defenders. Similarly his lack of of ups and quickness means he's not much of shot blocker and lacking lower body strength, he can't keep from being backed down himself. That makes for a really narrow range of players he can match up with. If he really wants to find playing time, he needs to decide what kind of post player he wants to be and build his body towards that goal. I, for one, think he should go beefy. Even when he was lighter, he couldn't really get up or do anything terribly athletic, so he may as well be a tank, right?
OK. Looks like the Carlino transfer is the real deal. That's really good news. We (on the boards at least) are looking for a Deandre Kane to come in and lead KU. Carlio's not quite that, but he is a talented floor leader that plays with the sort of composure that Tharpe lacked. He's more of a volume scorer and he needs to work on his J, but he's a better on ball defender than any of our other PGs, he averages 1.7 steals per game which is far higher than anyone on our team, and he averaged 4.3 assists with a higher usage rate than Tharpe. Also, he strikes me as having better sense off the court than Tharpe has recently displayed. The only things standing in the way are freeing up a scholly and and getting the commit. I think the latter is going to be the harder part, but should still be plenty doable. While I'm not necessarily convinced Carlino is the best we can do, I don't see any reason to hold out for better while he fits the bill and is available.
Tough to tell if this is a prank or not, but it very well could be. Still, Matt Carlino appears to be transferring from BYU. ↗ Would the LDS pull our legs? Anyway, he's a 6'2" pure point guard. Not a great shooter, but's solid all around, and gets more steals than any of our current guards. That's certainly been missing from this team. Anyway, I hope KU reaches out to him.
@icthawkfan316 I think I did answer the question. We have to change who we're playing at the point. Tharpe is who he is and I'll be flabbergasted if he's significantly better next year. That doesn't mean that he can't or won't have a role on the team (provided he's still with them now that that picture is out), but I'm willing to go as far as looking at Selden or Oubre to run the point if we can't find a good Juco or graduate transfer and Frankamp and Mason still aren't ready. Also, Self should be willing to play Ellis off the bench, despite his scoring, if we can be stronger defensively with Alexander and a center (hopefully Embiid or Turner).
As for the other thing, I have no problem with trying to exploit weaknesses, but what you described with running zone because your man D is getting beat is exactly the time where I'd say it's worth trying your zone D, with a few caveats, and I've seen Self do this throughout the years. What I'm saying would be a strategic change is regularly switching between zone and man to try and throw off opponents. This can only be effective if your zone D is credible and the only way to be credible is to work on it. So that raises the question, is it worth developing that at the cost of developing other skill sets given that you're constrained by time, especially when you have a young team? It's easier to add more ripples when you have veterans who are deeply entrenched in your core system. That certainly doesn't describe us this year.
I'm not saying you can never do this or that it's a bad idea. What I'm really doing is making a core judgement. Self has the most consistently winning system even if he hasn't won the most titles or made the most Final Fours of any coach in the past 10 years. So statistically speaking, is it worth it to lean hard on a system that consistently produces wins in order to try and win 6 games in March/April, or do you switch to a system that is higher risk and higher reward? HEM seems ready to take the risks citing that we could be UConn or UK or UF, or whomever else. I'm conservative like Self in that regard, so I don't know if I could take the heart ache of having real down years just to try and swing for the fences in March. But I'm also open to the possibility that that's where the game has gone. Self's system might be too 2008, but I don't take the evidence of having lost to a mediocre Stanford team when our best player was injured as definitive proof of that because I think the data tells a very different story. I'm also bullish about the future, especially if we return Embiid. He made this team and his absence broke it, unfortunately.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning."
"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else."
Albert Einstein
@globaljaybird Cute, but I've already addressed the issue of insanity. But if you insist, what does it say to post the same things over and over again after each loss ? :)
@icthawkfan316 Insanity? I think not. There is a big difference between doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result and doing the same thing over and over again knowing that you'll only get the result you want some of the time. It's not an all or nothing proposition. It's called attrition. So again, make the case to me that it's better to shy away from what you're good at, even if it isn't going to work all of the time, and try to win doing what you're less proficient in. I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but you haven't made an argument beyond that we lost, which can happen almost no matter how much we do right.
As for the issue using zone to throw off an opponent, no I don't think that counts as special situations. That's a strategic change. It's not how Self operates. He zones when there is a match up that he can't defend, or when there's a player he can truly ignore (look at the use of the triangle and 2 in the 2012 tournament vs Purdue and UNC). He hasn't used the zone to try and throw off an opponent because if his man to man is working, there's not a good reason to do that and if it's not working, it's only worth going to if its the lesser of two evils. Some teams relying on shifting defenses to create opportunities. Some don't. I don't consider either of those the wrong choice, but if you want a team to be able to do that, it requires developing that skill at the cost of others (coaches are limited in time that get to spend with players, after all). You say that you HAVE to mix it up, but you don't make a case for it beyond mixing it up for its own sake. I also don't particularly think opponents are going to be surprised or thrown off if you're not good at mixing it up. Throwing off an opponent with zone might work in another year, but not this one.
As for the question of whether or not Self bent the players to him or vice versa, honestly, I don't see how you can be in a position to evaluate until we get to next season. If our returning players improve and the game begins to resemble what we've become accustomed to this past decade, then I'd say it's a success. If they still look as lost as they did without JoJo, then yes, that's a failure. There is, however, a big difference between not having the ideal pieces and having the wrong pieces. Yes, if it really came to us having no one over 6'7", it'd be incredibly difficult to play through the post, but we were no where near that level of challenged this year. Even if we were, though, is it unreasonable to say that it's worth teaching those things to players because when you do have the 6'9"+ bigs that you need you'll want the guards to know how to post feed and score from the inside out? If you're really set up for that level of failure, why not fail with an eye towards the future?
Finally, yes, there are a number of tweaks you can make within a system. It's innumerable, in fact, but among the things you mentioned, Self tried some or all of these throughout the year (doubling Georges Niang, fronting the post vs Stanford, switching screens against EKU, while showing against others). So it's the same trap of Monday morning quarterbacking that I mentioned above. Just because one set of choices were made and didn't work, it doesn't make them the wrong choices. You have to do better than say, why not try this or that. You have to explain why X is the worse option compared to Y and Z. It's easy to say other options might have been better when you have no accountability to those choices, nor did you witness the results. That amounts to finger pointing, not analysis. I'm not interested in the former. I'm also not trying to tell you that Self has no room to evolve as a coach. Strategies don't exist in a vacuum. Eventually they all become obsolete because the game isn't static. This is called metagaming and it's the bigger part of strategy. Self will need to adapt over time, but specific choices demand specific reasoning in the context of the metagame. Given Self's relative level of success in that metagame (winning 80% of the time), I need more than Self is too stubborn or other teams have success with other strategies to conclude that what Self is doing requires more than minor tweaking from time to time.
@icthawkfan316
While I can appreciate wanting Self to be more tactical, I think people around here simply assume that he isn't or doesn't consider possibilities, or fail to give him credit altogether when he does make adjustments in losing efforts. I mean, just the other day, you reminded HEM that in fact, a lot more than "Nothing" was attempted by Self to try and pull out the win against Stanford. We're quick to forget that Self did try to leverage the length and athleticism of Wigs and JoJo with a 3-2 zone several times early in the season, but it was never effective, as you note. HEM and myself proposed other zones that might have been tried, but we don't really know if Self considered any other approaches and simply concluded that it wasn't in his team or that the opportunity costs of trying to find a zone that they could execute was worse than making hay with the wobbly man to man that they had.
While I can see the potential advantages of mixing in zones or presses from time to time, that marks a very big change in fundamental strategy. Self is a man to man guy that will throw in 'junk' defenses for special situations. That's how he teaches. That's how he plans. The alternative you're offering is either change that fundamental strategy or start throwing spaghetti against the wall when your game planning isn't effective. The fact that Michigan or any other team might change defensive looks to keep teams off balance is red herring. KU <> Michigan. I mean, if this KU team did that, it's switching from a relatively poor defense to a worse one, and when you can see that for what it is, it's less glamorous.
Likewise, early in the year, Self tried posting up Wiggins and Selden against smaller guards. Wiggins just kind of stood there like a scarecrow with no idea what to do. Selden could back a player down, but didn't know how to make plays with his back to the basket. No drop step, no hook shot, and no finding cutters on an angle. Again, do you invest a lot of time in something that isn't working when it isn't core to your strategy because it could be advantageous or other teams have been successful at it, or do you try to make the most of what you've got with what you know?
As for the question of what to do when you've recruited the wrong team, see my above answer. You lean in. Go to war with the army you have. Lacking the ideal pieces for your system is no reason to abandon a successful formula. Bend the players to you, not the other way around. I don't see this as giving up. Quite the opposite. I see giving up as walking away from what you know how to do best because it's harder to do with a certain group. If you can't do that, you're not much of a coach. Maybe you won't solve it on the recruiting trail. Maybe you'll have guys quit the team or go pro. I acknowledge those risks, but it's your job as a coach to manage those aspects of a team even under ideal circumstances. And surely you're not suggesting that realistically a team of mostly freshmen is going to completely jump ship all at once (at least, anywhere but at UK), are you?
You're presenting a false dilemma between teaching your players your system and minimizing weaknesses. You can do both. That may mean playing guys out of their 'natural' position. It may mean accepting certain weaknesses to maximize strengths. But always, always, always coach to your strengths. I know that it's incredibly frustrating when your strengths aren't getting you where you want to go, but why would you want to play to the things you're weaker at? Even if the match up is bad, you're more likely to get there doing the best you can at something that isn't very effective than you are trying to be effective at something you're not very good at. And again, adding ripples until something is part of your scheme IS overhauling your philosophy. Even if it's done slowly, over years. That's not to say that it couldn't turn out to be better, but that's taking up the risk that you'll ruin what you had.
That doesn't mean that situations can't demand changes. You certainly have to take more risks when you're behind and time is running out. But you do so acknowledging that those risks are more likely to fail than succeed, or at least that the failure of those risks will bury you further. For instance, we pressed for a good 7 minutes or so against Stanford because they were keeping us at arms length and we needed more possessions. HEM wondered why if, as the analysts/announcers mentioned, Stanford didn't have a real PG that we didn't press the whole game? Well, although our press yielded some TOs, we weren't able to convert many of those, after seeing the press for a few minutes, Stanford was able to adjust to the pressure, set up their press offense, and get into their half court sets. A few times, we gave up easy looks to it, so it didn't make sense to come out pressing if that's not the team's identity. Now, if you're Louisville or VCU, or if that's who you think we should be, fine, but asking a team that practices the press for special situations/desperation to be proficient at it for 40 or even just 20 minutes at a time is asking a lot. Most teams, especially young teams, aren't going to be able to turn on a dime like that.
Another question I saw frequently was why not run more 3pt plays against the zone? My question to that is why do so with a 34% 3pt shooting team? Missing a lot of 3s will play you out of a game just as quickly as hitting them will claw you back in. Why go where you're weak even if your strengths aren't working? I think the only justification can be extreme desperation and that shouldn't be your mindset down 2 - 3 possessions with plenty of time left in the game.
The halftime crew wondering aloud why Self wasn't putting Wigs in the middle of that zone to attack it made me understand why all of those guys were in the studio and not on the sidelines. Being a great player doesn't mean you're great at every aspect of the game. Even Jordan was a weak shooter. Wigs loose handle and poor feel for passing offense would surely have been a disaster in the middle, but some vocal members latched on to that awful suggestion as somehow the key to the game and bemoaned that we didn't 'scheme' or 'adjust' or try. Somehow, though, I know enough to say with great confidence that sawing off my own arm is a terrible idea without actually experiencing it. Why do we clamber, then, for Self to do the same?
Early in the season Self made a bunch of choices to try and make the most out of the team that he had. Some of them were probably very good choices. Some of them were probably very bad choices. I'm willing to bet he's aware of them. Likewise, he does try a lot of the stuff we suggest. When Self doesn't play many minutes for his bench guys, we criticize him for not developing those players enough. When he does give them minutes, we scoff that he doesn't just pick one to develop consistency. I myself opined a number of suggestions of how we should play without Embiid available. Self tried most of those things against ISU in the Big12 tournament and the results were disastrous. I stood corrected. I didn't try to Monday morning quarter back because he didn't try everything I could think of.
It's silly and a poor way to judge a coaching effort by looking back at everything that wasn't tried. Coaches make judgments about what will and won't put them in the best position to win. We can't fall into the trap of assuming that the path not taken is automatically the fork to success. Instead, the way to judge an effort is did that coach do enough to put his team in a position where success was a realistic possibility? I'd argue that against Stanford, Self did. It may not have been enough to pull out the win, but that doesn't mean a failure of coaching necessarily. Some of the things we tend to view as failures or weaknesses aren't necessarily so either. For instance, Self tends to allow opponents to dictate pace. This does allow inferior teams to play at an advantageous speed at times, but compare that to Roys teams that basically had to play up and down in order to have success. They were very vulnerable to a slow pace, whereas Self has had a number of teams that could win at any speed. It doesn't always happen, but I don't think it's something Self does out of ignorance or apathy. I think it's a calculated choice. I think he wants his teams to be able to win ugly, grindy games, or win pretty running games from one day to the next. Is it the right choice? I'm open to arguments either way.
A lot of these things turn out to be things that Self has thought of anyway. After the Michigan game last year, several ranted on the old boards that Self didn't foul when we were up 3, but Kevin Young later stated that the plan was to foul Burke as he crossed half court, but he evaded them and made the tying basket. Or against SDSU, HEM was in a funk that Self didn't send cutters to the basket to relieve the post double teams. He even called in the Hawk Talk to find out why not. Self told him that that was part of the plan, but they failed to do a good job of it. So I'm a bit incredulous that people seem to think that Self doesn't recognize these rather simple things and try to get his guys to do them. When they do, we applaud his genius, but when they don't, we question his sense.
This team had some huge weakness that were on display in every game where Embiid was either unavailable or limited in minutes by foul trouble or injury. In fact, that describes just about every loss we suffered on the season save Colorado, Florida, and SDSU, where Embiid was still very much easing into playing at this level. Self could have made choices early in the year to move away from the vulnerabilities that we had without Embiid (such as going to Frankamp or Mason), but he didn't. The seeds of the Stanford loss were planted by those choices (particularly our inability to score against length and our weak penetration against zones), but it doesn't mean they were the wrong choices to make. I haven't seen anything to convince me that they were because any other line up you go to exposes you to some other unique set of problems.
None of this is to say that Self doesn't make mistakes. I think we all wish Self had just given up on Tharpe completely in the post season because Tharpe's play was terrible. It makes sense. I think it's a fair criticism. I will question his thinking even more if he doesn't make a push for a JUCO or graduate transfer, or at least try out starting CF or Mason next season (or even Selden or Oubre). He clearly should have benched EJ after the beginning of the Michigan game and called a TO before EJ got a 10 second call. Although some of his misses on the recruiting trail have turned out to be blessings in disguise (Josiah Turner), and he has managed to find some diamonds (Kevin Young, or Mason, who performed near the level of Cat Barber and Demetris Jackson, who we missed on), there are others that have really bitten us (as much as I like Wigs, there's no denying that Randle would have been a better fit for the team offensively and although Black was a classy guy with a great attitude and disposition, his hacking play would have been better replaced with someone we'd have for a few years like Parker or an athletic combo forward like Deandre Daniels).
Lastly, I think this year more than most, Self was willing to take more risks. He had a young team and he knew he had to. How many of us thought throughout the season that Frankamp would have been better off red-shirting. Yet Self puts him out there in crucial moments of the two tournament games we played, completely cold with only about 160-odd minutes played on the season, and he allows him to perform. That was a bold move, although we've treated it like it was completely obvious. Self also benched an upperclassman PG to play a frosh at that spot. I had to eat a hat betting I'd never live to see such a thing, but there it happened (and goes to show that maybe Self should have realized that his relationship to Tharpe probably should be that hard, but oh well).
@Blown Very well said man. Very well said.
@AsadZ One of the oft heard refrains after a bad loss is that Self is too stubborn or that he needs to be flexible. That's just nonsense. Name one great coach that changes around his schemes year after year to fit his team? K? Izzo? Boeheim? Ryan? Donovan? Year in, year out, these guys run with the horses they have. They try to instill their brand of basketball into their players. They don't let their players dictate the game to them. Adapting your program to fit your players is fools gold. If it comes to that, you've already failed because you put together the wrong team to begin with. This isn't to say that Self can't or shouldn't make changes in games or run plays to exploit match ups. The word for that is tactics, and beging tactical is essential to success.
But the big picture, the strategy, isn't something you should abandon just because a few guys aren't ideal to suit it. The solution there is to recruit better, not to give up building your team. If for no other reason, you'll never develop consistency coaching inconsistently. You have to try to plug in the OAD kids that you have as best you can and hope that they are either great fits (like Embiid), or talented enough to carry out their assignment better than the next guy (like Wigs or X). Occasionally, they'll flounder (Selby), but at the end of the day most of it is managed on the recruiting trail rather than in the locker room. Wanting Self to implement a variety of zones means becoming a zone team. Pressing regularly means becoming a pressing team. It really sounds more like you want to hire Rick Pitino than run with Self. If that's where you are, that's fine, but I'm sticking with the guy who has the most wins over the past 10 years because the arc of tournament success will bend towards the most consistently winning program.
To borrow a phrase from the marines, 'Self Fidelis'. And as always, RCJHGKU!