|
Post by Ranch Dressing on May 22, 2018 9:57:13 GMT -5
Hop on the Hoya train (or plane or boat), cause we got that Jamaican connection!
I'm anticipating Ewing will be able to land 2 highly rated bigs from 2019. Kofi could well be one of them.
|
|
|
Post by veilside21 on May 22, 2018 11:49:33 GMT -5
Kofi would feast on them kids having mac and james alongside pickett... darn its going to be exciting
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,187
|
Post by hoyarooter on May 22, 2018 18:38:22 GMT -5
My favorite part was actually the Paultzman moniker. A Whopper reference!
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on May 22, 2018 20:35:57 GMT -5
Ewing better dust off mom's jerk chicken recipe and give him the straight talk. Mullin isn't coaching up big men. The Johnnies are about guard play and bigs that dunk and block and little else. Patrick can teach him the tools that will allow him develop into a player. That's not Mullin's wheelhouse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 18:36:41 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 13:39:48 GMT -5
NBA comparison: Eddy Curry
Why the comparison? I've been in the business for almost 20 years now and I haven't seen many guys who are anything like Cockburn physically. Nearly seven-feet tall and checking in at around 300 pounds with the love to play physical and surprisingly quick lift off the floor. Well, that's what Eddy Curry was like as a high school junior although Curry had a little more scoring polish.
Recruiting: Georgetown, Kansas, Pittsburgh, Arizona State, UConn, Syracuse, Oklahoma State, LSU, Providence, Oregon, St. John's and many more have offered.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,405
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 3, 2018 17:50:08 GMT -5
I recall when Curry was supposed to be the next Shaq and the other big stud in that class, Tyson Chandler, was supposed to be the next Kareem. Didn't work out for either one although Chandler at least had a long NBA career.
Anyway the guys on this site who can't wait fr Govan to leave probably wouldn't be all that happy with the Hoyas bringing in Cockburn.
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,810
|
Post by hoyazeke on Jun 3, 2018 19:27:50 GMT -5
I recall when Curry was supposed to be the next Shaq and the other big stud in that class, Tyson Chandler, was supposed to be the next Kareem. Didn't work out for either one although Chandler at least had a long NBA career. Anyway the guys on this site who can't wait fr Govan to leave probably wouldn't be all that happy with the Hoyas bringing in Cockburn. Kofi would be great in college. NBA? Maybe...Didn't Curry have heart problems that put him out of the league?
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Jun 17, 2018 0:34:58 GMT -5
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Jun 27, 2018 13:04:06 GMT -5
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Jun 29, 2018 15:53:49 GMT -5
|
|
hoyaboya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,233
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jul 2, 2018 13:37:02 GMT -5
Fifteen years ago, Kofi Cockburn would be slated to be a top five or top six pick in the NBA Draft. A mammoth of a big man who measured in last summer at 6-foot-10 with a 7-foot-3 wingspan, they just don’t make them the size of this five-star center anymore. A true low-post asset who can score over his left shoulder, Cockburn has developed a Dirk Nowitzki-like mid-range jumper and is a willing passer out of the double team, and his numbers on the Nike circuit this spring reflect just how dominant of an offensive threat he is. Unfortunately, players in his mold are a dying breed, which makes deciding on his ranking that much more difficult. Seeing that the low block post-up is the worst shot that can be taken (through the lenses of advance stat gurus), and because questions remain as to how Cockburn can guard the heavily used high-ball screen, polarizing would be an understatement when it comes to evaluating his various outcomes. He might have found greater success in 2003, but Cockburn still is a valuable interior weapon that will shine in college. basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/news/evans-seven-players-who-were-tough-to-slot-in-the-new-rankings
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 2, 2018 16:17:34 GMT -5
There’s a St. John’s poster who insists cockburn is going to Georgetown. Hopefully he actually knows something.
|
|
DudeSlade
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I got through the Esherick years. I can get through anything.
Posts: 1,209
|
Post by DudeSlade on Jul 2, 2018 17:12:49 GMT -5
Seeing that the low block post-up is the worst shot that can be taken (through the lenses of advance stat gurus), and because questions remain as to how Cockburn can guard the heavily used high-ball screen, polarizing would be an understatement when it comes to evaluating his various outcomes. Can someone more versed in the advanced analytics help me understand why a low block post-up is such a bad shot? I get that 3s and FTs are the best shots for expected point-per-shot, and I get why mid-range is frowned on since the FG% is lower than any other 2. But don't low post shots have a high FG%? I'd think the expected point-per-shot would still make it valuable then. I just remember how automatic it seemed when Shaq or Hakeem or Big Pat got the ball down low. Seemed like 2 points or a foul was expected practically every time. Seemed like a better shot than many of the jumpers we see today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 9:26:33 GMT -5
Seeing that the low block post-up is the worst shot that can be taken (through the lenses of advance stat gurus), and because questions remain as to how Cockburn can guard the heavily used high-ball screen, polarizing would be an understatement when it comes to evaluating his various outcomes. Can someone more versed in the advanced analytics help me understand why a low block post-up is such a bad shot? I get that 3s and FTs are the best shots for expected point-per-shot, and I get why mid-range is frowned on since the FG% is lower than any other 2. But don't low post shots have a high FG%? I'd think the expected point-per-shot would still make it valuable then. I just remember how automatic it seemed when Shaq or Hakeem or Big Pat got the ball down low. Seemed like 2 points or a foul was expected practically every time. Seemed like a better shot than many of the jumpers we see today. It's basically because post play is considered mid-range shots in a lot of cases. Shaq was able to bully his guy under the basket so most of his shots came at the rim. Hakeem and Pat obviously are some of the best NBA players ever and even though a lot of post ups for them probably end up in the mid range area they made them. If you're taking a jump hook from 8 feet out, that'a a mid range shot according to analytics because there are only 3 categories: At the rim, 3pt, and midrange...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 9:29:42 GMT -5
Earlier this week, Grantland ran a Q&A between Zach Lowe and Boston Celtics head coach Brad Stevens. Among the fun tidbits of basketball knowledge sprinkled throughout this was an interesting conversation about post play. Here is the short exchange: Analytics folks say the post-up, or at least a post-up shot, is a low-efficiency play. But there’s a way to reconcile that, right? There are two ways to get inside-out: driving or posting. In other words: The post-up is more a vehicle for passing and other shots, rather than necessarily for a post-up shot itself? It’s a vehicle for playing inside-out. That’s right. That back-and-forth inspired an interesting question (asked in the comments by reader Parker Ryan): Is a post-up — one of the most common ways to score across all levels of basketball — really an inefficient play? To find an answer to that question, we have to look at the basic anatomy of the play itself. A strict back-to-the-basket (though a player can face up from that position) post-up usually occurs anywhere from the block to mid-post on either side of the floor. The result of most of these situations, on the NBA level at least, are jump hooks or turnaround jumpers. So despite the image you might have in your head of a player going to work deep in the paint, right near the basket, the actual shot results are typically short to midrange 2s anywhere from roughly four to 12 feet from the hoop. As the analytics movement has told us, shots from those locations produce a worse points-per-possession outcome than the three key scoring areas on the floor: at the rim, behind the 3-point line, and at the free throw line. That isn’t to say that post-ups can’t ever generate any of those efficient looks. There are certain things that can be trained into a player’s game — the use of fakes with the ball to draw fouls, counters such as spins and step-throughs to get shots at the rim — to produce the type of results empirical data has shown to be the most productive. The problem is, even with the right approach, it’s impossible to expect any player to consistently get to the line or to the rim off a post-up. In a way, post attacks in the NBA are really something of a paradox. On one hand, a player posting up has to possess enough skill (or have a big enough strength/height advantage) over an opponent to convert short- to medium-range shots, while occasionally creating opportunities at the rim or drawing fouls. Without this, using a post-up like a “vehicle” for better shots, like Stevens states above, becomes much more difficult. Smart defenses will simply force nonthreatening players to try to score in one-on-one matchups. The tricky part comes when a player proves capable of doing so. At that point, it becomes using the threat of his scoring — and not the scoring itself — to produce efficient looks. grantland.com/the-triangle/how-efficient-is-a-post-up-play/DudeSlade
|
|
DudeSlade
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I got through the Esherick years. I can get through anything.
Posts: 1,209
|
Post by DudeSlade on Jul 5, 2018 12:30:07 GMT -5
Earlier this week, Grantland ran a Q&A between Zach Lowe and Boston Celtics head coach Brad Stevens. Among the fun tidbits of basketball knowledge sprinkled throughout this was an interesting conversation about post play. Here is the short exchange: Analytics folks say the post-up, or at least a post-up shot, is a low-efficiency play. But there’s a way to reconcile that, right? There are two ways to get inside-out: driving or posting. In other words: The post-up is more a vehicle for passing and other shots, rather than necessarily for a post-up shot itself? It’s a vehicle for playing inside-out. That’s right. That back-and-forth inspired an interesting question (asked in the comments by reader Parker Ryan): Is a post-up — one of the most common ways to score across all levels of basketball — really an inefficient play? To find an answer to that question, we have to look at the basic anatomy of the play itself. A strict back-to-the-basket (though a player can face up from that position) post-up usually occurs anywhere from the block to mid-post on either side of the floor. The result of most of these situations, on the NBA level at least, are jump hooks or turnaround jumpers. So despite the image you might have in your head of a player going to work deep in the paint, right near the basket, the actual shot results are typically short to midrange 2s anywhere from roughly four to 12 feet from the hoop. As the analytics movement has told us, shots from those locations produce a worse points-per-possession outcome than the three key scoring areas on the floor: at the rim, behind the 3-point line, and at the free throw line. That isn’t to say that post-ups can’t ever generate any of those efficient looks. There are certain things that can be trained into a player’s game — the use of fakes with the ball to draw fouls, counters such as spins and step-throughs to get shots at the rim — to produce the type of results empirical data has shown to be the most productive. The problem is, even with the right approach, it’s impossible to expect any player to consistently get to the line or to the rim off a post-up. In a way, post attacks in the NBA are really something of a paradox. On one hand, a player posting up has to possess enough skill (or have a big enough strength/height advantage) over an opponent to convert short- to medium-range shots, while occasionally creating opportunities at the rim or drawing fouls. Without this, using a post-up like a “vehicle” for better shots, like Stevens states above, becomes much more difficult. Smart defenses will simply force nonthreatening players to try to score in one-on-one matchups. The tricky part comes when a player proves capable of doing so. At that point, it becomes using the threat of his scoring — and not the scoring itself — to produce efficient looks. grantland.com/the-triangle/how-efficient-is-a-post-up-play/DudeSladeThanks for all the info and breakdown, Yaboynyp! Really helpful. Didn't realize that post-ups were grouped into the mid-range classification or that so many post-ups resulted in mid-range shots instead of getting to the rim. I guess that's what I get for watching Shaq for so many years as a Lakers fan -- I assume post-ups are designed to get to the rim. I like the focus by Stevens in that grantland article on using post-ups to create better shots, rather than necessarily for the player posting up to score. You have to get guys open somehow and that basically requires someone who can create off the dribble, lots of motion & picks, getting out in transition, or someone posting up that sucks the defense in. Seems like there is still a place for post play then, especially if taught by a master of it like Big Pat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 19:17:58 GMT -5
Can someone more versed in the advanced analytics help me understand why a low block post-up is such a bad shot? I get that 3s and FTs are the best shots for expected point-per-shot, and I get why mid-range is frowned on since the FG% is lower than any other 2. But don't low post shots have a high FG%? I'd think the expected point-per-shot would still make it valuable then. I just remember how automatic it seemed when Shaq or Hakeem or Big Pat got the ball down low. Seemed like 2 points or a foul was expected practically every time. Seemed like a better shot than many of the jumpers we see today. It's basically because post play is considered mid-range shots in a lot of cases. Shaq was able to bully his guy under the basket so most of his shots came at the rim. Hakeem and Pat obviously are some of the best NBA players ever and even though a lot of post ups for them probably end up in the mid range area they made them. If you're taking a jump hook from 8 feet out, that'a a mid range shot according to analytics because there are only 3 categories: At the rim, 3pt, and midrange... It's actually easiest to make 4 areas - rim, mid-range short (3-8 ft), mid-range long (8ft to 3pt line), 3pt FG The reason the 3-8 ft shot is so bad is that there's far less area in that semi-circle (and players naturally defend the goal), so the shot is far easier to defend. It's why players make a smaller % there than the longer midrange shots, despite the obvious advantage of being closer to the hoop. But that's only when looked at as a whole. Size and strength are big factors here -- the bigger you are, the greater your chances of making a well-defended shot. Big men who are efficient in this area are still way more productive than mediocre jump shooters. So it's not as simple as saying big guys are bad analytic plays b/c a greater % of their shots fall inside that area. (But yes... Bradley and Mikael were terrible analytic plays) If you want to see this in action, look at the stats from last year for Jahvon -- who shot only 21% from short midrange but 32% on longer midrange shots. ( link) But when you can shoot that shot like Jessie (42% of short midrange -- pretty good) or Marcus (54% -- VERY GOOD), that's a good shot. Not to mention the greater opportunities for getting fouled, grabbing offensive boards, or affecting defensive shape.
|
|
paranoia2
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 847
|
Post by paranoia2 on Jul 6, 2018 22:31:20 GMT -5
I don’t know much about analytics in college basketball. West Virginia had a 6’8” monster in the paint that was blocking shots and intimidating Villanova all over the floor until the referees got involved.
The eye ball test always wins in my opinion. Who wants to drive the lane if Kofi is there? Very good to great players MAKE PLAYS. It is that simple.
I trust in Patrick and the staff.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,835
|
Post by EtomicB on Jul 7, 2018 12:07:24 GMT -5
|
|