hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 23, 2020 0:59:12 GMT -5
If you just go by KenPom numbers starting in 2014t hey are 11, 5, 1, 2, 1, 30, 18. You think the last 2 years they should’ve been the 30th and 18th with all that talent? 30 last year is a disgrace. It’s not that they aren’t winning the titles. They have comparatively fell off a cliff and it’s not because of recruiting. You didn't really respond to anything I wrote. They're not as good as those teams because their overall talent isn't as good. You're putting it all on him, but it's not because of him. Is last years team, the one with Booth as their leading scorer elite if soph Arch is the pg? I also want to say part of the reason Samuels advanced numbers are good is because other players are creating opportunities for him. He can't go out and score it himself, he's not being game planned against. I think looking at his advanced numbers doesn't tell the whole story. He's a good role player. An undersized lunch pail four. But relatively speaking his Junior season wasn't even as good as Leblanc's Freshman year and he's a top 50 guy. Of course they were less talented but they weren’t 30th best team in college basketball less talented. Where would you take him in BE Pg last year? Why do you think he is considerably better than Allen? As for Samuels like always with people on this board you are completely ignoring half the game. Let me guess they set him up there to? By the way comparing him to Josh Leblanc is not a slight. I would take Josh in a heartbeat over Gilispie and it’s not close. Just because Ewing blew that one too doesn’t mean he should be used to try and bring another guy down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2020 1:07:22 GMT -5
You didn't really respond to anything I wrote. They're not as good as those teams because their overall talent isn't as good. You're putting it all on him, but it's not because of him. Is last years team, the one with Booth as their leading scorer elite if soph Arch is the pg? I also want to say part of the reason Samuels advanced numbers are good is because other players are creating opportunities for him. He can't go out and score it himself, he's not being game planned against. I think looking at his advanced numbers doesn't tell the whole story. He's a good role player. An undersized lunch pail four. But relatively speaking his Junior season wasn't even as good as Leblanc's Freshman year and he's a top 50 guy. Of course they were less talented but they weren’t 30th best team in college basketball less talented. Where would you take him in BE Pg last year? Why do you think he is considerably better than Allen? As for Samuels like always with people on this board you are completely ignoring half the game. Let me guess they set him up there to? By the way comparing him to Josh Leblanc is not a slight. I would take Josh in a heartbeat over Gilispie and it’s not close. Just because Ewing blew that one too doesn’t mean he should be used to try and bring another guy down. I'm not ignoring half of the game. I'm pointing out while he's a fine player he's just a role player and not a difference maker on an elite team. Do you think he is? Tbh I don't know where the Allen part came from, or what Josh vs Gillespie has to do with anything. But if I needed a pg, I'd take Gillespie. If I needed a pf, I'd take Josh. The team that finished top 30 had 6 top 100 players on it. Only one averaged over 6.5 ppg (Booth). Don't you think that has more to do with it than Gillespie? Especially when you're framing it as they were too talented to finish that low. It's a team game. I think Gillespie fits what they're trying to do. Akinjo is a better player 1 on 1, but is he a better player in that system? I'm not sure. He's a little bit too ball dominant for what they do. Jay definitely could go out and get another pg if he thought that was a weakness.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 23, 2020 1:25:36 GMT -5
Of course they were less talented but they weren’t 30th best team in college basketball less talented. Where would you take him in BE Pg last year? Why do you think he is considerably better than Allen? As for Samuels like always with people on this board you are completely ignoring half the game. Let me guess they set him up there to? By the way comparing him to Josh Leblanc is not a slight. I would take Josh in a heartbeat over Gilispie and it’s not close. Just because Ewing blew that one too doesn’t mean he should be used to try and bring another guy down. I'm not ignoring half of the game. I'm pointing out while he's a fine player he's just a role player and not a difference maker on an elite team. Do you think he is? Tbh I don't know where the Allen part came from, or what Josh vs Gillespie has to do with anything, but if I needed a pg I'd take Gillespie. If I needed a pf I'd take Josh. It's a team game not 1 on 1. I think Gillespie fits what they're trying to do. Akinjo is a better player 1 0n 1 but is he a better player in that system? I'm not sure. He's a little bit too ball dominant for what they do. Jay definitely could go out and get another pg if he thought that was a weakness. You know who else is a fine role player on an elite team? The guy we are talking about. Allen comes in because nobody would have put him anywhere near an all BE team but what can Gilispie do better than him. He’s not a better shooter or defender and I think Allen could easily play in Nova’s system. I think Akinjo was a little too ball dominant but that’s another Ewing problem. I’m pretty sure the guy that led the BE is assists and shot 40% from 3 wouldn’t have a problem fitting in at Nova unless he was put next to a guy that shot 29% that he hated.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 23, 2020 1:32:28 GMT -5
Also if you just simply swap Brunson for Gillespie on the 2019 team where do they finish? That team would’ve been good enough to contend for another title. You really think they couldn’t match up with that UVA team? Now put Spellman in for Samuels but not Brunson. That doesn’t move the needle nearly as much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2020 1:49:11 GMT -5
I'm not ignoring half of the game. I'm pointing out while he's a fine player he's just a role player and not a difference maker on an elite team. Do you think he is? Tbh I don't know where the Allen part came from, or what Josh vs Gillespie has to do with anything, but if I needed a pg I'd take Gillespie. If I needed a pf I'd take Josh. It's a team game not 1 on 1. I think Gillespie fits what they're trying to do. Akinjo is a better player 1 0n 1 but is he a better player in that system? I'm not sure. He's a little bit too ball dominant for what they do. Jay definitely could go out and get another pg if he thought that was a weakness. You know who else is a fine role player on an elite team? The guy we are talking about. Allen comes in because nobody would have put him anywhere near an all BE team but what can Gilispie do better than him. He’s not a better shooter or defender and I think Allen could easily play in Nova’s system. I think Akinjo was a little too ball dominant but that’s another Ewing problem. I’m pretty sure the guy that led the BE is assists and shot 40% from 3 wouldn’t have a problem fitting in at Nova unless he was put next to a guy that shot 29% that he hated. Lol dude, you're funny. You keep going off on a tangent. It's a guessing game figuring out who would have done what on another team. All we know is Gillespie was the second best player on that team. They finished tied for first and that's why the coaches, that know more than both of us, put him on 2nd team. He's outplayed his ranking and had a better career than some of his more highly touted teammates, but for some reason you point to him as the reason they're not elite and not the other players that haven't lived up to the hype. I don't get it, but who really cares at this point...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 12:26:57 GMT -5
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,135
|
Post by RBHoya on Mar 8, 2021 14:21:50 GMT -5
All Big East not terribly different. Per Rivals... First Team: Mamukelashvili, 3 star unranked Bouknight, 4 star ranked 84th in his class Champagnie, 3 star unranked Robinson-Earl, 5 star ranked 11th in his class Zegarowski, 3 star unranked Gillespie, 3 star unranked Second Team: Jefferson, 3 star unranked Freemantle, 3 star, ranked 150th in his class Duke, 4 star, ranked 38th in his class Watson, 4 star ranked 88th in his class Scruggs, 4 star ranked 39th in his class One legit blue chipper in there (Robinson-Earl), plus a few other guys who were Top 50 players coming out. But overall I think the level of talent we pulled in in our 2021 class is more than enough for us to compete to win this league. Keeping them and developing them is obviously essential.
|
|
|
Post by thejerseytornado on Mar 8, 2021 14:44:26 GMT -5
And how many blue chippers are still in college as seniors? Not many any more. This is survivorship bias, not proof than rankings are biased.
I agree--the talent we pulled in 2021 is good enough to compete. No excuses. But this isn't proof of anything about rankings
|
|
|
Post by trillesthoya on Mar 8, 2021 14:57:29 GMT -5
It’s more so proof that outside the top fifty or so rankings are a crap shoot. Certainly some correlation between ranking and probability of succeeding, but it’s never been an exact science and never will be considering so much of this depends on work ethic, situation, coaching development, physical growth in college etc.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Mar 8, 2021 15:37:52 GMT -5
But bringing in classes of kids north of 200 isn't a recipe for long term success. Identifying one outlier per class is fine. Identifying an entire class of "diamonds in the rough" aka..this years freshman class, is tough to do. Sibley top 100. Everybody else not even on the leader board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 15:59:32 GMT -5
And how many blue chippers are still in college as seniors? Not many any more. This is survivorship bias, not proof than rankings are biased. I agree--the talent we pulled in 2021 is good enough to compete. No excuses. But this isn't proof of anything about rankings I think it's proof these kids worked hard and made the jump. That's really the only point I was trying to make but there's tons of kids in the BE who are upperclassmen and were more highly regarded coming in than a lot of these kids. I don't think you can simply dismiss it as "survivorship." It's more like the rankings are just a snapshot in time and once you get passed the top 40 it gets a lot tougher to predict where these kids will end up. Samuels #45 (HM) Swider #39 Crosby Roundtree #71 Slater #52 Ballock #79 O'Connel #69 Obiagu #63 Cale #79 AJ Reeves #49 Charlie Moore #58 Some nice players in this group even if they're not all league guys
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,358
Member is Online
|
Post by prhoya on Mar 8, 2021 18:30:22 GMT -5
5’11”, 155 lbs. How’s that possible? 😉
|
|
|
Post by hsaxon on Mar 8, 2021 18:58:21 GMT -5
Of course they were less talented but they weren’t 30th best team in college basketball less talented. Where would you take him in BE Pg last year? Why do you think he is considerably better than Allen? As for Samuels like always with people on this board you are completely ignoring half the game. Let me guess they set him up there to? By the way comparing him to Josh Leblanc is not a slight. I would take Josh in a heartbeat over Gilispie and it’s not close. Just because Ewing blew that one too doesn’t mean he should be used to try and bring another guy down. I'm not ignoring half of the game. I'm pointing out while he's a fine player he's just a role player and not a difference maker on an elite team. Do you think he is? Tbh I don't know where the Allen part came from, or what Josh vs Gillespie has to do with anything. But if I needed a pg, I'd take Gillespie. If I needed a pf, I'd take Josh. The team that finished top 30 had 6 top 100 players on it. Only one averaged over 6.5 ppg (Booth). Don't you think that has more to do with it than Gillespie? Especially when you're framing it as they were too talented to finish that low. It's a team game. I think Gillespie fits what they're trying to do. Akinjo is a better player 1 on 1, but is he a better player in that system? I'm not sure. He's a little bit too ball dominant for what they do. Jay definitely could go out and get another pg if he thought that was a weakness. I would take Gillespie over Akinjo in a heartbeat. Akinjo is talented/very talented but look what he did to GU.
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,135
|
Post by RBHoya on Mar 8, 2021 22:05:42 GMT -5
And how many blue chippers are still in college as seniors? Not many any more. This is survivorship bias, not proof than rankings are biased. I agree--the talent we pulled in 2021 is good enough to compete. No excuses. But this isn't proof of anything about rankings I wasn't suggesting that, not sure if anyone else was (but I don't think so). I agree with trillesthoya, it goes to show that while the recruiting gurus are by and large pretty good at identifying the very top players in each class, the further down the rankings you go, the less predictable the results. Last year's first team All Americans were Obi Toppin, Luka Garza, Payton Prichard, Myles Powell and Markus Howard. Not one of those guys was in the Top 50 coming out of high school. Does that indicate any sort of bias? I don't think so. But it does show that there are a lot of good players to be had outside of the 5 star range. It really just requires a keen eye for talent, the ability to retain players through adversity, and an ability to develop players to get the most out of them. There are plenty of kids that were in the same range as any of those All Americans, or any of this year's all conference guys, who didn't amount to much of anything at the college level. Saying that "recruiting rankings are meaningless" as some do is an oversimplification to be sure, but there are also plenty of excellent players--and teams winning with those excellent players--who weren't highly regarded out of high school. And just out of my own curiosity, I looked up Rivals' top players in 2017 (the class that is now seniors) to see how many actually are still in college as you mentioned. You're right, MANY aren't. Out of the Top 25 recruits, only 1 is still playing in college--Quade Green, who transferred from Kentucky to UW. 23 out of the Top 25 left early for the NBA (though several never actually made it in the league), and one player (Billy Preston) never actually made it to college due to eligibility issues. Out of the Top 50, 30 players departed early for the pros, 18 are still in college, one never began college, and one was expelled for a sexual assault incident. But when you look at some of the names of guys who left early for the pros--who could forget Brandon McCoy, Kris Wilkes, or Lindell Wigginton?--there's no doubt that you'd rather have guys like Gillespie or Mamu or even Blair and Pickett than some of them. It adds more value to a college team to have a 4 year guy who develops than to have, say, the 17th ranked player in the class who stays for a year or two before making the jump, gets picked 56th in the draft and then bounces around the G League and Europe. Something to bear in mind for those who worry too much about star ratings.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 742
|
Post by rhw485 on Mar 9, 2021 7:53:05 GMT -5
All Big East not terribly different. Per Rivals... First Team: Mamukelashvili, 3 star unranked Bouknight, 4 star ranked 84th in his class Champagnie, 3 star unranked Robinson-Earl, 5 star ranked 11th in his class Zegarowski, 3 star unranked Gillespie, 3 star unranked Second Team: Jefferson, 3 star unranked Freemantle, 3 star, ranked 150th in his class Duke, 4 star, ranked 38th in his class Watson, 4 star ranked 88th in his class Scruggs, 4 star ranked 39th in his class One legit blue chipper in there (Robinson-Earl), plus a few other guys who were Top 50 players coming out. But overall I think the level of talent we pulled in in our 2021 class is more than enough for us to compete to win this league. Keeping them and developing them is obviously essential. I'm almost looking at it the other way. Half the kids being ranked in the top 150 is probably not a bad result for the rankings. If you look at it as what % of the ranked kids made an all Big East team vs. what % of the unranked kids made an all Big East team, I think it's going to show how much higher the first % is just because there's so few of them. And that ignores the fact that 7 of the ranked kids are on Nova and it's simply impossible for all of them to make it. If that point seems obvious, it basically confirms you'd rather have a kid in the top 150 than not, which is really the point here. For me this shows you probably shouldn't debate too much within the top 150. Like there's no way to know whether it's going to be Reeves or Duke but you want as many top 150 kids as possible to increase your chances. And of course just because a kid is outside the top 150 doesn't mean they can't develop. You should be quick to ignore the rankings once they get on campus. If they show they can play, they can play (Dante / Mac) I also agree this class, as well as the Akinjo / Mac class, are more than enough talent if they stay and are developed.
|
|
smokeyjack
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,300
|
Post by smokeyjack on Mar 9, 2021 14:18:06 GMT -5
All Big East not terribly different. Per Rivals... First Team: Mamukelashvili, 3 star unranked Bouknight, 4 star ranked 84th in his class Champagnie, 3 star unranked Robinson-Earl, 5 star ranked 11th in his class Zegarowski, 3 star unranked Gillespie, 3 star unranked Second Team: Jefferson, 3 star unranked Freemantle, 3 star, ranked 150th in his class Duke, 4 star, ranked 38th in his class Watson, 4 star ranked 88th in his class Scruggs, 4 star ranked 39th in his class One legit blue chipper in there (Robinson-Earl), plus a few other guys who were Top 50 players coming out. But overall I think the level of talent we pulled in in our 2021 class is more than enough for us to compete to win this league. Keeping them and developing them is obviously essential. I'm almost looking at it the other way. Half the kids being ranked in the top 150 is probably not a bad result for the rankings. If you look at it as what % of the ranked kids made an all Big East team vs. what % of the unranked kids made an all Big East team, I think it's going to show how much higher the first % is just because there's so few of them. And that ignores the fact that 7 of the ranked kids are on Nova and it's simply impossible for all of them to make it. If that point seems obvious, it basically confirms you'd rather have a kid in the top 150 than not, which is really the point here. For me this shows you probably shouldn't debate too much within the top 150. Like there's no way to know whether it's going to be Reeves or Duke but you want as many top 150 kids as possible to increase your chances. And of course just because a kid is outside the top 150 doesn't mean they can't develop. You should be quick to ignore the rankings once they get on campus. If they show they can play, they can play (Dante / Mac) I also agree this class, as well as the Akinjo / Mac class, are more than enough talent if they stay and are developed. Beautifully said. In a perfect world, GU gets 3/4 guys in top 150 every year with half of those in top 60. The 2020 class is not the recipe for anything but a mess. When you get 4 top-150s, they won’t all hit. But 1.5 probably will on average...and that’s a six-man rotation when you put those guys in the pipeline year after year. Where I think the vast majority of coaches fail in recruiting is they get lazy. They’ll bang out a class like Pat has coming in for ‘21, and then take ‘22 off. CAN’T DO IT. That’s the difference between Nova and rest of BE. Can’t have zeroed out recruiting classes...like Pat had last year. Time will tell if Dante is a hit. I tend to think yes. I would bet money against the rest of them ever playing meaningful minutes.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,509
|
Post by bostonfan on Mar 9, 2021 14:35:26 GMT -5
I'm almost looking at it the other way. Half the kids being ranked in the top 150 is probably not a bad result for the rankings. If you look at it as what % of the ranked kids made an all Big East team vs. what % of the unranked kids made an all Big East team, I think it's going to show how much higher the first % is just because there's so few of them. And that ignores the fact that 7 of the ranked kids are on Nova and it's simply impossible for all of them to make it. If that point seems obvious, it basically confirms you'd rather have a kid in the top 150 than not, which is really the point here. For me this shows you probably shouldn't debate too much within the top 150. Like there's no way to know whether it's going to be Reeves or Duke but you want as many top 150 kids as possible to increase your chances. And of course just because a kid is outside the top 150 doesn't mean they can't develop. You should be quick to ignore the rankings once they get on campus. If they show they can play, they can play (Dante / Mac) I also agree this class, as well as the Akinjo / Mac class, are more than enough talent if they stay and are developed. Beautifully said. In a perfect world, GU gets 3/4 guys in top 150 every year with half of those in top 60. The 2020 class is not the recipe for anything but a mess. When you get 4 top-150s, they won’t all hit. But 1.5 probably will on average...and that’s a six-man rotation when you put those guys in the pipeline year after year. Where I think the vast majority of coaches fail in recruiting is they get lazy. They’ll bang out a class like Pat has coming in for ‘21, and then take ‘22 off. CAN’T DO IT. That’s the difference between Nova and rest of BE. Can’t have zeroed out recruiting classes...like Pat had last year. Time will tell if Dante is a hit. I tend to think yes. I would bet money against the rest of them ever playing meaningful minutes. In a perfect world the staff can bring in at least one 4 star or 5 star player every year and then fill in the rest of the class with guys who are no worse than 3 star recruits (top 150 guys). That builds an inventory of capable/good players and athletes who should be able to compete at the Big East level. Your going to have some misses on guys who just don't pan out, but if 70% of your recruits play to their potential, then you have consistently strong program. If the staff comes across a player who is rated in the 200+ ranks (probably a two star guy) but the staff feels really strongly about his skill set, or has some other compelling reason to recruit (from a local program or a strong relationship/recommendation from a high school coach they trust) then you can take a flier on a player like that every few years, but it should be the exception and not an every year situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2021 14:59:44 GMT -5
All Big East not terribly different. Per Rivals... First Team: Mamukelashvili, 3 star unranked Bouknight, 4 star ranked 84th in his class Champagnie, 3 star unranked Robinson-Earl, 5 star ranked 11th in his class Zegarowski, 3 star unranked Gillespie, 3 star unranked Second Team: Jefferson, 3 star unranked Freemantle, 3 star, ranked 150th in his class Duke, 4 star, ranked 38th in his class Watson, 4 star ranked 88th in his class Scruggs, 4 star ranked 39th in his class One legit blue chipper in there (Robinson-Earl), plus a few other guys who were Top 50 players coming out. But overall I think the level of talent we pulled in in our 2021 class is more than enough for us to compete to win this league. Keeping them and developing them is obviously essential. I'm almost looking at it the other way. Half the kids being ranked in the top 150 is probably not a bad result for the rankings. If you look at it as what % of the ranked kids made an all Big East team vs. what % of the unranked kids made an all Big East team, I think it's going to show how much higher the first % is just because there's so few of them. And that ignores the fact that 7 of the ranked kids are on Nova and it's simply impossible for all of them to make it. If that point seems obvious, it basically confirms you'd rather have a kid in the top 150 than not, which is really the point here. For me this shows you probably shouldn't debate too much within the top 150. Like there's no way to know whether it's going to be Reeves or Duke but you want as many top 150 kids as possible to increase your chances. And of course just because a kid is outside the top 150 doesn't mean they can't develop. You should be quick to ignore the rankings once they get on campus. If they show they can play, they can play (Dante / Mac) I also agree this class, as well as the Akinjo / Mac class, are more than enough talent if they stay and are developed. Agree with mostly everything but the Nova point. Those kids could be playing for any other team in the BE and they wouldn't be all league performers. Most aren't even starters and the kid that did make the team (for the second time) was unranked coming in. It's not that they all can't make it, it's the fact that they aren't good enough. I'd even argue that the opposite is true in the case of Samuels as he would just be a good role player no matter where he was. Since he's on Nova that got him HM.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 742
|
Post by rhw485 on Mar 9, 2021 15:29:47 GMT -5
Beautifully said. In a perfect world, GU gets 3/4 guys in top 150 every year with half of those in top 60. The 2020 class is not the recipe for anything but a mess. When you get 4 top-150s, they won’t all hit. But 1.5 probably will on average...and that’s a six-man rotation when you put those guys in the pipeline year after year. Where I think the vast majority of coaches fail in recruiting is they get lazy. They’ll bang out a class like Pat has coming in for ‘21, and then take ‘22 off. CAN’T DO IT. That’s the difference between Nova and rest of BE. Can’t have zeroed out recruiting classes...like Pat had last year. Time will tell if Dante is a hit. I tend to think yes. I would bet money against the rest of them ever playing meaningful minutes. I don't necessarily think it's laziness (although who knows) but it's probably that you no longer have the carrot of playing time to offer after a stud class. Convincing a top recruit to come here, even knowing they won't necessarily have a spot in the rotation on day 1, is the next step. It's why I thought the RJ Davis recruitment at the time was so crucial. Was he willing to come here even if Akinjo and Mac are here? Clearly didn't work out and then the transfers happened anyway. Nova can make the argument that its worth coming there to develop because you'll get your chance eventually, you'll improve, and we've shown we can put people in the NBA. Gtown doesn't have those arguments currently. It's why the '22 class is so important, can't fall into '20 class trap of 3 centers etc.
|
|