2012 UK or 2018 nova
- Thread starter RunninRichie
- Start date
no offense, but you are trying too hard.
2012 would throttle 2018 Villanova. You guys would be lucky to be within 10 points.
UK always turned it off, because they didn't need to keep it on. you literally saw that all season long.
Even against Baylor...we were up 20 points and then cooled it. UL tied the game, but then with a snap of a finger, we just blew them out the water. Same for Kansas.
If we needed to, we can go 40 and kill every team, but they didn't need to.
We lost 2 games because of a buzzer-beater and YOUNG Davis, and another game is 3 games in 3 days with short rotation.
Your team lost 4 freaking times.
Get the shit out of here.
IMO 2012 and it’s not that close. Nova was great (beat the bricks off us) but a little one dimensional. And NO answer for Anthony Davis. And even if they had an answer for Davis, Kentucky had the weapons to beat you in other ways.
in the Title game, my Jayhawks played well and realistically were never really “in it” in a meaningful way. It was a good game and we made some runs but I felt like an underdog the whole game. That 2012 team was just stacked even if not too deep.
And we didn’t “run out of time”. Those two teams could still be playing and Kentucky would still be ahead. Kentucky was simply better that year. Props.
Looking forward to our game this year God and Corona willing. Should be a good one. We have more experience but you are stacked (again) with young talent.
in the Title game, my Jayhawks played well and realistically were never really “in it” in a meaningful way. It was a good game and we made some runs but I felt like an underdog the whole game. That 2012 team was just stacked even if not too deep.
And we didn’t “run out of time”. Those two teams could still be playing and Kentucky would still be ahead. Kentucky was simply better that year. Props.
Looking forward to our game this year God and Corona willing. Should be a good one. We have more experience but you are stacked (again) with young talent.
And 12 wasn't a bad 3 point shooting team either. They had the guys to hit a 3 when needed but never relied on them.
Basketball, more than any other major sport, is very reliant on individual talent. Kentucky 2012 was more talented, by a fairly wide margin. That’s what it comes down to to me.
Agreed that 2012 had more talent--7 players made the NBA compared with 5 for 'Nova 2018--but 4 of those 7 were freshmen and 2 others were sophomores, while 'Nova was mostly 3rd and 4th year guys. Experience makes a difference. And 5 of 'Nova's top 6 players were on the 2016 championship squad. Deep, talented, and experienced is a tough combination to beat.
WildMoon,
You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't speak well for your position that you don't provide any evidence. The readily-available stats say that 'Nova 2018 has a slight edge. Saying your guys would throttle 'Nova 2018 is just fan talk and not worth much.
Beside the stats, please note that the 'Nova players had a lot more experience than the UK players, including already winning a national championship. Experience matters.
Ku,
'Nova 2018 beat you by 16. Not only were they better than your team, but they were better by a larger margin than UK 2012 was.
The idea that 'Nova 2018 was one-dimensional is a little silly. Yes, they were the greatest 3-pt shooting CBB team ever, but that doesn't mean they didn't do everything else well also. They shot a ridiculous 59.0% from 2 as well as 40% from 3. Even with Anthony Davis shooting well over 60%, the 2012 team still only shot 52.7% from 2.
Right. 2 losses to teams much worse than 'Nova 2018. So 'Nova 2018 was clearly more than capable of beating UK 2012.
no, lol just no UK was holding opponents to 29% from 3 and AD and Terrance Jones and MKG were locking down the paint, can’t beat a team you can’t score against that 2012 florida team that UK beat 3 times was similar to 2018 nova as far as 3 point shooting goes...
Except for the whole "losing only two games vs. four games," right?
So Nova's 4 losses aren't factored into your so-called 'logic.' It cuts both ways. Your bias is showing.
Not at all. I never said that UK 2012 couldn't beat 'Nova 2018. Just the opposite--stats imply that the two teams would be closely matched. If the two teams played 10 games, the games should be close and the outcome nearly even, but with 'Nova holding a slight edge.
My comment about the losses was aimed at those who claim UK 2012 would win (every game) by double digits.
what do you mean no evidence?
We lost our first road game...
We lost a game that was third in three days on a team with 6 players.
You guys have nothing to go against AD, and what's funny is who would you counter TJ with?
You do realize rebounding and controlling the game is still very important in today's game.
We ironically have the better three-point shooter on our team, and we still had other good shooters. TJ was physically gifted, and he actually was a solid rotational NBA player until his knuckle head behavior.
you guys lost 4 games with experience. Which tells you a lot.
Second, Cal is famous for 3 point defense. When you have MKG, TJ, and AD, cal would have completely shut your three-point shooting. Battle of 2 point efficiency? LOL< that would have been easy.
People really need to understand how INSANELY good that 2012 team was.
We were so good that our team always turned it off...that's why using stats on a young team + turning it off is MEANINGLESS.
Baboo, Whole I respect your argument and the balls to try and win an argument on a Kentucky board(it ain’t never happening, for me there are two flaws to your argument.
First, I think you are outing too much stock in the stats you are using. I get that people like to use all the stats and metrics these days, but sometimes they are just not accurate or fail to adjust for “real Life” scenarios. I can point out all day flaws in every stat system out their from ken Pom to whichever one u want. None of these are absolute. They don’t take into consideration things like teams being young at beginning of season and getting better, teams being in control and easing up at end of games, and don’t get me started on teams that are 18-9 being ahead of 26-1 teams by ten spots. I could go in and on. Useful tools...yes, but plenty of errors.
Secondly, talent vs experience. Yes experience is a great thing to have. Not arguing that. The experience of Darius Miller and a second year Jones was a Huge factor in why we won in 2012. But I would take talent everyday over experience. A freshman DAVIS was as good as most seniors have ever been. Mkg was as good as any guard in the county from an all around stand point. Lamb was lights out, Teague was a great pg at controlling the game, Jones was a crazy combination of everything. That talent beats experience of average/good player la every time. Not saying 2018 nova was not talented. They clearly were one of the best teams of last 20 years imo, but the talent on 12 UK WAS A NOTCH ABOVE. NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. UK wins 7/10 in my opinion. If you guys had an off shooting night your screwed. And I’m not saying that the sec Wes a super conference in 2012, but don’t act like beating up on a bunch of crappy teams all year and losing 4 games to unranked teams is an accomplishment. Put Nova in a top conference and that was a 5-7 loss year.
First, I think you are outing too much stock in the stats you are using. I get that people like to use all the stats and metrics these days, but sometimes they are just not accurate or fail to adjust for “real Life” scenarios. I can point out all day flaws in every stat system out their from ken Pom to whichever one u want. None of these are absolute. They don’t take into consideration things like teams being young at beginning of season and getting better, teams being in control and easing up at end of games, and don’t get me started on teams that are 18-9 being ahead of 26-1 teams by ten spots. I could go in and on. Useful tools...yes, but plenty of errors.
Secondly, talent vs experience. Yes experience is a great thing to have. Not arguing that. The experience of Darius Miller and a second year Jones was a Huge factor in why we won in 2012. But I would take talent everyday over experience. A freshman DAVIS was as good as most seniors have ever been. Mkg was as good as any guard in the county from an all around stand point. Lamb was lights out, Teague was a great pg at controlling the game, Jones was a crazy combination of everything. That talent beats experience of average/good player la every time. Not saying 2018 nova was not talented. They clearly were one of the best teams of last 20 years imo, but the talent on 12 UK WAS A NOTCH ABOVE. NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. UK wins 7/10 in my opinion. If you guys had an off shooting night your screwed. And I’m not saying that the sec Wes a super conference in 2012, but don’t act like beating up on a bunch of crappy teams all year and losing 4 games to unranked teams is an accomplishment. Put Nova in a top conference and that was a 5-7 loss year.
Kentucky had matchup advantages all over the floor. Point guard is the only spot nova would have had an advantage at.
Kentucky also had the single biggest difference maker in college basketball of the last decade Anthony Davis. I think if they played 10 times Kentucky would win 8 or 9 of them.
Kentucky also had the single biggest difference maker in college basketball of the last decade Anthony Davis. I think if they played 10 times Kentucky would win 8 or 9 of them.
WildMoon,
Let me be clear. I love AD's game. He may have been the best first-year college player since Alcindor. 'Nova 2018 doesn't have any player of his caliber.
Having said that, your statement that we have nothing to go against him is meaningless. What, are we going to play 4 on 5?
I'm sure you know that 'Nova 2018 had Omari Spellman playing center. He was a redshirt freshman ranked in the top-20 out of HS. He was drafted in the first round of the NBA draft. At 6'9" he gives up an inch to AD, which is a small disadvantage, but at 260 lbs. he has a HUGE weight advantage over the 220-lb. AD. OS would have been able to push AD around and wear him down. On top of that, OS is an amazing 3-pt shooter for a big man, shooting 43.3% from 3. On offense, he would move quickly from the low post to the corner to shoot 3's. AD would have to decide whether to follow OS out to contest the 3 or stay in the post. If he stays in, OS has a wide-open 3. If he goes out, it neutralizes his low-post defense, allowing 'Nova 2018 to pass, penetrate, and score.
AD and Coach Cal never had to deal with a center as versatile as OS, and AD's inexperience would show in his decision making. In any case, rather than say we have no one to go against AD, it would be more accurate to say that 'Nova 2018 has more to go against him than any other team you played against.
As far as TJ is concerned, are you serious? Our PF was Eric Paschall, 6'8", 255 lbs. redshirt junior. This past year he was drafted and played as the starting PF for the GSW. Again, TJ is a little taller, but the two are almost identical in weight. And EP is the much better shooter. Had a 0.639/0.356/0.813 split compared to TJ at 0.528/0.327/0.627.
So I think you really don't know what you're talking about with regard to 'Nova 2018, not that I would expect you to.
You really just tried to say Spellman would give AD fits on offense and defense? Plz stop making a fool out of yourself. AD won every major award as a freshman and you act like AD can’t move his feet and guard a 5 on the perimeter?!? Spellman was a nice player and all and was in the the right system but he will never ever be able to hold AD’s jock strap.
Also you saying Spellman would wear AD down on O? Yeah cuz we posted up AD all game and ran all our O thru AD...NOT! Even if we did Spellman isn’t slowing down shit on D...dude was playing and starting for Nova cuz he could shoot the rock and fit their system.
Jay Wright and Nova never faced the most decorated collegiate basketball player for a season.
So I don’t think you know what you’re talking about when referring to ‘12 UK.
PS-you have one advantage and it’s at PG position.
Last edited:
BG72,
I'm not offering stats as the be-all and end-all. They have their limitations. I see them more as a starting point and common ground for discussion. That 'Nova 2018 beat elite teams by a wider margin THAN ANY TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF CBB, OUTSIDE OF UCLA, matters. It shows they were historically great. Any analysis of how they would fare against UK 2012 has to take that into account.
On the question of AD, I agree completely. On the issue of pure talent, I also agree, but aside from Anthony Davis, the two teams were really very close in terms of talent. Both have NBA players up and down the roster.
Now, you are welcome to prefer talent. That's a preference and is neither right nor wrong. But here's the reality. All of 'Nova's players played better, shot better, and just plain played better as a team as juniors and seniors than they did as freshman and sophomores. By a LOT. That's just a fact. And the players on UK 2012 would have been much better if they had stuck around. That's also a fact. UK 2012 two years later would have crushed the original UK 2012. Right?
So regardless of what you prefer, experience matters. A LOT. That's why 'Nova 2018 shot 59.0% from 2 and 40.1% from 3, compared to 52.7% and 37.8% for UK 2012. Two years earlier those same 'Nova players were shooting 57.7% and 29.8%. The younger version of 'Nova 2018 wouldn't stand a chance against UK 2012. The older version has the experience to beat UK 2012 comfortably.
It’s the other way around. Spellman and his 260 pounds aren’t chasing AD around all game. He’s not rim running with AD for 40 minutes and he sure as hell isnt guarding the lob.
That Kentucky team would have been a terrible matchup for nova as they were most teams. The teams we struggled with, IU, Vandy and Florida, all had traditional back to the basket guys. Teams that just chucked and relied on getting hot from 3 like nova got molly-whopped because every player in our rotation was capable of defending out on the perimeter and AD was so long and mobile he could be 12 feet away when the shooters caught the ball and still alter the shot.
Honestly 2018 nova might be the most overrated team in some time. They were good but not great during the regular season, beat up on a weak big East, and caught fire in the tourney.
That Kentucky team would have been a terrible matchup for nova as they were most teams. The teams we struggled with, IU, Vandy and Florida, all had traditional back to the basket guys. Teams that just chucked and relied on getting hot from 3 like nova got molly-whopped because every player in our rotation was capable of defending out on the perimeter and AD was so long and mobile he could be 12 feet away when the shooters caught the ball and still alter the shot.
Honestly 2018 nova might be the most overrated team in some time. They were good but not great during the regular season, beat up on a weak big East, and caught fire in the tourney.
Now you’ve just lost it. First off, nobody is wearing down or outplaying the best freshman since Alcindor(your words and we all agree). And you might want to not fudge your facts. This guy has been on two g-league teams since 2018 and according to Wikipedia started 3 games for golden state last year, so you can’t use the “he started at pf for golden st last year” argument. It doesn’t hold water.
BPC,
I don't think that I said OS would give AD fits. AD is definitely the better player. But the OP said we had NOTHING to go against AD. That's clearly false. And it's just a fact that UK 2012 never faced a 5 like Spellman.
In a matchup between 'Nova 2018 and UK 2012, AD is going to get his. But he only averaged 14.2 and 10.4 on the season. That's very good, especially for a freshman, but it's not 25 and 15. In the last 4 games of the NCAA tourney he averaged 12.8 and 13.3. 'Nova 2018 is better, WAY better, than anyone you faced in the tourney. So there's no reason to think AD would go off against them.
I don't think that I said OS would give AD fits. AD is definitely the better player. But the OP said we had NOTHING to go against AD. That's clearly false. And it's just a fact that UK 2012 never faced a 5 like Spellman.
In a matchup between 'Nova 2018 and UK 2012, AD is going to get his. But he only averaged 14.2 and 10.4 on the season. That's very good, especially for a freshman, but it's not 25 and 15. In the last 4 games of the NCAA tourney he averaged 12.8 and 13.3. 'Nova 2018 is better, WAY better, than anyone you faced in the tourney. So there's no reason to think AD would go off against them.
you really don't get how things work.
You give stats like those would be replicated against UK.
It simply won't be. Equivalent talent?
If you put both teams together the line up would be Brunson, Lamb, MKG, Jones, and AD.
Just to give you interesting note. In conference play, your team shot 38% from three and we shot 41.3%. You know, we are a young team that always growing.
Talking about seasonal stats is meaningless when you have a young squad.
We lost the first road game and Final game of three-game straight.
Now how did you lose 4 games?
Also, UK as a season won by 16.8 points while villanova won by 16.4 points. I wonder why you don't bring this up.
Oh, to add on to that...your conference games you only won by 12 points while UK did 16+.
Debating Spellmen vs Davis is a real laugher.
The problem is that while the 2018 Big East field was better than 2012 SEC.. Villanova had double the conference losses.. and its OOC schedule was far behind Kentucky's. Nova played Tennessee (who we played twice) and Gonzaga. Kentucky meanwhile played UNC, Kansas, Louisville, IU. Penn St and St. Johns.. a far more difficult slate.
And then there's the tournament. Again, we have to question Novas opponents.. solid, maybe great, but not elite. On the otherhand Kentucky had to rematch against 3 of it's OOC opponents.. Louisville, IU and Kansas. Historically great programs and very difficult to beat your rivals the 2nd time around... something that Nova would know about, losing to St. Johns the 2nd time (a team we beat by 20+).
Kentucky in 2012 was about as perfect as can be in modern day basketball. Lost two games (one on a buzzer, one many believe we gave up on).. utterly destroyed teams, played many great teams and had to reface several again, never lost a home game. The only slight ding was that the SEC wasnt too strong that year.. but we had more games against the better SEC teams.. having to play Florida and Vandy three times.
The problem is that while the 2018 Big East field was better than 2012 SEC.. Villanova had double the conference losses.. and its OOC schedule was far behind Kentucky's. Nova played Tennessee (who we played twice) and Gonzaga. Kentucky meanwhile played UNC, Kansas, Louisville, IU. Penn St and St. Johns.. a far more difficult slate.
And then there's the tournament. Again, we have to question Novas opponents.. solid, maybe great, but not elite. On the otherhand Kentucky had to rematch against 3 of it's OOC opponents.. Louisville, IU and Kansas. Historically great programs and very difficult to beat your rivals the 2nd time around... something that Nova would know about, losing to St. Johns the 2nd time (a team we beat by 20+).
Kentucky in 2012 was about as perfect as can be in modern day basketball. Lost two games (one on a buzzer, one many believe we gave up on).. utterly destroyed teams, played many great teams and had to reface several again, never lost a home game. The only slight ding was that the SEC wasnt too strong that year.. but we had more games against the better SEC teams.. having to play Florida and Vandy three times.
Also what no one else has mentioned is Cal plays super conservative with leads and tends to take his foot off the gas much earlier than most coaches so that skews our margin of victory stats quite a bit.
We had kansas down 20 with about 10 minutes left and went to stall ball. Does anyone think we couldn’t have beaten WKU by more than 15 in the first round?
We had kansas down 20 with about 10 minutes left and went to stall ball. Does anyone think we couldn’t have beaten WKU by more than 15 in the first round?
i kind of mentioned it, but its more of a team just saying we finished. We know we are better. Kind of attitude.
Baylor at half we were up 20. UL we were up double digit, i think upwards to 17. Kansas same.
We were like whatever against our opponents.
Also, people should remember, while UL cheated, they ended up winning next season. Which kind of tells you how damn good our 2012 team was.
Peyton Siva's 4th year I believe.
Kentucky won 10 of it's 11 rematch games. Only one loss. Villanova had a similar number of rematch games I think, 12.. but lost three of them.. Creighton, St Johns and Butler.
At the end of the day.. Kentucky had half the losses, one being a buzzer beater, and never needed OT to win a single game (Nova needed OT 3 times). It's hard to make a case for Villanova being the better team.
2012 Kentucky beat every team they played, was 9-0 against the Elite 8 participants and a remarkable 4-0 against the Final 4 participants.
Nothing else needs to be said.
Nothing else needs to be said.
another interesting fact is that UK beat 6/8 elite eight teams. That year. Beat UL twice. So we went like 9/9 against elite eight teams.
They were the best ACC team though. They won the conference title tournament and beat Duke two out if 3 times.
The last few posts have all made great points. UK 2012 played more traditionally elite teams, played some of them multiple times, and yet had fewer losses. I'll give you credit--these are solid arguments.
In response to my argument that 'Nova 2018 beat elite teams (top 10) by a much wider point margin, posters have argued that Cal took the foot off the pedal when you were up big. This is possible.
My main argument is that while UK 2012 was clearly more talented, 'Nova 2018 more than makes up for that with experience, and is therefore a better team.
So here's my question for all of you. Without looking up any stats, how do you expect the UK 2012 players did in the NBA in their first year vs. how 'Nova 2018 players did? I have in mind something simple, like points scored per game or points scored per 40 minutes. UK 2012 had 6 players drafted at every position while 'Nova 2018 had 5 players drafted at every position. How do you expect the two draft classes compared their first year? This takes out any issues of which conference was stronger, or who played tougher teams, or whether Cal took the foot off the gas. Apple to apples.
My thinking is that if talent matters more, then the UK players will have performed better. But if experience matters more, the 'Nova players will have performed better.
I want you all to commit to a position before we do the analysis so there's no possibility of making excuses later on if it doesn't go your way. I won't make excuses either if it doesn't go my way. Please make your choice without looking up anything. So what do you think?
(Note: I am specifying the first year because the 'Nova players have only played 1 - 2 years in the NBA, and because the first year is the best gauge of how good they were in their final college year.)
In response to my argument that 'Nova 2018 beat elite teams (top 10) by a much wider point margin, posters have argued that Cal took the foot off the pedal when you were up big. This is possible.
My main argument is that while UK 2012 was clearly more talented, 'Nova 2018 more than makes up for that with experience, and is therefore a better team.
So here's my question for all of you. Without looking up any stats, how do you expect the UK 2012 players did in the NBA in their first year vs. how 'Nova 2018 players did? I have in mind something simple, like points scored per game or points scored per 40 minutes. UK 2012 had 6 players drafted at every position while 'Nova 2018 had 5 players drafted at every position. How do you expect the two draft classes compared their first year? This takes out any issues of which conference was stronger, or who played tougher teams, or whether Cal took the foot off the gas. Apple to apples.
My thinking is that if talent matters more, then the UK players will have performed better. But if experience matters more, the 'Nova players will have performed better.
I want you all to commit to a position before we do the analysis so there's no possibility of making excuses later on if it doesn't go your way. I won't make excuses either if it doesn't go my way. Please make your choice without looking up anything. So what do you think?
(Note: I am specifying the first year because the 'Nova players have only played 1 - 2 years in the NBA, and because the first year is the best gauge of how good they were in their final college year.)
kind of dumb argument point. It also depends on the team, the makeup of team, availability, as well as like GSW situation where they intentionally tanked giving newer players far more opportunity than normally existing.
Players like Eric Paschall, which I am guessing is your trick to your argument, didn't even start till this season. I tend to know what is going on in NBA.
Again, you are dodging the simplest form of argument. Which is...why did you lose 4 games? You act like your team is unbeatable, when in reality you lost 4 games, with couple OT wins. Not to mention, I LITERALLY explained the reasoning behind our 2 losses. 1st road game and 3 games back to back.
Also, Cal is notorious for taking 3 point shots away from teams. I believe ESPN did an article on this extreme outlier. Which really hurts your argument.
Finally, in terms of TALENT. AD is far and away from the best and in basketball its about top-end talent.
EDIT: your argument gets weaker when you actually have to remove Paschall's stats all together since he was in college for another year, btw.
Last edited:
Why do you think it's a trick? The idea is to see how players perform against the same competition. That takes away the endless arguments about schedule strength and conference strength, etc. Anyway, Paschall has had a good rookie season, yes, but he's only one player. He can't compete against guys like AD and MKG unless the other 'Nova players are also playing well. So it's no trick,
Besides, you're the one who said we had no one to counter TJ. Well, Paschall counters TJ. So now you're going to pretend he makes all the difference in the NBA comparison?
C'mon WildMoon, show some guts. What do you predict the two teams will show, how will they compare, in their pro rookie years? Which team scores more and by how much?
I'm not dodging anything. The 2015 'Nova squad was 32 - 2 entering the NCAA tournament and earned a 1 seed, same as UK 2012. But they washed out in the second round. That team couldn't hold 2018's jock, even though they had 2 fewer losses coming in. So the number of losses doesn't tell us anything.
Let's be real. Neither UK 2012 nor 'Nova 2018 lost to a single ranked team. Their losses were all to lower-quality teams. Those losses didn't happen because the other teams were better. These things happen. Players lose focus. Shots don't fall.
What the 4 losses tell me is that 'Nova 2018 may have been less consistent than UK 2012. In all likelihood, their dependence on the 3-pt shot means there will be more downs. But their performances against the best teams mean they brought it when they had to, and that they had more to bring than UK 2012. We can agree that UK 2012 is one of the best, right? History shows that 'Nova 2018 would bring their best, so the 4 losses are irrelevant.
WTF are you talking about? Indiana made the Sweet 16 and Vanderbilt had their best team in 19 years in 2012 and ended ranked #19. Both teams had multiple NBA guys, too.
How are those low quality teams?
Actually, don’t answer that. If you can’t even remember or research how Vanderbilt and IU ended the season, piss off.
How are those low quality teams?
Actually, don’t answer that. If you can’t even remember or research how Vanderbilt and IU ended the season, piss off.
wcc,
I'm not putting those teams down, nor am I ignoring how they ended their seasons. They weren't ranked when you played them, so you didn't lose to any ranked teams. My point is that they were clearly not as good as UK 2012, right, so why did you lose to them? Sometimes elite teams perform below their level; that's what happened to UK 2012 twice and 'Nova 2018 four times.
When teams that are clearly superior lose to a lesser opponent, it doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the superior team. So 2 vs. 4 losses can't be used to argue the overall relative quality of UK vs. 'Nova. That's all I'm saying. It's not that complicated.
Now I'm still waiting for a poster here to say how they expect UK vs. 'Nova to compare in their NBA rookie seasons. If UK 2012 is really that much better than 'Nova 2018, even being as good as winning by 10+, shouldn't the UK players stomp all over the 'Nova players in the NBA? Who has the guts to predict how the two will compare? Let's put our respective claims to the test.
bluegoad72,
What say you? Do you agree that if talent matters more, the UK players should be better in their first year in the NBA (because they are more talented)?
But if experience matters more, the 'Nova players should be better in their first year in the NBA (because they were more experienced)?
This is something we can test easily, but I'd like to hear first that you agree with my reasoning.
Since no one in BBN took me up on my challenge, I'll present the results. The idea is to look at how the top player at each position for UK 2012 and 'Nova 2018 did in their first year in the NBA to gauge their relative quality. Everyone here has expressed the opinion that every UK player was superior to his 'Nova counterpart except for Teague relative to Brunson. Let's see if that's the case. We will evaluate the players based on their points scored per 40 minutes during their rookie NBA seasons.
Position_____UK 2012_______PP40______'Nova 2018____PP40
__C_________Davis________18.8________Spellman_____13.6
_PF_________Jones________15.1________Paschall______20.2
_SF_________Kidd-Gilchrist__13.9________Bridges_______11.3
_SG_________Lamb________10.7________Divincenzo____12.8
_PG_________Teague_______10.1________Brunson______17.0
Total______________________68.6____________________74.9
Note first that every player averaged double-digits in PP40 against NBA competition. All the players were solid in their rookie seasons.
But the 'Nova 2018 players were consistently better, leading to 6.3-point advantage over 40 minutes. That is, 'Nova 2018 would win by 6 points on average. 'Nova 2018 is clearly the better team, though this is likely on the strength of their experience. UK 2012 has the better overall talent.
The breakdown by position leads to the same conclusion. Let > indicate being better by less than 5 points, >> indicate a 5 - 10 point advantage, etc. Then the breakdown is
A.D. >> O.S.
E.P. >> T.J.
MKG > M.B.
D.D. > D.L.
J.B. >> M.T.
For the most part, these rankings make sense. Spellman is very good, but Davis is a generational talent. Teague was a solid player, but Brunson was the PG of the decade. Those two pairings largely cancel each other.
At the wing positions, Bridges is a very good 3&D player (lottery-pick good), but MKG is a little better and has a more complete game (#2 overall in draft). Lamb was a tremendous outside shooter, but was ultimately one-dimensional; DiVincenzo has both skills and absurd athleticism (highest vertical jump at combine).
At that point the teams are evenly matched. The difference comes with Paschall, who was only a second-round pick but surprised by starting 26 games for the GSW in his first season. TJ wasn't able to earn a starting spot his first year. As a redshirt junior and having a man's body, it's clear that Paschall was just more mature and experienced than Jones, and that ultimately would have made the difference if 'Nova 2018 had played UK 2012.
I'll end by noting that the 6-point advantage of 'Nova 2018 over UK 2012 is consistent with what's obtained by looking at the margins of victory over elite (top-10) teams (18.25 v.s 9.4), where 'Nova has an 8.8-point advantage.
It appears that 'Nova 2018 is 5 - 10 points better than UK 2012.
Position_____UK 2012_______PP40______'Nova 2018____PP40
__C_________Davis________18.8________Spellman_____13.6
_PF_________Jones________15.1________Paschall______20.2
_SF_________Kidd-Gilchrist__13.9________Bridges_______11.3
_SG_________Lamb________10.7________Divincenzo____12.8
_PG_________Teague_______10.1________Brunson______17.0
Total______________________68.6____________________74.9
Note first that every player averaged double-digits in PP40 against NBA competition. All the players were solid in their rookie seasons.
But the 'Nova 2018 players were consistently better, leading to 6.3-point advantage over 40 minutes. That is, 'Nova 2018 would win by 6 points on average. 'Nova 2018 is clearly the better team, though this is likely on the strength of their experience. UK 2012 has the better overall talent.
The breakdown by position leads to the same conclusion. Let > indicate being better by less than 5 points, >> indicate a 5 - 10 point advantage, etc. Then the breakdown is
A.D. >> O.S.
E.P. >> T.J.
MKG > M.B.
D.D. > D.L.
J.B. >> M.T.
For the most part, these rankings make sense. Spellman is very good, but Davis is a generational talent. Teague was a solid player, but Brunson was the PG of the decade. Those two pairings largely cancel each other.
At the wing positions, Bridges is a very good 3&D player (lottery-pick good), but MKG is a little better and has a more complete game (#2 overall in draft). Lamb was a tremendous outside shooter, but was ultimately one-dimensional; DiVincenzo has both skills and absurd athleticism (highest vertical jump at combine).
At that point the teams are evenly matched. The difference comes with Paschall, who was only a second-round pick but surprised by starting 26 games for the GSW in his first season. TJ wasn't able to earn a starting spot his first year. As a redshirt junior and having a man's body, it's clear that Paschall was just more mature and experienced than Jones, and that ultimately would have made the difference if 'Nova 2018 had played UK 2012.
I'll end by noting that the 6-point advantage of 'Nova 2018 over UK 2012 is consistent with what's obtained by looking at the margins of victory over elite (top-10) teams (18.25 v.s 9.4), where 'Nova has an 8.8-point advantage.
It appears that 'Nova 2018 is 5 - 10 points better than UK 2012.
Similar threads
