Assessing 17-18 Cats by position, compared to Cal's prior UK teams

[JonathanW]

This is my personal opinion, not subject to disagreement . I tried to limit to guys who played 10+mpg, but could have missed a few. Rather than ranking players, where you don't know if a gap is small or large, I'm assigning each a 1-10 score.

PG
Wall (2010) 9
Ulis (2016) 9
Knight (2011) 8.5
Fox (2017) 8.5
Andrew H (2015) 7
Andrew H (2014) 6.5
Green
Teague (2012) 6.5
Ulis (2015) 6.0
SGA
Hawkins (2017) 5.5
Harrow (2013) 4
Polson (2013) 3.5

I honestly think Green will be in the 6-7 range, good enough, but not elite. SGA may be in the 5-6 range.

SG
Murray (2016) 8.5
Monk (2017) 8.5
Lamb (2012) 7.5
Lamb (2011) 7.5
Bledsoe (2010) 7
Diallo
Aaron H (2014) 7
Liggins (2011) 6.5
Booker (2015) 6.5
Briscoe (2017) 6
Goodwin (2013) 6
Briscoe (2016) 6
Aaron H (2015) 6
Mays (2013) 5.5
Liggins (2010) 4.5

Diallo has a big variability here, mostly dependent on his shooting, I think it could be anywhere between 6-8.

SF
MKG (2012) 8.5
Knox
Miller (2011) 7
Young (2014) 6.5
Miller (2012) 6
Vanderbilt (if he plays 1/2 the season)
Wiltjer (2013) 5.5
Willis (2017) 5
Miller (2010) 5
Wiltjer (2012) 5
Willis (2016) 5
Dodson (2010) 4
Harris (2010) 3
Matthews (2016) 2.5

I see this as a strong position for us relative to the past 8 years, with Knox between a 7-8, and Vanderibilt if he plays between a 5.5-6.5.

PF
Randle (2014) 8.5
Patterson (2010) 8
Adebayo (2017) 7.5
Jones (2012) 7.5
Washington
Jones (2011) 7.5
Lyles (2015) 6.5
Gabriel
Poythress (2013) 6.5
Poythress (2016) 6
Poythress (2014) 5.5
Lee (2016) 5.5
Lee (2015) 5
Gabriel (2017) 4.5

I really like us here too, putting Washington in the 7-8 range, and the new Gabriel in the 6-7 range.

C
Davis (2012) 9.5
Cousins (2010) 9
Towns (2015) 8.5
Noel (2013) 7.5 (higher if not injured)
WCS (2015) 7
Harrellson (2011) 6
WCS (2014) 6
WCS (2013) 5.5
Johnson (2014) 5.5
SKJ
Richards
Orton (2010) 4
Labissiere (2016) 3.5

We have done as well at C as at PG the past 8 years. I think our 2 will do ok, but not as good as usual. SKJ and Richards both in the 5-5.5 range.

So visually, across all 5 positions, this team looks average, a bit better than average at the 2 F spots, and below average at PG and C, and SG about average. Our median record the past 8 years is 30.5 - 7.5.


(I've made a few minor tweaks)

 

[GonzoCat90]

I'd have Richards about a 6.5 to start with potential to be about a 7.5, and SKJ about a 5 until we see something from him, but otherwise I think that's a fair assessment and a pretty solid job on evaluating at first glance.

Useful method of discussion. Nice post.

 

[JFCats22]

Well thought out. I would put Green lower as I think he will have significant challenges contributing this season.

Diallo could be higher and I think Richards will be higher when all said and done.

I expect very little from SKJ

 

[$Z71$]

I think your ratings are a bit off. In your ratings 2015 is worse than 2017 , and this team is overall better than 2015. (We all know that's not accurate) Reevalauate no doubt.

 

[Joneslab]

Interesting. Think Vanderbilt has the potential to be higher.

Very difficult to put something like this together knowing what we know about them at this early stage.

Diallo is a good example: you can't even start out with an analysis of him. If you put together a mixtape of the Blue/White Game you could edit it to make him look both like the best and worst player of the Calipari era.

 

[JonathanW]

So, using your numbers, Kentucky's starting 5 in 2012 had a value of 37, in 2015 a value of 33.5 and this year a potential value of 35.

I can't really quarrel with any particular number, but I can't quite embrace the notion this year's team has a qualitatively superior starting 5 to 2015, and one just slightly less valuable than 2012 (with a much stronger bench.)

I sure hope you are right.

You very well could be correct (about 15). Although the "specialness" of that team wasn't from the starting 5, it was from the next 5 being almost as good (especially before the Poythress injury, note he did not play enough games for me to include him). I think this year we have that same quality as 15, depth with a bench nearly as good as the starters, but obviously not as good a team. The biggest difference is there is no "Towns" type player this year.

 

[Deli owl]

If he plays defense, I'll take Knox as his best SF. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[GoB!gBlue]

I thought SGA looked really good, and Terrance Jones is severely underrated. JMO.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Useful method of discussion. Nice post.

This. I'd quibble with a number of actual ratings, but the process is solid. Much better than the usual > or < or "he's trash" that substitutes for analysis here.

 

[BigKari]

Looks like these ratings were based primarily on statistical performance. For example WCS ranked as a 6.5 for the 2015 season, he had a terrific year and skyrocketed on the draft boards. He was at least an 8

 

[kyjeff1]

I don't think you can just add the numbers together and say that this "team" adds up to be higher than that "team".
This was about individual ratings.
Our two small forwards won't be on the floor at the same time, our two pg's or two centers won't be on the floor at the same time either (or at least not very often).
I think the 15 and 12 teams had more top end players that carried the team, but fewer quality guys beyond the top 7.
This team appears to be deeper, but the top end guys aren't as great (we think) at this point.

 

[jackcarlson]

If Davis was not a 10, then there is no such thing

 

[Jakarii]

Like it except C. I’d have Orton ahead of Richards. He’s a lot like Richards with better hands

This is my personal opinion, not subject to disagreement . I tried to limit to guys who played 10+mpg, but could have missed a few. Rather than ranking players, where you don't know if a gap is small or large, I'm assigning each a 1-10 score.

PG
Wall (2010) 9
Ulis (2016) 9
Knight (2011) 8.5
Fox (2017) 8.5
Andrew H (2015) 7
Andrew H (2014) 6.5
Green
Teague (2012) 6.5
Ulis (2015) 6.0
SGA
Hawkins (2017) 5.5
Harrow (2013) 4
Polson (2013) 3.5

I honestly think Green will be in the 6-7 range, good enough, but not elite. SGA may be in the 5-6 range.

SG
Murray (2016) 8.5
Monk (2017) 8.5
Lamb (2012) 7.5
Lamb (2011) 7.5
Bledsoe (2010) 7
Diallo
Aaron H (2014) 7
Liggins (2011) 6.5
Booker (2015) 6.5
Briscoe (2017) 6
Goodwin (2013) 6
Briscoe (2016) 6
Aaron H (2015) 6
Mays (2013) 5.5
Liggins (2010) 4.5

Diallo has a big variability here, mostly dependent on his shooting, I think it could be anywhere between 6-8.

SF
MKG (2012) 8.5
Knox
Miller (2011) 7
Young (2014) 6.5
Miller (2012) 6
Vanderbilt (if he plays 1/2 the season)
Wiltjer (2013) 5.5
Willis (2017) 5
Miller (2010) 5
Wiltjer (2012) 5
Willis (2016) 5
Dodson (2010) 4
Harris (2010) 3
Matthews (2016) 2.5

I see this as a strong position for us relative to the past 8 years, with Knox between a 7-8, and Vanderibilt if he plays between a 5.5-6.5.

PF
Randle (2014) 8.5
Patterson (2010) 8
Adebayo (2017) 7.5
Jones (2012) 7.5
Washington
Jones (2011) 7.5
Lyles (2015) 6.5
Gabriel
Poythress (2013) 6.5
Poythress (2016) 6
Poythress (2014) 5.5
Lee (2016) 5.5
Lee (2015) 5
Gabriel (2017) 4.5

I really like us here too, putting Washington in the 7-8 range, and the new Gabriel in the 6-7 range.

C
Davis (2012) 9.5
Cousins (2010) 9
Towns (2015) 8.5
Noel (2013) 7.5 (higher if not injured)
WCS (2015) 6.5
Harrellson (2011) 6
WCS (2014) 6
WCS (2013) 5.5
Johnson (2014) 5.5
SKJ
Richards
Orton (2010) 4
Labissiere (2016) 3.5

We have done as well at C as at PG the past 8 years. I think our 2 will do ok, but not as good as usual. SKJ and Richards both in the 5-5.5 range.

So visually, across all 5 positions, this team looks average, a bit better than average at the 2 F spots, and below average at PG and C, and SG about average. Our median record the past 8 years is 30.5 - 7.5.


(I've made a few minor tweaks)

 

[Wall2Wall]

Towns 8.5?

 

[Nuke99m]

I think Diallo will end up around the Archie Goodwin slot.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Huh. Ranking and comparing our current players with previous players before they ever step on the floor. Nothing could go wrong here.

 

[JonathanW]

Well, not to belabor the debate, but your 9-man, post-Poythress squad from 2015 grades out at 57 (I gave Dakari a score of 6 for 2015 which was up one point from 2014 - you left him out.) That's a lower total than the 59.5 for the 9-man squad in 2018, assuming Vanderbilt is back.

So, using your numbers, this squad has a numerical potential greater than the 2015 squad. Again, I'm not quarrelling with your assessment. It's possible you've predicted something that most of

If Davis was not a 10, then there is no such thing

Understood, but as a statistician, it's not easy for me to give a 10 or a 0. Had Davis been the scoring machine (or even close to it) that he is now, he would have been a 10. There was (slight) room for improvement.

 

[JonathanW]

Towns 8.5?

How he performed then, not how he is now!

 

[JonathanW]

Looks like these ratings were based primarily on statistical performance. For example WCS ranked as a 6.5 for the 2015 season, he had a terrific year and skyrocketed on the draft boards. He was at least an 8

I've adjusted to a 7. But NBA drafts on "potential", NOT on "production", how else does Skal go in the 1st (I only cared about what the player did for UK). His D was great when he wanted to. Didn't always want to (Wisc). And he was only an ok rebounder for his size, & scoring was limited to put-backs and dunks. Noel (7.5) was a bit better than the JR WCS. And WCS was one of my favorites.

 

[KyFord]

This is a cool thread and I like the idea of it, but I'm not ready to judge this team before they have played a game.

Diallo could end up being better than Monk, Knox could be the best SF of the Cal era. It's hard to say right now.

Hell, things could click for Nick Richards in January and he could be one of the top 3 or 4 bigs we have had.

I think Green and Alexander are also better than people think.

I'm not ready to say this team is mediocre and will lose 9 games with a Sweet Sixteen finish. The glass is half full for me.