I am super optimistic
- Thread starter davekersey
- Start date
The irony of Son of Saul being so prevalent on a thread with a title “I’m super optimistic” is mind boggling.
For some reason I don’t think it’ll change anything. Maybe I’m being naive though.
My issue is we where talking about 2020 recruits and a few decided to talk about past seasons and nothing to do with actually what the topic was about, Meaning it got off the rails of 2020 recruits and who we felt good about getting. Then people argued about Cal not getting top 5 guys and top 5 guys are a must, etc etc etc. I guess you could not see it because you where in the middle of the forest.
Anyway, back on topic
Would love to get Boston, Green, Todd to start the class. I do think we are in on a good amount of the 2020 guys, and think it will be a really solid class. Maybe the best Cal has had in a few years.Guard and wings are plentiful, more so than most years. If we do not get the main targets, the secondary ones are a very good consolation or as good. This is definitely a year where there really is not a drop off in talent after the top few. (I am not going to use a solid number). Even guys 10-15 are super talented and have lots of upside.
The basic concept of needing elite talent is not unreasonable, it is the magic number factor that is pushing logic and approaching superstition and in some cases a ginned up superstition in order to push a narrative. It doesn't even matter if our guys actually perform top 5 to such people. It doesn't matter if they are 6th, it's all about the magic.
Again, read Sauls post.
With top 5 composites - 35 win shares.
Without them - 27
You can keep pretending it has no merit. The math says otherwise.
With top 5 composites - 35 win shares.
Without them - 27
You can keep pretending it has no merit. The math says otherwise.
Cal averages 8+ wins more per season the last twelve years when he has a top 5 pick on the roster. The only "magic" there is Cal's incredible ability to win with elite freshmen in ways other coaches can't.
Over the last 14 years (I use 2006 as a baseline here because it's essentially when OAD began and when he took his first Memphis team to the Elite Eight), in seasons when he's had top 5 composite players, he's gone to the Final Four in 5 of 9 seasons (the exceptions being 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2016).
In the seasons when he hasn't had a top 5 kid, he's batting 0/5 ('06, '07, '17, '18, '19) when it comes to Final Fours.
Do I think he can win it all without top 5 picks or top 5 composites?
Yes.
Does life go easier for Cal when he has those kids? The numbers don't lie. Neither do Calipari's recruiting priorities. 12-14 years of sample size is about as good as it gets.
I can say this, I hope the trends changes next April and UK wins it all. I'm tired of this debate and I'm hopeful that a second title for Cal will energize the fanbase, solidify Cal's legacy, and give us the momentum we deserve over the next ten years of Cal's time here.
It's the NUMBER FIVE. Why is that the cutoff?
Because it sounds good. It's convenient. It fits the narrative.
I have no problem with the concept, just the number five drives me insane. It's a convenient cutoff which really means very little.
Quit acting like it's science. LOL!
BTW, you know he is talking about top five picks in the draft, not composite top 5 players, right?
I thought we were back to discussing recruiting for 2020?
The thread keeps getting derailed.
I know, I know, I'm part of the problem.
The thread keeps getting derailed.
I know, I know, I'm part of the problem.
There’s only been one player go top 5 who was not a composite top 5 recruit, and he was 6th and 1 spot outside the composite top 5.
The scouts are extremely accurate inside of the top 5. I still don’t get it but whatever. It’s not hard to comprehend.
This is actually quite good, now that I have went back and read it and truly understand it.
It's not about composite top five players, it's about draft picks.
Wish I had paid more attention the first time I read it. I saw "top five pick" and read "composite top five recruit" and blew it off. LOL!
But one exception weakens the argument, IMHO.
Just move the "goalpost" to composite top six and your arguement no longer has a hole in it.
Also, 4 of those 6 teams actually had the number 1 pick. I think everyone is in agreement that when we have the best player we tend to be better.
We all agree Cal needs a superstar or two to get to the Final Four, whether it's a composite top 5 or not.
What if I said:
Under Cals OAD and freshman model he’s needed a top 5ish type caliber recruit to reach the final four?
you guys can jaw all you want but as for me I am not happy with a final four. should we lose that fifth game in the tournament I Will kick the dog and curse our top ranked player
2 of his four final fours did not have the best player in the country or the number 1 pick. But guess what they did have?
A composite top 5 scouted freshman.
Not to mention, the reason why Herro couldn’t hit one more shot was simply because he couldn't get open. They locked him down.
Herro is a great player, but he didn't have the size, strength and athleticism of a top 5 talent.
That, my friend, is game/set/match.
I know this discussion is probably long over by now, I'm still trying to catch up.
We either need top 5 studs or a lot of veterans.
Going off the rails on the crazy train. Ok, what recruits are we in a good position to get in the 2020 class that are not ranked top ? Also, if they are 8 now, and become top 5, whch ranking are we going to go with ? What if they are top 5 we sign them, then they fall to 10 or something ?
Actually lets talk more about the 2020 class exclusively in THIS thread. Guess we should not even bother with Cliff Omoruyi, he is 51st ranked. Cam' Ron Fletcher 36, Cooper 19th, Jackson 18th, Nix 15th, Todd 14th, Dante 12th, Boston 10th, Christopher 9th. Those guys just can't get it done. Trade all 9 of those players for Maker 5th and Green 3rd. We would be much better off.
Actually lets talk more about the 2020 class exclusively in THIS thread. Guess we should not even bother with Cliff Omoruyi, he is 51st ranked. Cam' Ron Fletcher 36, Cooper 19th, Jackson 18th, Nix 15th, Todd 14th, Dante 12th, Boston 10th, Christopher 9th. Those guys just can't get it done. Trade all 9 of those players for Maker 5th and Green 3rd. We would be much better off.
I know why this argument is happening. Cal has a segment of supporters that have always been irritated at the fact that the country and large portion of fans don’t see him as a great floor coach. When you say he “needs” the top players in the class to succeed they’re taking it as people pushing the narrative that he can’t coach, that he needs Lebron to get it done.
That’s not what we’re saying.
Cal has had a unique system. He’s the first coach to try and take players who
1. Are not at a program long enough to learn a system
2. Far too young to carry teams in the traditional understanding.
Cal is not a magician and freshman led teams are always going to be at a disadvantage whether or not you agree You’re just wrong if you don’t accept that.
So he’s not a bad coach, he’s a good floor General. I would definitely stop short of great, but that’s not why people are expressing the need of top composite players.
Also, there’s always been a distinction between top 5 recruits and the rest. Their bar is different, it’s harder to produce to name recognition, everyone follows you. Scouts are very meticulous about naming a recruit inside of the top 5 for a reason.
And like I said, it just so happens that Cal has no final fours on record without a composite top 5.
So, let’s clarify.
1. Cal is a good floor coach
2. He needs the best in the class to make his system work when he lacks upperclassman because this is earth and he’s not Jesus.
3. The best in class are usually inside of the composite top 5. Just go back and look. A lot of those guys are your superstars that would be in the NBA if the rule wasn’t in place.
4. Statistics show that Cals young teams produce much further with a composite top 5 than without.
If you can disagree you’re just not accepting reality.
That’s not what we’re saying.
Cal has had a unique system. He’s the first coach to try and take players who
1. Are not at a program long enough to learn a system
2. Far too young to carry teams in the traditional understanding.
Cal is not a magician and freshman led teams are always going to be at a disadvantage whether or not you agree You’re just wrong if you don’t accept that.
So he’s not a bad coach, he’s a good floor General. I would definitely stop short of great, but that’s not why people are expressing the need of top composite players.
Also, there’s always been a distinction between top 5 recruits and the rest. Their bar is different, it’s harder to produce to name recognition, everyone follows you. Scouts are very meticulous about naming a recruit inside of the top 5 for a reason.
And like I said, it just so happens that Cal has no final fours on record without a composite top 5.
So, let’s clarify.
1. Cal is a good floor coach
2. He needs the best in the class to make his system work when he lacks upperclassman because this is earth and he’s not Jesus.
3. The best in class are usually inside of the composite top 5. Just go back and look. A lot of those guys are your superstars that would be in the NBA if the rule wasn’t in place.
4. Statistics show that Cals young teams produce much further with a composite top 5 than without.
If you can disagree you’re just not accepting reality.
Last edited:
Cal has started adjusting to the fact that he’s no longer landing the elite of the class. That’s why we have a returning Pg, a returning forward, and a junior big man.
The whole conversation changes becuase of that. He’s now in a more tradition setting.
So if he’s building his roster with that in mind, the concepts change. We don’t necessarily need those top flight players if we’ve got seasoned vets.
Yeah, but nobody is saying a FF or a title is guaranteed if you have a top 5 stud. But your chances increase drastically.
Plus, come on, they were way off on Skal. Kid didn't play for 2 years prior to his year at UK.
I firmly believe that when these top hs kids are ranked, the people ranking them save those top 5 slots for the truly elite studs.
It's what I would do. It's not like the phrase "top 5” is something new. You have to be the elite of the elite to get a top 5 slot. I don't see why this is so difficult to get.
Not true.
If he has a team full of freshmen, at least one of them needs to be a top 5/transcendent player.
But if he has a veteran team, he needs great freshmen talent, but not necessarily top 5.
There are many ways to skin a cat. Give Cal a bunch of 30 to 100 ranked players for 3 or 4 years and he would dominate, but he chooses to stay with young teams, which makes it extremely hard to reach a fnal four without a top 5 player.
So are we going to discuss the 2020 class or keep up the top 5 argument ? because some years are different from others. Last year the top 5 was huge. 2020 class, hell you have Todd at 14, and could be the best player when all said and done. In a loaded class, one like this year is, it is loaded with guards and wings. Well only so many can make top 5. Todd is not top 5, but show me 5 players better than him. Hell Cam' Ron Fletcher is ranked in the mid 30's. That is how loaded this group is. So long story short, i say it depends on the strength of the class as to whether or not you need a elite in the group.
Cal is the best in the world at developing multiple high school kids together into college+ basketball players in only one year.
But that’s a task so hard that you can be the best in the world at it and only get pretty good results. Spectacular compared to what other coaches could do in the same situation. Pretty good in terms of how they can hold their own on the floor against Div-1-scholarship-worthy grown men with years more experience.
Cal’s best seasons have come when he is able to supplement those pretty good results by playing bully ball. Adding in rare talents who also have NBA bodies or stratospheric basketball IQs or both. All that is hard reality and common sense, and it should speak louder than statistics.
As long as we keep losing so many people every year, we will face this same reality. Best developing coach in the world and pretty good results. We will also retain the option of distracting ourselves in the mirror of #1- and #2-ranked recruiting classes, because Cal will always be at least a good recruiter and his good recruiting classes will always be skewed upward in their rankings since they will always have more sheer numbers than everybody else’s classes.
None of that means Cal can’t attain FF+ without a stellar kid or two. But it is much harder.
I think the “top 5” moniker is a handy way to label the phenomenon, but it really is just a rule of thumb. So I see the arguments against the reality of the top 5 effect as valid....but valid only against the strict “top 5” analysis, not against the overall effect.
Ulis was a non top 5 kid who provided the boost Cal generally needs, but we were unbalanced in ‘16. In the same way, Harrelson used willpower and experience (and size in a year without behemoths) and his range to play bully ball for Cal, turn our ‘11 results from something that would have been awfully close to ‘16’s results into something special.
But that’s a task so hard that you can be the best in the world at it and only get pretty good results. Spectacular compared to what other coaches could do in the same situation. Pretty good in terms of how they can hold their own on the floor against Div-1-scholarship-worthy grown men with years more experience.
Cal’s best seasons have come when he is able to supplement those pretty good results by playing bully ball. Adding in rare talents who also have NBA bodies or stratospheric basketball IQs or both. All that is hard reality and common sense, and it should speak louder than statistics.
As long as we keep losing so many people every year, we will face this same reality. Best developing coach in the world and pretty good results. We will also retain the option of distracting ourselves in the mirror of #1- and #2-ranked recruiting classes, because Cal will always be at least a good recruiter and his good recruiting classes will always be skewed upward in their rankings since they will always have more sheer numbers than everybody else’s classes.
None of that means Cal can’t attain FF+ without a stellar kid or two. But it is much harder.
I think the “top 5” moniker is a handy way to label the phenomenon, but it really is just a rule of thumb. So I see the arguments against the reality of the top 5 effect as valid....but valid only against the strict “top 5” analysis, not against the overall effect.
Ulis was a non top 5 kid who provided the boost Cal generally needs, but we were unbalanced in ‘16. In the same way, Harrelson used willpower and experience (and size in a year without behemoths) and his range to play bully ball for Cal, turn our ‘11 results from something that would have been awfully close to ‘16’s results into something special.
Cal may be slipping in the big man derby. Still great in all the others but that's not final four.
I can live with that.
My whole argument is that there is no such thing as a magic top five.
Sometimes it's three guys that are head and shoulders above everybody else, sometimes it's six. Sometimes it's five, but one of the five is ranked outside the top. Sometimes they are way off on a guy that they thought was top five and he is not elite. There might even be a case where there's nobody in a particular class that is that caliber of player.
It's not an exact science.
Agree 100%. There are years where a guy ranked in the teens ends up being better than anybody ranked in the top 5. There are years when there are 2 guys that are locked in at 1 and 2, and the rest of the class there is a big drop off, but what the hell, they have to number a guy in the 3,4,5 and so on, when in reality you could throw a blanket over 3 thru 10-12. It all really boils down to 1. How strong the class is overall, and 2. what a teams need is and if they are able to land one of the elite guys at that position of need. Like last year for example, we where good at the guard spot, whe needed a elite big man. Even if the guy was the number 10 ranked prospect, it COULD have pushed UK over the mountain. Some years it is the opposite, how many years where we good every where except the wing position and did not land a guy that fit that need?
It’s not just what you would do, it’s what they ALL do. I don’t know why people are acting as if this is not common knowledge. The top 5 kids in each class is reserved for the best of the best. After that the next 10-20 recruits are essentially just thrown into the wash.
I understand a guy like Fox can be considered of that tier in hindsight. That’s far from the point. And I believe Fox’s composite ranking was 6th, 1 spot outside of this category.
It’s not about the number. It’s just that the transcendent talent usually falls around that tier.
Now after 10 years we have Cal with 4 final fours and not ONE of those final four teams didn’t have a composite top 5 recruit. Lol. They simply don’t want to let this go. They’re arguing about Cals coaching ability, we’re arguing something totally different.
A few have always wanted to believe that freshman can dominate and Cal can dominate with them. They’re subconsciously arguing a point none are making.
Goodness.
Because if you say 4, it’s no longer true.
Accept 5. You have no choice.
It’s funny you’re so eat up with it though. This thread will last forever.
This is basically the answer to a trivia question but some posters want to repeat it over and over in an attempt to assign deeper meaning.
But oh of course they would never do that. They’re just stating facts. The same facts over. And over. And over. It’s the rest of us who are obsessed.![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
But oh of course they would never do that. They’re just stating facts. The same facts over. And over. And over. It’s the rest of us who are obsessed.
Exactly.
Sometimes it's three, sometimes it's five, sometimes it's six.
Five is not the magic cutoff.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Basketball ****** GAME CHAT: UK vs. UT, Part II ******- Latest: Born and raised Big Blue
-
-
