UK basketball: NBA draft/transfer decision tracker

[Son_Of_Saul]

Not really a fair comment IMO. I don't analyze most of the posters (there are some of course) but he's right on this. If all of those guys leave we will still have a really good team that matures during the season just like all of Cal's teams do. But we won't be in the hunt for the NC. Nothing to be ashamed of but this is why you have a group of posters that don't like the OAD process. You simply have to have some veteran leadership regardless of whether they're stars or not.

And yet, the basis of “it can’t be done” has only been tested – what – two times in NCAA history (2014 with UK and 1992 with Michigan)? That’s a very small sample size to rest such definitive assessments upon.

There is an idea that you need veterans, but it’s still just an idea based on a college basketball world that has seldom seen recruiting classes like those of the '13 and '91 groups. What if UK traded Willis/Hawkins/Briscoe for Bridges/Fultz/ Jarret Allen? Would you argue that UK's title chances this year would have lessened? What if UK won the 2014 title with five freshmen and one veteran (Poythress) in the rotation? Your entire hypothesis (and that of JFcats) is then blown to oblivion (and it was damn close to being contradicted in ’14). That games was a 3 point game when Poythress’ basket was negated by a horrendous charge call that went UConn’s way. To make a definitive, all-encompassing statement in a game that was essentially decided in the last few minutes by a handful of possessions (in a game where UK shot 13/24 from the foul line) is really quite simplistic, and doesn’t have a sample size to measure it by.

What if Bamba dominates the college game on a level reminiscent of Davis in ’11-12? What if Gabriel contributes on a high level, suddenly giving you your “Veteran” cog to support your hypothesis? Again, the sample size is too small for you and JF to draw such a vast definitive. How many teams in the history of college basketball have even started five elite freshmen?

Two? Three times in history?

 

[BostonCat2001]

averaged 2 fouls in 8 minutes of playing time. want to play more...learn to play.

 

[track42]

Some are talking as if Bamba is on this team.It seems really unsure at the moment.

 

[ukfan041]

Really want Briscoe back, but I believe he's gone! Losing Hump would be rough, cause we need the experience. Be tickled to get both SKJ and Gabriel back. We'll take some lumps next year, but by the end of the year, we'll be in contention

 

[JohnnyGentle]

humphries was the best rebounder on the team. last year, too

you insisted ulis was a backup

almost as if your judgment is clouded by the # of stars bequeathed by the recruiting services

 

[WonderBraa]

Not sure why Hump would leave when, as of right now, he's in line to start.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

"That part about repetition in games...."

If Humphries had been given the opportunity to develop, imagine him, Bam and Willis on the front line during the UCLA game. But no, we needed Briscoe in a 3-guard line-up with one shooter I guess.

Yeah, I think Kentucky could have won that UCLA game if Cal had used your idea.

 

[CHAMPCAT11]

And yet, the basis of “it can’t be done” has only been tested – what – two times in NCAA history (2014 with UK and 1992 with Michigan)? That’s a very small sample size to rest such definitive assessments upon.

There is an idea that you need veterans, but it’s still just an idea based on a college basketball world that has seldom seen recruiting classes like those of the '13 and '91 groups. What if UK traded Willis/Hawkins/Briscoe for Bridges/Fultz/ Jarret Allen? Would you argue that UK's title chances this year would have lessened? What if UK won the 2014 title with five freshmen and one veteran (Poythress) in the rotation? Your entire hypothesis (and that of JFcats) is then blown to oblivion (and it was damn close to being contradicted in ’14). That games was a 3 point game when Poythress’ basket was negated by a horrendous charge call that went UConn’s way. To make a definitive, all-encompassing statement in a game that was essentially decided in the last few minutes by a handful of possessions (in a game where UK shot 13/24 from the foul line) is really quite simplistic, and doesn’t have a sample size to measure it by.

What if Bamba dominates the college game on a level reminiscent of Davis in ’11-12? What if Gabriel contributes on a high level, suddenly giving you your “Veteran” cog to support your hypothesis? Again, the sample size is too small for you and JF to draw such a vast definitive. How many teams in the history of college basketball have even started five elite freshmen?

Two? Three times in history?

What if... what if.... what if.... go back and look at how many times you said "what if". Yet my hypothesis remains intact. 'IF' your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. I'd be happy to be proven wrong but until it happens I stand by my comments.

 

[Cefiro]

Hope Hump stays, but with the amount of big men coming in I could see him transferring. He would be a really important player at most schools.

 

[d2atTech]

"That part about repetition in games...."

According to the writer and I totally agree. Same reason Matthews left, same reason Willis and Hawkins probably should have left. You learn through "repetition in games and Cal obviously agrees with this, but only if you're a 5-star projected lottery pick or your name is Briscoe. At the end of the year, Hawkins was a much better player than Briscoe; imagine if he had been given 1/3 of the minutes that Briscoe was getting during his sophomore and junior years. He would have easily been UK's version of Frank Mason. Matthews would have been a star by this junior year. And Humphries certainly would have been a force next year. None of the incoming bigs has the size and strength of Humphries. If Humphries had been given the opportunity to develop, imagine him, Bam and Willis on the front line during the UCLA game. But no, we needed Briscoe in a 3-guard line-up with one shooter I guess.

Agree. It's cal's only weakness in the way he arranges teams. Honestly a short term problem. Soon more desitanations for oad players and our rosters will reequilibrate with a few oads and 8-10 longer term folks.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

What if... what if.... what if.... go back and look at how many times you said "what if". Yet my hypothesis remains intact. 'IF' your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. I'd be happy to be proven wrong but until it happens I stand by my comments.

Your hypothesis is built on a sample size of only two teams that started five 5* star freshmen, and both of those teams made it to the national title game - 1992 and 2014. Should I make a hypothesis that states that if you start five 5* freshmen, you will make it to at least the national title game because of the 1992 and 2014 Michigan and Kentucky teams? That would be equally as simplistic on my end. You might as well have been one of those guys in March of 2012 who argued that three freshmen and two sophomore starters can't win it all. Until, of course, they did.

Ultimately, it's unsurprising that you don't want to actually discuss my points, especially given your propensity to substitute idioms for a real conversation. Congrats, your sample size of two - which both made it to the title game - has proven your point true thus far. That's the scientific method at its absolute finest and the case is forever settled based on those two examples. As you stated, it simply cannot happen because it hasn't yet. Logical analysis at its finest...

 

[anon_013cn8yrfncx2]

"That part about repetition in games...."

According to the writer and I totally agree. Same reason Matthews left, same reason Willis and Hawkins probably should have left. You learn through "repetition in games and Cal obviously agrees with this, but only if you're a 5-star projected lottery pick or your name is Briscoe. At the end of the year, Hawkins was a much better player than Briscoe; imagine if he had been given 1/3 of the minutes that Briscoe was getting during his sophomore and junior years. He would have easily been UK's version of Frank Mason. Matthews would have been a star by this junior year..

Sorry but Matthews was no shooter. No better than IB.

As for the Fab Five comments, not gonna look it up but seems like they had a couple of veterans on that team and iirc one of them got 15+ minutes a game.

 

[aikenite4uk]

most of this is wrong

always liked hawkins, but for his career, he was a worse shooter than briscoe. good defender, but not as good as briscoe guarding 2s and 3s. and though hawk's remarkably low turnover rate is commendable, he was never anywhere near the driver briscoe is

hump is very young and still developing, but when he came here he did the least bench reps of anyone on the team

Most of your take is wrong re Hawkins. Imagine the pressure on each shot if you're a Frosh/Soph Dom Hawkins or Derek Willis...you KNOW your leash is way shorter than the IB's and other OAD's Cal prefers. Guys like them never got a chance to play through mistakes, or get up enough shots to be confident. I'm glad they came and I'll always admire guys who stick around for four years, but if I was them, I'd have gone somewhere else after a year or two...or gone somewhere else in the first place.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

yeah i'm wrong because you blame cal for the limitations of hawkins and willis. strong argument

 

[JohnnyGentle]

it's cal's fault that willis let the ball slip out of his hands on the way up or got beat backdoor or missed a box out

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Sorry but Matthews was no shooter. No better than IB.

As for the Fab Five comments, not gonna look it up but seems like they had a couple of veterans on that team and iirc one of them got 15+ minutes a game.

I believe his name was Eric Riley. Does that prove the theory wrong, that titles can happen with teams constructed almost entirely around freshmen?

That said, it becomes a case of nitpicking how much experience you need. If Gabriel/Wynyard/Humphries come back, someone could make a case for them offering experience, even if five freshmen start and gobble up the playing time.

Bottom line: you can win with young teams or old teams. It really matters more in terms of having real talent and playing well during the tournament. Everything else amounts to poorly-supported hypotheticals and small sample sizes for those decrying younger teams.

 

[willievic]

Not really a fair comment IMO. I don't analyze most of the posters (there are some of course) but he's right on this. If all of those guys leave we will still have a really good team that matures during the season just like all of Cal's teams do. But we won't be in the hunt for the NC. Nothing to be ashamed of but this is why you have a group of posters that don't like the OAD process. You simply have to have some veteran leadership regardless of whether they're stars or not.

Champcat, your right, and history backs you up. I wish you were wrong, but I don't think you are.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Champcat, your right, and history backs you up. I wish you were wrong, but I don't think you are.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

^
Said Old Stoll Fied Guy in 2011 when people said underclassmen-dominated teams couldn't win titles.

 

[CHAMPCAT11]

Champcat, your right, and history backs you up. I wish you were wrong, but I don't think you are.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

Thanks Willie. SOS is wrong but he sure blows a lot of hot air BS trying to prove his point.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

Thanks Willie. SOS is wrong but he sure blows a lot of hot air BS trying to prove his point.

"Teams with five starting freshmen can't win a title," said champcat as he stared at his sample size of two teams historically that fit his criteria.

Then again, he said he'd loved to be proven wrong. If something is definite, as you have said your theory is, it would be impossible to prove it wrong. You're contradicting your own ill-fated point.

 

[CHAMPCAT11]

"Teams with five starting freshmen can't win a title," said champcat as he stared at his sample size of two teams historically that fit his criteria.

Then again, he said he'd loved to be proven wrong. If something is definite, as you have said your theory is, it would be impossible to prove it wrong. You're contradicting your own ill-fated point.

Too deep for me. Simply put: I say 5 freshmen will never lead a team to the NC. If UK somehow pulls it off I'll be happy. I just don't see it. If any other team does it I won't like it one bit. Good luck with all of your other 'logic'.

 

[hootervillearnolds]

I'm not so concerned about Humphries.

If Cal believes he can be a major factor, like Harrelson or Cauley-Stein as an upperclassman, he will convince him as such and give him the chance. If not, Cal will give his blessing on transferring. If Humphries leaves, it's because he believes he won't get that chance at UK with the incoming players, and if that's the case, Cal will let him walk.

Bam is the one guy Cal needs to sit down with him and his family and give him the talk. He's a guy who if given the reigns, can put himself into the top 5 next year if he develops. Now if he was already in the lottery now, then so be it, no reason to even try. However, consensus seems to have Bam outside the lottery and even outside the top 20.

I said this before but I'll say it again it's unfair to a kid who could be drafted in the first round to ask them to come back especially a player whose stature fell throughout their freshman season. I can think of no player who ever came into his freshman year projected as lottery or near lottery who fell as a freshman and then climbed back into the lottery after second or third years. Whichever direction a player trends their freshman year they tend to continue on that trend the more exposure they get. Poorly thought of players who climb tend to climb even more by coming back. Highly thought of players who fall tend to continue to fall. Remember the Harrison twins. If Cal is a players coach and Bam is first round Cal should tell him to go.

 

[almbc1]

Yeah, I think Kentucky could have won that UCLA game if Cal had used your idea.

Oh, my bad. UNC game.

 

[OSOK]

We need Smith if we are going to make a run for the NC. He will be our Willis.

 

[BengalWACO]

I hope Briscoe comes back. He can become a 4 year leader, then be ultra polished and have a higher chance for an NBA roster. Hopefully he finds an mid to long range jumper... IF and IF he finds that he can definitely become a A grade point guard. Unfortunately, they can play off the drive. My prediction is he stays.
As much as I like Hump, he probably leaves. He plays Euro big man ball. There is a place for him here, but his confidence might be better served somewhere else at this point... then again, with that last game, who knows with the confidence side.
Wynyrd Skynyrd, probably gone.
SKJ, I believe will be back and stronger and better.
Fox...gone
Monk....gone
Bam...60/40 gone
Gabriel ... 80/20 stays

 

[chevyman 50]

I can see Fox, Monk and Bam gone, where is Brisco going, he would be much better off working on his game and come back, Hump do not see him leaving I thank with his experience he will get alot more playing time, maybe even starting, I thank the CJ is guessing.

 

[RJKentuckyBlue]

I would have to agree with Ulis, I do believe Cal has a very quick hook for some players after a mistake. If he would have yanked Archie Goodwin that quick after a mistake, guy would have only played about 9 minutes a game

 

[d2atTech]

yeah i'm wrong because you blame cal for the limitations of hawkins and willis. strong argument

Cal misused their development and talent. His system works great for OAD players and worse for everyone else, briscoes of the world included. It's not good or bad, it just is. Cal will figure out what systems and players work best for him, and he will bring us another championship for sure. Let's let it pan out.