Once again - add De Sousa and I'll agree with you.



  • ESPN final pre-season top 20.

    http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23653227/undefined

    K State # 12

    West Virginia #13



  • Not sure adding Silvio objectively changes much. Would be nice though.



  • Since this is based on what teams look like on paper, KU quite frankly will be the best team on paper with or without DeSousa next season. Having DeSousa back just means that the front court next season would be in the conversation for best front court in recent college basketball history.

    This ain’t gonna be a team shooting many 3’s next year. My one big concern on offense next year is with Doke’s lack of ability outside of 5 feet, will that take away Grimes ability to drive the ball? If I’m an opposing coach, I’m telling whoever is guarding Doke to let him do whatever he wants outside of 5’ including setting screens and just hang around the paint and take away drives.

    Basically, I would double anything in the paint and let KU shoot jumpers all night long and take my chances with a team that on paper is not a great shooting team.



  • BShark said:

    Not sure adding Silvio objectively changes much. Would be nice though.

    It changes a bunch. Silvio is our second best rebounder and second most skilled big. He’s a good FT shooter who will be a really good 5 man at end of game situations. I really don’t want to have to depend on Mitch and Dave for big minutes.



  • Yeah Silvio is a heck of a rebounder. Would be great to have him next year. I’m curious to see if Silvio improves his shot as well. He had a great free throw stroke, seems like he has something to work with, unlike Dok. Dok better damn well learn to rebound.



  • Silvio adds great character to this young team as well as luxurious depth. He is needed.

    We should be lethal in the post… with or without Silvio. But I’m optimistic he’ll be back.

    I still think we will put up a decent amount of treys… just not at the pace we did this year because we won’t have that many skilled trey shooters. But teams will have to pack the post. And a big pack creates huge off-ball screening opportunities for trey shooters to pop out and be wide open.



  • @drgnslayr I don’t often disagree with you but I’m not sure what you mean he adds character. He potentially won’t play for us at all because of the shoe payment thing. Maybe lack of character is the wrong word and I should blame his being naive?



  • @wissox but it was his guardian. I think we could all see he was a very fine young man!



  • @wissox

    I believe his guardian was paid to steer Silvio to Maryland but he stuck with what he wanted and came to KU, I would think it shows good character.



  • This team is not the #1 team without DeSousa in my opinion – not at the outset at least. As noted above, the three pointer is going to be a struggle this season. Not a strength. Thus, if we are more of an in the paint type team, having a stud like DeSousa is a game changer. The three point is a major part of the CBB game. Without it, we’ll need more than just two stud post players to make up for our three point deficiency. We’ll have to have reliable scoring at every moment on the floor, inside. Even with that, I think we’re very vulnerable without reliable three point shooting.

    I think we should all be careful not to immediately exonerate DeSousa – meaning, we don’t know if he knew. The young man was an adult at the time. Just saying that we are quick to think it was “just the guardian.” I highly doubt that DeSousa was just ignorant of it all. In fact, I think it is really implausible.



  • @FarmerJayhawk Fair. Having him as the third big would be pretty exciting.

    @chriz That’s the rub. He has really never been a good rebounder for his size. Even at the HS and AAU level. I’m not sure how much of it is effort vs instincts vs conditioning.

    @HighEliteMajor I’ve been as concerned as anyone about 3pt shooting but I think it will be passable. Not KU the last two years or Villanova good but I see no reason the team can’t be around 37%. If the inside game is as good as we think it will be that should lead to lots of open looks for Moore, Grimes and KJ. A big part will be getting Garrett up to a passable percentage but I am confident that he is willing to put in the work.



  • @Crimsonorblue22 Not sure how we can see anyone on our team is a fine young man without getting to know them first, or at the very least letting their character be revealed after 4 years on campus. Of course you pay attention more than I do since you’re nearby (I assume). I don’t really take the time to get to know the players.

    One thing I do know after watching highlights. Draymond Green is not a fine young man. I’m tired of his act but he is a good ballplayer.



  • @wissox it’s a strength I have!



  • As usual, the number 1 team is the team with the most decisive MUA against all the different kinds of teams it will face.

    You can have as many bigs as you want, and if you face a team with six trey shooters including two bigs that can pot the triceratop, you lose, because 3>2.

    Really, KU will be in great shape, if it runs into no teams in the tournament schemed like Nova’s team last season.

    If it runs into a team schemed like Nova last season, they could have 20 bigs on the team and it wouldn’t matter. You can only play two bigs at a time, maybe three. And if those bigs all have to guard the trey stripe, its doesn’t matter a tinkerer’s damn they are big, because they are going to be guarding and rebounding out at the corner of the court, or they are going to be giving up open look 3s, while our team is attempting short treys and getting no called into oblivion in the March Carney.

    The athletic, three point shooting big man is the decisive edge.

    If you look around next season’s rosters and see no team with them, then KU is in great shape.

    If you look around and see a team with a three point shooting big man, and three perimeter trifectates, to go with him, figure KU will lose to them.

    If you look and see a team with two three point shooting big men, and three perimeter trifectates, and that opponent is in the EST, bet all you have on the opponent.



  • @wissox

    It wasn’t Silvio. I’ve heard nothing but complete admiration for Silvio on this team.

    I’ll change my statement to “basketball character.”





  • KU looks good for next year because KU is a matchup nightmare for a lot of teams. They have size and they have perimeter guys. While KU lacks elite shooting, they have talent on the perimeter. The guards are not pushovers in any sense. And if the guards get a disproportionate number of open looks because teams have to help into the post, well, it could help KU shoot above their true talent level.



  • @BShark Can you name one three point shooter that you expect to be above 37% … that’s my quandary. I can’t.

    @Crimsonorblue22 Seeing the best in folks is a definite and admirable strength.



  • @BShark

    Kentucky #10? Double ouch…



  • HighEliteMajor said:

    @BShark Can you name one three point shooter that you expect to be above 37% … that’s my quandary. I can’t.

    @Crimsonorblue22 Seeing the best in folks is a definite and admirable strength.

    I think Grimes and Moore can be above that number. Moore took a lot of bad shots at Cal.



  • How’s kj’s shooting?



  • Crimsonorblue22 said:

    How’s kj’s shooting?

    Livable, but I’d bet he has been working on it.



  • @BShark livable doesn’t thrill me. Weird description.



  • @Crimsonorblue22 It was the best descriptor I could think of. He isn’t lights out, but he isn’t Garrett either.



  • @BShark think our chemistry will be good? Can our freshmen guards control the Lawson’s? I think the Lawson’s will be out to prove themselves. I hope I’m wrong!



  • Crimsonorblue22 said:

    @BShark I think the Lawson’s will be out to prove themselves. I hope I’m wrong!

    I think you are right, but it might be a good thing to an extent. Obvious you want to see buying in, playing as a team.



  • HighEliteMajor said:

    @BShark Can you name one three point shooter that you expect to be above 37% … that’s my quandary. I can’t.

    ————————————.

    BINGO!

    IF:

    KU = 2

    AND

    Opponent = 3

    THEN

    2 < 3.

    AND

    KU Loses

    ELSE

    KU Wins.

    This year’s challenge of winning a conference title with weak trey shooters will keep Self interested again, same as winning one without a big man rotation most of the season did.

    But in the Carney, all that matters is:

    a.) Time zone;

    b.) Shoe brand; and

    c.) Having both inside and outside game.

    Self will spend the off season scheming a defense that denies 3s AND chokes the lane.

    We will win a lot of 70 point games.

    We will lose in the Carney to a NIKE-EST team with good inside game and good trey shooting.



  • HighEliteMajor said:

    @BShark Can you name one three point shooter that you expect to be above 37% … that’s my quandary. I can’t.

    Udoka



  • @jaybate-1.0 KU should also be a much better defensive team because other than Moore, KU is going to have good length this year. That’s going to equal a lower shooting percentage from 3 for opponents. KU’s 3 point defense wasn’t horrible last year as opponents only made 33% of their 3 pointers against KU. I don’t think it’s unrealistic that KU holds opponents under 30% next season.

    So while 3>2 is true, 3 at 33% loses against 2 at 50% every time. KU is probably going to have one of the best 2FG% in the country next season and with KU shaping up to be a very salty defensive team, I’ll take KU 2 over opposing 3’s next season.



  • @Statmachine A perfect 0-0 for three on the season I assume?



  • @Texas-Hawk-10

    To dream of defending our way to a ring in the 3pt era is a pleasant past time, but do not mistake the dream for reality.



  • jaybate 1.0 said:

    @Texas-Hawk-10

    To dream of defending our way to a ring in the 3pt era is a pleasant past time, but do not mistake the dream for reality.

    It literally happened a year ago.

    https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/north-carolina/2017.html

    And they played Gonzaga in the final, the #1 defensive team that year.



  • @Statmachine he didn’t say “free point shooter”



  • @approxinfinity good one!



  • I think Udoka will do better than 37% from the free point line



  • @BShark

    OK, I’ll play along.

    Did you mean UNC have no three point shooters that could make > 37% from trifectaville?

    Is that what you mean?

    Or do you just mean they were a fine defensive team that had three point shooting KU will lack?



  • @jaybate-1.0 They had two okay three point shooters, just like KU will have next year. One right at 37%, the other at 38%. To go along with this they defended and had a solid 4 man post rotation.



  • HighEliteMajor said:

    @BShark Can you name one three point shooter that you expect to be above 37% … that’s my quandary. I can’t.

    Mitch certainly will be over that.



  • @JayHawkFanToo Agreed … Mitch’s PT next season is a topic to watch.

    @BShark @jaybate-1-0 We can win without high level three point shooting. Definitely. But one thing for everyone to remember – Self is different now. He’s accepted the three. He has seen the proverbial light. I expect it to be incorporated much more so than it had been our prior post-first teams. The fool’s gold talk is dead.



  • BShark said:

    @jaybate-1.0 They had two okay three point shooters, just like KU will have next year. One right at 37%, the other at 38%. To go along with this they defended and had a solid 4 man post rotation.

    Okay, your hypothesis crosses the first obstacle. Congratulations. I am stoked for you. One more hurdle cleared and you can add me to the choir.

    Next hurdle: the year you say the EasyHeels defended their ways to a ring, did UNC have to face an opponent from the Sweet 16 onwards that was from the EST and that had from three to six > 39% trifectates?

    If they beat a team or two from the EST with three to six > greater than 39% treys shooters, I am going to say I will join the baritones, even if the opponent did not have any bigs that could pot the triceratops.

    I mean if Roy can defend his way to a ring without any >39% trifectates, and beat an opponent or two in the Sweet 16 and above that had 3 to 6 > 39% trifectates, then this defensive dog will hunt, and I will dawn a crimson and blue shooting vest with an XL game bag.

    You will absolutely make my day, if you discover the facts will support your hypothesis.

    No one is better at scheming DEFENSES than Bill Self, so if Roy did it, against the kind of Sweet 16-and-up opponents I have outlined, then I think you are on the money with this hypothesis of yours.

    I am actually getting kind of excited about this.

    I have been feeling pretty glum lately about the lack of three ballers on our roster, because I figure Villanova will field a bare minimum of 3 > 39% trifectates, plus some of their 75-100 ranked bigs that can mysteriously guard and run the floor and rebound and shoot like Top 25 players.

    I know this would take a lot of clicking on your part to discover the answers to my question, and so I am hardly expecting you to go to the trouble.

    But even though I have some optimism that the facts might fall in your favor, until I see them, I remain my typical wait and see self.

    I would do the leg work myself, but I am unusually occupied for the next month or so.

    Here’s to hoping we can defend our way to a ring next season.

    Rock Chalk!



  • @jaybate-1.0 ah luck of the draw. If the pre-season #1 team doesn’t stand a chance who does? Time for optimism, the future is very bright!



  • HighEliteMajor said:

    @BShark @jaybate-1-0 We can win without high level three point shooting. Definitely. But one thing for everyone to remember – Self is different now. He’s accepted the three. He has seen the proverbial light. I expect it to be incorporated much more so than it had been our prior post-first teams. The fool’s gold talk is dead.

    We can win pre-conference and conference without it, but the odds appear very slim that we can win a ring without it, if other Top Ten teams get stocked up with 3-6 trifectates, as Nova likely will be again. And if Nova has 2 bigs again that can shoot > 39$% from three (which I have not heard forecasts of one way or the other), it just seems effectively impossible to defend our way to a ring.

    Roy was very lucky to appear to be the EST team selected to win the ring the season he did, when Nova hit a snag, the other apparent pre-selects ran into difficulties with their OAD stock ups and with injuries and eligibilities, as I recall.

    Didn’t Roy have one of his weakest shooting rosters in his tenure at Easy Hill that year? And it faced the first real post hyper dump truck Carney field. He was very fortunate to show up with his apparent usual dump truck load of bigs, when distribution asymmetry was apparently being revised and an anomalous number of highly athletic > 39% 3 point shooters at post and perimeter were being remarkably ranked 75-100 and routed to Villanova for “development.”

    Its hard for moi to imagine that not one of the elite EST teams will round up at least 3 > 39% trifectates and maybe one > 39% big, after what Jay and Nova showed happens when 3 is feasibly greater than 2 on a regular basis.

    And if one is from the CST and has to depend on the kindness of referees to supply the foul calls necessary for short treys? Woe, woe, woe, is thee.



  • @jaybate-1.0

    I’ll get this out of the way now, the answer is technically no, due to your very specific restraints. However…they did beat teams with great three point shooting.

    So, I’m not sure why the EST caveat matters. They had to beat Oregon, the beloved of Nike, who had 3 heavy minute players that were above 40% from three, and a bench player as well.

    Gonzaga, who they played in the final, had 6 rotation players at or above 39%, but again west coast.

    They also beat UK’s NBA factory, but with only 1 40% trey baller in Monk.

    Oddly enough, Villanova with a similar team between their title teams lost to Wisconsin in the second round. Go figure.



  • jaybate 1.0 said:

    HighEliteMajor said:

    @BShark @jaybate-1-0 We can win without high level three point shooting. Definitely. But one thing for everyone to remember – Self is different now. He’s accepted the three. He has seen the proverbial light. I expect it to be incorporated much more so than it had been our prior post-first teams. The fool’s gold talk is dead.

    We can win pre-conference and conference without it, but the odds appear very slim that we can win a ring without it, if other Top Ten teams get stocked up with 3-6 trifectates, as Nova likely will be again. And if Nova has 2 bigs again that can shoot > 39$% from three (which I have not heard forecasts of one way or the other), it just seems effectively impossible to defend our way to a ring.

    Roy was very lucky to appear to be the EST team selected to win the ring the season he did, when Nova hit a snag, the other apparent pre-selects ran into difficulties with their OAD stock ups and with injuries and eligibilities, as I recall.

    Didn’t Roy have one of his weakest shooting rosters in his tenure at Easy Hill that year? And it faced the first real post hyper dump truck Carney field. He was very fortunate to show up with his apparent usual dump truck load of bigs, when distribution asymmetry was apparently being revised and an anomalous number of highly athletic > 39% 3 point shooters at post and perimeter were being remarkably ranked 75-100 and routed to Villanova for “development.”

    Its hard for moi to imagine that not one of the elite EST teams will round up at least 3 > 39% trifectates and maybe one > 39% big, after what Jay and Nova showed happens when 3 is feasibly greater than 2 on a regular basis.

    And if one is from the CST and has to depend on the kindness of referees to supply the foul calls necessary for short treys? Woe, woe, woe, is thee.

    So much fiction.



  • dylans said:

    @jaybate-1.0 ah luck of the draw. If the pre-season #1 team doesn’t stand a chance who does? Time for optimism, the future is very bright!


    I appreciate and am grateful for your optimism. It brightens my day.

    But when KU is ranked this high, has an FBI cloud overhanging it, and can’t sign a single >39% three point shooter to go along with the bunch of studs it has on hand, I grow suspicious.

    I wonder…

    "Where have all the trifectates gone

    Long time passing…

    Where have all the trifectates gone

    long time ago

    When will they ever learn…

    Oh…when will they…ever learn?"

    Or to put it another way, hey, boys, thar’s threes in them thar hills beyond the treys tripe. What are ya a-pannin’ fer twos down here in the paint for? Don’t make no sense to me. ‘Specially when yer from the wrong time zone to be uh gettin’ foul called in the Carney!

    Just think how much ranking KU #1 preseason might help with bet balancing.

    Rank Nova numero uno at the start and you have a bunch of weeks where the entire east seaboard full of suckers are betting on Nova and you’ve got to massively increase the payoff to get any money at all bet against them. But with KU ranked #1, well, a bunch of the EST suckers bet on the sod busters in covered wagons, plus a bunch more is bet on KU, which hasn’t even got a 3 point shooter, so it figures KU will get clipped on any opponent’s hot night. The insider, er, smart money then gets to shear sheep on both Nova games and KU games, instead of just one, or the other.

    Shaping improbable bettor expectations appears quite useful to profit maximization in the big gaming.

    Inefficient markets are the gift from god to insider, er, smart money.

    Bettors are a market.

    The more inefficient they are in their expectations, the bettor, if the insider, er, smart money is around to balance bets wisely.

    Or so it appears to little ol’ layman fan me.

    Hopefully we are beyond the naivety of years gone by when board rats believed there was no channelling of players going on and believed the nonsense about big gaming wanting a fair game.

    The profit motive is inelastic.

    Enough is never enough.

    The above is entirely speculation and opining, and nothing more.

    Rock Chalk.



  • BShark said:

    jaybate 1.0 said:

    HighEliteMajor said:

    @BShark @jaybate-1-0 We can win without high level three point shooting. Definitely. But one thing for everyone to remember – Self is different now. He’s accepted the three. He has seen the proverbial light. I expect it to be incorporated much more so than it had been our prior post-first teams. The fool’s gold talk is dead.

    We can win pre-conference and conference without it, but the odds appear very slim that we can win a ring without it, if other Top Ten teams get stocked up with 3-6 trifectates, as Nova likely will be again. And if Nova has 2 bigs again that can shoot > 39$% from three (which I have not heard forecasts of one way or the other), it just seems effectively impossible to defend our way to a ring.

    Roy was very lucky to appear to be the EST team selected to win the ring the season he did, when Nova hit a snag, the other apparent pre-selects ran into difficulties with their OAD stock ups and with injuries and eligibilities, as I recall.

    Didn’t Roy have one of his weakest shooting rosters in his tenure at Easy Hill that year? And it faced the first real post hyper dump truck Carney field. He was very fortunate to show up with his apparent usual dump truck load of bigs, when distribution asymmetry was apparently being revised and an anomalous number of highly athletic > 39% 3 point shooters at post and perimeter were being remarkably ranked 75-100 and routed to Villanova for “development.”

    Its hard for moi to imagine that not one of the elite EST teams will round up at least 3 > 39% trifectates and maybe one > 39% big, after what Jay and Nova showed happens when 3 is feasibly greater than 2 on a regular basis.

    And if one is from the CST and has to depend on the kindness of referees to supply the foul calls necessary for short treys? Woe, woe, woe, is thee.

    So much fiction.


    Truth is routinely stranger than fiction and so those invested in believing in fictions use “so much fiction” as a lame rhetorical cloud of squid ink, don’t you agree?

    :-)

    Oh, wait, I forgot. I apologize. There is no channeling of players and big gaming wants a fair game, right? That is what you appear to be asserting. I am just saying, both things are starting to quack like ducks, so we’ll have to wait and see. But I sure wouldn’t want to be defending your position. I am blessed to be discussing appearances with a wait and see attitude about what the actual realities are that come out.

    You, however, are stuck polishing “so much fiction.” Not much wiggle room there, is there?

    Good luck.

    Howling!



  • @jaybate-1.0 Instead of giving Jay Wright credit for identifying talent you work under the assumption that it is fed to him and that there is some sort of global ranking conspiracy*. The truth is he finds players that fit his system, and are willing to be around for multiple years.

    *Yes yes, conspiracies are for suckers, which sounds odd coming from someone that routinely posts conspiracy theories as fact.



  • jaybate 1.0 said:

    BShark said:

    jaybate 1.0 said:

    HighEliteMajor said:

    @BShark @jaybate-1-0 We can win without high level three point shooting. Definitely. But one thing for everyone to remember – Self is different now. He’s accepted the three. He has seen the proverbial light. I expect it to be incorporated much more so than it had been our prior post-first teams. The fool’s gold talk is dead.

    We can win pre-conference and conference without it, but the odds appear very slim that we can win a ring without it, if other Top Ten teams get stocked up with 3-6 trifectates, as Nova likely will be again. And if Nova has 2 bigs again that can shoot > 39$% from three (which I have not heard forecasts of one way or the other), it just seems effectively impossible to defend our way to a ring.

    Roy was very lucky to appear to be the EST team selected to win the ring the season he did, when Nova hit a snag, the other apparent pre-selects ran into difficulties with their OAD stock ups and with injuries and eligibilities, as I recall.

    Didn’t Roy have one of his weakest shooting rosters in his tenure at Easy Hill that year? And it faced the first real post hyper dump truck Carney field. He was very fortunate to show up with his apparent usual dump truck load of bigs, when distribution asymmetry was apparently being revised and an anomalous number of highly athletic > 39% 3 point shooters at post and perimeter were being remarkably ranked 75-100 and routed to Villanova for “development.”

    Its hard for moi to imagine that not one of the elite EST teams will round up at least 3 > 39% trifectates and maybe one > 39% big, after what Jay and Nova showed happens when 3 is feasibly greater than 2 on a regular basis.

    And if one is from the CST and has to depend on the kindness of referees to supply the foul calls necessary for short treys? Woe, woe, woe, is thee.

    So much fiction.


    Truth is routinely stranger than fiction and so those invested in believing in fictions use “so much fiction” as a lame rhetorical cloud of squid ink, don’t you agree?

    :-)

    Oh, wait, I forgot. I apologize. There is no channeling of players and big gaming wants a fair game, right? That is what you appear to be asserting. I am just saying, both things are starting to quack like ducks, so we’ll have to wait and see. But I sure wouldn’t want to be defending your position. I am blessed to be discussing appearances with a wait and see attitude about what the actual realities are that come out.

    You, however, are stuck polishing “so much fiction.” Not much wiggle room there, is there?

    Good luck.

    Howling!

    If the outcome of sporting events are predetermined, why even watch?

    Let’s see if everyone starts copying Villanova. Seems more likely that most programs just take what they can get. Even Duke, ran by long time 3pt aficionado coach K had a rough trey balling team last year. I think coaches run into trouble when they just start trying to take the highest ranked players, instead of looking for players that fit their system, defend and can shoot.

    I did not say players were not paid. They definitely are.



  • @BShark I would add players that can be coached to that list



  • Crimsonorblue22 said:

    @BShark I would add players that can be coached to that list

    This is pretty big. Just looking at it from a KU angle guys like Releford, Garrett, Darnell etc…

    Then the counter point of Zach Peters, Rio Adams, Naadir Tharpe, Brannen Greene, Carlton Bragg…


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to KU Buckets was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.