Posts made by justanotherfan

@drgnslayr

I think race played a role in the reaction to the “Rich Paul” rule, but not in the normal way. Normally, a minority with no college degree would not have the power/money/influence to speak out against this sort of thing.

Rich Paul does, so it throws a wrinkle into the normal power dynamic because people aren’t used to a person like him being able to push back against a big institution like the NCAA, and people are especially not used to a person like him being able to push back against an institution like that and win.

I don’t think what the NCAA did was racist. More just poorly thought out and vetted. They listened to people in the industry, some of whom have an agenda against Rich Paul because he is competition, so cutting him out of a lucrative part of the market is a money decision. However, had this been vetted more carefully, the entire decision/fallout could have been avoided.

Hudy was a big reason behind a lot of players developing at KU. This is a huge change.

In the same way that our big man rotation took a hit when Manning left, this will affect development.

The other notable thing that Miles is doing is building a lot of depth. No matter who you recruit, every guy will not work out for your program. In the past, that left us severely undermanned. Miles is addressing that with numbers and talent. KU looks to be in a better position not only now, but moving forward because of it.

BigBad said:

“Requiring a four-year degree accomplishes only one thing—systematically excluding those who come from a world where college is unrealistic,” Paul wrote. “Does anyone really believe a four-year degree is what separates an ethical person from a con artist?”

With this logic do people like this believe that no job should have any requirements?

There are requirements to become an agent. The NBA Player’s Association certifies all agents that work in the NBA. You can find their requirements here.

The issue that was brought up is that Rich Paul has met all of the NBPA requirements to become an agent, but the NCAA was attempting to add additional requirements on top of what the NBPA requires.

It makes sense to have job requirements. Being an agent has those. It just doesn’t make sense for the NCAA to add additional requirements.

@dylans

The crazy thing is, Mahomes could throw for 43 TDs, 4500 yards and just 15 interceptions and that would be about 15% worse than last year, but still one of the 25 best passing seasons in NFL history. That is absolutely mind boggling.

I also think the Chiefs run game is more effective this year. Teams will have to put more people into coverage, so the backs are going to be operating with a lot more space around the line of scrimmage. While that may lower Mahomes’ overall numbers, the offense could be even harder to contain, which should make you giddy as a Chiefs fan and absolutely terrified if you root for anyone else.

If the defense is a top 20 defense, the Chiefs will be very hard to beat.

Guys can certainly improve, but there is generally a ceiling on that improvement depending on how naturally good (or bad) someone is to begin with.

For example, you can improve your vertical leap. Anyone can with the right exercises. But not everyone can train their way to a 40 inch vertical. Maybe you can turn your 10 inch vertical into a 25 inch vertical (an incredible improvement), but the person that naturally had a 23 inch vertical may get to 35 or 40 and throw down 360 dunks while you are barely sneaking the ball over the rim.

Shooting is a skill just like hitting is a skill in baseball. But some guys are naturally gifted hitters. Others are not. Generally speaking, if a guy cannot shoot by the time he is 18 or so, that skill will likely not develop. There are exceptions, obviously, but guys that can put the ball in the basket (like Selden) can improve more with refining their craft. Guys that struggle to shoot (like Garrett) generally do not improve regardless of what adjustments they make. Maybe Garrett or Enaruna ends up being like Bruce Bowen and that skill develops over time. More likely, they end up staying more or less the same and learning to work within those limitations to be effective.

@KUSTEVE

I agree that Selden changed his stroke and improved. I disagree about how bad he was before the change. Selden shot 42-128 from three as a freshman. That’s basically 33%, and he did that on almost 4 attempts per game.

To me, that says that he shot a break even percentage on a pretty decent volume of attempts (wasn’t incredibly selective to only take the very best looks).

He was certainly better after that (over 39% as a junior), but he was not bad even as a freshman.

Selden wasn’t a great shooter coming to KU, but he could shoot. He had results saying he could shoot. He improved, but he had a foundation to improve from. I just worry about guys that don’t have results to back up what we hope to see.

That rule was probably not going to stand up to a possible legal challenge, and Rich Paul has the means to drag that fight out as long as the NCAA was willing to.

@kjayhawks

Turnovers are difficult to duplicate year over year because they involve some degree of luck (particularly fumble recoveries). Pass gets tipped, and falls just out of reach of a defender, rather than one foot further. Ball gets fumbled and takes a funny bounce right back to the offense. Because of that, looking to have turnovers make up for an otherwise leaky defense is always risky.

If the Chiefs are statistically better (particularly on third down) they will likely be much improved even if turnover numbers dip.

Last year’s team was flawed. Unless Grimes had come in and been a Ben McLemore or better type player, its unlikely KU’s roster would have gotten us through the Big 12 last season. Even if Grimes had been that good, there’s still a chance that with two strong teams in the conference, KU may not have been able to knock off both. Last year was the perfect storm - flawed KU team, two other programs with one of their best teams in the last two decades (probably the best Texas Tech team ever). I think Tech wins the conference last year even if Grimes had come in and met expectations, unless he played like a top 3 pick (something that even the most optimistic people would not have been thinking last year).

@jayballer73

This is a bit of a prove it year. We go 2-10 and we probably lose a lot of our recruits.

On the other hand, we go 5-7, look like a potential bowl team in 2020, I think we keep everyone and may even add some more.

These guys want to know they aren’t signing onto a ship that is still taking on water. That’s why this season is so important to KU. If the Hawks get off to a good start, expect this class to arrive on campus ready to challenge for a bowl in 2020.

A roster of OADs only works if they are complimentary to each other.

For instance, Duke had tons of talent on this year’s roster, but Williamson, Barrett, and Reddish did not really compliment each other on the floor. Duke would have been better served to have Zion with a guy like Tyler Herro in place of Reddish to help space the floor with shooting without needing the ball in his hands. That would have been a better fit than Barrett and Reddish, who always seemed to be in each other’s way because they played the same style and position.

Duke had similar issues playing Wendell Carter and Marvin Bagley together. They were tremendously talented, but also in each other’s way. Trade either of them for a high skill wing player (Kevin Knox, maybe) and that Duke team becomes virtually unstoppable.

It’s all about making sure the pieces fit because you don’t have enough practice time to force the fit, and the players themselves don’t have enough experience to adjust their style to create a fit.

@BeddieKU23

Makes sense. The demands on them internationally are actually very similar, as they were pressed into roles that may not have fit their skillsets as well as the roles they eventually occupied (or will occupy) at KU.

@FarmerJayhawk and @KUSTEVE

Releford was never a poor shooter. He was a big time scorer in HS that adjusted his role in college. He wasn’t asked to score at KU, but he was never a poor shooter.

Miles is an interesting case. I would argue that he never really developed as a shooter. That’s what kept him out of the NBA long term. If you look only at his 3PT% you see a nice progression from 29% as a freshman up to 50% as a senior. That would suggest that he improved. However, you look at his 2PT% and you see that it never really moved, staying more or less right around 43% his entire career (with his sophomore year standing out at 49%). Miles made a few more threes as a senior, but still bricked the same amount of 2s. And indeed, he shot about 30% from three in his European career, with one season around 37% and every other season south of 33%. And his FG% in Europe? 42.3% over 5 seasons. Miles was the same shooter after five years in Europe that he was after four years at KU.

Selden was also never bad as a shooter. Came in at 33% and improved steadily from there. Selden was more plagued by consistency problems (like Vick) than he was by result issues.

Probably one of the most famous improved shooters in the world right now is current Finals MVP Kawhi Leonard. He was a bad 3pt shooter in college. 20% as a freshman, 29% as a sophomore. But the thing was, Kawhi always attempted shots. He shot 78 threes as a freshman, and 86 more as a sophomore. Clearly, there was a belief that he could shoot, despite the results. The Spurs literally re-worked his entire shot from the ground up as a pro. But even then, Leonard was a pretty good 2pt shooter that entire time. He struggled from distance, but his jumpshot overall was not broken, as he shot right around 50% over his college career from 2. You can contrast that to a guy like Ben Simmons, whose shot was always broken, and who didn’t even attempt to shoot in college (just 3 attempts from three point range in his lone college season).

If Enaruna comes in at 33% or so, I think he has a chance to become a pretty good shooter. If he’s at or below 30%, the chances that he ever becomes a good shooter fall dramatically.

I would hesitate to compare Enaruna to Svi. Svi could always shoot when set. He hadn’t rounded out his game when he arrived at KU, but if he got his feet set, his stroke was silky. There was never a “results don’t match the mechanics” issue with Svi. I remember watching early video of him and wondering if he would ever develop the rest of his offensive game, but I never doubted that he could put the ball in the basket.

As @BeddieKU23 says, shooting can be taught. However, I am cautious because he recently switched hands. Almost all good shooters have some naturally good things going. Switching hands at this stage indicates to me that Enaruna doesn’t have some of those natural tendencies even if he does have the athletic ability to repeat motion, etc.

I am not saying that Enaruna won’t develop into a better shooter. He’s young enough that he certainly could. But I don’t think its a given, either.

Ponder it this way. During the Bill Self era, name any player you like that came in as a poor shooter and left as a good one.

Miles may also get creative with the roster this year to help manage how many people roll out of the program. I could see possibly grabbing a few more preferred walk ons, as well as potentially redshirting upperclassmen to help balance the classes a little bit more.

And he still has the option of moving recruits into the 2020 or 2021 class (possible January 2021 reports for some) to help balance a bit more.

How was Enaruna ever projected as a “stretch-4” when he cannot, by definition, stretch since he is a below average shooter?

Texas Hawk 10 said:

Title IX depends on shoe money. Women’s sports would not exist without shoe money.

Not just women’s sports. All sports other than football, men’s basketball and (in some cases) women’s basketball. Those are the only sports that could likely survive without ShoeCo money. Smaller sports have no chance.

@drgnslayr

I get your point, but the NCAA can’t put in too many guidelines without squeezing out ShoeCo money, and most non-revenue sports depend on that money (and equipment) to help manage their budgets.

Track and Field, Soccer, Volleyball, Swimming, etc. would all be in significant budget trouble if not for ShoeCo money, as that money pays for the equipment and apparel side of their budget. That’s why there is so much ShoeCo money in each school, and why KU is with Adidas instead of Nike right now. Simply put, Adidas offered KU more for their non-revenue sports than Nike did. That made all of the difference in the contract negotiations.

ShoeCos will continue to do what they want because the NCAA can’t host sports like gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, hockey, track and field, etc., or lower divisions without ShoeCo money (even D2 and D3 schools have small contracts with ShoeCos for apparel and equipment).

There’s just too much money in too many people’s hands to shove this genie back into the bottle.

I still do not believe anyone gets dinged for this latest round of violations coming out of the ShoeCo investigations.

The NCAA needs the ShoeCos. Every athletic department makes tons of money off ShoeCos. Not just P5. Not just D1. Every athletic department is receiving ShoeCo money. If the NCAA disrupts that relationship, there are a lot of D2 and D3 programs that outright cannot make their athletic budgets work without the money and equipment they receive from ShoeCos. The NCAA knows they would put some programs under if they ran ShoeCos out of the equation.

The only way to avoid doing that is to ding a few players here and there, hit a handful of coaches and boosters, but avoid dinging the schools themselves so they don’t disrupt those lucrative relationships.

We play Kentucky every three years in the Champions Classic. We have played them every season in the last four seasons, and we will see them next season in Chicago for the Champions Classic again. That’s five of six seasons to face one non-conference opponent. That’s a lot.

I am all for playing UK once every few years in the Big 12/SEC Challenge as long as the Champions Classic is going because we will play them once every three years in that anyway. We aren’t ducking them. They aren’t ducking us. But it doesn’t make sense for the same two programs to play in the Big 12/SEC Challenge every year from a marketing perspective. I want to see Tennessee. I’d like another shot at Auburn. A matchup with Mizzou at some point would be fun. Arkansas could be interesting. Maybe LSU. We haven’t seen a single one of those teams and the challenge has been going for six years. We finally get Tennessee. The whole idea is to see different teams in non-conference. Not always the same teams.

If these projections are what we actually get we could be in some trouble.

If we are looking to Garrett as our #2 option, our offense will likely be fairly inefficient. Our defense could be very stout, but relying on a guy that’s not a natural or efficient scorer, our defense had better be elite, because we will need to win some 65-60 type games.

With Doke, you also have to account for some foul trouble, and being out of the games late. While he may be in better shape, he probably won’t play much in the last 4 minutes of any game, and will probably miss time in other games due to foul trouble. 26-27 minutes per game for Doke seems a bit heavy to me. I would bet he’s under 25. That shouldn’t hurt this team though, because we have a lot of front court depth.

In the history of the Big 12/SEC challenge, KU has played Kentucky 3 times, Florida twice and Texas A&M once. I am personally glad that we are seeing another SEC team other than UK or Florida. We need some variety.

chriz said:

Sports is an interesting animal. You can be the best in the nation one year and then barely getting a job the next just due to your size.

So much more size and athleticism in the pros than in college. It’s a huge step up talentwise.

@FarmerJayhawk and @Kcmatt7

I think this has a lot to do with expectations.

A D1 player here in Kansas will dominate the Kansas HS basketball scene, especially if they are P5 level. They will generally be a man among boys. I think this leads to unrealistic expectations of some of the players that come out of Kansas because we expect them to dominate because they set the HS scoring record, but they are really just a bench player at the D1 level (Conner Frankamp). That wasn’t on him. That was on fans because we thought he would turn into something he never was.

That’s why I critique players the way I do. I am trying to see what they can be at the college or pro level, rather than just what they are at the HS level. There are kids all over the country putting up crazy numbers against lower level competition. Now, sometimes that stuff translates to the next level. Other times it doesn’t.

II don’t know if Ty Berry is a full 6-6 in his latest videos, but he is A LOT bigger and stronger than he was before. And that shooting stroke is still just as good. I would be curious to see how his athleticism increases with his added size and strength. Definite P5 target at this point.

I will say this - if Jalen Wilson can play some minutes as a stretch 4 type player, that could open up things for Marcus Garrett at the 3 in something resembling a functional offense. Because of his style of play, Garrett needs to be on the floor with as many shooters/ floor spacers as possible. Even if Wilson only plays 14 or so minutes, if most of those are as a stretch 4 with Garrett and either Doke or Silvio on the floor, that will be a solid lineup.

This roster is going to take a lot of mixing and matching because just about every player has unique strengths and weaknesses.

Also, my earlier posts about Moss aren’t to say he won’t be a good player. I think he will be. But I also think everyone has to be prepared for the 0-5’s as much as the 6-8’s. There will be nights where he will score less than 5 points. On those nights (6 such games in conference play last year, including three games where he scored 0 points), someone else has to step up on the perimeter. There will be other nights where he gets 15+ (4 games like that in conference, including a couple of 20+ point games), where we will be able to afford an off night from someone else. Moss will average 10-12 points by mixing 20 point games with 2 point games. He’s not a guy that you write in his points before the night starts like Dedric was last year.

@KUSTEVE

Moss is very streaky. He shot 42% from three, but he did that in a very streaky way. A sample:

Opens the season by going a combined 1-9 from the field in games against UMKC and Green Bay. Hits 7-12 threes in his next three games versus Oregon, UConn and Alabama State.

He followed that three game stretch up with a combined 1-8 from the field against Pitt and Wisconsin, then dropped an efficient 13 (4-8, 2-3) against Michigan State and a 20 piece (8-12, 4-5) in a rivalry game against Iowa State in back to back games.

A week after that Iowa State game he went 1-4 against Northern Iowa.

Or take this five game swing during conference play:

21 vs. Illinois on 7-12 shooting, including 5 threes

2 points against Michigan State on 1-7 shooting

23 at Minnesota on 8-14 shooting with 6 threes

Back to back goose eggs at Indiana and at home against Michigan on a combined 0-11 shooting.

Of course he would follow that up with 16 against Northwestern (6-12) and 17 against Rutgers (7-12).

My point is that Moss can score for sure. But he can also disappear.

BShark said:

@justanotherfan probably d2 as a pg for Braun.

D2 Braun would destroy as a point forward with his size. If he played PG, he could maybe play low D1, but not P5. He’s going to be a nice wing player, though.

All I want to know is WHY he lost his mind. Did they screw up his order?

@Texas-Hawk-10

I actually have the opposite opinion than you. I expect this team to start very fast. Our early opponents will likely be overwhelmed by the Doke/Silvio combo inside. That will cover up some of the roster issues early in the year. Skipping the Duke game for a second (I’ll get back to them), the next four opponents are UNC-Greensboro, Monmouth, East Tennessee State and Chaminade. Then we get either a rebuilding UCLA team or an okay BYU squad. Then it’s Colorado, UMKC, UW-Milwaukee, Villanova and Stanford. Duke and Michigan State are the only two squads we really have to worry about there. Everyone else probably gets run off the floor by our size.

So back to Duke. I actually think we even handle Duke with our size. They are depending on two freshmen inside in Carey and Hurt that don’t have nearly the size and strength that Doke/Silvio have. If KU doesn’t get into foul trouble, we probably bully Duke off the floor, too. They have some really good players, but nothing like this year where they had so much individual talent that they could just blow a team off the court. Carey and Hurt will be up against grown men in the paint for the first time in their lives.

But come conference season, I think things could shift if we cannot find some consistent perimeter scoring. Not one of the players that we have on the roster has been a consistent perimeter scorer in their college careers. Maybe we can get by doing it by committee, but that’s hoping that one of the group has it going every night so teams cannot just pack the paint.

Once teams start adjusting to our size/strength advantage, we have to have a counter. That’s what I will be waiting to see. That’s what gives me pause.

BShark said:

@justanotherfan like Braun I think Berry is much more appealing as a wing than a pg. Some kids do get stuck on position though.

I’m not sure Braun was ever going to be a PG at the college level. Berry could still be a PG at the college level, but I think his ceiling is higher on the wing.

I may also being viewing that because he is a better fit on KU rosterwise if he’s a wing player.

approxinfinity said:

wissox said:

For the last 4 years KU has been eliminated by a FF team. In fact 13 of these 20 tournaments we’ve been eliminated by a FF team!

Things get easier when you knock off the #1 seed in your bracket

Also important that, in most years, KU has gone at least to the Sweet 16 or better. We all remember Bucknell, Bradley, Wichita State, Stanford, Northern Iowa and Auburn this year, but most years KU got pretty deep in the tournament, so losing to a FF team only required one more win, or no wins at all.

I don’t think signing Harris rules out signing Ty Berry. Berry may end up moving to the wing with his shooting and size. He may be better suited on the wing long term, anyway.

The move to Sunrise is good for him as well. He’s a player that should be watched closely this year.

Iowa State and West Virginia are tough jobs because I think there is a definite ceiling on how good they can be consistently. Expectations over time make those jobs tough.

Right now ISU is up and WVU is down, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that flipped in a few years.

KU should get out of last place this year because I think they can win 3 conference games. Several vulnerable teams out there, and KU should be better on the road due to coaching.

Snyder left Klienman with very little in Manhattan. He may get it turned around, but KSU wasn’t very good last year, and they have less talent on hand now than they did at the same time last summer. Even KSU fans I have talked to are not feeling good about this season.

Kietzman was constantly over the line. If he didn’t have an ownership stake, he would have been canned years ago.

He’s lucky he lasted as long as he did.

Grayson Allen is a dirty player. That’s what separates him from a lot of the guys @BigBad lists. Many of those guys were physical. Allen is just dirty.

He isn’t playing physical and sometimes escalating. He’s playing in a way that he does not care of a player is injured by tripping, closed fist fouling, etc. That’s what makes Allen different to me.

But because he went to Duke, he has a better reputation than he deserves.

@KUSTEVE

If you are confident that Vick was going to continue to shoot over 60% from three, you are right to be confident in this lineup.

If you don’t think that was going to continue, then that’s where the floor spacing issues start.

Crimsonorblue22 said:

Question, not sure how to word it, if a player, say Tom, has some mental health issues, what all issues could be covered by Hipaa laws? Could drinking or drug addiction problems be considered covered by hipaa laws? I was wondering if Self can’t share some things due to hipaa laws?

There are both HIPAA issues and student privacy issues at play. Certain things about a student athlete are not public and by law cannot be made public. I am not an expert by any means, but I know those issues exist.

@drgnslayr

I am concerned about how much depth KU has, as well as how KU can play their best 5 together.

If KU’s best group includes Doke, de Souza and Garrett, how do you build a real D1 offense with the skillsets of those three guys.

Let’s say the best group is Moss, Dotson and the previously mentioned three. How is that better than what we showed last year? Lawson was much more polished than I believe de Souza will be. Moss and Vick are about the same. Doke is what he is, and despite our criticisms, Garrett likely isn’t a large upgrade over Grimes.

So unless Dotson has made a huge leap, we have last year’s team with some new faces. Perhaps I am too pessimistic, but that’s my concern. I just don’t see large differences right now.

Wiggins is a good NBA player. He is not a star. Unfortunately, he is on a star contract, so he is a hard player to fit into anyone’s cap situation.

As for Westbrook and Harden, they will have to figure out how to work on the court together because there is no way Houston can avoid playing them heavy minutes together in the playoffs.

@stoptheflop

Line play is the hardest thing to build. If you have a bad line (or no depth), it can be tough to get out from under. KU has been short on line play since the Weis years.

The recruits that Beaty brought in to at least get some depth up front on both sides of the ball are a credit to him. I don’t know whether he could have ever gotten things truly turned around, but he at least took KU from laughingstock to just bad.

Duke did not win a national title this year because their roster was flawed.

Even though they had a ton of top end talent, that talent did not necessarily fit together well on the court. Reddish and Barrett played the same position, and would have had similar roles had they been on different teams. On the same team, Reddish was often the odd man out. Even still, Reddish was easily their third best player.

Behind the four freshmen (adding in PG Jones) Duke had basically zero depth. The NCAA is still five on five, and Duke didn’t really have anyone else they trusted to give minutes to. Their four freshmen all played about 30 mpg, with most of the other players on the team playing 20 mpg or less. Had Williamson, Reddish and Jones not missed time, there’s a decent chance that Duke would have had four players average 30+ minutes and four others averaging 15 or so minutes per game. That lack of depth consistently got exposed, particularly in the tournament where good teams could attack the weak link on the floor.

On top of that, Duke didn’t have much in the way of perimeter shooting. They shot 30% as a team from three. They likely would have been unguardable if they had shot 35% from three, and a real nightmare at just 33%.

Duke had a flawed roster and it haunted them all March. If you could keep Williamson and Barrett out of the paint, Duke was actually easier to guard, and they always had at least one weaker player on the floor.

We all know that most NCAA champions have at least seven or eight legitimate contributors. That is just a must unless you get really lucky.

dylans said:

@justanotherfan Did you see the stats for the qbs after they left KU? Much improved. Is the big12 that tuff or does KU suck that bad at the supporting positions -line, receiver?

KU’s line was among the worst in D1 for a while. Tom Brady would have looked average behind that line.

Texas Hawk 10 said:

@justanotherfan Most owners have no issue going into the luxury tax in an attempt to win a championship. Only New Orleans and Charlotte have never paid the luxury tax since its inception. Owners don’t want to stay in the luxury tax because the penalty for being the in luxury tax escalates each consecutive year a team is in it.

Key phrase attempt to win a championship. At no point since the tax has been created has either Charlotte or New Orleans been relatively close to championship caliber.

Now, I will grant that several other teams weren’t there, either (Knicks, Nets, Grizzlies, probably a few others), but most everyone else has either been a top 2 team in their conference or gone to the Finals during that stretch.

It’s been a combination of a lack of talent and a lack of organization.

After Reesing left, there was no incoming QB talent. The Gill years were short circuited on whether or not he would be able to recruit a better QB.

Weis was terrible in every facet. No more needs to be said.

The last few years, we have been able to recruit solid enough QBs, but haven’t surrounded them with the scheme or enough overall talent to make any difference. Hopefully the stability that Miles brings will also allow a QB to actually develop at KU. We aren’t in a position to recruit a five star guy that can come in and start immediately, so we need enough stability in the program to allow a QB to actually develop within the program for a year or two before starting.

An improved offensive line and some more playmakers on the outside should also help.

None of the owners really want to go into the luxury tax, and Charlotte has too many bad contracts on the books to really compete right now. Their cap situation is a mess, with no real way to repair it until Batum and others come off the books.

Zion could be a great rebounder if he committed to it, particularly on the offensive glass where he would be a real menace because of his explosiveness.

But his skills dictate that he get the ball in his hands away from the rim quite a bit because he can handle the ball and is a very adept passer as @Texas-Hawk-10 notes.

There are a few paths Zion could take.

1. Charles Barkley 2.0 - a modernized young Barkley. A few less rebounds, but more assists. Barkley’s first All Star season saw him average 23 points, 14.6 boards and nearly 5 assists, with more than a block and a steal a game. I could see Zion averaging 22 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists and nearly 4 combined blocks and steals a game, with an effective FG% over 62% because he can likely shoot around 33% from three (Barkley generally shot under 30% from three).

2. Super Draymond Green - Basically a do everything forward that can guard all 5 positions defensively. Less scoring, but more efficient. Something along the lines of 17 points, 10 rebounds, 6 assists, roughly 3.5 combined steals and blocks, 65%+ eFG%. This only works if he gets guys like Lonzo Ball, Stanley Johnson, Brandon Ingram, etc. to be able to be the focal point of the offense so he can do a little less pure scoring.

3. mini Lebron - His rebounding will suffer here because he will facilitate more, but something like 26/7/6/1.5/1, with an eFG% of around 50%. His efficiency suffers here, but that’s still a great line. Also, that line is a shade under what Lebron has averaged for his career.

4. All Star Shawn Kemp 2.0 - 20 points, 10 rebounds, but fewer assists as his ball handling responsibilities diminish.

All four of those scenarios are perennial All Star level scenarios. If Zion stays healthy, I don’t think there’s a path that leads him to be less than a consistent all star.

drgnslayr said:

@justanotherfan

Excellent post. Don’t you think the rankings are a bit of “self-fulfilling prophecy?”

I’ve been around several players fresh out of D1 awaiting for their shot in the league. Most all of these guys jump to another level within that period of just a few months. They have agents, who connect them with the right trainers while they get their moments practicing for NBA teams.

You can easily see the difference in their conditioning just by seeing them in street clothes. It’s dramatic… and it’s also necessary if they want a real shot in the league.

I don’t think the ratings are “self-fulfilling” in that guys end up being good because we are told they are good. The guys that are rated really high tend to be better. Even the ones that end up not being that great are generally still serviceable.

Take Quentin Grimes. He was bad for a top 10 recruit. But he was still just as good as anyone you could have gotten that was rated below 35. We have seen how guys in that range perform. You get Andrew White. Or Brannen Greene. Or Royce Woolridge. Or Anrio Adams. Those guys don’t produce what Grimes produced last season. They give you 3 or 4 points per game. A rebound or two maybe. Grimes was double that.

Was Grimes overrated? Probably. He should have been in the 20’s instead of the top 10. But had he been in the mid to late 20’s, his production would have been right in line.

But that’s the thing. Even when the ratings miss, they can be telling. A top 10 recruit will at least give top 40 type production, even if they are overrated. A top 50 recruit will likely become productive at some point in their career.

Anything below 50 is a crap shoot.

Paul George is an elite level second star because he does everything well. He’s one of the best perimeter defenders in the league. He and Kawhi will make teams miserable on the wings. Add Patrick Beverly and the Clippers are not going to be fun to play against offensively.

This offseason has really re-shaped the entire league.

Utah has improved. Philly probably took a small step back without Butler. Boston probably took a step back losing Kyrie and Horford. Kemba is good, but he won’t replace Kyrie’s production.

The Lakers are better, but it remains to be seen how healthy they will be. Same for the Warriors.

The Nets will be good in 2020-21. Durant is better than Dominique Wilkins ever was, and Wilkins’ entire game was based on his otherworldly athleticism. Durant at least has his shooting to fall back on. Also, Wilkins was 31 when he was injured, not 21.

It’s weird to think we live in a world where the Los Angeles Clippers are a legitimate NBA title contender. Not a hip pick. Not a sleeper pick. Legit title contenders.

Bosthawk said:

more stats fun about top 100 high school ranked players from 1998 to 2013 and how their careers panned out in the NBA:

27% of the 1,563 top-ranked high school players made it to the NBA and only 25% made it past their two-year rookie contract. Put another way, 441 of the 900 draft picks in that 15 year span were top 100 recruits. Just 31 players eventually reached “superstar” status.

But perhaps the top 100 is too broad of a categorization. Surely the top 10 players will make it to the NBA more often, right?

Players ranked in the top 10 certainly appear to have slightly better odds—a full 84% of them eventually made it to the NBA. Though with 60 draft picks a year, you might expect that number to be higher.

How many players can truly be “superstars” at any one time? Let’s say that a “superstar” is a player that is an All-NBA type talent. That means there are maybe 15-20 true superstars in the NBA at any one time. And because superstars will tend to stay in the league for a while, your superstars will tend to be the same year after year.

For example, Kobe Bryant was a “superstar” from probably 1999 or 2000 until 2010 or 2011 when injuries and age slowed him down. Lebron James has been a superstar since probably 2004 or 2005. Shaq was a superstar from 1994 or 1995 until 2006 at least. Kevin Garnett was a superstar from 1996 until at least 2009 or 2010. Tim Duncan was a superstar from 1999 until 2010 or 2011. So between those five guys, you had five of the 15-20 superstars in the league from 2004-2006, and between James, Duncan, Bryant and Garnett, they occupied four of those spots from 2004 through 2010. Not a lot of space for new guys to jump in and become superstars.

84% of top 10 prospects make the NBA. That again shows that the top ranked players are generally the best prospects. One or two out of each class don’t pan out, but the other eight usually do.

Meanwhile, if you picked a ten player sample of probably any other ranking (i.e. 11-20 or 55-64, or 110-119) you would probably find an attrition rate around 50%, if not higher, particularly once you get below about 350 or so. You would be very hard pressed to find even a handful of guys ranked past there that make the NBA, or even turn into above average college players.

The rankings aren’t perfect, but they are pretty solid.