AP preseason first team

[auror]

Any player that you put at the forefront will get better from year 1 to year 2. This benefit is not excluded to just transfers lol

Okay, but...

Think the question is how successful actually are these mid majors who transfer up.

Would you rather stay where you are and keep developing to have the chance to be a star/impact player at the next level or move up, get the quickest money but potentially harm your future earnings because you don’t develop as much.

So do transfers develop as every player develops every year or are they harmed because they don't develop as much.

 

[HW611]

Okay, but...

So do transfers develop as every player develops every year or are they harmed because they don't develop as much.

Let’s make an assumption that every player who gets enough minutes in a system gets better every year.

Player A:

Plays in the same system for 4 years. Gets better every year.

Player B:

Plays in a system 2 years. Gets better. Transfers to another system and has a setback/middling year. Gets better the next year.

You see how both of those statements can be true at once?

 

[RuffRuff]

Okay, but...

So do transfers develop as every player develops every year or are they harmed because they don't develop as much.

Let’s make an assumption that every player who gets enough minutes in a system gets better every year.

Player A:

Plays in the same system for 4 years. Gets better every year.

Player B:

Plays in a system 2 years. Gets better. Transfers to another system and has a setback/middling year. Gets better the next year.

You see how both of those statements can be true at once?

I hope you realize the downside to Player A in the portal era? There is much higher risk in a freshman, for many reasons.

Also look at it from the players angle. Does a Silas Demary have a better chance at continued development at Georgia or at Uconn? Where was Tarris Reed going to have a better chance to develop? There is a refusal to acknowledge that the portal affords very good player the opportunity to transfer up to programs that help them develop more rapidly, where they can contribute to real winning and become great players.

Why take on the risk when you don't have to? Please answer that one. A staff hasn't been able to evaluate them against the level they're at. They may not develop at the rate needed to contribute. They may want more time than you want to give them. They may declare for the draft on potential before they can contribute meaningfully. You take on the risk that they transfer out. Why take on all that risk when you don't have to? Why feel forced to play a kid at a critical position as a freshman? Any freshmen that can get a lot of time their freshmen year at PG (DP) will be looking for a brinks truck of NIL. Hurley likes to distribute that more conservatively and equitably.

Better bet to provide what we need this year, Demary or Nowell? Perfect example. If you look at his HS tape, Nowell was able to bully HS kids, then gets to the college level and his handle is loose and he can't defend.

 

[HW611]

I hope you realize the downside to Player A in the portal era? There is much higher risk in a freshman, for many reasons.

You make this stuff sound impossible.

Also look at it from the players angle. Does a Silas Demary have a better chance at continued development at Georgia or at Uconn? Where was Tarris Reed going to have a better chance to develop? There is a refusal to acknowledge that the portal affords very good player the opportunity to transfer up to programs that help them develop more rapidly, where they can contribute to real winning and become great players.

Thats cool. They both may/did go through middling/setback years. Before preparing to produce at a high level their last year as your study shows.

But like, this is common sense. If you play in a new system you’re going to struggle because it’s new. Unless it fits you like a glove like it did with Cam. Then you’ll get better the next year. Naturally, if you have to go through a slump in your 2nd or 3rd year of college, it probably means you won’t be as good as you could’ve been if you spent 3 years consistently getting better.

Even after all the development Reed will get he’ll have one year to actually showcase it. The same will go for Silas (even though it seems like he was developing fine at Georgia, Reed for sure was in hell at Michigan).

Junior years used to be the time for major jumps for college players. Now guys are spending that time learning new systems after having breakout sophomore seasons to be able to transfer.

 

[RuffRuff]

You make this stuff sound impossible.

Thats cool. They both may/did go through middling/setback years. Before preparing to produce at a high level their last year as your study shows.

But like, this is common sense. If you play in a new system you’re going to struggle because it’s new. Unless it fits you like a glove like it did with Cam. Then you’ll get better the next year. Naturally, if you have to go through a slump in your 2nd or 3rd year of college, it probably means you won’t be as good as you could’ve been if you spent 3 years consistently getting better.

Even after all the development Reed will get he’ll have one year to actually showcase it. The same will go for Silas (even though it seems like he was developing fine at Georgia, Reed for sure was in hell at Michigan).

Junior years used to be the time for major jumps for college players. Now guys are spending that time learning new systems after having breakout sophomore seasons to be able to transfer.

No, it's not impossible, it is logistical & strategic. You're still not seeing it are you? You're so attached to the freshman concept, that you can't evaluate this stuff objectively. This is not 2005 when you could have a down year or two to rebuild - it was accepted and you HAD to live off home grown products. You can pull together a NC caliber roster every friggin year by using the portal right.

The fact that you think Silas didn't put himself in a better situation tells me you care less about winning and more about developing NBA products. College hoops is not an NBA factory first, it's a commitment to w.i.n.n.i.n.g. Everything else is secondary & byproduct.

Please become a Marquette fan for gods sake, or Duke. You'll get lot's of home grown freshmen and/or NBA products there. My god man. Catch up with the times dude. Who cares what it "used" to be? Here lies your issue, constantly living in the past when the world is changing. There were also players in bad programs back then that were stuck and never had the chance. Now a kid like Reed has a get out of jail card to go reach his potential in a real program. Does that even register?

 

[HW611]

The fact that you think Silas didn't put himself in a better situation tells me you care less about winning and more about developing NBA products. College hoops is not an NBA factory first, it's a commitment to w.i.n.n.i.n.g. Everything else is secondary & byproduct.

lol imagine you being a coach going into a players home and saying this stuff.

 

[RuffRuff]

lol imagine you being a coach going into a players home and saying this stuff.

Another super weird point. You think Hurley is walking into a kids house selling him NBA as a priority? Or have you not listened to him at all? Add Calipari to Duke/Marquette. Maddening.

 

[auror]

Let’s make an assumption that every player who gets enough minutes in a system gets better every year.

Player A:

Plays in the same system for 4 years. Gets better every year.

Player B:

Plays in a system 2 years. Gets better. Transfers to another system and has a setback/middling year. Gets better the next year.

You see how both of those statements can be true at once?

You make this stuff sound impossible.

Thats cool. They both may/did go through middling/setback years. Before preparing to produce at a high level their last year as your study shows.

But like, this is common sense. If you play in a new system you’re going to struggle because it’s new. Unless it fits you like a glove like it did with Cam. Then you’ll get better the next year. Naturally, if you have to go through a slump in your 2nd or 3rd year of college, it probably means you won’t be as good as you could’ve been if you spent 3 years consistently getting better.

Even after all the development Reed will get he’ll have one year to actually showcase it. The same will go for Silas (even though it seems like he was developing fine at Georgia, Reed for sure was in hell at Michigan).

Junior years used to be the time for major jumps for college players. Now guys are spending that time learning new systems after having breakout sophomore seasons to be able to transfer.

The whole exercise is futile because the base assumption is flawed.

It is possible for anyone to have a setback, everywhere, as a new transfer or even in the same system. Just look at Karaban last season. Players do generally get better year over year, but the improvement is not always linear and anyone can hit a bump in the road.

Your mid-major up-transfers can't become lottery players argument is asinine because it assumes that players in the same system always improve and that players can't find that "glove fit" in the portal in the first season. Lots of guys are awesome in year 1 at their new school, it's not an automatic "worse because learning new system" rule.

Just for example, but Reed was MUCH better at UConn this past year than Michigan the year before. He had no setback or slowdown, he took a big jump in year 1.

 

[HW611]

Another super weird point. You think Hurley is walking into a kids house selling him NBA as a priority? Or have you not listened to him at all? Add Calipari to Duke/Marquette. Maddening.

You can’t be this much a dumb selfish fan to think kids are coming here solely for the purpose of making you happy by winning.

 

[RuffRuff]

The whole exercise is futile because the base assumption is flawed.

It is possible for anyone to have a setback, everywhere, as a new transfer or even in the same system. Just look at Karaban last season. Players do generally get better year over year, but the improvement is not always linear and anyone can hit a bump in the road.

Your mid-major up-transfers can't become lottery players argument is asinine because it assumes that players in the same system always improve and that players can't find that "glove fit" in the portal in the first season. Lots of guys are awesome in year 1 at their new school, it's not an automatic "worse because learning new system" rule.

The LARGE majority of non-transfer lottery picks are freshmen that could have gone anywhere and still gone lottery. Did VJ Edgecombe or Baylor have a great year last year? Did Harper & Bailey have great years? These kids are flagged well before they even get to college. Carter Bryant played 19 minutes a game last year and averaged 6 pts. Did Lloyd "develop" him?

11 out of the 14 draft picks last year were true freshman, then an international kid & then Boyles (sophomore) and Cedric Howard. Any of these guys could have gone anywhere - they didn't need "development". That applies to the large majority of high draft picks, who are drafted based on natural traits and flagged.

The highest draft pick after those guys - a transfer in Walter Clayton.

 

[RuffRuff]

You can’t be this much a dumb selfish fan to think kids are coming here solely for the purpose of making you happy by winning.

Who said solely? I said not a priority. He has 8 NBA players up on a wall right now he can show on a visit. There is an aspect of selective listening & information to you that is head banging. You'd be even dumber if you think that's the kind of kid that Hurley targets. Listen to the Solo interview from BE media day.

 

[HW611]

The whole exercise is futile because the base assumption is flawed.

It is possible for anyone to have a setback, everywhere, as a new transfer or even in the same system. Just look at Karaban last season. Players do generally get better year over year, but the improvement is not always linear and anyone can hit a bump in the road.

Your mid-major up-transfers can't become lottery players argument is asinine because it assumes that players in the same system always improve and that players can't find that "glove fit" in the portal in the first season. Lots of guys are awesome in year 1 at their new school, it's not an automatic "worse because learning new system" rule.

Just for example, but Reed was MUCH better at UConn this past year than Michigan the year before. He had no setback or slowdown, he took a big jump in year 1.

I tried to set a general rule because of course it’s a case by case basis, but that’s usually how these things work.

Karaban may not have been as efficient as he was previously, but his overall numbers were better than his sophomore year because he had more responsibility from the continuity he had in the system. He did make All-Big East. Something he didn’t do the year before.

Reed was more efficient, but his numbers remained the same because he had a setback in minutes.

What are the examples of guys who weren’t playing in their last year who came in and played better in the same/bigger role? Genuine question.

 

[HW611]

Who said solely? I said not a priority. He has 8 NBA players up on a wall right now he can show on a visit. There is an aspect of selective listening & information to you that is head banging. You'd be even dumber if you think that's the kind of kid that Hurley targets. Listen to the Solo interview from BE media day.

Why do you think players are prioritizing winning championships for your happiness over making millions of $$ for their family?

 

[RuffRuff]

Why do you think players are prioritizing winning championships for your happiness over making millions of $$ for their family?

Oh buddy - it’s like you think every player is destined for the NBA. Sadly they’re not. I know you think unbelievable development can make anyone a lottery pick, but it’s not true. 99% is determined in the mother’s womb. You seem to think that any kid can be coached up to NBA level, but it’s just.not.true. You’re the guy that thinks Solo should be developed into a PG because it’s possible and gives him better potential in the NBA. Sorry again. Yeah Dan, let’s run that experiment for the sake for Solo’s NBA draft status while we have 2 PGs. While we’re at it maybe we should try Tarris as a point center to show his game in totality.

Some kids just may want a more balanced experience, being connected to a program, some winning and all the while, getting developed. Gosh how horrible is that? Solo and Stew could have jumped ship but went to Hurley proactively to tell them their coming back.

You think Shaka is walking in talking about the league and how he’s going to get them there? Painter? Every kid is different. Those that are truly NBA bound will likely get more talk about that (Mullins). This one track mind s##t needs a diagnosis. This isn’t the G league, this isn’t a lab, a very small % of players have any NBA potential, which is often predetermined. And if Hurley wants to show kids how he gets players to the league, he can point to a crop of 50+ recruits he got there recently. He’s well positioned. Cut the cr&p already and save the board the exhaustion. Get current, stop talking about the past and exhibiting your complete inability to let go and learn to appreciate the amazing things Hurley has done for the program without comparing him to Calhoun.

 

[HW611]

Oh buddy - it’s like you think every player is destined for the NBA. Sadly they’re not. I know you think unbelievable development can make anyone a lottery pick, but it’s not true. 99% is determined in the mother’s womb. You seem to think that any kid can be coached up to NBA level, but it’s just.not.true. You’re the guy that thinks Solo should be developed into a PG because it’s possible and gives him better potential in the NBA. Sorry again. Yeah Dan, let’s run that experiment for the sake for Solo’s NBA draft status while we have 2 PGs. While we’re at it maybe we should try Tarris as a point center to show his game in totality.

Some kids just may want a more balanced experience, being connected to a program, some winning and all the while, getting developed. Gosh how horrible is that? Solo and Stew could have jumped ship but went to Hurley proactively to tell them their coming back.

You think Shaka is walking in talking about the league and how he’s going to get them there? Painter? Every kid is different. Those that are truly NBA bound will likely get more talk about that (Mullins). This one track mind s##t needs a diagnosis. This isn’t the G league, this isn’t a lab, a very small % of players have any NBA potential, which is often predetermined. And if Hurley wants to show kids how he gets players to the league, he can point to a crop of 50+ recruits he got there recently. He’s well positioned. Cut the cr&p already and save the board the exhaustion. Get current, stop talking about the past and exhibiting your complete inability to let go and learn to appreciate the amazing things Hurley has done for the program without comparing him to Calhoun.

You think you can win without players talented enough to go to the NBA? Lol

Why you so mad that you jumped into 10 different things we’re not talking about at all lmao

 

[Samoo]

You can’t be this much a dumb selfish fan to think kids are coming here solely for the purpose of making you happy by winning.

do you own stock in Red Herring INC.?

 

[DRBackup]

Out of around 75,000 players in the timespan, they're within 8 spots. Kemba had a slump in conference play if you recall, shot 39.5% from the field. Wore down a bit. The Ben Hansbrough of it all. He's in the 99.98th percentile in the model.

Thing is, that chart is value while on the court. Fact is, that team wasn't great, outside of Kemba. Certainly they were better with him on the floor, but he average 37.6 minutes per game. There was not team without Kemba. LOL

That's a useful stat if you can differentiate how good the team was or wasn't depending on if someone was on the floor or not. Cooper Flagg, for instance, only played 30.7 minutes per game. Sitting for 2.5 minutes per game, the team's efficiency was Kemba's efficiency.

 

[Mr. French]

The whole exercise is futile because the base assumption is flawed.

It is possible for anyone to have a setback, everywhere, as a new transfer or even in the same system. Just look at Karaban last season. Players do generally get better year over year, but the improvement is not always linear and anyone can hit a bump in the road.

Your mid-major up-transfers can't become lottery players argument is asinine because it assumes that players in the same system always improve and that players can't find that "glove fit" in the portal in the first season. Lots of guys are awesome in year 1 at their new school, it's not an automatic "worse because learning new system" rule.

Just for example, but Reed was MUCH better at UConn this past year than Michigan the year before. He had no setback or slowdown, he took a big jump in year 1.

This is all obvious to most people. Good post.