Boogie Fland: Been hearing that there has been some Uconn buzz of late

[Kenny11]

If it was like that then programs like Duke, UNC, and KU players would perform the same. Kentucky is just on another level.

Players like Bam, Booker (6th man), and Shai weren’t surefire NBA stars by any means. We can only really say that about the John Wall’s and Anthony Davis’s of the world but when guys like Tyler Herro, Quickley, and Maxey are finding success then it’s an obvious trend of the program that they just know how to prepare guys for the league.

Really check and see just how many Kentucky players play big roles for their team on almost every one. It’d probably shock you.

Meanwhile the 5*s from the 2019 and 2020 UNC classes are STILL there not even making the tournament… it’s not that easy.

You are right about Kentucky players overachieving or at least not underachieving in the nba. But does 8 months at Kentucky really play a big part in their development? I’m not sure. Playing under that pressure and spotlight as well as being a top target for every opponent probably does help. Is the skill development work and strength and conditioning at a different level than other division 1 programs? I don’t know but I doubt it.

 

[Deleted at users request]

You are right about Kentucky players overachieving or at least not underachieving in the nba. But does 8 months at Kentucky really play a big part in their development? I’m not sure. Playing under that pressure and spotlight as well as being a top target for every opponent probably does help. Is the skill development work and strength and conditioning at a different level than other division 1 programs? I don’t know but I doubt it.

As much as I hate to say it, Cal just knows how to develop guys for the league. I doubted it at first too and was right there with you guys but after a decade+ of success it’s just fan hate to deny it. He knows something.

Getting a bag and living like a king while not having to go to classes is still a thing, but knowing you’re getting the best coaching possible for the NBA is a thing too when you look at the results. 4 NBA All Stars this year, only other school with more than 1 was Duke this year who had 2. Players are idiots for still ruining their careers at UNC though.

 

[pj]

You are right about Kentucky players overachieving or at least not underachieving in the nba. But does 8 months at Kentucky really play a big part in their development? I’m not sure. Playing under that pressure and spotlight as well as being a top target for every opponent probably does help. Is the skill development work and strength and conditioning at a different level than other division 1 programs? I don’t know but I doubt it.

Calipari recruited players based on NBA potential, not size of their college contributions. Other coaches weighed college contributions more, and were OK with having a great college player for four years who was of little interest to the NBA. Calipari sought guys who might be good but immature in college for one year and then go to the NBA, drafted on potential; then he used draft success of his players as a pitch for the next recruit.

Calipari has a good eye for talent, that's for sure, but whether he's a good developer of talent is open to question. He seems to be an average developer, based on an analysis I did a few years ago. Not bad, but not like Jim Calhoun in frequently lifting players above their high school recruiting rankings. For every Devin Booker who overperformed, there was a highly touted recruit who underperformed, and vice versa.

 

[Deleted at users request]

Calipari recruited players based on NBA potential, not size of their college contributions. Other coaches weighed college contributions more, and were OK with having a great college player for four years who was of little interest to the NBA. Calipari sought guys who might be good but immature in college for one year and then go to the NBA, drafted on potential; then he used draft success of his players as a pitch for the next recruit.

Calipari has a good eye for talent, that's for sure, but whether he's a good developer of talent is open to question. He seems to be an average developer, based on an analysis I did a few years ago. Not bad, but not like Jim Calhoun in frequently lifting players above their high school recruiting rankings. For every Devin Booker who overperformed, there was a highly touted recruit who underperformed, and vice versa.

Do you have the analysis anywhere? Would be an interesting read.

I’m not sure how many other coaches would develop talent better than Cal. Jim was just on another level with it. You give him a 4* guy and he can turn him into a top 5 pick. 5* were GUARANTEED to be a lottery pick. There was no wasted talent under him. Legitimately one of the best developer of talents of all time.

Coach K didn’t even start finding more consistent NBA success until he started going down the one and done route.

 

[Hoophound]

Cal recruits guys that really don’t need much or any development. I can’t believe anyone has actually been fooled into thinking he knows something.

He was a good coach at UMass. He motivated his guys. I actually think he caught lightning in a bottle there when he landed Camby and his guards turned out to have balls of steel. He capitalized and left real quick. Ever since, it’s been a marketing job rather than a basketball one.

 

[HooperScooper]

Pitino is going to get some of these NY area kids to stay home. No doubt about it.

 

[djct1999]

Cal was a head of his time and with friends like World Wide Wes and Nike, he was able to pay kids serious money before any other program. It seemed that the endless bags of cash ended a few years back and NIL has leveled the playing field even further. There are plenty of guys better at developing kids than the Squid. What made Cal unique ended years ago.

 

[Jbirdp5]

As much as I hate to say it, Cal just knows how to develop guys for the league. I doubted it at first too and was right there with you guys but after a decade+ of success it’s just fan hate to deny it. He knows something.

Getting a bag and living like a king while not having to go to classes is still a thing, but knowing you’re getting the best coaching possible for the NBA is a thing too when you look at the results. 4 NBA All Stars this year, only other school with more than 1 was Duke this year who had 2. Players are idiots for still ruining their careers at UNC though.

When you have the highest number of one and done recruits you send as many prospects to the nba each year as most teams do in 3 years. Does he deserve credit, yes but judging the all stars that went to kentucky does not draw a straight line to him being better at developing talent than many other quality coaches.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Pitino is going to get some of these NY area kids to stay home. No doubt about it.

If that Billionaire booster is for real, he should be backing up the truck for Fland. The Pitino hire and landing Fland would do wonders to give them some momentum. It'll be interesting to see how this goes because St. John's is still going to be at a HUGE facilities disadvantage to basically everyone they're recruiting against.

 

[CONN78SEJ]

Because becoming an on-campus god, getting all kinds of money from all kinds of places while also having the media fluff the crap out of you is appealing?

I don’t think playing with kids who were getting guns from all kinds of places would be a big draw for any recruit or the people advising him.

 

[Deleted at users request]

When you have the highest number of one and done recruits you send as many prospects to the nba each year as most teams do in 3 years. Does he deserve credit, yes but judging the all stars that went to kentucky does not draw a straight line to him being better at developing talent than many other quality coaches.

I’d agree if there weren’t SO MANY. There’s programs that recruit like Kentucky does but are no where close to producing like they do.

Again, just look at how bad UNC does in the NBA compared to the level of talent they get. Duke had a #1 recruiting class last year with multiple top 10 players, yet only one of them is a fringe 1st round pick next year. It’s really not as easy as they make it look.

 

[Steve85]

I’d agree if there weren’t SO MANY. There’s programs that recruit like Kentucky does but are no where close to producing like they do.

Again, just look at how bad UNC does in the NBA compared to the level of talent they get. Duke had a #1 recruiting class last year with multiple top 10 players, yet only one of them is a fringe 1st round pick next year. It’s really not as easy as they make it look.

I think the point u are really making is Calipari does a great job of identifying the best of the best high school talent projecting that talent as NBA prospects not necessarily as talents that will maximize Kentucky’s on the court performance as a team (or individual for that matter) in the year (or 2) that most stay in Lexington (although there is some overlap, see Davis, Anthony).

 

[pj]

Do you have the analysis anywhere? Would be an interesting read.

I’m not sure how many other coaches would develop talent better than Cal. Jim was just on another level with it. You give him a 4* guy and he can turn him into a top 5 pick. 5* were GUARANTEED to be a lottery pick. There was no wasted talent under him. Legitimately one of the best developer of talents of all time.

Coach K didn’t even start finding more consistent NBA success until he started going down the one and done route.

He came in average to very slightly above average in getting recruits to the NBA based on their high school recruiting rankings. However, there could be a statistical bias in how I was doing things: If you have the #1 rated recruit, he can underperform his ranking but he can't overperform it. Meanwhile schools recruiting the #100 recruit can have him overperform his rating. Calipari got such highly rated recruits for so long, he may have had underperforming 5*s just because of reversion to the mean, not because he wasn't developing them well.

I don't know enough statistics to know how to adjust for that. So, he could be a good developer, or Kentucky as a program could be a good developer. But I think the biggest factor in their NBA success is who they were recruiting, not Calipari's development. Whereas Jim Calhoun had a very clear success rate at getting players to overperform.

 

[BGesus4]

He came in average to very slightly above average in getting recruits to the NBA based on their high school recruiting rankings. However, there could be a statistical bias in how I was doing things: If you have the #1 rated recruit, he can underperform his ranking but he can't overperform it. Meanwhile schools recruiting the #100 recruit can have him overperform his rating. Calipari got such highly rated recruits for so long, he may have had underperforming 5*s just because of reversion to the mean, not because he wasn't developing them well.

I don't know enough statistics to know how to adjust for that. So, he could be a good developer, or Kentucky as a program could be a good developer. But I think the biggest factor in their NBA success is who they were recruiting, not Calipari's development. Whereas Jim Calhoun had a very clear success rate at getting players to overperform.

You should look based on the population of recruits of a given ranking. That way, for every ranking there will be a distribution of outcomes by which you can judge where an individual falls.

 

[Tyler2Rings]

He came in average to very slightly above average in getting recruits to the NBA based on their high school recruiting rankings. However, there could be a statistical bias in how I was doing things: If you have the #1 rated recruit, he can underperform his ranking but he can't overperform it. Meanwhile schools recruiting the #100 recruit can have him overperform his rating. Calipari got such highly rated recruits for so long, he may have had underperforming 5*s just because of reversion to the mean, not because he wasn't developing them well.

I don't know enough statistics to know how to adjust for that.

You should look based on the population of recruits of a given ranking. That way, for every ranking there will be a distribution of outcomes by which you can judge where an individual falls.

 

[PNolanFan]

He came in average to very slightly above average in getting recruits to the NBA based on their high school recruiting rankings. However, there could be a statistical bias in how I was doing things: If you have the #1 rated recruit, he can underperform his ranking but he can't overperform it. Meanwhile schools recruiting the #100 recruit can have him overperform his rating. Calipari got such highly rated recruits for so long, he may have had underperforming 5*s just because of reversion to the mean, not because he wasn't developing them well.

I don't know enough statistics to know how to adjust for that. So, he could be a good developer, or Kentucky as a program could be a good developer. But I think the biggest factor in their NBA success is who they were recruiting, not Calipari's development. Whereas Jim Calhoun had a very clear success rate at getting players to overperform.

I think there is a clear divergence between Duke and Kentucky in the one and done era. If you look at all of Calipari's 5 star recruits, I would say they have had as expected or possibly higher NBA success than a random set of 5 stars. Now i think part of that is that Calipari does have a good eye for talent. An example of that would be like SGA, he was a 4 star recruit but I remember Calipari saying he thought he was the best PG in the country.

Now Duke, they have had litters and litters over the past 5 years of 5 star recruits that havent panned out. When K started wading into the 5 star waters he would bring in like 1 or 2 a year and be selective but at some point he started pumping in as many 5 stars as he could and a ton of them have underperformed what you would expect as 5 star players. Without counting this year I am geussing like 6 for 17 or something in 5 star success for them. I am thinking Cal is alot closer to 50/50 on NBA success for his 5 stars

 

[Deleted at users request]

I think the point u are really making is Calipari does a great job of identifying the best of the best high school talent projecting that talent as NBA prospects not necessarily as talents that will maximize Kentucky’s on the court performance as a team (or individual for that matter) in the year (or 2) that most stay in Lexington (although there is some overlap, see Davis, Anthony).

Yeah sorry if I’m not clear.

I do NOT think Calipari is a good Xs and Os coach. He can not win big himself unless he has an absurd amount of talent that fits together. But he seems to get guys prepared to succeed in the NBA during their six months there that we simply do not see with other high level coaches. Because of that, recruits are attracted to Kentucky to follow that pattern.

 

[Deleted at users request]

He came in average to very slightly above average in getting recruits to the NBA based on their high school recruiting rankings. However, there could be a statistical bias in how I was doing things: If you have the #1 rated recruit, he can underperform his ranking but he can't overperform it. Meanwhile schools recruiting the #100 recruit can have him overperform his rating. Calipari got such highly rated recruits for so long, he may have had underperforming 5*s just because of reversion to the mean, not because he wasn't developing them well.

I don't know enough statistics to know how to adjust for that. So, he could be a good developer, or Kentucky as a program could be a good developer. But I think the biggest factor in their NBA success is who they were recruiting, not Calipari's development. Whereas Jim Calhoun had a very clear success rate at getting players to overperform.

I think recruiting 100% plays a part. But Calipari just does a good job of not messing them up like other coaches do.

Calhoun is an unfair comparison as I don’t think there’s any coaches that come close to Calhoun’s hit and development rate.

I’m taking my Cal cape off now and going to take a shower.

 

[UConnJim]

From 2017 to 2021, Calipari had 25 Top 50 recruits, and 17 Top 25 recruits. This is a crazy high number, but it is because he has a ton of one and dones. So, by definition, he is going to put a ton of players in the NBA because he has more top players.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yeah sorry if I’m not clear.

I do NOT think Calipari is a good Xs and Os coach. He can not win big himself unless he has an absurd amount of talent that fits together. But he seems to get guys prepared to succeed in the NBA during their six months there that we simply do not see with other high level coaches. Because of that, recruits are attracted to Kentucky to follow that pattern.

I think he's a damned good coach. I simply think that the strategy of trying to win with mostly one and done guys is a poor one. It really hasn't been great for Duke either. Continuity and experience are critical to winning. Trying to build a team from scratch, with all inexperienced guys is hard as hell. Carolina doesn't do that. Kansas doesn't do that. There's really only two programs that attempt it.

 

[businesslawyer]

Yeah sorry if I’m not clear.

I do NOT think Calipari is a good Xs and Os coach. He can not win big himself unless he has an absurd amount of talent that fits together. But he seems to get guys prepared to succeed in the NBA during their six months there that we simply do not see with other high level coaches. Because of that, recruits are attracted to Kentucky to follow that pattern.

I don't like the guy, but there is no arguing with what Calapari achieved at UMass. And forget the Marcus Camby days -- just go back to what he did before that with Harper Williams and McCoy. As someone else said, winning with a roster of future NBA freshmen who will be gone after one season is a good strategy to almost always be good, but is probably not a good strategy for winning national championships.

 

[Mr. French]

Yeah sorry if I’m not clear.

I do NOT think Calipari is a good Xs and Os coach. He can not win big himself unless he has an absurd amount of talent that fits together. But he seems to get guys prepared to succeed in the NBA during their six months there that we simply do not see with other high level coaches. Because of that, recruits are attracted to Kentucky to follow that pattern.

I think it has very little to do with him developing them and more to do with the types of 5 stars he recruits. And there is a decent amount of top ranked guys that ended up being total busts too, so not every guy he recruits hits big.

To use my admittedly biased view, I'd say he recruits ultra athletic and talented kids that are the highest ranked because of that potential - they end up not having quite as much college success as maybe they should but eventually they get to the league and become good in a few years.

That's just because they were always going to develop that way, not because of Cal's 6 months.

 

[Storrs South]

 

[CONN78SEJ]

He came in average to very slightly above average in getting recruits to the NBA based on their high school recruiting rankings. However, there could be a statistical bias in how I was doing things: If you have the #1 rated recruit, he can underperform his ranking but he can't overperform it. Meanwhile schools recruiting the #100 recruit can have him overperform his rating. Calipari got such highly rated recruits for so long, he may have had underperforming 5*s just because of reversion to the mean, not because he wasn't developing them well.

I don't know enough statistics to know how to adjust for that. So, he could be a good developer, or Kentucky as a program could be a good developer. But I think the biggest factor in their NBA success is who they were recruiting, not Calipari's development. Whereas Jim Calhoun had a very clear success rate at getting players to overperform.

Guys like Calhoun, Bob Knight and Dean Smith were great teachers of the game.

 

[sledog]

NY Post story - Patino all over Fland.

 

[Huskyforlife]

I wonder if anyone still believes Pitino won’t impact us.

 

[Tyler2Rings]

I wonder if anyone still believes Pitino won’t impact us.

Any negative recruiting impact is more than made up for by stoking a local rivalry and improving the conference.

We have the 4th ranked recruiting class next year. Will you be worried if the 2024 class is "only" top 25? Recruiting is not everything

 

[BGesus4]

I wonder if anyone still believes Pitino won’t impact us.

He’ll definitely impact us on individual recruits like fland but overall I think it’ll help having the league improved in terms of basketball and media exposure. We’ve already started to move our recruiting base more nationally so slick Rick doing a better job of keeping New York recruits home won’t be the be all end all.

 

[runner11]

If they keep making NBA stars it won’t matter. Guys want to have long careers more than win games in college.

I can’t remember the last time they didn’t have a first round pick.

Ya and meanwhile no program has nearly as many one and done kids go round 2 or undrafted. Apply some context or critical thinking for the love of God.

 

[Kembacity]

Pitino can bring it, I have to assume that 17 year old kids can detect a difference in the passion fight and fire a coach of hurleys age can bring compared to Pitino these days.