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

[HuskyWarrior611]

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

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

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.

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

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.

 

[Storrs South]

I'll add that maybe NYC could be tougher going forward, but New England is basically uncontested now. Not that Cooley was out recruiting UConn but he was going after and getting some guys like Mulready most recently.

Plus Hurley has been more NJ leaning than NYC in his time here (Sanogo, Cole Samson, Gaffney v. Bouk and Richie). Given his history in that state he should still get the guys he wants.

The league being more competitive should be beneficial as others have said to improve everyone's profile and reduce margin of error for making tourney and help with metrics to ensure OOC schedule is less important and seeding is improved.

 

[Huskyforlife]

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

I’m just making fun of all the jokers that said his presence in New York will impact every other New England school, but not us. He’s gonna steal Ian Jackson from UNC, and he just jumped us for our top 2024 recruit. You’d have to be blind or ignorant if you don’t think this will impact our local recruiting to some extent.

 

[Huskyforlife]

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.

Agreed. But we were just starting to move into position to attack the top New York prospects, now it’s looking like that’ll have to take a back seat.

 

[ElGreco]

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.

Spot on!! It’s always been tough to get national players to a commuter school in Queens. We’ve had no issues like that in Storrs that captures an entire state.

 

[ElGreco]

Agreed. But we were just starting to move into position to attack the top New York prospects, now it’s looking like that’ll have to take a back seat.

Many kids want to get out of the City!