Imagine you're a 5 star recruit...

[auror]

snip

We're arguing unproveable hypotheticals, but let's take Devin Booker. RSCI ranking of 23.

20    1    22    5.8        Devin Robinson    Florida                                     
20    4    22    7.1        James Blackmon    Indiana                                     
22    -2    24    8.3        Dwayne Morgan   UNLV                                     
23    6    26    6.0        Devin Booker    Kentucky                                     
24    10    27    6.6        Grayson Allen   Duke                                     
25    -8    28    13.2        Joel Berry    North Carolina                                     
25    1    28    5.7        Shaqquan Aaron    Louisville                                     
27    5    29    6.7        Kameron Chatman    Michigan                                     
28    12    30    10.1        Isaac Copeland    Georgetown                                     
29    1    32    10.9        Keita Bates-Diop   Ohio State

That's the 3 guys rated ahead of him and 6 after (the RSCI 20-29).

Robinson is #47 on DraftExpress top 100. Grayson Allen #53 (might go up). Conceivably they will be drafted and have a shot a the 1st round at some point if they keep playing well.

Blackmon, Berry, Morgan, Aaron, Chatman, Copeman, and Diop are not listed in the top 100.

Devin Booker has already been drafted. In the lottery. He only played 20 minutes per game and averaged 10 points with 41% shooting on 3's. Rest of his stats are unremarkable. That's why you go to Kentucky.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

You may be right. I'm absolutely no expert on this. But I have to disagree. Kentucky is not good for many of these athletes.

Daniel Orton was a backup at Kentucky and some fool told him it would be a good idea to hire an agent and declare for the draft after his freshman year, where he came off the bench. He was drafted b/c he was a 6'10" and big, a classic project, but he was absolutely NOT ready. He was a backup at Kentucky and there was minimal development/coaching of his game. As a result, he never reaches his potential and now plays in the D-League.

Devin booker was #18 ESPN 100 out of high school. He would have started anywhere in the country, gotten a heck of a lot of playing time and development and everyone would have known about him. Had nothing to do with KY. On Kentucky, he came off the bench in their "platoon" system, and was overshadowed by several players. Kentucky is NOT why Devin Booker was a lottery pick.

Willie Cauley-Stein in the top 10 was a questionable pick and a surprise to many....but how was this a result of being on Kentucky. Declared for draft after Junior season where he was one of the best defenders in the country. If he was elsewhere, perhaps a better coach could have developed his offensive game a bit...and given him a chance to be a really good NBA player. Instead, he was in the platoon system at KY and overshadowed by Townes.

The entire point of your post is that Kentucky was "not good" for certain athletes and then you go on to explain how they came off the bench or were overshadowed by other players . . . and still were lottery picks. Seems pretty good. You only "prove" your point by simply concluding - absent any evidence - that going in the lottery was not because they were at Kentucky. Not exactly a winning argument.

 

[mlz01]

The entire point of your post is that Kentucky was "not good" for certain athletes and then you go on to explain how they came off the bench or were overshadowed by other players . . . and still were lottery picks. Seems pretty good. You only "prove" your point by simply concluding - absent any evidence - that going in the lottery was not because they were at Kentucky. Not exactly a winning argument.

Zero interest in winning an argument here, just sharing an opinion. And yes, absent concrete evidence about Booker, but is it really far fetched to think he'd have still been a lottery pick, playing 30 minutes a game in the starting lineup for another school (likely having a much bigger impact on his team)? I see the info auror shared, but Booker's shot is special...and he could have developed a lot more.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Zero interest in winning an argument here, just sharing an opinion. And yes, absent concrete evidence about Booker, but is it really far fetched to think he'd have still been a lottery pick, playing 30 minutes a game in the starting lineup for another school (likely having a much bigger impact on his team)? I see the info auror shared, but Booker's shot is special...and he could have developed a lot more.

By "winning an argument" I mean "convincing anyone that you are doing anything other than rambling." You're sort of all over the map. What I think you intended to be an argument in support of the proposition that Kentucky does not develop players for the NBA has sort of turned into a statement that kids who stay in school longer develop more in college. Not really controversial, because the kids who leave aren't in college anymore.

With your Booker example, you're placing an awful lot of (undeserved) emphasis on playing time in terms of development and draft status. These college teams spend an awful lot of time doing things besides playing in games. Besides, NBA teams want the best players and they're going to take those kids regardless of how many minutes they play in college.

Could Anthony Davis have been the #1 pick had he not gone to Kentucky? Most definitely, but that's an argument about how good he is more than a strike against Kentucky.

 

[auror]

Zero interest in winning an argument here, just sharing an opinion. And yes, absent concrete evidence about Booker, but is it really far fetched to think he'd have still been a lottery pick, playing 30 minutes a game in the starting lineup for another school (likely having a much bigger impact on his team)? I see the info auror shared, but Booker's shot is special...and he could have developed a lot more.

That's basically James Blackmon. Similar RSCI, went to Indiana, played 30 minutes a game last year. An inch shorter, but an inch longer wingspan, so pretty comparable for the position. Shot 39% on 3's and scored 15.7 points per game in a bigger role in the offense.

Not drafted yet, obviously. Could be drafted eventually, but DraftExpress has him at #37 in the '17 mock. Booker went in the lottery.

 

[Dabutlerdidit]

You can do better than Cincinnati...cmon.

Lol.. Indeed. That was dripping w a little sarcasm.

Part of me would consider playing for Jay Wright at Nova (coach & tradition)

 

[mlz01]

By "winning an argument" I mean "convincing anyone that you are doing anything other than rambling." You're sort of all over the map. What I think you intended to be an argument in support of the proposition that Kentucky does not develop players for the NBA has sort of turned into a statement that kids who stay in school longer develop more in college. Not really controversial, because the kids who leave aren't in college anymore.

With your Booker example, you're placing an awful lot of (undeserved) emphasis on playing time in terms of development and draft status. These college teams spend an awful lot of time doing things besides playing in games. Besides, NBA teams want the best players and they're going to take those kids regardless of how many minutes they play in college.

Could Anthony Davis have been the #1 pick had he not gone to Kentucky? Most definitely, but that's an argument about how good he is more than a strike against Kentucky.

Got it. Fair enough.