Rick Issanza (C, 7'1", 225) to visit

[the Q]

*The only guys* who'd have played on those teams at all.

I'm not even sure we've had many bench guys from those teams. I'm just trying to think back to 2015 and the guy's we've had, who I think Calhoun would've even recruited.

Boat was one of his guys so he doesn't count. Miller would have played. Maybe Purvis. Brimah was a high motor guy.... but outside of that I really can't think of anyone.

What we've had the past few years were just soft-ish, unfocused, but really athletic/talented guys. Nice kids, but not Calhoun kids. I'm not even sure he'd have gone after Adams, Hamilton, Vital, etc.

It's been almost the exact opposite of what Calhoun would want..

Vital has been good enough to play on some of those teams. He 100% would’ve gotten very real minutes on the 09 final four team, and probably started after Dyson got hurt m.

 

[Com'rGordon]

Or a guy who already committed to Oklahoma?

Lmaooooo totally forgot that happened

 

[Towney007]

You missed my point. I'll be happy with where Hurley gets us 100%. The people complaining about how far we are from the Calhoun days will not.

Travis Knight was a 1st round NBA draft pick.

Carlton isn't anywhere near good enough to play in the NBA.

I don't think it's people crying over not having Calhoun anymore. It's people getting used to the drop off in talent the program's experienced in recent years.

 

[Towney007]

You're still using the "what would Calhoun want?" standard to measure the overall caliber of UConn recruits?

Congratulations. You're going to be miserable every single day of the rest of your life as a UConn fan.

The point is that to compete for a national title year after year, you have to have an incredible amount of talent on your team year after year. Knight was a 1st round draft pick on two teams that spent time at #1 in the country and wasn't close to even being the best guy on either of those teams.

Carlton isn't even close to an NBA level player and isn't the best player on a team that's not even .500 playing in the American Athletic Conference.

It's like making a comparison between two different worlds.

 

[mauconnfan]

Travis Knight was a 1st round NBA draft pick.

Carlton isn't anywhere near good enough to play in the NBA.

I don't think it's people crying over not having Calhoun anymore. It's people getting used to the drop off in talent the program's experienced in recent years.

I don't think anyone would deny that but the comparison is Carlton after year 2 and Travis after year 2. There's no denying who had a bigger impact to their team for that year.

Now I have to believe there won't be a way on earth Josh gets to be as good of an NBA prospect as Travis was when he left 2 years later. But let's give him his time.

 

[superjohn]

I don't think anyone would deny that but the comparison is Carlton after year 2 and Travis after year 2. There's no denying who had a bigger impact to their team for that year.

Now I have to believe there won't be a way on earth Josh gets to be as good of an NBA prospect as Travis was when he left 2 years later. But let's give him his time.

The point is Carlton's contributions were to a terrible team, Knight's were to a top 5-10 team in the nation. They shouldn't be compared, the circumstances are entirely different.

 

[Towney007]

I don't think anyone would deny that but the comparison is Carlton after year 2 and Travis after year 2. There's no denying who had a bigger impact to their team for that year.

Now I have to believe there won't be a way on earth Josh gets to be as good of an NBA prospect as Travis was when he left 2 years later. But let's give him his time.

I wouldn't argue that yes- Carlton was probably more important to this team than Knight was to his.

But you're talking two different universes here.

Travis was one of - if not THE best center in the best league in the country - in a program that was a #2 seed or better 5 out of 6 years and went to the Sweet 16 or better in all of those and spent tons of time at #1 in the country. Perennial national title contenders year after year. Who went on to have a 7 year NBA career after getting drafted in the first round.

Carlton is on a team that's sub .500 in a middling conference and is maybe one of the top 3 or 4 guys in this conference in his position.

You can look at their numbers - but Knight's statistical contributions have a significantly different meaning than Carlton's even though the numbers are the same. Knight did that against the best competition in the country. Carlton gets to face Tulsa and ECU. Both can score 22 ppg, but it's not the same 22 ppg.

 

[mauconnfan]

The point is Carlton's contributions were to a terrible team, Knight's were to a top 5-10 team in the nation. They shouldn't be compared, the circumstances are entirely different.

Man this got out of control with people. They can be compared because they both played basketball at UConn. And without talking leagues, top ranked team etc etc there's a real nice story on how Carlton became a better player by the end of his 2nd campaign. If everyone wants to throw dirt all over this "comparison" knowing that a 2nd year Travis Knight probably would've been at least as good, probably better given 25 minutes a game in the AAC then have your way at it. There was a discussion which brought the reality that he was a better rebounder, passer and shooter but he didn't have the back to the basket game Carlton had, ever really.

I thought it was just a little fun knowing we had someone improving and he improved more than the names associated unless everyone starts getting the details of the Big East, minutes, players in front of them etc etc..

Fun over we now suck compared to the Big East days once again.

 

[Kenny11]

I don't think anyone would deny that but the comparison is Carlton after year 2 and Travis after year 2. There's no denying who had a bigger impact to their team for that year.

Now I have to believe there won't be a way on earth Josh gets to be as good of an NBA prospect as Travis was when he left 2 years later. But let's give him his time.

Yeah, unlikely, but it is a totally different era. Knight wouldn't have been drafted in this era.

 

[mauconnfan]

Yeah, unlikely, but it is a totally different era. Knight wouldn't have been drafted in this era.

Why? He was a 7 footer who could run, shoot and pass. He played behind Shaq had a nice career until Rick made him out to be something he wasn't. He would've played in this "era" and may have fit better than banging up against real bigs back then. I think drafted for sure 2nd round.

 

[UConnSwag11]

Lock this thread

 

[HuskyHawk]

I wouldn't argue that yes- Carlton was probably more important to this team than Knight was to his.

But you're talking two different universes here.

Travis was one of - if not THE best center in the best league in the country - in a program that was a #2 seed or better 5 out of 6 years and went to the Sweet 16 or better in all of those and spent tons of time at #1 in the country. Perennial national title contenders year after year. Who went on to have a 7 year NBA career after getting drafted in the first round.

Carlton is on a team that's sub .500 in a middling conference and is maybe one of the top 3 or 4 guys in this conference in his position.

You can look at their numbers - but Knight's statistical contributions have a significantly different meaning than Carlton's even though the numbers are the same. Knight did that against the best competition in the country. Carlton gets to face Tulsa and ECU. Both can score 22 ppg, but it's not the same 22 ppg.

That overstates the difference in competition quite a bit.

Travis projected as a better NBA player because he could run, was a superb passer, blocked shots and had a very complete game. Carlton is a better scorer, and may be a more effective college player when all is said and done. Lots of guys are great in college and don't get drafted. Tons of those guys have eaten our guys lunch over the years.

The NBA game is very different and what makes a great college player doesn't always translate. Josh is going to be with us two more years and I am fairly certain that by the end he will be a very good player in the college game. He is already a good player, even on a good team.

 

[auror]

This is the type of comparison that the stat win shares helps enlighten. The share of credit that a player earns based on the team's actual wins and his individual share of that production. So comparing larger role/production on mediocre/bad team to quieter role on very good team is possible.

Sports-Reference has only Knight's last season in the database unfortunately, and he earned 1.4 offensive and 4.4 defensive win shares. Carlton (as a sophomore) earned 1.7 offensive and 1.2 defensive win shares. Both these numbers line up with my eye test in light of their respective contexts, with maybe Carlton's d being slightly overrated.

As far as relative competition quality, both had 4 non-UConn NCAA tournament teams from the respective conferences. Big East had a FF, E8, and 2 2nd rounds for 10 wins total. AAC had a S16, 2nd round, 1st round, and first four for measly 3 wins (Though all 4 of Temple, Cincy, UCF, and Houston led at some point in the last 10 minutes of their losses and gacked them away). Clear edge to Big East, but the fact that both got 4 non-UConn teams into the dance shows the leagues were a little closer than some might expect. The main difference between the conferences is that one had good UConn on top of those other teams, and one didn't. Plus a lucky Syracuse F4 run.

Knight was much worse on offense as a sophomore than as a senior, though. He took 1/3 less shots and he made them at a much worse clip (so both usage and efficiency were worse). An eFG of .439 is also very not good. He'd be in the 0.0-0.2 offensive win share range based on similar players. His defensive block rate was about the same, but his foul rate was double and his rebound rate was 33% worse. The actual team's defense was a few points per game worse, too, though still outstanding, and he played only half the minutes compared to as a senior. So if we adjust that 4.4 figure down (for possession share 4.4 -> 2.2, team d wins -> 2.0, and performance stats ->1.4), we end up with an estimated 1.4 defensive win shares, for a total of about ~1.6 win shares.

So that's 1.6 win shares vs. 2.9 win shares for Carlton. However, we have to consider Carlton's higher minutes played. If you take it as ws/40, Carlton is at .158 ws/40 and Knight would be around .164 ws/40. Very, very close, with Knight earning the edge and the competition advantage widening his lead a bit more. And I think that's pretty much where we landed as a board consensus. Knight was a bit better on a much better team, but didn't have as big a role and wasn't as outwardly productive. Let's hope Carlton's career finishes with just as much improvement as Knight's did.

 

[UconnFanDC]

Well, let's take a look, see if we can't convince you.

As a sophomore, Carlton averaged 9.0 points, 6.2 rebounds, 1.8 blocks, 3.1 fouls on .607 shooting, .627 from the line. His /40 numbers were 16.2 points, 11.1 rebounds, 3.2 blocks, 5.5 fouls.

Knight's per game numbers were 2.5 points, 2.9 rebounds, 1 block, 2.3 fouls on .439 shooting, 50% from the line. /40 numbers are 8.3 points, 9.9 rebounds, 3.3 blocks, 7.9 fouls.

Armstrong's per game numbers were 2.4 points, 2.8 rebounds, 0.7 blocks, 1.6 fouls, 50% shooting, .388 from the line. /40 numbers were 10.2 points, 12.3 rebounds, 3.0 blocks, 6.9 fouls.

By any reasonable statistical measure, Carlton was, by far, the best player as a sophomore. Why do you feel otherwise?

The competition was much stronger and more frequent. What I've seen Josh do against the weaker opponents was impressive but I can not say much about what he's done against stronger competition. I do not dislike Josh but I'm not completely sold.

 

[auror]

The competition was much stronger and more frequent. What I've seen Josh do against the weaker opponents was impressive but I can not say much about what he's done against stronger competition. I do not dislike Josh but I'm not completely sold.

Against stronger competition, his play can be summarized as: much worse. His finishing was significantly worse in the toughest games and the stats back it up. He shot 75% in easy games (16 games), and 40% in KenPom A+B games (17 games).

 

[superjohn]

Against stronger competition, his play can be summarized as: much worse. His finishing was significantly worse in the toughest games and the stats back it up. He shot 75% in easy games (16 games), and 40% in KenPom A+B games (17 games).

He could benefit more than any other player from gaining strength and explosiveness. He's never going to be a great athlete but it looks like Alosi has him lifting some serious weights to get him more ready to hold his position and to finish around the tin.

 

[auror]

He could benefit more than any other player from gaining strength and explosiveness. He's never going to be a great athlete but it looks like Alosi has him lifting some serious weights to get him more ready to hold his position and to finish around the tin.

For sure. His footwork is pretty good already, and I liked him starting to dunk a lot last year. But he didn't get those same dunks against the better teams, because he doesn't have the explosion and better defenders either weren't fooled or weren't overpowered.

 

[selles]

This is the type of comparison that the stat win shares helps enlighten. The share of credit that a player earns based on the team's actual wins and his individual share of that production. So comparing larger role/production on mediocre/bad team to quieter role on very good team is possible.

Sports-Reference has only Knight's last season in the database unfortunately, and he earned 1.4 offensive and 4.4 defensive win shares. Carlton (as a sophomore) earned 1.7 offensive and 1.2 defensive win shares. Both these numbers line up with my eye test in light of their respective contexts, with maybe Carlton's d being slightly overrated.

As far as relative competition quality, both had 4 non-UConn NCAA tournament teams from the respective conferences. Big East had a FF, E8, and 2 2nd rounds for 10 wins total. AAC had a S16, 2nd round, 1st round, and first four for measly 3 wins (Though all 4 of Temple, Cincy, UCF, and Houston led at some point in the last 10 minutes of their losses and gacked them away). Clear edge to Big East, but the fact that both got 4 non-UConn teams into the dance shows the leagues were a little closer than some might expect. The main difference between the conferences is that one had good UConn on top of those other teams, and one didn't. Plus a lucky Syracuse F4 run.

Knight was much worse on offense as a sophomore than as a senior, though. He took 1/3 less shots and he made them at a much worse clip (so both usage and efficiency were worse). An eFG of .439 is also very not good. He'd be in the 0.0-0.2 offensive win share range based on similar players. His defensive block rate was about the same, but his foul rate was double and his rebound rate was 33% worse. The actual team's defense was a few points per game worse, too, though still outstanding, and he played only half the minutes compared to as a senior. So if we adjust that 4.4 figure down (for possession share 4.4 -> 2.2, team d wins -> 2.0, and performance stats ->1.4), we end up with an estimated 1.4 defensive win shares, for a total of about ~1.6 win shares.

So that's 1.6 win shares vs. 2.9 win shares for Carlton. However, we have to consider Carlton's higher minutes played. If you take it as ws/40, Carlton is at .158 ws/40 and Knight would be around .164 ws/40. Very, very close, with Knight earning the edge and the competition advantage widening his lead a bit more. And I think that's pretty much where we landed as a board consensus. Knight was a bit better on a much better team, but didn't have as big a role and wasn't as outwardly productive. Let's hope Carlton's career finishes with just as much improvement as Knight's did.

There's an assumption underlying several posts in this thread that Travis didn't play much as a sophomore because he was behind really good players. That's not remotely true.

Travis didn't play much as a sophomore because he wasn't good. He was gangly and foul-prone and soft. He couldn't beat out Eric Hayward, who was maybe 6'6" on his tiptoes and not particularly skilled. 1994 was a donut team and there were plenty of post minutes to be had. Travis wasn't good enough to take them.

This whole soph Carlton vs soph Knight discussion is academic because Knight improved so much between his sophomore and junior years that it would be unreasonable to expect Carlton to improve to the same degree. Comparing their sophomore years isn't at all useful for predicting Carlton's future.

But so long as we're having the academic discussion, let's give Josh his due. Sophomore Carlton was better than sophomore Knight, and it's not a close call.

 

[auror]

This whole soph Carlton vs soph Knight discussion is academic because Knight improved so much between his sophomore and junior years that it would be unreasonable to expect Carlton to improve to the same degree. Comparing their sophomore years isn't at all useful for predicting Carlton's future.

Josh kinda already had that increase. His freshman to sophomore year improvement was immense. I'd be surprised if he improved that much again. BUT, if he does, we're in really good shape. Even if it's only an incremental increase, he'll be an All-League player assuming the team improves as well..

 

[David 76]

OK
1 level of competition
2 Carlton gained from additional playing time in a weaker team

But I would just say we don't really know yet.

 

[CL82]

Can we at least change the name of this thread to:
Is Josh Carlton better than Travis Knight (and some stuff about a former prospect that we don't care about anymore.)

 

[UconnFanDC]

Against stronger competition, his play can be summarized as: much worse. His finishing was significantly worse in the toughest games and the stats back it up. He shot 75% in easy games (16 games), and 40% in KenPom A+B games (17 games).

You said it best!

 

[Towney007]

I don't know why everyone's so apoplectic about this thread. It's actually a fun discussion.

 

[Towney007]

There's an assumption underlying several posts in this thread that Travis didn't play much as a sophomore because he was behind really good players. That's not remotely true.

Travis didn't play much as a sophomore because he wasn't good. He was gangly and foul-prone and soft. He couldn't beat out Eric Hayward, who was maybe 6'6" on his tiptoes and not particularly skilled. 1994 was a donut team and there were plenty of post minutes to be had. Travis wasn't good enough to take them.

This whole soph Carlton vs soph Knight discussion is academic because Knight improved so much between his sophomore and junior years that it would be unreasonable to expect Carlton to improve to the same degree. Comparing their sophomore years isn't at all useful for predicting Carlton's future.

But so long as we're having the academic discussion, let's give Josh his due. Sophomore Carlton was better than sophomore Knight, and it's not a close call.

This is a pretty fair take.

 

[Chief00]

There's an assumption underlying several posts in this thread that Travis didn't play much as a sophomore because he was behind really good players. That's not remotely true.

Travis didn't play much as a sophomore because he wasn't good. He was gangly and foul-prone and soft. He couldn't beat out Eric Hayward, who was maybe 6'6" on his tiptoes and not particularly skilled. 1994 was a donut team and there were plenty of post minutes to be had. Travis wasn't good enough to take them.

This whole soph Carlton vs soph Knight discussion is academic because Knight improved so much between his sophomore and junior years that it would be unreasonable to expect Carlton to improve to the same degree. Comparing their sophomore years isn't at all useful for predicting Carlton's future.

But so long as we're having the academic discussion, let's give Josh his due. Sophomore Carlton was better than sophomore Knight, and it's not a close call.

Calhoun saw NBA potential in Travis early on. True, he wasn’t there yet in year 1 or 2 but Jim saw something there.

 

[pj]

Calhoun saw NBA potential in Travis early on. True, he wasn’t there yet in year 1 or 2 but Jim saw something there.

Everyone saw something - a guy 7' tall who had a nice looking shot, although it disappeared in games for the first few years (nerves?), and a good frame and good speed up and down the court, who could rebound and make outlet passes. It just took him a while to put his game together and gain confidence. With so many great players on the court with him and a coach with a temper and quick hook, it's not too surprising that some players might be overly deferential and nervous until they build their game to a high level.

 

[Palatine]

The competition was much stronger and more frequent. What I've seen Josh do against the weaker opponents was impressive but I can not say much about what he's done against stronger competition. I do not dislike Josh but I'm not completely sold.

What that doesn't account for is that Knight played with a much stronger team around him. So while Josh played against weaker competition, he did it with much less help.

Knight played in the front courts with the like of Donyell Marshall. Ray Allen as a swing man. Ollie on point. Donny Marshall for a while. Ricky Moore came in. He was never the focus of the defense as Josh was late this year.

I'm not taking anything away from Travis. He was a very skilled big guy who could run. Great Husky. But we keep putting Josh down for his competition when he was surrounded by much less.

 

[husky429]

What that doesn't account for is that Knight played with a much stronger team around him. So while Josh played against weaker competition, he did it with much less help.

Knight played in the front courts with the like of Donyell Marshall. Ray Allen as a swing man. Ollie on point. Donny Marshall for a while. Ricky Moore came in. He was never the focus of the defense as Josh was late this year.

I'm not taking anything away from Travis. He was a very skilled big guy who could run. Great Husky. But we keep putting Josh down for his competition when he was surrounded by much less.

Really hard to judge bigs now compared to even 10 years ago. The game is so different than it used to be. Josh's post up ability isn't as valued as it used to be. In 2002, he'd have been more highly regarded.

Rims runs, rebounding, and outlets. PnR coverage and setting screens are the name of the game... and that's not really Josh's strength.

I think jake V would have THRIVED in 2019 for example.

 

[UconnFanDC]

What that doesn't account for is that Knight played with a much stronger team around him. So while Josh played against weaker competition, he did it with much less help.

Knight played in the front courts with the like of Donyell Marshall. Ray Allen as a swing man. Ollie on point. Donny Marshall for a while. Ricky Moore came in. He was never the focus of the defense as Josh was late this year.

I'm not taking anything away from Travis. He was a very skilled big guy who could run. Great Husky. But we keep putting Josh down for his competition when he was surrounded by much less.

I sincerely wish Josh a best and productive Uconn career. As a Husky fan, I'm over comparing players. I honestly just want to win and want the players to have a great season(s)

 

[Towney007]

What that doesn't account for is that Knight played with a much stronger team around him. So while Josh played against weaker competition, he did it with much less help.

Knight played in the front courts with the like of Donyell Marshall. Ray Allen as a swing man. Ollie on point. Donny Marshall for a while. Ricky Moore came in. He was never the focus of the defense as Josh was late this year.

I'm not taking anything away from Travis. He was a very skilled big guy who could run. Great Husky. But we keep putting Josh down for his competition when he was surrounded by much less.

Yeah this is a good point and opposite mine so fair play. That does put a new spin on it. I’d still rather have Knight and I think more of him across the board, but this is perfectly reasonable.