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

[HuskyHawk]

People are using numbers to suggest Carlton is *better* or *further along* even than Knight. It's absurd.

Well he is further along. He started from freshman year, because all we had we the great black hole, David O. Travis played 11 minutes as a freshman and soph, then 23 and 25 as a Junior and Senior. Josh was 14 and 23 mpg so far. They have comparable block and point numbers looking at Josh soph vs Travis Junior year. Travis with a big edge on the boards (taller, better athlete). Travis also has much better assist numbers and averaged 2 a game by senior year. He was a very complete basketball player.

Josh had a better sophomore year for sure. By necessity. Josh is a better scorer around the rim, he just is. But Travis rebounded better, had a better jumper, could dribble, run in transition and was a very good passer. Better player? No. Will he score more ppg this year than Travis ever did? Probably. It's not just other options (which Travis' teams had more no doubt). Josh is pretty gifted scoring in close as his 60% pg% attests.

 

[mauconnfan]

In fairness to the current guys - Hilton did not play much early in his career because of talent in front of him - but when he finally got more time, he was ready. He also did the work in the weight room with heavy metal.

As a soph Hilton wasn't ready though I do agree playing against such very good players in practice all the time helped him tremendously his last 2 years. What helped him even more as ou noted was how much stronger he became. It helped him in the lane, rebounding and made him look NBA ready so really helped him get paid early on after he left.

 

[ktuck911]

His game looks like dunks and blocked shots. That's fine with me, it adds something we lack.

young fella knows what to do in the paint.. just gotta be a little more consistent keeping the ball up as high as he can without gathering too low..

 

[Com'rGordon]

Gonna love having a 20 page thread on a guy that ends up going JUCO or to Towson

 

[navery12]

Gonna love having a 20 page thread on a guy that ends up going JUCO or to Towson

Or a guy who already committed to Oklahoma?

 

[Stainmaster]

*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..

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.

 

[Stainmaster]

I like Carlton, and think he has improved quite a bit and will continue to be a big piece for us.

People are having quite a bit of amnesia in forgetting the quality of players and quality of teams that Hilton and Knight played on. Using numbers put up on a bad UConn team in a bad league to defend the argument provides no context or basis in reality.

In turn, people are exaggerating how much the competition disparity says about who is the better player. Do you think sophomore Travis/Hilton would've put up those numbers starting on last year's team?

People are too emotionally upset about UConn not being at its peak, as it was during Travis and Hilton's careers, to have this conversation. It's preventing them from being able to accurately evaluate players whom they associate with a worse program and worse teams.

 

[mauconnfan]

In turn, people are exaggerating how much the competition disparity says about who is the better player. Do you think sophomore Travis/Hilton would've put up those numbers starting on last year's team?

People are too emotionally upset about UConn not being at its peak, as it was during Travis and Hilton's careers, to have this conversation. It's preventing them from being able to accurately evaluate players whom they associate with a worse program and worse teams.

No it's not at all I think you can evaluate the players from watching them play back then no doubt. But again while things aren't great I'm not going to do the woe is me crap you're flinging right now. Yeah there's a good chance the Huskies may never be Calhoun like again but I'm going with the whole scene changes for everyone soon as coaches change. Hurley can maybe get us where we are still having fun as fans, maybe not you, but I'm not that spoiled that a few good trips in the NCAA's and runs will make me happy again.

 

[Stainmaster]

No it's not at all I think you can evaluate the players from watching them play back then no doubt. But again while things aren't great I'm not going to do the woe is me crao you're flinging right now. Yeah there's a good chance the Huskies may never be Calhoun like again but I'm going with the whole scene changes for everyone soon as coaches change. Hurley can maybe get us where we are still having fun as fans, maybe not you but I'm not that spoiled that a few good trips in the NCAA's and runs will make me happy again.

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.

 

[mauconnfan]

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.

100% of Hurley? It’s not going to be the same as you say, maybe never right. It’s almost fun to have a new phase to our success as fans do become spoiled. Only problem is we’ve already exceeded the time we need to take to get back to “close.”

I hope I’m wrong but we won’t ever see that 4 in 15 years again no way no how and anyone thinking we will, well the disappointment has begun. But I’m good with some NCAA games and small runs which will hopefully result in a long one eventually.

 

[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).