Talent, highschool rankings, close losses and the hyperbole of Scoopers...

[mattyv1908]

This board keeps getting better and better at drawing lines in the sand and dividing into camps willing to rigidly defend those positions to the death.  A few observations regarding the current state of the topics discussed on this message board.

1.  Do highschool recruiting rankings matter?  Seems like both sides like to think they do, BUT only if it fits their narrative they agree with.  There's people on this forum praising Wojo for securing a top 10 recruiting class next year but will dismiss other's who argue that this team has talent due to the amount of nationally ranked recruits on the current roster.  How can future recruiting class rankings have value and yet are worthless when discussing current scholarship players?

2.  How much talent is on this team?  Again, this question can be justified well by both those claiming this team has plenty of talent currently as well as those that want to claim the cupboard being empty.  The reality is that we have been in all but one conference game until the bitter end.  If the team has enough talent to compete with 'better' competition for 37-39 minutes then it logically makes sense that they have enough talent to compete for 40 minutes.

3.  Is Wojo really a good coach?  Tough question in my opinion.  Right now I think I lean towards Sultan's view in that he is a good coach who's a pretty poor late game manager due to inexperience which will come with time.  I don't think it's fair to judge Wojo based on this year's team, yet at the same time think that a more experienced coach would have another 3-5 wins this season with our current roster.  I don't understand those who blindly defend every decision he makes but I also don't understand those already hypothesizing about him being worse than Deane midway through his first year as a head coach.

This is a trying year to say the least.  I think next year will be as well in all honesty.  There's a lot of big Marquette basketball fans here that have a lot of good insight on this forum.  It baffles me how quickly quality basketball discussion breaks down into hyperbolic d!ck measuring contests with the winner being the one who endures the madness the longest.

Let's hope the guys who will be with the program next year continue to take steps becoming better players and we don't suffer any more attrition.

[forgetful]

This board keeps getting better and better at drawing lines in the sand and dividing into camps willing to rigidly defend those positions to the death.  A few observations regarding the current state of the topics discussed on this message board.

1.  Do highschool recruiting rankings matter?  Seems like both sides like to think they do, BUT only if it fits their narrative they agree with.  There's people on this forum praising Wojo for securing a top 10 recruiting class next year but will dismiss other's who argue that this team has talent due to the amount of nationally ranked recruits on the current roster.  How can future recruiting class rankings have value and yet are worthless when discussing current scholarship players?

2.  How much talent is on this team?  Again, this question can be justified well by both those claiming this team has plenty of talent currently as well as those that want to claim the cupboard being empty.  The reality is that we have been in all but one conference game until the bitter end.  If the team has enough talent to compete with 'better' competition for 37-39 minutes then it logically makes sense that they have enough talent to compete for 40 minutes.

3.  Is Wojo really a good coach?  Tough question in my opinion.  Right now I think I lean towards Sultan's view in that he is a good coach who's a pretty poor late game manager due to inexperience which will come with time.  I don't think it's fair to judge Wojo based on this year's team, yet at the same time think that a more experienced coach would have another 3-5 wins this season with our current roster.  I don't understand those who blindly defend every decision he makes but I also don't understand those already hypothesizing about him being worse than Deane midway through his first year as a head coach.

This is a trying year to say the least.  I think next year will be as well in all honesty.  There's a lot of big Marquette basketball fans here that have a lot of good insight on this forum.  It baffles me how quickly quality basketball discussion breaks down into hyperbolic d!ck measuring contests with the winner being the one who endures the madness the longest.

Let's hope the guys who will be with the program next year continue to take steps becoming better players and we don't suffer any more attrition.

The problem is that some want to draw lines in the sand at all.  Life doesn't exist that way.  You for instance think statistics don't lie.  That isn't any more true than saying statistics are BS.  Life exists as a continuum where the truth lies somewhere between and needs to be contextualized.  Addressing your topics.

1.  Both are true.  To evaluate a recruiting class when they are recruits and have never played a day in college, all one can evaluate on is, rankings.  That's why Buzz was a good recruiter, recruited high-ranking classes.  Thats why things are looking good for Wojo.  The ranking on average should balance out and performance should reflect rankings. 

That is, assuming one is an average evaluator of talent.  Some coaches outperform the rankings, that is because they are a better than average evaluator of talent and/or recruit talent to a system.

Buzz, was an ok evaluator of talent (well really athleticism), but a horrible evaluator of recruiting to a system and recruiting based on utility (shooting etc).  He just figured one could bring enough athletes in and coach them up.  It is the players who are ranked where they are because of athleticism that most often flop, Buzz focused on them exclusively.  Overall then, he was a bad recruiter and his recruits under perform.

I think Wojo recruits more to a system and based on utility in terms of talent.  I think as time goes forward he will be far better of a recruiter.

2.  See above.  Buzz focused on athleticism only.  Thus, we have a team full of players that were over-ranked based on athleticism and is devoid of skill players, i.e. a true PG, quality shooters, basketball IQ.  You put a bunch of athletes, who don't have basic skills on a team and you have a bad team.  I think Wojo has done an amazing job of making them all work somehow.

3.  I think Wojo is a good coach for getting out of these guys what he has.  The question is whether as he recruits to his system will be a better than average evaluator of talent.  If so, he is a good enough coach to win a lot of games and will be a great coach.  If not, we are in trouble.  It'll be 2-3 years though before we can even begin to judge.  In 4-5 years we'll know for sure.  I think we have a winner.

Overall, people need to stop looking at the world as black or white and realize it is far more complex than that.

[GoldenZebra]

Dangerous game here, bringing well-thought out posts and rational thinking to Scoop...

[mattyv1908]

The problem is that some want to draw lines in the sand at all.  Life doesn't exist that way.  You for instance think statistics don't lie.  That isn't any more true than saying statistics are BS.  Life exists as a continuum where the truth lies somewhere between and needs to be contextualized.  Addressing your topics.

1.  Both are true.  To evaluate a recruiting class when they are recruits and have never played a day in college, all one can evaluate on is, rankings.  That's why Buzz was a good recruiter, recruited high-ranking classes.  Thats why things are looking good for Wojo.  The ranking on average should balance out and performance should reflect rankings. 

That is, assuming one is an average evaluator of talent.  Some coaches outperform the rankings, that is because they are a better than average evaluator of talent and/or recruit talent to a system.

Buzz, was an ok evaluator of talent (well really athleticism), but a horrible evaluator of recruiting to a system and recruiting based on utility (shooting etc).  He just figured one could bring enough athletes in and coach them up.  It is the players who are ranked where they are because of athleticism that most often flop, Buzz focused on them exclusively.  Overall then, he was a bad recruiter and his recruits under perform.

I think Wojo recruits more to a system and based on utility in terms of talent.  I think as time goes forward he will be far better of a recruiter.

2.  See above.  Buzz focused on athleticism only.  Thus, we have a team full of players that were over-ranked based on athleticism and is devoid of skill players, i.e. a true PG, quality shooters, basketball IQ.  You put a bunch of athletes, who don't have basic skills on a team and you have a bad team.  I think Wojo has done an amazing job of making them all work somehow.

3.  I think Wojo is a good coach for getting out of these guys what he has.  The question is whether as he recruits to his system will be a better than average evaluator of talent.  If so, he is a good enough coach to win a lot of games and will be a great coach.  If not, we are in trouble.  It'll be 2-3 years though before we can even begin to judge.  In 4-5 years we'll know for sure.  I think we have a winner.

Overall, people need to stop looking at the world as black or white and realize it is far more complex than that.

1.  I think predictive stats are more truthful than 'the eye test' for sure but that hardly means they tell the entire story.

2.  I think Wojo will be lucky if he finds three more complete basketball players (at the D1 level) than Butler, Crowder and DJO in a five year span.

[MarquetteDano]

I am starting to see some parallels between Kevin O'Neill and Wojo.  Both were understudies to hall of fame coaches at a big time program.  Both took the Marquette job at a pretty young age.  Both showed some pretty impressive recruiting skills.

Yes, Wojo inherited a much better team and program than O'Neill did.  O'Neill's young teams were terrible where right now we are simply sub-par.

But another parallel seems to be the inexperienced in-game coaching.  They learned from some of the best but now have to do it themselves.  It took a few years for Kevin, and will probably take a few years for Wojo as well.

One thing we have to like a lot more about Wojo is his maturity.  I think O'Neill was an incredibly immature head coach (and I think he would admit that).  That should help Wojo burn less bridges and make him a better recruiter.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

1.  Do highschool recruiting rankings matter?  Seems like both sides like to think they do, BUT only if it fits their narrative they agree with.  There's people on this forum praising Wojo for securing a top 10 recruiting class next year but will dismiss other's who argue that this team has talent due to the amount of nationally ranked recruits on the current roster.  How can future recruiting class rankings have value and yet are worthless when discussing current scholarship players?

I'll comment on this one, since I'm one of the ones who seemingly jumps back and forth. For me, high school rankings matter a player's freshman year. They are the only thing available to judge an incoming freshmen by. You could try to look at their high school stats, but there are so many uncontrolled variables (level of competition, quality of teammates, having to play out of position, etc) that keep it from being simple to evaluate how much you can expect from a recruit. High school rankings are the simplest way to come up with a reasonable guess for how much to expect from a player in his freshman season.

As soon as they have a year under their belt, you have an entire year's worth of data at the college level on which to judge them. This data is exceedingly more relevant than a high school ranking from a year earlier.

To use JjJ as an example. I thought a top 35 SG of his size and skillset would be able to produce roughly in the realm of 8 ppg, 3 rpg, 1.5 apg, .75 spg, .450 FG, .300 3P his freshman season. Completely arbitrary numbers, but in my limited experience, that's about what I expect a freshman of his caliber to produce. My estimations were off, as instead he produced 4.3 ppg, 1.1 rpg, 1.0 apg, .4 spg, .443 FG, .290 3P. So when coming into this season, I no longer think of JjJ as top 35 SG. I think of him as a bench player from the previous season who only averaged the above numbers. I use that data instead of his high school ranking because I believe to be more accurate, recent, and relevant.

So I am excited about Wojo's top 10 recruiting class. I judge it as a good thing because I have no other data to judge it upon. But it is true that Henry and the others could also under perform to their ranking, just as JjJ did. But I have no way to confidently tell if next year's class is filled with gems or busts.

[forgetful]

1.  I think predictive stats are more truthful than 'the eye test' for sure but that hardly means they tell the entire story.

2.  I think Wojo will be lucky if he finds three more complete basketball players (at the D1 level) than Butler, Crowder and DJO in a five year span.

That is part of the point with Buzz, his greatest successes were with Juco players who already developed at the JUCO ranks. He was a horrible judge of ability for undeveloped players, or failed at developing them, one of the two.

[mattyv1908]

That is part of the point with Buzz, his greatest successes were with Juco players who already developed at the JUCO ranks. He was a horrible judge of ability for undeveloped players, or failed at developing them, one of the two.

Disagree on many levels with many examples.  Was Jimmy Butler the same player as a sophomore he was as a senior?  If you don't think his dramatic growth between his three years at MU wasn't due to great player development I don't know what you were watching.  What about Blue and Gardner and to a lesser extent Otule and Cadougan?

[forgetful]

Disagree on many levels with many examples.  Was Jimmy Butler the same player as a sophomore he was as a senior?  If you don't think his dramatic growth between his three years at MU wasn't due to great player development I don't know what you were watching.  What about Blue and Gardner and to a lesser extent Otule and Cadougan?

As a Sophomore, I routinely commented that he would be in the NBA.  Skill wise he already had a lot and he played with an extremely high IQ.  Where he was deficient was in strength and explosiveness, which made it very difficult for him to finish around the rim.  Those he developed with the training staff.  He continued to develop that when he left MU, which led to his drastic improvement once in the NBA.  (For the record, when I look at Cohen, I see a potential similar to JFB, maybe not as high a ceiling, but similar players).

A lot of his other improvement was on his core skills.  He and Crowder were gym rats, they worked their tails off on their own to improve.  I don't give Buzz credit for their development.  I do give him credit for giving them a system that worked to show off their talents and creating a hard-nosed blue-collar culture that they fed off.

Blue never developed an outside shot.  Gardner never learned to play defense.  Cadougan came in with a lot of talent, he was handcuffed in my opinion by Buzz's system. 

Buzz's biggest weaknesses were in developing freshman talent and recruiting a balanced team.  That is why the restrictions on JC players hurt him a good bit.  He was not good at working with freshman.

[brandx]

The problem is that some want to draw lines in the sand at all.  Life doesn't exist that way.  You for instance think statistics don't lie.  That isn't any more true than saying statistics are BS.  Life exists as a continuum where the truth lies somewhere between and needs to be contextualized.  Addressing your topics.

1.  Both are true.  To evaluate a recruiting class when they are recruits and have never played a day in college, all one can evaluate on is, rankings.  That's why Buzz was a good recruiter, recruited high-ranking classes.  Thats why things are looking good for Wojo.  The ranking on average should balance out and performance should reflect rankings. 

That is, assuming one is an average evaluator of talent.  Some coaches outperform the rankings, that is because they are a better than average evaluator of talent and/or recruit talent to a system.

Buzz, was an ok evaluator of talent (well really athleticism), but a horrible evaluator of recruiting to a system and recruiting based on utility (shooting etc).  He just figured one could bring enough athletes in and coach them up.  It is the players who are ranked where they are because of athleticism that most often flop, Buzz focused on them exclusively.  Overall then, he was a bad recruiter and his recruits under perform.

I think Wojo recruits more to a system and based on utility in terms of talent.  I think as time goes forward he will be far better of a recruiter.

2.  See above.  Buzz focused on athleticism only.  Thus, we have a team full of players that were over-ranked based on athleticism and is devoid of skill players, i.e. a true PG, quality shooters, basketball IQ.  You put a bunch of athletes, who don't have basic skills on a team and you have a bad team.  I think Wojo has done an amazing job of making them all work somehow.

3.  I think Wojo is a good coach for getting out of these guys what he has.  The question is whether as he recruits to his system will be a better than average evaluator of talent.  If so, he is a good enough coach to win a lot of games and will be a great coach.  If not, we are in trouble.  It'll be 2-3 years though before we can even begin to judge.  In 4-5 years we'll know for sure.  I think we have a winner.

Overall, people need to stop looking at the world as black or white and realize it is far more complex than that.

Great post.

[eg021]

1. Absolutely high school player rankings matter. Having highly rated classes generates buzz around our team within the community and with future potential recruits. We want to create the atmosphere where the best players in Wisconsin suit up for the golden eagles. Kevon Looney would look awfully good in gold this year....

With that said, rankings don't mean anything when it comes time to play the game. Bo Ryan somehow has won for a decade with minimal highly ranked recruits.

2. We have some talent, certainly enough to beat any team in the conference (+- Villanova) I'd like to see more Sandy Cohen, I think he has the ability to spark us offensively. Fischer hasn't rebounded well enough, so Juan needs to retain those minutes. I think our guys kind of fade when the game is on the line. We get passive and default to Carlino hoping he wins us the game. Duane is the only other guy to look to go and win the game.

3. I'll be looking for better player development under Wojo. Our guys didn't progress as much as I'd like year in and year out under Buzz. Once we have more size and depth in the post and better 3 point shooters, our offense will take on new heights. What'll be interesting is to see if Wojo falls in love with the zone defense. In game I'd like to see some more set plays in crunch time to get us good looks at the basket.

[MU82]

This board keeps getting better and better at drawing lines in the sand and dividing into camps willing to rigidly defend those positions to the death.  A few observations regarding the current state of the topics discussed on this message board.

1.  Do highschool recruiting rankings matter?  Seems like both sides like to think they do, BUT only if it fits their narrative they agree with.  There's people on this forum praising Wojo for securing a top 10 recruiting class next year but will dismiss other's who argue that this team has talent due to the amount of nationally ranked recruits on the current roster.  How can future recruiting class rankings have value and yet are worthless when discussing current scholarship players?

2.  How much talent is on this team?  Again, this question can be justified well by both those claiming this team has plenty of talent currently as well as those that want to claim the cupboard being empty.  The reality is that we have been in all but one conference game until the bitter end.  If the team has enough talent to compete with 'better' competition for 37-39 minutes then it logically makes sense that they have enough talent to compete for 40 minutes.

3.  Is Wojo really a good coach?  Tough question in my opinion.  Right now I think I lean towards Sultan's view in that he is a good coach who's a pretty poor late game manager due to inexperience which will come with time.  I don't think it's fair to judge Wojo based on this year's team, yet at the same time think that a more experienced coach would have another 3-5 wins this season with our current roster.  I don't understand those who blindly defend every decision he makes but I also don't understand those already hypothesizing about him being worse than Deane midway through his first year as a head coach.

This is a trying year to say the least.  I think next year will be as well in all honesty.  There's a lot of big Marquette basketball fans here that have a lot of good insight on this forum.  It baffles me how quickly quality basketball discussion breaks down into hyperbolic d!ck measuring contests with the winner being the one who endures the madness the longest.

Let's hope the guys who will be with the program next year continue to take steps becoming better players and we don't suffer any more attrition.

Oh yeah? My hypothetical d!ck is bigger than your hypothetical d!ck. So there!