Player Development & Recruiting History

[brewcity77]

I'm pulling this out of the Recruiting thread to continue a discussion. First, here's my breakdown of the past 10 years of recruiting:

Okay...so let's actually break it down.

2009 (6): 3 Top-100 players (Cadougan, Maymon, Williams), 2 NJCAA All-Americans (Buycks, DJO), 1 sub-100 recruit (Mbao)
2010 (5): 2 Top-100 players (Blue, Jones), 1 NJCAA All-American (Crowder), 2 sub-100 recruits (Smith, Gardner)
2011 (3): 1 Top-100 players (Anderson), 2 sub-100 recruits (Mayo, Derrick)
2012 (3): 1 Top-100 player (Taylor), 1 NJCAA All-American (TJ Taylor), 1 sub-100 players (Ferguson)
2013 (5): 3 Top-100 players (Johnson, Burton, Duane), 1 NJCAA All-American (McKay), 1 sub-100 player (Dawson)
2014 (1): 1 Top-100 player (Cohen)
2015 (5): 3 Top-100 players (Ellenson, Cheatham, Heldt), 2 sub-100 players (Carter, Anim)
2016 (3): 3 Top-100 players (Bailey, Howard, Hauser)
2017 (4): 4 sub-100 players (Cain, Elliott, John, Eke)
2018 (1): 1 Top-100 player (Hauser)

So that's 36 recruits. Of those 36, by my count, 18 were top-100 players. Another 5 were JUCO All-Americans. I'm going to guess those are recruits we aren't complaining about, especially as 4/5 were really solid D1 players. So your gripe is with the 13 sub-100 players. So let's look at those:

Hits (6): Gardner, Derrick, Anim, Cain, Elliott, John

Gardner, Anim, & John way overdid expectations. Cain & Elliott were solid freshmen & at least look like solid role-players. I know some will argue Derrick, but he was a reliable role-player for 4 years. That's plenty for a 3-star recruit. It isn't his fault that he was forced into a larger role.

Push (3): Mayo, Carter, Eke

Mayo & Carter both had productive moments, but the potential they flashed largely went unrealized & neither finished their careers here. Eke the jury is still out on.

Misses (4): Mbao, Smith, Ferguson, Dawson

Only one lasted more than one season, and none made it to Christmas of their sophomore year. All were obviously overmatched at this level.

So basically, your entire gripe seems to be 4/36 recruits (11.1%) over the past 10 years that didn't work out. I mean, all four were disappointing, but they accounted for 5 total years of scholarships, so it's not like there was much invested in them.

Further, in that time we also added RSCI top-100s Jamil Wilson, Luke Fischer, Katin Reinhardt, Ed Morrow and sub-100s Trent Lockett, Matt Carlino, Koby McEwen, & Joseph Chartouny. I would argue that so far, 6 of those (all the top-100 players as well as Lockett & Carlino) were hits, Chartouny was a miss, and McEwen is currently a push. And all of those players used the rest of their eligibility at Marquette after committing.

So honestly, on the basis of 44 players, there are 5 that seem to have completely failed to meet your standards. Maybe the problem is less the players and more your standards. Also, it's worth noting that of the Wojo sub-100 recruits, Eke and Carter are the only two that aren't hits. Wojo has largely been hitting on his reaches & transfers. Of the 19 players he brought in, 10 were top-100 (including Morrow & Reinhardt) and of the other 9, most were quality adds (Anim, Cain, Elliott, John, Carlino, McEwen) with only Chartouny & Carter truly disappointing (again, jury out on Ike).

(And sorry, I've been busy at work and had most of this written earlier, but haven't had a chance to post until now, and I'm not letting the work go to waste.)

[muguru]

I'm pulling this out of the Recruiting thread to continue a discussion. First, here's my breakdown of the past 10 years of recruiting:

Okay...so let's actually break it down.

2009 (6): 3 Top-100 players (Cadougan, Maymon, Williams), 2 NJCAA All-Americans (Buycks, DJO), 1 sub-100 recruit (Mbao)
2010 (5): 2 Top-100 players (Blue, Jones), 1 NJCAA All-American (Crowder), 2 sub-100 recruits (Smith, Gardner)
2011 (3): 1 Top-100 players (Anderson), 2 sub-100 recruits (Mayo, Derrick)
2012 (3): 1 Top-100 player (Taylor), 1 NJCAA All-American (TJ Taylor), 1 sub-100 players (Ferguson)
2013 (5): 3 Top-100 players (Johnson, Burton, Duane), 1 NJCAA All-American (McKay), 1 sub-100 player (Dawson)
2014 (1): 1 Top-100 player (Cohen)
2015 (5): 3 Top-100 players (Ellenson, Cheatham, Heldt), 2 sub-100 players (Carter, Anim)
2016 (3): 3 Top-100 players (Bailey, Howard, Hauser)
2017 (4): 4 sub-100 players (Cain, Elliott, John, Eke)
2018 (1): 1 Top-100 player (Hauser)

So that's 36 recruits. Of those 36, by my count, 18 were top-100 players. Another 5 were JUCO All-Americans. I'm going to guess those are recruits we aren't complaining about, especially as 4/5 were really solid D1 players. So your gripe is with the 13 sub-100 players. So let's look at those:

Hits (6): Gardner, Derrick, Anim, Cain, Elliott, John

Gardner, Anim, & John way overdid expectations. Cain & Elliott were solid freshmen & at least look like solid role-players. I know some will argue Derrick, but he was a reliable role-player for 4 years. That's plenty for a 3-star recruit. It isn't his fault that he was forced into a larger role.

Push (3): Mayo, Carter, Eke

Mayo & Carter both had productive moments, but the potential they flashed largely went unrealized & neither finished their careers here. Eke the jury is still out on.

Misses (4): Mbao, Smith, Ferguson, Dawson

Only one lasted more than one season, and none made it to Christmas of their sophomore year. All were obviously overmatched at this level.

So basically, your entire gripe seems to be 4/36 recruits (11.1%) over the past 10 years that didn't work out. I mean, all four were disappointing, but they accounted for 5 total years of scholarships, so it's not like there was much invested in them.

Further, in that time we also added RSCI top-100s Jamil Wilson, Luke Fischer, Katin Reinhardt, Ed Morrow and sub-100s Trent Lockett, Matt Carlino, Koby McEwen, & Joseph Chartouny. I would argue that so far, 6 of those (all the top-100 players as well as Lockett & Carlino) were hits, Chartouny was a miss, and McEwen is currently a push. And all of those players used the rest of their eligibility at Marquette after committing.

So honestly, on the basis of 44 players, there are 5 that seem to have completely failed to meet your standards. Maybe the problem is less the players and more your standards. Also, it's worth noting that of the Wojo sub-100 recruits, Eke and Carter are the only two that aren't hits. Wojo has largely been hitting on his reaches & transfers. Of the 19 players he brought in, 10 were top-100 (including Morrow & Reinhardt) and of the other 9, most were quality adds (Anim, Cain, Elliott, John, Carlino, McEwen) with only Chartouny & Carter truly disappointing (again, jury out on Ike).

(And sorry, I've been busy at work and had most of this written earlier, but haven't had a chance to post until now, and I'm not letting the work go to waste.)

Thanks for taking the time to post this...Let me see if I can explain further where I'm coming from(not that it will matter, someone will blast me). First of all, let me start with your premise that of the 36 top 100's, you say "I assume we aren't complaining about those". I'm not going to go thru your list individually, but let me just say..it's a problem when your top 100's, don't perform like you'd expect a top 100 to perform. Just to name a few...Cheatum, Heldt, Taylor and Juan Anderson. That isn't all of them, but that's just picking 4 of the names off the top of my head.

To me, a top 100 kid should be an impact player. Now everyone's definition of that is different I suppose, and that's fair, but to me, it's a player that is consistently good, and can take over a game when/if necessary. That doesn't mean regularly but to me it means, a kid that is talented enough to do so, he just usually doesn't have to because others on the team are better than him and they typically do it.

Now you can argue, fairly that it's not a Coach's fault if a top 100 kid doesn't perform like one. Maybe the kid was just overrated. That happens. Now, this can work...IF you have others that are below 100, that develop and out perform their ranking. This has maybe been the biggest problem. When has it ever happened for MU where they bring in a kid like a Ja Morant?? So under the radar, yet, turns into an absolute stud?? Development is on the Coach. Yes, the player also has to want to be great, but it's up to a Coach to develop them.

Some of your examples of "hits" on top 100's, I just simply can't agree with. Derrick Wilson jumps out at me..a top 100, to me, cannot be a Hit if he's only ever been a "solid" role player. Again, for me, they have to be able to impact a game at any given time. And I'm not talking just one game in their career, where in all others, they were just "guys".

Anim, John, Cain and Elliott..I'm not going to be to hard on them as all but Anim have a couple more years yet to prove themselves. Sacar to me is a frustrating player..so inconsistent. Shows flashes of brilliance, but for me to this point, he has had way too many games where he has been essentially invisible, to the point where you didn't even realize he is on the floor.

John, Cain and Elliott..all below 100, so expectations can't be as high obviously. But they are the "group" of kids I am talking about that have to develop to be better than their ranking suggests, and not simply minimally but by a fairly substantial margin. I'm not saying you can't ever have below 100 guys (you almost have to), but you have to be careful with how many in any given years you have. If you have 3, like MU will have following this next year(when Anim is done), then you REALLY need(at least) one of them to become the type of player that can take over a game. Otherwise, if none of them develop much further than where they are now, then you essentially have three "guys". And not only 3 "guys" but three that will play substantial roles the rest f their careers. Can a program really afford that and expect to get to where they want to go??

There's probably a lot more I could/want to say, but I think I hit on my basic point(s)

[Galway Eagle]

To me, a top 100 kid should be an impact player. Now everyone's definition of that is different I suppose, and that's fair, but to me, it's a player that is consistently good, and can take over a game when/if necessary. That doesn't mean regularly but to me it means, a kid that is talented enough to do so, he just usually doesn't have to because others on the team are better than him and they typically do it.

Which goes back to what I posted on the other page. The issue then is how many of those top 100 players left us early before they'd develop into the top players you want them to.

10/18 Transferred, 2/18 left early for the NBA. Essentially your initial post was complaining about quantity, that's not the issue though it's them not matriculating here at MU.

Years ago Paint Touches or Cracked Sidewalks did an analysis of the success of different portions of the top 100 prospects and how expectations should actually be set. Those backend top 100 players are not expected to be those take over players till they're juniors or seniors. Really after the top 25 or so most won't produce their freshman year.

[brewcity77]

This is also from that thread, a response from muguru:

Thanks for taking the time to post this...Let me see if I can explain further where I'm coming from(not that it will matter, someone will blast me). First of all, let me start with your premise that of the 36 top 100's, you say "I assume we aren't complaining about those". I'm not going to go thru your list individually, but let me just say..it's a problem when your top 100's, don't perform like you'd expect a top 100 to perform. Just to name a few...Cheatum, Heldt, Taylor and Juan Anderson. That isn't all of them, but that's just picking 4 of the names off the top of my head.

To me, a top 100 kid should be an impact player. Now everyone's definition of that is different I suppose, and that's fair, but to me, it's a player that is consistently good, and can take over a game when/if necessary. That doesn't mean regularly but to me it means, a kid that is talented enough to do so, he just usually doesn't have to because others on the team are better than him and they typically do it.

Sometimes guys don't live up to expectations. It happens. Cheatham was fine until he transferred. Taylor battled through knee injuries. Heldt was fine as a role-player. Maybe not the star you'd hope for, but him and Juan were the only two that didn't necessarily become impact guys. I think there are others that could be characterized there, but you have to accept that sometimes guys just don't work out. That's not just here, that's everywhere. How about 2011 #52 Jamal Branch, who Marquette recruited? He was lackluster at Texas A&M, then we missed again when he transferred to St. John's, but he never was a big impact player there either. Check out Dajuan Coleman from Syracuse. He was ranked #18 in 2012 and never averaged 20 minutes or 6 ppg in 4 years at Syracuse. Go back and look at Reggie Cameron, the Georgetown recruit that was 75th in 2013.  You're going to have misses, that's just the reality of things, because it happens everywhere. I'm sure if I looked, there are plenty more in every other recruiting class. I think you simply have unrealistic expectations for top-100 players. Sometimes, they don't meet expectations. It's not because Lavin or Boeheim or Thompson were bad coaches, it's just the reality of things.

Now you can argue, fairly that it's not a Coach's fault if a top 100 kid doesn't perform like one. Maybe the kid was just overrated. That happens. Now, this can work...IF you have others that are below 100, that develop and out perform their ranking. This has maybe been the biggest problem. When has it ever happened for MU where they bring in a kid like a Ja Morant?? So under the radar, yet, turns into an absolute stud?? Development is on the Coach. Yes, the player also has to want to be great, but it's up to a Coach to develop them.

When has it ever happened for MU? Dwyane Wade. Kids like Ja Morant or Dwyane Wade are rare. They come along once, maybe twice in a lifetime for any program. If Marquette ever gets another in either of our lifetimes, an unrated kid who turns out to be a first-team All-American, it'll be an incredibly lucky occurrence.

Some of your examples of "hits" on top 100's, I just simply can't agree with. Derrick Wilson jumps out at me..a top 100, to me, cannot be a Hit if he's only ever been a "solid" role player. Again, for me, they have to be able to impact a game at any given time. And I'm not talking just one game in their career, where in all others, they were just "guys".

Anim, John, Cain and Elliott..I'm not going to be to hard on them as all but Anim have a couple more years yet to prove themselves. Sacar to me is a frustrating player..so inconsistent. Shows flashes of brilliance, but for me to this point, he has had way too many games where he has been essentially invisible, to the point where you didn't even realize he is on the floor.

John, Cain and Elliott..all below 100, so expectations can't be as high obviously. But they are the "group" of kids I am talking about that have to develop to be better than their ranking suggests, and not simply minimally but by a fairly substantial margin. I'm not saying you can't ever have below 100 guys (you almost have to), but you have to be careful with how many in any given years you have. If you have 3, like MU will have following this next year(when Anim is done), then you REALLY need(at least) one of them to become the type of player that can take over a game. Otherwise, if none of them develop much further than where they are now, then you essentially have three "guys". And not only 3 "guys" but three that will play substantial roles the rest f their careers. Can a program really afford that and expect to get to where they want to go??

There's probably a lot more I could/want to say, but I think I hit on my basic point(s)

Okay, these are sub-100. That's important. Derrick Wilson was a role-player. He was a sub-100 player. You have to have some guys on the roster who aren't stars. You can't have 13 stars. There aren't enough minutes and balls to go around. Derrick shouldn't have been a 30+ mpg starter, but if he had been a 15-20 mpg bench guy behind a star, he would've been fine. For the others...Sacar is a competent starter. That's fine for a sub-100. John is a competent starter and one of the 20 best defenders in the country. That's exceptional for a sub-100. Honestly, you ask for a Ja Morant? Theo in the next two years might be just that. Cain and Elliott, if they are able to be role-players as sub-100 recruits, that should meet expectations.

Anim at times has taken over games. John at times has taken over games. And that's good for guys that were never top-100. Expecting them to be the stars isn't really fair. I think Wojo has had a pretty good hit rate. Ellenson, Howard, & both Hausers were hits as top-100 recruits. Cheatham and Bailey were pushes, Heldt was just a role-player. Hard to tie him too much to Cohen since he didn't recruit him originally. But I think simply, you can't complain about needing more top-100 recruits, see that we did indeed get more top-100 recruits than indicated, and then just complain about something else. Well, I guess you can, but it feels awfully disingenuous.

[Johnny B]

you people have to much time on your hands

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

When has it ever happened for MU? Dwyane Wade. Kids like Ja Morant or Dwyane Wade are rare. They come along once, maybe twice in a lifetime for any program. If Marquette ever gets another in either of our lifetimes, an unrated kid who turns out to be a first-team All-American, it'll be an incredibly lucky occurrence.

Markus was #71 RSCI and has been developed into a second team All American and Big East Player of the Year.  And he still has one more year to go.

[GooooMarquette]

you people have to much time on your hands

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Newsdreams]

Markus was #71 RSCI and has been developed into a second team All American and Big East Player of the Year.  And he still has one more year to go.

But he trains at Arizona all summer

[Silkk the Shaka]

Markus was #71 RSCI and has been developed into a second team All American and Big East Player of the Year.  And he still has one more year to go.

He was a borderline 5* before reclassifying and played for team USA

[forgetful]

To me, a top 100 kid should be an impact player. Now everyone's definition of that is different I suppose, and that's fair, but to me, it's a player that is consistently good, and can take over a game when/if necessary. That doesn't mean regularly but to me it means, a kid that is talented enough to do so, he just usually doesn't have to because others on the team are better than him and they typically do it.

Here's your problem. That expectation isn't rational. Top 100 kids should not be expected to be impact players. A successful top 100 kid should be expected to be at least a capable role player on a top 50 team by the time they finish up. That is the reasonable expectation.

You also look at info and decide what you "think" that means, instead of looking at actual data that will tell you what is reasonable, or consistent with facts. 

Here is a comparison for Louisville. I chose them, because they are one of the teams that have more than one national championship, which you said is a goal in the other thread.

They brought in 26 top 100 recruits during the time period that was discussed (e.g. 2008-2018). Of those 26, only 3 completed all their eligibility at Louisville.

Of the rest.
8 transferred (30%).
7 left early and went undrafted. Most had poor contribution during their time at Louisville, e.g. 1 season averaging under 6 ppg.
6 left early and were drafted.
2 are still playing.

Take home message. We aren't doing any worse than other teams in terms of success. It could be argued we are doing better. Those leaving early and going undrafted are often high ranked players with minimal college contributions, hoping to leverage their high school ranking. That means they were flops at the college level.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

He was a borderline 5* before reclassifying and played for team USA

He was ranked around the high 30s as a 2017 prospect.  That still requires development. 

[brewcity77]

Here's your problem. That expectation isn't rational. Top 100 kids should not be expected to be impact players. A successful top 100 kid should be expected to be at least a capable role player on a top 50 team by the time they finish up. That is the reasonable expectation.

You also look at info and decide what you "think" that means, instead of looking at actual data that will tell you what is reasonable, or consistent with facts. 

Here is a comparison for Louisville. I chose them, because they are one of the teams that have more than one national championship, which you said is a goal in the other thread.

They brought in 26 top 100 recruits during the time period that was discussed (e.g. 2008-2018). Of those 26, only 3 completed all their eligibility at Louisville.

Of the rest.
8 transferred (30%).
7 left early and went undrafted. Most had poor contribution during their time at Louisville, e.g. 1 season averaging under 6 ppg.
6 left early and were drafted.
2 are still playing.

Take home message. We aren't doing any worse than other teams in terms of success. It could be argued we are doing better. Those leaving early and going undrafted are often high ranked players with minimal college contributions, hoping to leverage their high school ranking. That means they were flops at the college level.

Brilliant post.

[Cheeks]

A top 100 player in one year may be much better than a top 100 player in a different year.  They are not created equally as the ratings are based on that specific year’s talent crop.

[dgies9156]

Gee, what do we do with all this quantitative nonsense. Does it mean Coach Wojo is a genius, an idiot or an average recruiter of Top 100 talent.

Before Coach Wojo, the Cowboy doesn't matter because he's gone.

The purpose of data driven analysis is understanding. Mining nuggets that would provide us insight into Coach Wojo's tenure. There isn't enough here, particularly compared to Coach Wojo's peers, to suggest we can draw conclusions from it. Also, what are the constants that drive the variables?