[Cracked Sidewalks] A few more thoughts on BE JUCO players

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

A few more thoughts on BE JUCO players

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Rob Lowe)

I just wanted to follow up on a few more thoughts about JUCO players in the BE.  If you missed it, check that out, or even the original Look at Top 100 Recruits.

We were remiss in posting the information regarding Marquette JUCO players.  Basically, Kinsella, Blackledge, and Fulce all received Incompletes / Non-Factors.  Jamil Lott technically qualified as a non-factor, but that's a little bit unfair with his ORtg (97.4) and Usage (16.9%).  Lott was basically a little bit worse than average, but not egregiously bad.

As previously mentioned, Jimmy Butler was an off the charts role player, with a combination of ORtg (131) and Usage (14%).  A question was raised regarding Butler.  If he was that good, doesn't it then show that Buzz is better at judging talent (and we can therefore expect more from DJO/Buycks?)  I agree entirely with MUScoop.com poster "The Sultan of South Wayne" who says that:

Or it could be that Butler succeeded because of his limited role.  He played on a team with three seniors where he could be the "hustle guy."  Come off the bench to play a little defense, get some rebounds, score some points, etc.

It will be impossible for him to retain that offensive production with more minutes and his surrounding cast gone.  Furthermore, it will be hard for DJO and Buycks to attain that status with one, or both of them starting and counted on to be essentially the only scorers in the guard positions.

Butler was playing with four players that would all qualify as Studs (ORtg > 100; Usage > 20%).  As a reminder, there is a clear and direct relationship between the number of possessions a player uses and how efficient they are with those possessions.  Elite players can manage to maintain a high offensive rating while still using a large number of possessions.  If anything, we should expect Butler to be far less efficient this season than last year.  Honestly, his 08-09 offensive efficiency seems like a statistical anomaly.

Not covered in the original analysis was that there was a high percentage of JUCO players that ended up not sticking with programs after year one.  (HT: bma) Of the list of 30, there were a full nine players that ended up transferring, or almost a third.  This was something that clearly registered, but I wasn't sure how to include initially.  When we combine the fact that almost seven out of ten juco players are non-factors on the court in their first year, or that one out of three JUCOS end up even transferring... well you can make your own inferences about the implications on program stability when it comes to JUCO players.

That said, although the issue of recruiting JUCO players boiled to the surface during the Monterele Clark saga, I don't personally have any issues right now.  First, although many players get the JUCO tag, it seems particularly relevant that Fulce, Butler, and DJO are all three year players.  Honestly, I consider a three year player a lot closer to a four year recruit than a true JUCO.  Second, I just accept (for now) that this is an area where Buzz has a lot of recruiting connections.  However, this isn't by any means a consensus opinion among other CS contributors, as others feel strongly about the number of JUCOs at Marquette.

A question has also been raised about the notion of guaranteed minutes and what impact that may have.  In principle, I definitely agree that there will be plenty of minutes available for the taking.  However, when one builds in the possessions already for Lazar, Acker, Cubillan, and Butler, there are not as many possessions as one might think.  Using envelope math, it appears that half of DJO, Buycks, Maymon, or EWill ends up with less than 20% of possessions.  (ie - a role player or non-factor).  I'll try to approach this with more rigor in subsequent posts.

Finally, thanks to BMA (again), we also have the final set of data to look at for incoming players in their first year.  This data is for HS / Prep school players that weren't Top 100.  Once this is processed, we'll have a full set of information and can then look at broader questions, so stay tuned for more information.

PS - Donate to Al's Run!

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2009/10/few-more-thoughts-on-be-juco-players.html

[tower912]

Love the analysis.   I think you are mistaken about amount of minutes for Buycks and DJO vs. Cubillan and Acker.    I am thinking it will be high 20's for the new guys, low teens for the old guys.    Does your analysis include any other backcourts with both starters being JUCO's in their first year for a new team?    And I apologize if it seems like I am nitpicking/sharpshooting.    We are going to be in what I believe to be uncharted territory and I am curious if there is any history to use as predictor. 

[bma725]

Love the analysis.   I think you are mistaken about amount of minutes for Buycks and DJO vs. Cubillan and Acker.    I am thinking it will be high 20's for the new guys, low teens for the old guys.    Does your analysis include any other backcourts with both starters being JUCO's in their first year for a new team?    And I apologize if it seems like I am nitpicking/sharpshooting.    We are going to be in what I believe to be uncharted territory and I am curious if there is any history to use as predictor. 

As far as I can tell there weren't any other cases where both starters were JUCO players.  The closest was Cincinnati where Jamual Warren was the starter at PG, and Marvin Gentry was the top back up at SG/SF. 

Beyond them, I don't even think any other schools had two JUCO guards in the same class, though I only did a quick look at the list of names this time.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

If a player goes to a D1 school out of high school, Kinsellsa, then transfers to a JUCO does that make him a true JUCO player?  Not trying to argue, just wondering what some of your thoughts are.

[bma725]

If a player goes to a D1 school out of high school, Kinsellsa, then transfers to a JUCO does that make him a true JUCO player?  Not trying to argue, just wondering what some of your thoughts are.

According to the NCAA yes, it does.  According to most reasonable people no. 

Then again, Kentrell Gransberry is mentioned as a JUCO attending South Florida, but the NCAA doesn't actually consider him a JUCO.  He went to a JUCO for two years, then attended LSU for about three months and never played in an official game before transferring to USF.  As far as the NCAA is concerned he's a transfer, not a JUCO transfer...even though most people would say he's a JUCO. 

I'm not sure who was and wasn't included in the final analysis, hopefully Rob reads this and can let you know.

[Henry Sugar]

I think you are mistaken about amount of minutes for Buycks and DJO vs. Cubillan and Acker.    I am thinking it will be high 20's for the new guys, low teens for the old guys.   

Again... envelope math, which was based on the total number of possessions.  Remember that right off the bat we'll have Lazar with ~25% usage (if not at McNeal numbers of 28%-30%) and then Jimmy Butler bumping up from 14%, and deservedly so.  Right from that starting point, it's not likely for more than two additional players to get over 20% usage apiece.

I want to run through some additional numbers and will put something up on CS.

According to the NCAA yes, it does.  According to most reasonable people no. 

Then again, Kentrell Gransberry is mentioned as a JUCO attending South Florida, but the NCAA doesn't actually consider him a JUCO.  He went to a JUCO for two years, then attended LSU for about three months and never played in an official game before transferring to USF.  As far as the NCAA is concerned he's a transfer, not a JUCO transfer...even though most people would say he's a JUCO. 

I'm not sure who was and wasn't included in the final analysis, hopefully Rob reads this and can let you know.

 

I included both Kinsella and Gransberry, but generally if a player started at a D1 school and then transferred to a JUCO I did not include them.  As one can imagine, the data of who/when/what was a little bit confusing.  The approach was to run through jucojunction.com and then have bma / Tim review the list.  When in doubt, I errered on the side of including a player in order to increase the data set.  Honestly, my focus was on the piece after compiling the list... grabbing their numbers and pulling that together. 

PS - You'll also notice that Butler and Fulce were included, but I don't count them as "true" JUCO players either as mentioned in the OP.

[4everwarriors]

Can you hook us up with a juco vs. full qualifier vs. thug graph?

[Henry Sugar]

Can you hook us up with a juco vs. full qualifier vs. thug graph?

Can you provide the data about thugs?

Obviously, you won't.  But frankly, I think the data is fairly compelling that a JUCO recruit has a ton of risk in terms of not producing or eventually transferring.  I didn't even have to resort to caricatures of JUCO players as more contemptable individuals.

[dsfire]

Again... envelope math, which was based on the total number of possessions.  Remember that right off the bat we'll have Lazar with ~25% usage (if not at McNeal numbers of 28%-30%) and then Jimmy Butler bumping up from 14%, and deservedly so.  Right from that starting point, it's not likely for more than two additional players to get over 20% usage apiece.

Well, assuming we're talking about possessions while in-game I'm sure it's probably mathematically possible to have just about everyone else around 20% even if Hayward is at 25+%.  It seems more likely that we'll see 3-4 guys (or fewer?) >20% and the next few in the 17-19% range and another couple around 15%, as opposed to our huge discrepancy between the top 4 and everyone else last year.

Here's what I'm seeing based upon the kenpom data from last year:

Player	%Min	%Poss	%Team Poss	Returning %Team Poss
McNeal	87%	28%	25%
Matthews	85%	25%	21%
Hayward	79%	24%	19%	19%
James	65%	22%	14%
Butler	49%	14%	7%	7%
Acker	38%	13%	5%	5%
Cubillan	21%	12%	3%	3%
Burke	48%	9%	4%
Hazel	18%	10%	2%
Total				33%

That leaves a lot of possesions available even if you bump up %poss for Hayward and Butler and %mins for Acker and Cubes.