UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity;

as I have posted before, your data are interesting and your methodology is sound as far as it goes. Unfortunately, you can't really evaluate what you can't have data for. In other words, defining "helping the team" as the team succeeding in one or another metric makes sense. However, a player who takes a team that would have won fewer than 10 games and helps them to win--say--17, even if they don't win a championship or get to the tournament has helped his team. I recognize that it is impossible to do that research, because you can't possibly know how many games team X would have won without player Y, so I can accept your work as a good approximation.

---

Ursa Major,

Most of the data you say I need to evaluate "helping the team" can be found in the spreadsheet, and the rest is easily obtained with at look at sports-reference.com for a team's performance in the year prior to signing a recruit. That site will also show who graduated from that team, so you can get a fair approximation of a team's prospects for the next season prior to the signing of the recruit. Of course, those are also just statistics, and don't tell the full story. To evaluate accurately, one would have to have seen some games, and have an opinion of how much factors like coaching affect a team's or player's performance.

In the spreadsheet, I stated that a player had to have a good individual year to have been eligible for significantly helping his team in my mind. 21 players in that top 100 did not have a single good individual season in their college careers, IMO, and another 15 players did not have a good season in their first year. So a total of 36 top 100 players did not have a good individual season in year one, which means that 64 players in the top 100 did have a good first season. Of those, by my criteria for "helping their team to a successful season," there were a total of 34 players that I judged to have helped their teams. If we subtract those 34 players from the 64 players who had a good individual season, that leaves 30 players who had a good individual season, and who may have helped their teams based on your more liberal criteria. So I looked at the successful players among the top 20 ranked recruits who might fit your criteria, for their first season, and I find these results:

#1 Derrick Favors played the 2010 season at Georgia Tech. In 2009, Tech had a record of 12-19, and lost two rotation players to graduation. With Favors, Tech finished 23-13, 7th in the ACC, and so he clearly helped his team to more success. Sounds like a good example of what you are talking about.

#7 Renardo Sidney, Mississippi State. In 2009, Mississippi State was 23-12 and finished 3rd in the SEC West, and lost no one in the rotation to graduation. in 2010, Sidney had a good year statistically, but the team finished 17-14, worse than 2009. He drew suspensions for fighting and left after 2 seasons.

#8 Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati. In 2009, Cincy was 18-14, finished 9th in the Big East, and lost one rotation player to graduation. In 2010, Stephenson was named Big East Rookie of the Year, but Cincy finished only 19-16, not an improvement.

#9 Kenny Boynton, Florida . In 2009, Florida was 25-11, finished 3rd in the SEC East, and lost one rotation player to graduation. In 2010, they finished 21-13, slightly worse.

#10 Keith Gallon, Oklahoma. In 2009, Oklahoma finished 30-6, 2nd in Big 12, and lost 2 rotation players (including Blake Griffin) to graduation. Gallon had a good season in 2010, but the team finished 13-18, and Gallon was accused of taking cash and all the team's wins were vacated.

#16 Alex Oriakhi, UConn. In 2009, UConn finished 31-5, 3rd in the Bid East, and lost 3 rotation players to graduation. In 2010, Oraikhi had a good year, but UConn finished only 18-16.

#17 Michael Snaer, Florida State. In 2009, FSU finished 25-10, 4th in the ACC, and lost 2 rotation players to graduation. In 2010, FSU finished 22-10, so perhaps Snaer made up for the loss of 2 players.

So of those seven players, by your criteria, in their first season, I'd say Favors clearly helped his team, Snaer probably helped, but for Stepehnson, Boynton, and Oraikhi, it is not really clear, and both Gallon and Sidney look like they hurt their teams with their behavior.

Even if your criteria showed all of the 30 players who had good years, but did not meet my criteria for helping their team to success, did turn out to meet your criteria, that still would only give us 64 players who helped the teams who originally signed them. That is a 64% success rate for those schools' recruiting focus, a 64% success rate for the accuracy of recruit rankings as they relate to their teams being successful. I think it is closer to 50%, which is a coin flip, but even 64% is not as accurate as fans believe it to be. If you want to look up the rest of the players and evaluate them for yourself, I make the same offer as to Oaktown, send me a PM and I'll send you the spreadsheet to start with.

Excellent analysis. Given the complexities (changing rosters, etc.) this is about as good as it gets, and I found the information fascinating. It would be interesting to learn why the 36% failed to help their teams (the head cases you cite are obvious, but there were players with decent seasons whose teams nevertheless failed to improve). Thank you.

At the local level, Cal recently recruited and had 2 clear cut One and done candidates come to Cal.

Jaylen Brown and Ivan Rabb.

We all know, Jaylen stayed 1 year, while Ivan stayed 2. With that said, I am glad both came and played for Cal.
The debate should Cal target and try to get One and done candidates? My reply is yes, and based on the ones we have had, even more so...

This does not mean team should only try to recruit One and Done types, but if Cal has a serious chance to get them, my view is go for it even if they do stay for only 1 year.

I see one and done players like 5th year grad transfers... they arrive and take spot for 1 year and then are gone... glad Cal was able to get Grant Mullins to transfer and play 1 year even if 1 year.

These are the rules teams have to navigate..

In addition, I (I am sure many others) root for both to do well in the NBA and actually root for the teams they play on... (for me, yes, but not when they play GSW)


go Bears

UrsaMajor said:

---

Excellent analysis. Given the complexities (changing rosters, etc.) this is about as good as it gets, and I found the information fascinating. It would be interesting to learn why the 36% failed to help their teams (the head cases you cite are obvious, but there were players with decent seasons whose teams nevertheless failed to improve). Thank you.

---

Thanks. I made the spreadsheet just to see if my observations about the accuracy of recruit rankings had any credibility. All I really found was that for one year, my observations seemed to hold up, that many recruit rankings were not accurate, for many reasons. To say for certain, many more years would have to be evaluated, probably best done with a software program and a computer, and a lot of time which I don't have.

I started this thread using some data from the spreadsheet, to start a conversation about one small aspect, whether Cal should be chasing one-and done players or not. Many fans invest their whole faith in just getting highly-ranked players. I take the opposite view, that we should make our main effort in recruiting the best coach available, and I still do. Even the great coaches have above average and below average recruiting years. A good coach will often give you an overachieving team with below average recruits, and will often give you great teams when he gets above average recruits.

Take 2016 at Cal for example. Cal was loaded with highly-rated talent (not compared to Kentucky, but compared to past seasons at Cal going back a long way). Forgetting the injuries to Wallace and Bird at the end of the season, and forgetting we did not have a good center or much on the bench, the team still under-achieved, in my opinion. They were not consistent, they did not look good to my eye. They had fabulous athletes, but they did not look good playing together. They played individually on offense most of the time. Fabulous athletes like Rabb and Brown in the hands of a Newell, Wooden, a Montgomery or even a Braun would have been more successful, individually and as members of a more successful team, IMO. All those coaches were skilled at putting players in places on the floor to be successful, and Newell, Wooden, and Montgomery all had proven systems for doing so. Rabb struggled in Martin's scheme. In high school Rabb was an all-around player. He scored, he passed for assists. He had a good point guard in Austin to get the ball to him. At Cal he looked to pass, but there seldom was someone open. Rabb arrived at Cal with all the BB IQ and skills to start for Pete Newell and be outstanding as a freshman. Freshmen were ineligible to play varsity in Newell's day, but he rarely started a sophomore. Brown struggled as a freshman with foul trouble and turnovers. He seldom passed. One of his greatest games was vs. Arizona when Singer played a so-so point in the first half, and Martin moved Brown to point in the 2nd half and Brown responded with 7 assists as Cal won by a point. He was magnificent. But we never saw that again and went back to the cumbersome "take it to the rim" offense. Brown clearly has progressed by a huge amount under NBA coaching. I personally feel he would still be underachieving at Cal if both he and Martin had stayed.

I don't mind Cal going after one-and-dones, even if the statistics show that they are not a sure thing to help a team as freshmen, and then leave a big hole in the roster. I think that the coach we go after is still the most important component of a successful program.

I agree with everything here, SFC. I have the same view as you about 1-and-done, although I would say that the "hole in the roster" depends on the year. This year, for Cal, a 1-and-done actually helps the future roster, since no one is scheduled to graduate (other than this mysterious grad transfer). Other years, it would be a bigger problem.

Agree on coaching because ultimately coaching (along with a focused determined athlete) is what is going to help those "bottom of the class" guys blossom in years 3&4.

I think we've just been carrying a little too much dead wood that never develops. Lack of depth has really been an issue which I don't think is really affected by the one and dones.

So do we try to churn out the guys who obviously don't have what it takes after year 1&2? Part of that is playing time. Guys who are dying to get on the court but aren't cutting it somewhat happily go to another program so they can get those minutes. Guys who are content enough to ride the pine ding us badly.

I like his discussion, it is way more interesting than a lot of the other speculative/sunshine pumper/negabear posts. Thanks to those who take the time to type up their well thought out points.

UrsaMajor said:

---

I agree with everything here, SFC. I have the same view as you about 1-and-done, although I would say that the "hole in the roster" depends on the year. This year, for Cal, a 1-and-done actually helps the future roster, since no one is scheduled to graduate (other than this mysterious grad transfer). Other years, it would be a bigger problem.

---

When most one-and-done starters leave a program for the pros, there is a big hole to fill. The coach is faced with having to promote a player from the bench who is probably not as skilled as the one-and-done player, or recruiting another very talented and much sought after player. It often is a big dropoff, if the player was a team-oriented player. If he was more of a one-on-one player, then the player who replaces him, if he is more of a team-oriented player, might be an improvement for the team. The other hole it leaves is for the player's later years, especially his junior and/or senior years, when he has matured, learned, and has more experience. Coaches may not spend quite as much time teaching the one-and-done player new skills or breaking bad habits as they would a 3 or 4 year player, when such an investment might pay off. And the coach has to start looking for a recruit to replace the one-and-done player, the minute he signs him, rather than be teaching the players he has or recruiting longer term players to build a team around.

I think our one-and-dones were Jamal Sampson, Shareef, and Jaylen Brown. Shareef left a big individual hole, but new coach Ben Braun did not recruit anyone to fill Shareef's spot. The other personnel was mostly the same, except that Tony Gonzalez left to play football, and Grigsby and Marks returned after missing most of 1996 with injuries. What Braun did was to replace Shareef in the lineup with Grigsby, give Stewart and Marks more minutes up front, and move McGruder into the point guard role. The main change Braun made was to emphasize team play, as Braun's '97 team passed the ball a lot more, and had an assist to FG ratio of 520/871 = 0.60, while Bozeman's '96 team with Shareef had been 368/716 = 0.51. Cal's assist/turnover ration in '97 was 0.86 and in '96 was 0.99. The '96 team went 17-11, with 15 wins vacated later due to NCAA violation. The 1997 team was much more successful, going 23-9, 3rd in the PAC10, and losing in the Sweet 16 round to NC. Braun handled the situation very well, IMO.

Jamal Sampson proved to be an overrated player, but Cal lost both Sampson and Solomon Hughes (who graduated), at the same time. Braun had ably recruited Amit Tamir, who was probably better than both of them, and later Richard Midgely. Sampson did provide better defense and blocked shots, and after he left for the NBA, Cal's defense went from giving up 66.6 points (#70 in the country) in 2002 to 70 points in 2003, (#178 in the country), with Cal's shot blocks going from #58 in the country to #187 in 2003. Braun's 2002 team with Sampson was 23-9, 2nd in the PAC10 and fell off slightly in 2003 to 22-9 and 3rd in the PAC10. Braun did not handle this situation as well, but the loss of Sampson only hurt on D, and he did pretty well, IMO.

Jaylen Brown left after one season, and left a hole which Cuonzo Martin ably filled with grad transfer Grant Mullins. While Brown was the much better athlete, Mullins did some things better than Brown like shooting threes (40% to 29%), and FTs (80% to 65%). Brown committed 3 times as many turnovers as Mullins, and Mullins distributed the ball better (I suspect Martin wanted Brown to shoot, not distribute basketballs). Cal was not as successful after Brown left, but Cal also lost Mathews and Wallace, and that was a huge factor. The big hole created by Brown leaving after one year is mostly felt in later years. He was replaced by Mullins, also a one-and-done for Cal, and last season Cal had no one who could shoot a three as well as Mullins. Brown would likely have improved at Cal and his junior and senior years could have been outstanding. Cal would have been better as a team in both 2017 and 2018 had Brown had stayed, and far better if both Brown and Rabb had stayed. Martin left Jones with Lee, who was not a good a player as Rabb, and no replacement for Brown or Mullins, and we saw the result last season. Lee is basically another one-and-done. Big holes were left by Martin, which Jones still has to fill.

It has and is having a negative effect on college basketball, IMO. The original reason for competing in team sports in college is to build character, and help our youth mature into men and women. A part of this is to encourage and develop teamwork, the ability to work with others to achieve a goal, not encourage the student to work only by and for himself in the following years. Allowing one and done, admiring it, and for some, obsessing with it, encourages individual behavior, and does not foster cooperation. Teams are usually made up of a mix of kids from different classes, who will graduate in different years, which is bad enough in terms of encouraging togetherness on a team, without adding a type of freshman who plays only one year and leaves. I don't like one and done a single bit, but I live with it, because college ball mistakenly, IMO, allows it, and college ball is still the only amateur game in town played by players of that age group. When it fully ceases to be amateur, I'm gone.

I much prefer the baseball model, where they can be drafted by MLB teams out of HS, but if they go to 4 year schools, are eligible after their Jr year... (or Jr year class if they RS)

The one and done rule enables players not to put any effort in keeping their grades up or going to class.

My wish is NBA/NCAA mirror the MLB/NCAA model in the future..

goBears

SFCity:
I didn't bother quoting this because it is long, but I don't disagree with anything you say. I would say, though that the data you cite indicates that how a coach deals with the OAD is crucial. For instance, if a team like Cal anticipates 0 or 1 scholarships for the following year and has a plan for the following year (e.g., is recruiting 2-3 stud 3-4 year players), then the OAD is kind of like a grad transfer (admittedly with less experience) and can fill a hole for that year. Unfortunately, Cuonzo never had a plan beyond year to year. It is also true, as you say, that most OADs Aren't well-versed in team ball, although there are exceptionsLonzo Ball comes to mind.

Your basic point about what OADs are doing to the game, though, is absolutely spot on. When the NBA made the business decision to advertise the players and not the game, the pro game changed to iso ball and 1 on 1 moves. It wasn't until more recently with the success of the Spurs and the Warriors that team ball became "in." Perhaps of teams such as Villanova continue to win the national championship and the Kentuckys and Dukes and Oregons keep failing to make the Final Four, we'll see a change in the college gamebut I wouldn't hold my breath.

Btw, as I'm sure you know, Shareef never intended to be a OAD. He only made the decision to turn pro when Bozeman let him know that he was going to be fired and the Cal was likely to be on probation the next year.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity:
I didn't bother quoting this because it is long, but I don't disagree with anything you say. I would say, though that the data you cite indicates that how a coach deals with the OAD is crucial. For instance, if a team like Cal anticipates 0 or 1 scholarships for the following year and has a plan for the following year (e.g., is recruiting 2-3 stud 3-4 year players), then the OAD is kind of like a grad transfer (admittedly with less experience) and can fill a hole for that year. Unfortunately, Cuonzo never had a plan beyond year to year. It is also true, as you say, that most OADs Aren't well-versed in team ball, although there are exceptionsLonzo Ball comes to mind.

Your basic point about what OADs are doing to the game, though, is absolutely spot on. When the NBA made the business decision to advertise the players and not the game, the pro game changed to iso ball and 1 on 1 moves. It wasn't until more recently with the success of the Spurs and the Warriors that team ball became "in." Perhaps of teams such as Villanova continue to win the national championship and the Kentuckys and Dukes and Oregons keep failing to make the Final Four, we'll see a change in the college gamebut I wouldn't hold my breath.

Btw, as I'm sure you know, Shareef never intended to be a OAD. He only made the decision to turn pro when Bozeman let him know that he was going to be fired and the Cal was likely to be on probation the next year.

---

I agree. Interesting. Jason Kidd could easily have been a one-and-done in any era where it was permitted, and he too was well versed in team ball, as you describe it. Didn't know that about Shareef. Either I wasn't following Cal that closely or I had forgotten what happened. The probation was not as severe as Bozeman or Shareef might have expected, as Cal was able to tie for 2nd in the PAC10 the next season, and was allowed to go to the NCAA, where they beat Villanova and advanced to the round of 16. New coach Braun and Cal fans were unhappy about Shareef leaving but were probably glad to see all the players from Shareef's team who did stay in the program, Grigsby, Gray, Stewart, Duck, McGruder, and others.