Dear Chapman,
The Forum quote feature of our posts has become so scrambled that I will try quoting you directly here.
"Many coaches are hired, in part, because they are virtually guaranteed to bring in a highly rated player(s) with them when they arrive due to an existing relationship, or they have extremely good relationships with local travel ball teams. Fox brought neither and actually lost a few players on the Cal team that were vital to keep."
I don't know of a single Cal coach who was hired for the reasons you suggested. Cuonzo had a relationship with Brown, but I doubt that Brown was "virtually guaranteed" to sign with Cal. Nor was Cuonzo virtually guaranteed to sign Rabb. There may be coaches who are hired in part for this reason, but I'd bet they aren't many. Obviously Fox likely had no relationship with local travel ball teams. And you don't know for certain that Fox lost a few of Wyking's players. Wyking may have lost them, or the losing atmosphere, or the lack of enthusiasm in Cal fans, or being at Cal itself, may have turned them off. They are kids not yet mature, and 40% of college players transfer. Unless you have inside information, you are just speculating on why they left. As to how vital they would be, that is debatable. maybe they would have helped, and maybe not as much as you think, while they occupied some 4 year scholarships.
"We've been down this road before, and it didn't go well. An "impact player" would be, by my definition, someone who makes a significantly greater contribution to the team than would a Pac-12 "replacement level" player. "Replacement level" is a baseball quant term with a precise definition and I don't know or care if it's used for basketball. A player should show clear upside from day 1 in practice and be a significant contributor to the team in games by his sophomore year."
What does that remark mean? Who is we? You and I, or others on the Forum? I think we mostly agree on what an impact player would be, except my standard might be slightly higher, in that I'd want an impact player to be more than a "significant contributor", and be a real difference maker for his team, that is the team is much better with him on the floor. Maybe we are saying the same thing. From the way you were writing, I assumed you were all in with those like Townie and maybe calumnus who want to focus one-and-dones, and you want them to play at a high level as freshmen, and that does not appear to be the case with you. Also, if you have been able to see recruits in day one of practice as freshmen, you have the advantage over me. Most fans don't get to watch practices, and that has been true for many years, maybe even prior to Ben Braun.
"Sigh. There is a strong positive correlation between recruiting rankings and eventual college success on the court. I am not open to the idea that that notion is incorrect. You just wrote that "not many" 4 or 5 star recruits are impacts players. I couldn't disagree more."
Here is where you stray from reality. I think you are just saying this because most every fan believes it. But you can only KNOW this if you look at actual facts, the careers of actual recruits. In 2016, I spent two weeks researching the top 100 ranked players of the 2009 class (I had to wait until all the players had used up their eligibility, and some took 5 or even 6 years to do it). I published it in the BI Forum as a spread sheet. The results were as follows:
60 players lived up to their ranking, in terms of their individual accomplishments in college.
34 of these 60 players helped the team which first signed them as recruits. I arbitrarily defined helping their team as at least any of the following: a 25-win season, a conference title, a sweet 16 appearance.
5 of those 34 players transferred and actually only helped their new team, not the team that signed them, which means that only 29 of those 60 players helped the team that first signed them.
31 of the top 100 players transferred to other schools.
26 players left early for the NBA. There were 10 one and done players, 6 two and done players, and 10 three and done players 9 of the 26 players who left early for the NBA, went undrafted.
12 players got injured, missed 6 seasons, and 2 had to retire from basketball. 6 players were arrested or suspended for rules violations, one player flunked out, and 4 players failed to academically qualify for admission.
The bottom line for 2009 was that you have a 60% chance that a player will look good playing for you, but only a 29% chance that one will really help your team. That means that 71% won't help your team to great success, and 40% of them won't even look good in your eyeball test. If that fits your definition of a "strong positive correlation," then we disagree only on how we describe things, either optimistically or realistically. The facts are the facts. It was one year. Other years may be different, better or worse. If you want to see the spreadsheet, I can e-mail it to you. Send me a PM.
Here is an article in a series by an NBA writer on the reliability of high school recruit rankings as a predictor of NBA success which looks at several years of data: https://medium.com/has-been-sports/revisionist-history-do-high-school-basketball-rankings-project-nba-success-5e2ab11e8847
"I have huge issues with the lists of players you presented. I'll take Brown, Bird, Hardin, Kately, Sampson, and Ubaka ALL DAY LONG and we'll run the current Cal squad, or your preferred squad of unheralded overachievers, out of the freaking gym. 99 times out of 100. The current Cal squad has a prominent player with a pear-shaped body -- the body shape that the Health Department typically shows as a indicator of obesity. I mean c'mon, I'm not making this **** up. Basketball players have to pass the eyeball test, and the current Cal squad does not."
Hey, we are both Cal fans. You have your favorites, I have mine. What is the problem? How is your team going to run any team out of the gym with Ubaka at point guard. He was the slowest point guard I've seen in many a year, and he won't be leading any fast breaks. For his first two years he dribbled around the perimeter and I nearly fell asleep watching him. To his great credit he became a much better shot and scorer in his last 2 years, but no speed burner. I'll take Jorge over Ubaka. Much better defender, and would eat Ayinde's lunch. I would also ask which Hardin and Bird are showing up for this game of yours? The guys in uniform ready to go, or the ones who too often were on the bench in street clothes, due to injuries? That is also part of how good a recruit is, whether he is durable and avoids injury.
Since you have a lot of height with Hardin and Sampson, I'll have to go with Anderson and Tamir up front, and we will outscore Hardin and Sampson by 20 points, so you will have to pick that up elsewhere. I'll take Lampley over Brown or Kately. None of them can make a 3, so it might be fun to watch. Sean would outscore either one, especially Kately. Your two guard is Bird, I guess, and I'll answer with Jerome Randle and Justin Cobbs, 6 against 6. It is no contest, Randle or Cobbs vs Bird, either of them the better player. If anyone's team is going to get run out of the gym, it is yours.
As for your team running last season's Cal team out of the gym, that Cal team was one of the worst teams in Cal history. So what is your point? I know one guy who would resent the asinine description of Andre Kelly's body. And if you were the coach of Louisville in 1964, you would not have signed Wes Unseld, 6-7, 250 lb center, for being too obese, and he averaged 36 points and 24 rebounds as a freshman, was later drafted by the Bullets and made the NBA Hall of Fame. Chamberlain said Unseld was one of the toughest players he ever played against. Don't judge a book by its cover.
"Yes, it's easy for you to cherry pick a list of 2 and 3 star recruits from the past 25 years who did well, all the while ignoring the overwhelming number of 2 and 3 star players who failed to lead Cal to the upper ranks of the Pac 10/12. This is called having your Alex Mack-tinted glasses on. You need to take yours off."
I'll take off my Alex Macks, if you will take off your Mary Poppins glasses. I never argued that 3-star or lower ranked or unranked players were more likely to be successful players at Cal, than 4 or 5-star players, only that many of them have been just that, so we should not overlook them when recruiting. Aren't you happy to have seen Randle, or Jorge, or Anderson, or Cobbs play for Cal?
The Forum quote feature of our posts has become so scrambled that I will try quoting you directly here.
"Many coaches are hired, in part, because they are virtually guaranteed to bring in a highly rated player(s) with them when they arrive due to an existing relationship, or they have extremely good relationships with local travel ball teams. Fox brought neither and actually lost a few players on the Cal team that were vital to keep."
I don't know of a single Cal coach who was hired for the reasons you suggested. Cuonzo had a relationship with Brown, but I doubt that Brown was "virtually guaranteed" to sign with Cal. Nor was Cuonzo virtually guaranteed to sign Rabb. There may be coaches who are hired in part for this reason, but I'd bet they aren't many. Obviously Fox likely had no relationship with local travel ball teams. And you don't know for certain that Fox lost a few of Wyking's players. Wyking may have lost them, or the losing atmosphere, or the lack of enthusiasm in Cal fans, or being at Cal itself, may have turned them off. They are kids not yet mature, and 40% of college players transfer. Unless you have inside information, you are just speculating on why they left. As to how vital they would be, that is debatable. maybe they would have helped, and maybe not as much as you think, while they occupied some 4 year scholarships.
"We've been down this road before, and it didn't go well. An "impact player" would be, by my definition, someone who makes a significantly greater contribution to the team than would a Pac-12 "replacement level" player. "Replacement level" is a baseball quant term with a precise definition and I don't know or care if it's used for basketball. A player should show clear upside from day 1 in practice and be a significant contributor to the team in games by his sophomore year."
What does that remark mean? Who is we? You and I, or others on the Forum? I think we mostly agree on what an impact player would be, except my standard might be slightly higher, in that I'd want an impact player to be more than a "significant contributor", and be a real difference maker for his team, that is the team is much better with him on the floor. Maybe we are saying the same thing. From the way you were writing, I assumed you were all in with those like Townie and maybe calumnus who want to focus one-and-dones, and you want them to play at a high level as freshmen, and that does not appear to be the case with you. Also, if you have been able to see recruits in day one of practice as freshmen, you have the advantage over me. Most fans don't get to watch practices, and that has been true for many years, maybe even prior to Ben Braun.
"Sigh. There is a strong positive correlation between recruiting rankings and eventual college success on the court. I am not open to the idea that that notion is incorrect. You just wrote that "not many" 4 or 5 star recruits are impacts players. I couldn't disagree more."
Here is where you stray from reality. I think you are just saying this because most every fan believes it. But you can only KNOW this if you look at actual facts, the careers of actual recruits. In 2016, I spent two weeks researching the top 100 ranked players of the 2009 class (I had to wait until all the players had used up their eligibility, and some took 5 or even 6 years to do it). I published it in the BI Forum as a spread sheet. The results were as follows:
60 players lived up to their ranking, in terms of their individual accomplishments in college.
34 of these 60 players helped the team which first signed them as recruits. I arbitrarily defined helping their team as at least any of the following: a 25-win season, a conference title, a sweet 16 appearance.
5 of those 34 players transferred and actually only helped their new team, not the team that signed them, which means that only 29 of those 60 players helped the team that first signed them.
31 of the top 100 players transferred to other schools.
26 players left early for the NBA. There were 10 one and done players, 6 two and done players, and 10 three and done players 9 of the 26 players who left early for the NBA, went undrafted.
12 players got injured, missed 6 seasons, and 2 had to retire from basketball. 6 players were arrested or suspended for rules violations, one player flunked out, and 4 players failed to academically qualify for admission.
The bottom line for 2009 was that you have a 60% chance that a player will look good playing for you, but only a 29% chance that one will really help your team. That means that 71% won't help your team to great success, and 40% of them won't even look good in your eyeball test. If that fits your definition of a "strong positive correlation," then we disagree only on how we describe things, either optimistically or realistically. The facts are the facts. It was one year. Other years may be different, better or worse. If you want to see the spreadsheet, I can e-mail it to you. Send me a PM.
Here is an article in a series by an NBA writer on the reliability of high school recruit rankings as a predictor of NBA success which looks at several years of data: https://medium.com/has-been-sports/revisionist-history-do-high-school-basketball-rankings-project-nba-success-5e2ab11e8847
"I have huge issues with the lists of players you presented. I'll take Brown, Bird, Hardin, Kately, Sampson, and Ubaka ALL DAY LONG and we'll run the current Cal squad, or your preferred squad of unheralded overachievers, out of the freaking gym. 99 times out of 100. The current Cal squad has a prominent player with a pear-shaped body -- the body shape that the Health Department typically shows as a indicator of obesity. I mean c'mon, I'm not making this **** up. Basketball players have to pass the eyeball test, and the current Cal squad does not."
Hey, we are both Cal fans. You have your favorites, I have mine. What is the problem? How is your team going to run any team out of the gym with Ubaka at point guard. He was the slowest point guard I've seen in many a year, and he won't be leading any fast breaks. For his first two years he dribbled around the perimeter and I nearly fell asleep watching him. To his great credit he became a much better shot and scorer in his last 2 years, but no speed burner. I'll take Jorge over Ubaka. Much better defender, and would eat Ayinde's lunch. I would also ask which Hardin and Bird are showing up for this game of yours? The guys in uniform ready to go, or the ones who too often were on the bench in street clothes, due to injuries? That is also part of how good a recruit is, whether he is durable and avoids injury.
Since you have a lot of height with Hardin and Sampson, I'll have to go with Anderson and Tamir up front, and we will outscore Hardin and Sampson by 20 points, so you will have to pick that up elsewhere. I'll take Lampley over Brown or Kately. None of them can make a 3, so it might be fun to watch. Sean would outscore either one, especially Kately. Your two guard is Bird, I guess, and I'll answer with Jerome Randle and Justin Cobbs, 6 against 6. It is no contest, Randle or Cobbs vs Bird, either of them the better player. If anyone's team is going to get run out of the gym, it is yours.
As for your team running last season's Cal team out of the gym, that Cal team was one of the worst teams in Cal history. So what is your point? I know one guy who would resent the asinine description of Andre Kelly's body. And if you were the coach of Louisville in 1964, you would not have signed Wes Unseld, 6-7, 250 lb center, for being too obese, and he averaged 36 points and 24 rebounds as a freshman, was later drafted by the Bullets and made the NBA Hall of Fame. Chamberlain said Unseld was one of the toughest players he ever played against. Don't judge a book by its cover.
"Yes, it's easy for you to cherry pick a list of 2 and 3 star recruits from the past 25 years who did well, all the while ignoring the overwhelming number of 2 and 3 star players who failed to lead Cal to the upper ranks of the Pac 10/12. This is called having your Alex Mack-tinted glasses on. You need to take yours off."
I'll take off my Alex Macks, if you will take off your Mary Poppins glasses. I never argued that 3-star or lower ranked or unranked players were more likely to be successful players at Cal, than 4 or 5-star players, only that many of them have been just that, so we should not overlook them when recruiting. Aren't you happy to have seen Randle, or Jorge, or Anderson, or Cobbs play for Cal?
