yardbarker
RealGM Basketball

Texas Christian Frogs ArticlesTexas Christian Frogs Articles

Big 12 Basketball Early Projection

Kansas fans are still smiling about Andrew Wiggins’ decision to attend the school. Today I explore how the rest of the Big 12 will look in 2012-2013.

For a description of the model that generated these rankings click here.

Team

Proj CW

Proj CL

Proj Off

Proj Def

Last Off

Last Def

T100

Ret Min

Ret Poss

Kansas

14

4

113.6

89.2

111.8

85.7

8

23%

23%

Oklahoma St.

14

4

113.6

89.3

107.4

88.3

5

89%

93%

Baylor

12

6

115.3

95.1

114.2

94.5

7

60%

54%

Iowa St.

10

8

111.5

96.3

117.6

97.6

3

36%

37%

West Virginia

10

8

110.6

95.7

103.6

99.9

3

67%

62%

Texas

8

10

102.6

91.9

100.9

94.5

5

65%

59%

Kansas St.

8

10

104.0

94.2

113.0

94.5

0

49%

44%

Oklahoma

6

12

101.7

96.5

110.0

95.9

1

41%

37%

Texas Tech

5

13

102.7

101.2

96.7

105.4

0

77%

76%

TCU

3

15

95.6

99.4

91.6

102.2

1

44%

46%

For an explanation of column headings click here.

Kansas: As I noted on Twitter, if you think Kansas should have a better projection, you may be right. The historic data may not give us an accurate read on Andrew Wiggins. If he is the best high school prospect since LeBron James, that literally means there hasn’t been a comparable freshman in my data. On the other hand, if we can learn something from past freshman phenoms, the lesson is to be careful. In 2010, pundits everywhere claimed that Harrison Barnes was the #1 player in the country and one of the greatest prospects on the planet. Then Barnes had such a dreadful freshman season that he stuck around for his sophomore year. And even if Wiggins is great, on a young team with an entirely new starting lineup, there will likely be a few hiccups.

Oklahoma St.: You know your team is headed in the right direction when this is one of your top off-season questions:

Can JUCO center Gary Gaskins replace what Philip Jurick gave Oklahoma St. last year? Jurick wasn’t much of an offensive player, and he was in foul trouble way too often, but he did provide some nice size, shot-blocking, and rebounding when he was on the court.

Yes, the Cowboys return 93% of their offensive possessions on a team that almost won the Big 12 last season. With Markel Brown throwing down more windmill dunks, LeBryan Nash hopefully maturing into his high potential, Michael Cobbins continuing to dominate the paint, and All-American candidate Marcus Smart returning to school, the future is bright.

The only negative piece of news I can find is this. ESPN dropped recruit Detrick Mostella out of its Top 100. (I’m still counting him as a Top 100 recruit until the final consensus rankings are out.)

Baylor: I provided a more detailed summary of Baylor’s lineup last week, but here are a few more thoughts: Losing LJ Rose and Deuce Bello is not a big deal. They had ORtgs of 69 and 86 last year. In fact, Baylor actually moved up from 25th to 24th in my model with the announcement that Rose is gone. He won’t be wasting a handful of possessions in meaningless games this year. And with the recent news that Denver’s Royce O’Neale will be transferring to join the team, Baylor could move even higher. (I want to hear more confirmation that O’Neale will be eligible immediately before I move him into the lineup.)

Iowa St.: Fred Hoiberg just refuses to have a rebuilding year. He has added four JUCO players this off-season. By bringing in transfers three years in a row, he has ensured he has enough veterans to compete each season.

Part of me thinks this is because he is hoping to jump to the NBA. Hoiberg doesn’t want a down-season to wreck his reputation. But if the quick fixes keep working, it is hard to argue with the strategy.

The only real question mark is at PG where freshman Monte Morris has been rising up the recruiting ranks, but still isn’t high enough to be a guaranteed star. Still, with all those JUCO players supporting Georges Niang, Melvin Ejim, and Top 100 prospect Matt Thomas, this team should finish in the top half of the Big 12.

West Virginia: Right now I have West Virginia as the 45th best team in the nation, which would put them squarely on the bubble. But I have complete confidence that Bob Huggins will be back in the tournament. And it isn’t just based on his history of winning. The roster turnover for West Virginia is ideal. Deniz Kilicli, Jabarie Hinds, and Dominque Rutledge had ORtgs of 92, 86, and 84 last year. They were the three least efficient players in the West Virginia lineup. And their departure should hasten the improvement in the West Virginia offense.

I will never understand why Bob Huggins felt so compelled to build his offense around Kilicli. He may have been big & bearded, but he was a poor rebounder, poor finisher, and he had bad hands. Trusting Kilicli was one of Bob Huggins worst decisions at West Virginia.

But Huggins refuses to have another team that lacks interior strength. Huggins is bringing in Top 50 recruit Devin Williams in the paint, two JUCO paint players, and three more freshman forwards. The message is pretty simple. Bob Huggins is tired of his post-play being a liability.

Texas and Kansas St.: I stared at this for awhile, because it surprised me that Texas has a better defensive projection than Kansas St. The bottom line is that the teams had equivalent defenses last year, the coaches have almost identical historical defensive performance (Rick Barnes is seriously under-rated as a defensive coach), and thus it came down to two other factors. First, Texas has more Top 100 recruits. Having athletic players helps on defense as well as offense. Second, Texas returns a larger percentage of its rotation, which should help with continuity.

Still, I suspect Bruce Weber will do even better defensively than what you see here. And he’ll need to given what Kansas St. loses. The Wildcats return just 44% of their possessions from last season, and with no elite recruits coming in and no high potential players on the roster, the offense is simply going to take a huge step back.

The Kansas St. player most likely to break out is probably Thomas Gipson. He has been a relatively efficient aggressive player his whole career, and with more playing time, his PPG and RPG numbers should skyrocket.

Shane Southwell and Will Spradling are also quality players, but both have flags that make the model question whether they can become stars. For Southwell, there is a concern whether last year’s hot three point shooting will be sustainable. Southwell suddenly jumped from being a guy who couldn’t buy a three pointer to a 44% three point shooter last year, and there may be some regression. And Spradling was super-efficient, but rarely shot. It isn’t clear whether Spradling can maintain his efficiency while taking a larger role on the team.

But even if the Kansas St. offense falls off dramatically, the Texas offense still looks worse on paper. Returning Top 100 recruits Cameron Ridley, Prince Ibeh, Javan Felix, and Jonathan Holmes should make some progress. But even if they do, this still won’t be a good offensive team.

Oklahoma: The Big 12 is really becoming the land of JUCO transfers this year. When Amath M’Baye unexpectedly declared for the draft, Lon Kruger realized he would be starting over in the paint and brought in three JUCO big men to try to fill the void. But I’m surprised he didn’t bring in a JUCO transfer at the PG position. With Sam Grooms departing, there is a real empty spot at that position too. Isaiah Cousins has the highest assist rate of any returning guard, but he struggled with turnovers. And that probably means that unranked freshman Jordan Woodard will be asked to run the show. Without high potential players in the paint or at the PG spot, there just isn’t a lot of upside for this team. The model projects them to win 5 less conference games than a year ago.

Texas Tech: I stared at the Texas Tech projection for awhile because it really doesn’t make sense to me. Certainly, I expect Tubby Smith to turn Texas Tech’s defense around. For Texas Tech’s defense to improve to 102.7 seems like a cakewalk. But I was puzzled that the model is so optimistic about Texas Tech’s offense. Basically, this is a case of addition by subtraction. The only key player Texas Tech loses is Josh Gray.* And Gray used way too many possessions (15 of 80 from 3) for an inefficient player (81 ORtg) while running the point for the Red Raiders. Of course backup PG Daylen Robinson wasn’t any better (70 ORtg). And you can see why Tubby Smith’s first move at Texass Tech was to go sign a JUCO PG in Robert Turner. Turner may not have major upside, but his job should simply be to get the ball to the other players and stop wasting possessions. Jaye Crocket, Jordan Tolbert, Dejan Kravic, and Dusty Hannahs may not have been good players, but they were average. And just making sure the team gets an average shot each possession will be a serious upgrade from last season.

Of course, to some degree the model may be falling for the “bad shot fallacy.” I.e., when a team runs its offense and can’t get a good shot, the PG often ends up jacking up threes as the shot-clock expires. Josh Gray wasn’t the only bad player on the team last year. But with a new coach and most players back, some upward trajectory is certainly possible.

*Ty Nurse is also gone but he almost never shot the basketball.

TCU: It feels like TCU should be making a bigger move in the right direction. Kyan Anderson was a remarkably solid PG on a dreadful offensive team. Devonta Abron looks like he might be a legitimate Big 12 post player. Meanwhile transfer Karviar Shepherd is the first consensus Top 100 freshman to attend TCU since at least 2000. But TCU was an absolutely dreadful D1 team last year. And with only 44% of the teams minutes returning, the Horned Frogs will be breaking in a bunch of new unranked players again next year. When transfer Trey Ziegler joins the team in 2014-2015, there might be some real upward mobility. Until then expect more of the same.

The Failure And Success Of Trent Johnson

Trent Johnson accepted the head coaching job at TCU this spring, a program transitioning to the Big 12. Johnson previously spent four years at Stanford and four years at LSU. Because the last three years at LSU were less successful, Johnson may have been looking to change jobs before he lost his job. But in looking back at his experience at Stanford and LSU, I am not convinced he was a worse coach at LSU.

The first thing I notice when looking at the players he recruited at both schools is how big a difference one or two players can make. Johnson’s recruiting at LSU was not substantially worse than his recruiting at Stanford, but Johnson was never able to recruit a superstar freshman to LSU of Brook Lopez's caliber. Brook was a high volume, efficient scorer, and the only thing that stopped him from playing more minutes his first season was an early season surgery. But other than Brook Lopez, Johnson hasn’t had any program changing recruits at either school. Anthony Hickey and Robin Lopez were fine freshmen, but they were not truly elite players in their first season.

Recruiting Stanford

Fr Year

PctMin

Ortg

PctPoss

Robin Lopez

2007

58%

97.8

19%

Mitch Johnson

2006

56%

77.4

17%

Brook Lopez

2007

53%

100.8

27%

Lawrence Hill

2006

38%

96.2

19%

Landry Fields

2007

33%

97.1

18%

Taj Finger

2005

21%

90.8

13%

Tim Morris

2005

19%

98.0

20%

Anthony Goods

2006

18%

91.7

17%

Peter Prowitt

2005

14%

92.8

14%

Will Paul

2007

8%

   

Josh Owens

2008

7%

   

Kenny Brown

2006

1%

   

Average

 

27%

93.6

18%

 

Recruiting LSU

Fr Year

PctMin

Ortg

PctPoss

Anthony Hickey

2012

77%

98.1

19%

Andre Stringer

2011

76%

94.2

23%

Ralston Turner

2011

63%

92.9

24%

Matt Derenbecker

2011

56%

95.5

17%

Johnny O'Bryant

2012

45%

84.9

29%

Aaron Dotson

2010

43%

73.0

16%

Bo Spencer

2008

38%

94.0

15%

Dennis Harris

2010

33%

105.0

18%

John Isaac

2012

33%

82.1

15%

Eddie Ludwig

2010

31%

95.1

14%

Chris Bass

2009

19%

89.8

10%

Garrett Green

2008

19%

89.4

13%

Storm Warren

2009

16%

96.9

17%

Daron Populist

2010

13%

79.1

11%

Delwan Graham

2009

8%

   

Jalen Courtney

2011

6%

   

Average

 

36%

90.7

17%

One place Johnson caught up on recruiting at LSU was in accepting transfers:

LSU Transfers

Year

PctMin

Ortg

PctPoss

Justin Hamilton

2012

74%

110.5

23%

Malcolm White

2011

59%

90.5

21%

Quintin Thornton

2009

32%

102.1

13%

In terms of player development, Johnson’s numbers aren’t that different at the two schools. In the next two tables, I look at changes in playing time and efficiency for all returning players. For inherited players, the change in minutes is the difference between the most recent season and the last season under the previous coach. For recruited players, the change in minutes is the difference between the most recent season and the player’s debut season with the team.

I also compare the change in ORtg for the same time period. But since shot volumes can impact efficiency, I adjust this based on the rule that 1% more possession’s used is worth 1.25 points of efficiency. Thus a player that moves from shooting 20% of the time to 24% of the time and keeps the same efficiency tallies a five point increase in his ORtg.

Player Development Stanford

ChPctMin

ChORtg

Taj Finger

23%

38.4

Mitch Johnson

22%

27.4

Brook Lopez

5%

17.3

Lawrence Hill

18%

15.0

Anthony Goods

48%

14.7

Robin Lopez

3%

14.3

Dan Grunfeld

41%

11.4

Matt Haryasz

37%

6.7

Kenny Brown

4%

4.5

Landry Fields

-5%

3.6

Peter Prowitt

-7%

-3.3

Chris Hernandez

11%

-4.2

Rob Little

0%

-7.4

Nick Robinson

21%

-14.6

Tim Morris

32%

-15.3

Fred Washington

45%

-21.4

Jason Haas

-2%

-24.1

 

Player Development LSU

ChPctMin

ChORtg

Aaron Dotson

15%

25.7

Tasmin Mitchell

88%

22.0

Garrett Green

25%

14.2

Storm Warren

32%

13.3

Bo Spencer

49%

10.7

Garrett Temple

-10%

9.5

Marcus Thornton

-4%

8.8

Alex Farrer

-22%

1.5

Andre Stringer

-9%

0.7

Malcolm White

-37%

-1.4

Eddie Ludwig

-9%

-3.0

Terry Martin

-27%

-4.8

Chris Bass

11%

-4.9

Ralston Turner

9%

-5.0

Chris Johnson

4%

-6.4

Once again, the player development numbers are not particularly different at the two schools. In both cases, Johnson has been able to take some players who were incredibly inefficient as freshmen (see Mitch Johnson at Stanford and Aaron Dotson at LSU) and turn them into passable major conference players. And plenty of other players from Chris Hernandez to Chris Johnson regressed slightly under Johnson.

So if Johnson was a similar recruiter at the two schools and had similar success at player development, why was his offense so terrible at LSU? There are really two reasons. First, Johnson had substantially more turnover at LSU. Some of that was by design after his recruiting classes flopped miserably, but with little continuity, his players were never put in a position to succeed.

But equally important was the difference in what he inherited. At LSU, Johnson inherited two senior stars (Marcus Thornton and Chris Johnson) and few other efficient players. And once Thornton and Johnson graduated, LSU’s performance fell off a cliff.  But the team he inherited from Mike Montgomery at Stanford was much deeper with efficient players throughout the lineup.

Inherited Players Stanford

PctMin

Ortg

PctPoss

Chris Hernandez

71%

121.2

17%

Nick Robinson

62%

103.8

16%

Rob Little

60%

104.4

20%

Matt Haryasz

39%

108.8

21%

Dan Grunfeld

27%

102.0

19%

Jason Haas

25%

96.0

13%

Fred Washington

12%

111.1

22%

 

Inherited Players LSU

PctMin

Ortg

PctPoss

Garrett Temple

86%

97.8

14%

Marcus Thornton

84%

112.3

28%

Terry Martin

60%

96.5

20%

Chris Johnson

60%

105.0

20%

Bo Spencer

38%

94.0

15%

Alex Farrer

38%

89.9

13%

Garrett Green

19%

89.4

13%

Tasmin Mitchell

5%

80.6

28%

But here is the ultimate problem for Trent Johnson. He does not appear to be recruiting at the level consistent with an NCAA tournament coach. He seems to do a fine job developing players, but he needs to start with good players for that to be an NCAA tournament equation.

And at TCU, despite huge strides in the last year under Jim Christian, there simply isn’t the kind of talent that will typically make the NCAA tournament in a major conference. Even if Johnson does a great job bringing his current players along, that won’t be enough for an NCAA bid. TCU needs a coach who can upgrade the caliber of player in the program, and right now Johnson doesn’t appear to have the track record to do that.

A lot of coaches can make up for a lack of talented offensive players by teaching their players to play elite defense. For example, Bruce Weber and Frank Martin are always going to be on the NCAA tournament bubble by virtue of their defense alone. But Johnson isn’t quite that consistent at teaching defense:

Team

Years

Avg Adj Off

Avg Adj Def

Stanford

2005-2008

109.9

91.9

LSU

2009-2012

100.2

96.2

One thing that really seems to make a difference for Johnson’s defensive scheme is having a 7 footer in the middle. His Stanford teams were at their best when they had Brook or Robin Lopez in the middle. And even this year, while Justin Hamilton was not an elite shot-blocker, his size in the middle frustrated numerous LSU opponents. Probably the most likely avenue for Johnson to succeed at TCU will be to find a few more 7 foot post players to anchor his defense, and hope to find a few special offensive players.

Bottom Line

Joining a BCS league can be a recipe for a complete disaster. Last year, Utah had a horrendous season because the caliber of talent on hand was not ready to compete in the Pac-12. (And it was a down year in the Pac-12). I think Johnson is skilled enough to keep TCU from having a disastrous season. He will bring his players along and he now has the experience to motivate players through a difficult season.

But TCU fans will be excited about the jump up to a major conference and expectations will be raised. Johnson won’t be expected to make the NCAA tournament next year, but he will be expected to make the tournament in three or four years. And the historical numbers suggest Johnson will need substantially better recruiting to make that happen.

The Many Facets & Unpredictability Of March Madness

The older I get, the more I see that one of the things I love most about sports is the variety of it, the diversity of it and the CHARACTERS. Men’s tennis is at its best in many years because, for the first time in a long time, the top three or four players all have wildly different styles. The Tim Tebow story was fun on so many levels, but one of those levels was that he was just SO DIFFERENT in how he played — I’d say we are entering a great time for quarterbacks, because Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers and Eli Manning and Drew Brees and Michael Vick and Cam Newton and Tebow and others are not really alike at all.

-- Joe Posnanski

As a basketball fan, I’ve never understood the division that exists between fans of the NBA and the NCAA. While the NBA has the best basketball players in the world, March Madness is compelling in its own right and as entertaining as anything that happens on the professional level.

In the NBA, the owners of the 30 franchises consider turning a profit and getting an equal shot at the top players a right, regardless of how well (or how poorly) they run their organization and the respective size of their fan-bases. Since every losing team is a few ping pong balls from the rights to a LeBron James, Kevin Durant or Dwight Howard, personnel determines scheme in the NBA.

In contrast, the vast majority of the 344 Division I programs in college basketball have little chance of ever receiving a commitment from a McDonald’s All-American. But instead of petulantly trying to sabotage the sport in a misguided effort to legislate fairness, schools try many creative ways of leveraging the talents of the players they can recruit. As a result, scheme determines personnel in the NCAA.

At Syracuse, Jim Boeheim has made a Hall of Fame career out of running a contrarian scheme, in his case an aggressive 2-3 zone. The Orange traditionally have rosters full of “1.5’s”, 6’3+ combo guards lacking the quickness to defend elite PG’s and the size to defend SG’s, and “3.5’s”, 6’8+ combo forwards lacking the quickness to defend elite SF’s and the size to defend PF’s. However, because Syracuse never plays man defense, the athletic deficiencies of their players are minimized.

So while nearly every NBA team runs a fairly similar system of isolations, pick-and-rolls and man defense, an incredibly diverse array of styles can be found in the college game. On one end of the spectrum, teams like Missouri play four guards and pressure the ball 94 feet for 48 minutes, on the other, teams like Wisconsin run a deliberate motion offense, trying to minimize the number of possessions and shoot at the very end of the shot-clock.

In the NBA, the players are too good for the “40 Minutes of Hell” system (which Mike Anderson has brought to Missouri and Arkansas in the last few years) to be successful. Like Mike Leach’s bizarre pass-happy offense in college football, Anderson’s system, which he learned as a member of Nolan Richardson’s staff in Arkansas in the 1990’s, has philosophical holes that professional athletes can exploit. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make them any less entertaining on the collegiate level.

And with 68 teams set to compete in the NCAA Tournament, there are a lot more surprises in the college game. Even programs ranked in the top-15 like Murray State have barely been on national TV this season.

We have a pretty good idea of how teams like the Pacers and the 76ers match up with the top of the Eastern Conference but not whether an undersized Murray State squad can handle the size of an elite team from a Power Six conference. It’s an open question how Isaiah Canaan’s speed and athleticism translates outside of the Ohio Valley Conference. Non-conference play in college basketball generally ends in late December, so it’s almost impossible to gauge how younger teams like Texas, Washington and Tennessee who have found their groove in the last two months will fare in March.

In the NBA, it’s hard to envision a scenario where Chicago, Miami and Oklahoma City aren’t three of the final four teams left in the playoffs. In the NCAA, as many as two dozen teams have a legitimate shot at making a run at the Final Four.

Of course, in terms of entertainment, none of this makes the NCAA necessarily better or worse than the NBA, just different. But, as Posnanski writes, there’s something to be said for the concept of “different” in the modern sports world. Basketball fans of all stripes should enjoy March Madness; the NBA will still be here in a few weeks.

YACB Column, Dec. 5th (On UNC/UK, Conference Ratings, Cincinnati & More)

Yet Another College Basketball Column checks in on whether we'll see a UK/UNC rematch in the title game, the surprise conferences and much more.

Why Transfers Matter, Plus Big 12 And MWC Notes

The value of transfers to BCS schools, plus why Baylor could have a top-10 team (if Bill Self was their coach instead of Scott Drew).
 

Basketball Wiretap Headlines

    NBA Wiretap Headlines

      NCAA Wiretap Headlines

        MLB Wiretap Headlines

          NFL Wiretap Headlines

            NHL Wiretap Headlines