The Thunder made a business decision when trading James Harden nine months ago. Now, they need to be just as cold-blooded with Scott Brooks. Brooks has consistently left points on the board in each of the last three seasons and has shown no ability to learn from his mistakes. Read More. Written by Jonathan Tjarks on May 17, 2013
Tyus Jones, the No. 2 overall recruit for 2014 and an excellent point guard, was selected by Paul Biancardi, Adam Finkelstein and John Stovall. Read More.
The event gives front offices the opportunity to evaluate D-League players with the possibility of offering Summer League or training camp invites. Read More.
Tyus Jones, the No. 2 overall recruit for 2014 and an excellent point guard, was selected by Paul Biancardi, Adam Finkelstein and John Stovall. Read More.
Today I present my lineup-based model’s projections for the Big Ten in 2013-2014. While the top of the Big Ten remains strong, the league lacks the depth it had last season.
As always, these won’t necessarily be the final numbers. Last week I presented my model’s projections for the ACC and already two teams have meaningfully improved. First, Wakes Forest added a three point-shooting specialist in Robert Morris transfer Coron Williams. Williams will be eligible immediately as a graduate school transfer and should instantly upgrade the Wake Forest offense. Meanwhile, Miami added Kansas St. transfer Angel Rodriguez and he may be able to get a family hardship waiver to play next year.
Of course it isn’t clear whether Rodriguez should play next year for Miami. Even if he plays, Miami is still going to be behind NC State in my projections and well outside the NCAA bubble. (While the Wolfpack have more talent, Jim Larranaga is the better coach which puts Miami in striking distance of NC State.) That might suggest Miami should save Rodriguez until the following season. On the other hand, Rodriguez has two years of eligibility left and the young Miami players might develop better with a true PG on the floor. Thus it may be worth getting Rodriguez on the court next season even if the NCAA tournament is out of reach.
Michigan St.: Derrick Nix posted surprisingly low block numbers for a post-player last season and Adreian Payne was by far the better defensive rebounder. Thus the model doesn’t project a major defensive drop-off for the Spartans.
The departure of Nix may also make the offense run more smoothly. With Nix departing Branden Dawson will get a chance to play more minutes at the power forward spot which I truly believe is his natural college position. When Dawson played more minutes on the perimeter last year, his offensive rebounding numbers slipped.
Michigan: Mitch McGary, Jordan Morgan, Glen Robinson, Nik Stauskas, and super PG recruit Derrick Walton mean Michigan will be a Top 10 team nationally again.
Wisconsin: As of May 5th on Verbal Commits, Wisconsin has 14 players on scholarship for next year. Did the Badgers actually over-sign? Is this the sign of the apocalypse? According to Twitter the answer is no. One of the walk-on freshman was given a free ride last year.
With Josh Gasser, Ben Brust, Traevon Jackson, Frank Kaminsky, and Sam Dekker, Wisconsin should have a dominant offense again, even if the defense takes a bit of a hit with the loss of so many quality post players. And as always with Wisconsin’s depth, they can bring Top 100 freshman Nigel Hayes along slowly and limit his mistakes. Of course we all expect Wisconsin to dominate the regular season and disappoint again in the tournament. That is what Bo Ryan does.
Ohio St: I think most experts are overrating the Buckeyes because they are overlooking how important DeShaun Thomas was to the Ohio St. offense last season. The same people who expect Georgetown to fall off the map without Otto Porter don’t seem to be dropping the Buckeyes much at all. But Thomas was responsible for a much larger portion of the Ohio St. offense. With all the key defensive players back, the model thinks Ohio St. will have the best defense in the nation. But the offense will probably struggle at times next season.
Iowa: Aaron White and Roy Marble are already stars. Mike Gesell and Adam Woodbury were Top 100 recruits out of high school and both should make a significant sophomore year leap. Plus Josh Oglesby should bounce back from a subpar season. Oglesby shot 37% from three two years ago, but only 27% last season. And with virtually the entire rotation coming back, Iowa won’t have to break in a bunch of new freshmen. Overall that is a formula for an offense that should be substantially improved. This is the season Fran McCaffery finally breaks into the top of the Big Ten.
Indiana: I may have the most pessimistic projections in the nation for Indiana next year, but let me explain what the model is thinking. Essentially everyone who has Indiana in the Top 25 is saying this, “Well they aren’t going to fall that much. They still have some talented players coming in. They’ll still be pretty good.” But having talented players doesn’t ensure anything. What allows coaches to reload and stay in the Top 25 is teaching elite defense to young players. The reason Kansas is projected as a Top 25 team has everything to do with the defense. And Tom Crean doesn’t have a great defensive track record. His only elite defensive teams have come when he has had veteran squads at Indiana and Marquette. He isn’t that good at getting young players to play great defense immediately.
And anyone who studies college basketball closely realizes that even teams with loads of talent can take time to gel offensively. Look no further than North Carolina last year. They were 11th in last year’s AP preseason poll because they were loaded with Top 100 recruits. But I had the Tar Heels 26th in my preseason rankings and they finished with the 30th best margin-of-victory numbers in the nation. The reality is, if you are going to rely on recruits outside the Top 20 (and only Noah Vonleh is a Top 20 recruit,) it usually takes time for those players to figure out the college game.
Even the late transfer of Remy Abell hurts. While Abell didn’t seem to do much against good teams last year, he did show signs of an outside shooting touch. Abell’s departure drops Indiana to a .500 team in my model. The future is still bright for the Hoosiers, especially in 2014-2015. And Indiana will likely be a tournament team in 2013-2014. But I disagree with folks who have the Hoosiers in their Top 25.
Purdue: After Indiana, I am rather pessimistic about the rest of the league. While most of the teams have smart coaches who will get their teams to play good enough defense to be competitive, the talent difference between the top and bottom of the league is pretty significant.
The best news for Purdue is that the Boilermakers gave fully 44% of their minutes to freshmen last year. That investment in young players should pay off this season. Most notably, tons of prognosticators are in love with AJ Hammons potential. Clearly many of the freshmen mistakes that plagued the team last season should be eradicated this year.
But this team simply lacks the depth to compete with the top teams in the league on a consistent basis. The slew of recent transfers is actually a bit of mixed bag in that regard. Even if Anthony Johnson and Jacob Lawson had returned, that wouldn’t have helped a lot. Anthony Johnson improved his free throw shooting last year, but still struggled mightily with his shot, posting an ORtg of 89. And Lawson basically never put up shots. Thus the loss of those two players isn’t major. But the transfer of Sandi Marcius will matter. Even if Hammons is the future of the team, Marcius would have provided needed depth in the paint. And on a roster full of improving young players, but plenty of question marks, the loss of a dependable option is costly.
The model also assumes some improvement for the Purdue defense based on Matt Painter’s early career success. But the defense has been trending in the wrong direction in recent seasons, and if that continues, Purdue could finish even lower in the standings.
Illinois, Minnesota, and Penn St.: Let’s start with the offenses. For all three teams the backcourt will be the strength. Penn St. probably has the best back-court with Tim Frazier (returning from injury), DJ Newbill, and Jermaine Marshall. But Minnesota’s unit will also be strong. Andre Hollins, Austin Hollins, and Joe Coleman all played well at times last year. Illinois’ backcourt will be the weakest, but Tracy Abrams, Joseph Bertrand, and Drake transfer Rayvonte Rice (a high volume shooter who should be more efficient in a more limited role) will still be quality Big Ten players.
But the differences are much more notable in the front-court. Penn St.’s offensive options in the post are pitiful. Ross Travis is probably the best option, but his 87 ORtg last year was dreadful. And none of the Nittany Lions other post options were even three star athletes out of high school. Certainly Penn St. will be as perimeter-oriented as possible next season, but the front-court looks like a huge offensive liability.
Minnesota brings back Elliot Eliason who had moments last year, but who shot so little he cannot be counted on to carry the load. And while Mo Walker continues to have potential, after missing a year and a half with injury, he struggled last season. And that means plenty of minutes for the highly inefficient Oto Osenieks or unranked recruit Charlie Buggs who red-shirted last season.
And suddenly here is where Illinois stands out. Nnanna Egwu isn’t a star by any means, but he had more offensive game last year than any of Minnesota or Penn St.’s post-players. And Illinois St. graduate school transfer Jon Ekey is one of those sneaky useful pickups. He didn’t score a lot last year, but he was super-efficient, and he also has an outside game. Ekey actually made 59 threes two years ago while shooting 40% from deep. Ekey and the improving Myke Henry will play a lot of stretch-4 minutes for Illinois next season.
Thus while none of these teams have great front-courts, Illinois can expect the most offense from its front-court, and Penn St. can expect almost nothing, which is why you see the offensive prediction you see above.
On defense Penn St. was miserable last season and without any true post options, expect more of the same. Illinois should drop-off some, but don’t expect a huge drop-off. The departing Sam McLaurin and Tyler Griffey were dreadful defensive rebounders. Minnesota is the real wild-card here, as it is a bit hard to project how Richard Pitino will do in his first season.
Final Note: I mentioned on Twitter a few weeks ago that Illinois was a 6-12 team. But the addition of Jon Ekey really is a big deal in the lineup based model. Instead of needing to rely on unranked recruits Austin Colbert and Maverick Morgan to play major minutes in the post as freshmen, with Ekey available Illinois can break those two players into the lineup more slowly.
Northwestern: Even if Bill Carmody had kept his job, this was going to be a different Northwestern team this year. With the teams three most efficient players graduating, there simply were not going to be enough great outside shooters to run the offense Carmody loved. (To some degree, there were not a lot of great outside shooters last year. It was Northwestern’s worst three point shooting season since 2007.) So Northwestern was going to have to try to re-invent itself around the plethora of “project” big men on the roster. New head coach Chris Collins at least has the luxury of an established point-guard and he welcomes Drew Crawford back for a fifth season of eligibility. But beyond those two players, basically everyone else is projected to have an ORtg below 100. And that means Collins has his work cut out for him. I truly believe Collins will get Northwestern to the NCAA tournament. But give him some time to bring in his players.
Nebraska: Nebraska returns just 52% of its possessions from last year which should slow the momentum Tim Miles was building late in the season. JUCO transfers Leslee Smith and Deverell Biggs, Texas Tech transfer Terran Petteway, and Florida transfer Walter Pitchford should add some experience which might help a little. But none of them would start for a good team in the Big Ten. (Petteway had a hideous 75 ORtg in limited minutes for Texas Tech. I remember watching him two years ago and thinking that he had no idea what a good shot was. Perhaps that is correctable, but he was still dreadful.) Realistically, this is still the beginning of the rebuilding project. Tim Miles needs to give a lot of minutes to his young players next year and build for 2015-2016.
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.
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.
I used to love to mock McDonald’s All-Americans who were busts in college. But over time I realized how much noise there is in the recruiting rankings. Outside the top-10, players are rarely a sure thing. A few years ago Steward Mandel asked a more provocative question about the recruiting rankings. He asked whether Duke was really getting elite players, or whether Blue Devils recruits only earned their ranking because they had a scholarship offer from Mike Krzyzewski.
Last fall, I came up with a new methodology to address this question. Using player data I looked to see which coach’s recruits have performed at the highest level. And then I looked to see which coach’s players developed the most over their careers. I am now launching the second version of those rankings that includes several important improvements.
- I now include data from the 2011-12 season. There are now 10 years of data in my analysis.
- I now control for shot volume. Last fall North Carolina’s recruits looked inefficient relative to Notre Dame’s recruits because Roy Williams allows his first year players take a high volume of shots while Mike Brey does not. I use the 1 to 1.25 ratio often cited by NBA folks as the proper tradeoff for shot-volume and efficiency.
- I now group freshmen recruits and transfers into the same recruiting category. When I presented the numbers last fall, Stan Heath looked like he was great at player development because his juniors far out-shined his freshmen. But many of his juniors were transfers, not returning players. Thus I now group transfers in with freshmen recruits. (See Recruiting Rank in the table.)
- Of course, if you group freshmen and transfers, then transfer-dominated teams will fly up the recruiting rankings. So I equalize the value of recruits based on the average development between freshmen and junior year. (Or senior year if appropriate, although transfers disproportionately join teams as juniors.)
- Next, I solve what I like to call the Frank Haith dilemma. A number of people have said you can’t evaluate Frank Haith this season because he inherited Mike Anderson’s players. But when you have 10 years of player data at your fingertips as I do, it is pretty easy. For a typical coach with Missouri’s returning roster, average player efficiency would jump by 3.6. But under Frank Haith, average player efficiency has jumped 8.6 points. That may not prove Frank Haith is the right choice in the long-run, but for this season he has more than doubled the player development of an average coach.
In general, instead of looking at the current rating, I now evaluate the average improvement of returning sophomores, returning juniors, and returning seniors. Instead of the current efficiency, I look at the change in efficiency. For those of you that feel that Bruce Weber only went to the Final Four because he had Bill Self’s players, the rankings now reflect that. To the extent Bruce Weber transformed Luther Head into an efficient senior, he gets credit. But to the extent that Roger Powell was already an efficient post player, Weber does not get credit.
- I examine sophomores, juniors and seniors separately because sophomores tend to develop at a much more rapid rate. Then I calculate the three-year player development total, the sum of the development for returning sophomores, returning juniors, and returning seniors for each coach. (See Development Rank in the table.)
- Because a change in a starter’s efficiency is much more important than a change in a bench player’s efficiency, all figures are based on a weighted average. Weights are based on the percentage of the team’s total possessions used on the season.
- For the Recruiting Rank, I believe it only makes sense to incorporate the school where the coach is currently employed. Sean Miller gets a different caliber of player at Arizona than he did at Xavier. (See the column Tenure in the table for the number of years at the current school.) But when looking at how Miller develops players, I think we can learn from how he improved players at Xavier too. Thus the Development Rank includes data at all schools that the coach has been at in the last 10 years. (See the column All in the table for the years of player development data.)
- Next, as a hypothetical exercise, I ask what coach would have the most efficient seniors if he recruited freshmen and they stuck around for four years. I take the recruiting rank plus the three-year development rank, and calculate the efficiency of a fourth year player under the coach. (See Overall Rank in the table.) What the table suggests is that if you combined John Calipari’s recruiting with his player development, he would be the top offensive coach in the nation. Of course this is just a hypothetical exercise. John Calipari has not consistently had the top offensive team in the country at Kentucky because of players leaving for the NBA. But for coaches with normal rates of attrition the exercise makes a lot more sense. Andy Kennedy and Leonard Hamilton have been fairly equivalent, but they have succeeded in different ways. Kennedy has built his offense with recruiting while Hamilton has been more effective at developing returning players into stars.
- Finally, very unusual things tend to happen in a coach’s first year with his new team. (Just ask Tom Crean.) Therefore I give 50% less weight to a coach’s first season in a new job. I also only include coaches with at least three years of tenure in the table, and there are 49 of these in the Power 6 conferences.
Coach
Team
Tenure
All
Recruiting
Rank
Development
Rank
Overall
Rank
John Calipari
Kentucky
3
10
1st
35th
1st
Thad Matta
Ohio St.
8
10
3rd
12th
2nd
Bo Ryan
Wisconsin
10
10
17th
2nd
3rd
Mike Krzyzewski
Duke
10
10
4th
18th
4th
John Beilein
Michigan
5
10
14th
8th
5th
Lorenzo Romar
Washington
10
10
19th
4th
6th
Mike Montgomery
California
4
6
25th
5th
7th
Bill Self
Kansas
9
10
7th
21st
8th
Rick Barnes
Texas
10
10
2nd
37th
9th
Jim Boeheim
Syracuse
10
10
6th
29th
10th
Buzz Williams
Marquette
4
5
26th
9th
11th
Ben Howland
UCLA
9
10
12th
25th
12th
Jay Wright
Villanova
10
10
24th
14th
13th
Tom Izzo
Michigan St.
10
10
20th
19th
14th
Roy Williams
N. Carolina
9
10
5th
40th
15th
Jamie Dixon
Pittsburgh
9
9
13th
32nd
16th
Bob Huggins
W. Virginia
5
9
15th
24th
17th
Kevin Stallings
Vanderbilt
10
10
31st
13th
18th
Jim Calhoun
Connecticut
10
10
18th
26th
19th
Mike Brey
Notre Dame
10
10
10th
38th
20th
Sean Miller
Arizona
3
8
29th
17th
21st
Billy Donovan
Florida
10
10
8th
43rd
22nd
Frank Martin
Kansas St.
5
5
9th
45th
23rd
John Thompson
Georgetown
8
10
22nd
27th
24th
Tony Bennett
Virginia
3
6
33rd
15th
25th
Travis Ford
Okl. St.
4
10
38th
7th
26th
Tubby Smith
Minnesota
5
10
32nd
16th
27th
Matt Painter
Purdue
7
8
37th
10th
28th
Mark Fox
Georgia
3
8
47th
1st
29th
Craig Robinson
Oregon St.
4
6
46th
3rd
30th
Herb Sendek
Arizona St.
6
10
28th
31st
31st
Tom Crean
Indiana
4
10
27th
34th
32nd
Andy Kennedy
Mississippi
6
7
16th
44th
33rd
Leonard Hamilton
Florida St.
10
10
43rd
11th
34th
Ken Bone
Wash. St.
3
7
34th
28th
35th
Johnny Dawkins
Stanford
4
4
30th
36th
36th
Rick Pitino
Louisville
10
10
11th
49th
37th
Scott Drew
Baylor
9
10
23rd
46th
38th
Rick Stansbury
Miss. St.
10
10
21st
47th
39th
Seth Greenberg
V. Tech
9
10
42nd
20th
40th
Bruce Weber
Illinois
9
10
40th
22nd
41st
Bill Carmody
Northwestern
10
10
35th
41st
42nd
Trent Johnson
LSU
4
10
45th
23rd
43rd
Kevin O'Neill
USC
3
4
48th
6th
44th
Anthony Grant
Alabama
3
6
41st
33rd
45th
Darrin Horn
S. Carolina
4
9
39th
42nd
46th
Mick Cronin
Cincinnati
6
9
36th
48th
47th
Doc Sadler
Nebraska
6
8
44th
39th
48th
Stan Heath
USF
5
10
49th
30th
49th
- Cal doesn’t exactly have UCLA’s prestige, but Mike Montgomery chugs along developing players, just as he did at Stanford.
- And Mark Fox has truly been fantastic at getting the most out of his players. Nevada is better this season, but there was clearly a gigantic drop-off when he left the school.
- Rick Barnes is a better recruiter than Bill Self, but he is not nearly as good at player development. But if Barnes' players weren’t leaving for the NBA at such a ridiculous rate, he would probably look very similar to Bill Self.
Many other coaches have struggled:
- What is scary is that Kevin O’Neill has actually been very good at developing players at USC. But the cupboard has been more than bare. NCAA sanctions and a run of injuries will do that.
- Rick Pitino is shockingly low on this list, and I think injuries are a large reason why he has struggled to develop players at Louisville. His success at Louisville has also mostly been fueled on the defensive end of the court.
- Anthony Grant also has his defense to fall back on, but his inability to develop consistent offensive players at Alabama is starting to be a concern.
- Over his tenure at Illinois, Bruce Weber has not been able to get much out of freshmen whether they have a RSCI Ranking next to their name or not.
- Darrin Horn’s player development looks bad at 42nd, and that is giving him credit for what he did developing players at Western Kentucky. If this only included his time at South Carolina, his ranking would be worse.
- Mick Cronin and Stan Heath want you to evaluate them based on the recent trend, not their full tenure. But most of their success has come from defense not offense.
Three thoughts on coaches not listed:
- Penn St.’s Ed Chambers got a late start on the job, had almost no chance to recruit, and has had very little production out of his first year players. (This is why I give 50% weight to a coach’s first season.)
- But Arkansas’ Mike Anderson, Rutgers’ Mike Rice Jr., Iowa’s Fran McCaffery, and Providence’s Ed Cooley are achieving some early recruiting success.
- Because of the team’s overall record, Cuonzo Martin is not getting enough credit, but he has done wonder’s developing Tennessee’s returning players this season.
Two final thoughts on the table:
-All schools suffer some attrition, so I am probably punishing the good recruiters too much in the overall rank column.
- To the extent that the great coaches can get freshmen to reach their potential sooner, they may look like stronger recruiters in my table. “Recruiting Rank” could very easily be called “Recruiting Rank plus First Year Development.”
Selection Sunday is about a month away, which makes it an opportune time to examine which Big Ten teams will be dancing and which ones could dance into the Elite Eight or even the Final Four.
Separating the BCS schools into tiers named after John Wooden, Dean Smith, Gene Keady, Rollie Massimino, John Chaney, Kelvin Sampson, Tim Welsh, Pat Knight and Sidney Lowe, how does everyone stand?
There are many ways to build a winning program. John Calipari’s focus on younger players may be the best way to get elite recruits, but it isn’t the only way to build a winning program.
The Big 12 is like a Little League team. Texas is the star shortstop, and Oklahoma is the best pitcher. Texas A&M is a quality hitting second baseman. And Baylor is the kid who got cut after the first few practices.