Player Retention and Championships
by nickramz on Feb 11, 2010 5:28 AM PST
Email
PrintBumped. GO BRUINS. -N
In the comment's of bluebland's post on premature departures from the Ben Howland era, Blue Me made this comment:
One is the recruitment of the "instant impact" type of player, the sure-fire NBA lottery pick. Howland has brought only one of this type of player (Love) during his tenure here, where other elite programs are bringing in this type of player, sometimes 2 or more of them, every year. (Holiday was also supposed to be that type of player, yet turned out to be vastly over-hyped). Guys like Tyreke Evans, John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Xavier Henry, Harrison Barnes…just to name a few…are barely giving us a look.
The second issue is the retention of what I call the "NBA fringe" type of player…these are not instant impact players, but are players that with experience and a few collegiate seasons under their belt, can develop into collegiate superstars and work their way into a high 1st round draft pick. We have had several of these during Howland’s tenure. The problem is that these players are leaving before we can get their maximum impact, before they are actually good enough to get us over the hump.
While other elite programs are either attracting the "instant impact" player or retaining the "NBA fringe" type of player longer, we are whiffing at both of these type of players.
I believe this is a spot on assessment. We all know that we haven't been pulling in a ton of impact players (outside of Love), but we have had trouble retaining fringe players as well (Farmar, Afflalo, etc.). This prompted me to do a look back.
The top players recruited in the nation each year can be easily divided into two subcategories:
NBA "Impact" Players - These are the cream of the crop players each year. These are the guy's who everyone sees and knows is going to be playing in the NBA. They're naturally talented and will make an instant impact on the team in the time they play in college, which for most of these players right now, is just one year, occasionally two. They come onto the court playing like seasoned veterans. These guys are universally recruited, and since the one-and-done rule, a good chunk of them are mostly going to college only because they have to. In the past few years, these types include the likes of Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, etc. Almost universally, these guys are drafted high in the draft.
NBA "Fringe" Players - These are guys who are also acknowledged as talented players and are also highly recruited, but not in the same realm as those listed above. These guys can certainly come to dominate the college game, but it often take's them a few years playing in college to get to that level. That's not to say these guy's don't make an impact on the team immediately - but more often than not, they need seasoning and experience. Often times, these players have knocks against them in terms of NBA potential, or size and athleticism. In the past few years, these types include names like Tyler Hansbrough, Luke Harangody, D.J. Augustin, etc. Almost universally, these guys fall in the bottom half of the first round or fall into the second round, unless they orchestrate a great tourney run or have great workouts.
A few caveats:
1) This list does not mean that ALL recruits fit into these two categories. There are certainly other categories of player's in college basketball: the busts (such as Josh McRoberts), and the surprises (such as the Russell Westbrooks).
2) This division of players is not clear until the player's step onto the court in college. Recruiting is not an exact science - sure, there are player's such as LeBron James that anyone can see and knows that he is on the fast track to being one of the all-time greats. Then there are the great player's that end up sticking around in college, and do eventually do great there, but take it to a whole other level in the pro's, such as Tim Duncan.
3) It is important to remember that the NBA loves drafting on potential - hence the Impact players often get drafted high. But, having a great season often pushes people up - and this applies often to the Fringe players. Unfortunately, there aren't any reliable archives I have found of pre-season draft ranks of players. Anecdotally at least, the team's that win the national championship often see their players drafted higher than they would otherwise.
4) Finally, keep in mind that when I say Impact/Fringe, this is not based on what they went on to do in the NBA. Instead, this is based on how much of an impact and how fast this impact was given on the team. Hence younger star players tend to be labeled Impact players.
So how has UCLA done with regards to the two categories we listed above, and how do the Bruins compare to the champions of the past?
First, I will list the year and the national champion. Then I will list the 7 player's with the most minutes played for that team that year, and the year in school those players were. The player type is also added based on the criteria above. Then I will list the draft position they were eventually drafted in and the draft year, and any relevant notes.
2009 - North Carolina
Wayne Ellington - Junior - Fringe - 28th (2009)
Ty Lawson - Junior - Fringe - 18th (2009)
Danny Green - Senior - Fringe - 46th (2009)
Tyler Hansbrough - Senior - Fringe - 13th (2009)
Deon Thompson - Junior - Fringe - Still playing, but as a senior, Fringe is appropriate
Ed Davis - Freshman - Fringe - Still playing but having a good year as a sophomore, so Impact could be proper too
Bobby Frasor - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2009)
A quick glance at the team shows that they were almost all heavily recruited players, and certainly talented, but not necessarily wanted by the NBA. In fact, the team was pretty much all Fringe players, with Ed Davis still to be seen. However, it is clear from the team that they had 3 stars in Hansbrough, Lawson, and Ellington, with solid role players in Green, Frasor, Thompson, and a freshman in Davis. Prior to the season, I recall a lot of talk about how Ellington and Lawson weren't 1st round material, but the championship run pushed them to the 1st round. ANd we all know Hansbrough's story - he was the Tim Tebow of college basketball.
Star Players: Lawson, Hansbrough, Ellington
Role Players: Green, Frasor, Thompson, Davis
2008 - Kansas
Mario Chalmers - Junior - Fringe - 34th (2008)
Brandon Rush - Junior - Impact - 13th (2008) - Returned after an injury the prior post-season, or he would have jumped earlier
Russell Robinson - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2008)
Darrell Arthur - Sophomore - Fringe - 27th (2008)
Darnell Jackson - Senior - Fringe - 52nd (2008)
Sherron Collins - Sophomore - Still playing, and now a senior on a team that is likely to go to another Final Four
Sasha Kaun - Senior - Fringe - 56th (2008)
A look at KU shows a lot of also well recruited players, such as Rush, Chalmers, and Arthur. Rush's injury became a blessing in disguise as he didn't get the chance to jump a year earlier, hence I put Rush as a Impact player as he was considered quite draft-able before his injury. However, these star player's numbers were never mind-blowing in college and their championship run boosted a lot of their draft stock higher. We also see some role players in Jackson and Kaun. They also have a young star in Collins, who amazingly enough was convinced to stay around for a senior year after a great sophomore year, and KU looks poised for another run at the Final Four.
Star Players: Rush, Arthur, Chalmers
Role Players: Jackson, Robinson, Kaun, Collins
2006-2007- Florida (the year's will be based on 2007)
Taurean Green - Junior - Fringe - 52nd (2007)
Lee Humphrey - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2007)
Corey Brewer - Junior - Impact - 7th (2007)
Al Horford - Junior - Impact - 3rd (2007)
Joakim Noah - Junior - Impact - 9th (2007)
Chris Richard - Senior - Fringe - 41st (2007)
Walter Hodge - Sophomore - Fringe - Undrafted (2009)
Well we know the story with these guys, and they are certainly the exception to the rule. Brewer, Horford, and Noah all could have jumped after winning it all during their sophomore seasons - so they were certainly impact players. However, the team stuck around for another run to repeat and succeeded, which for the most part pushed their stock even higher.
What's interesting to note is that these same 7 players were the same top 7 in terms of minutes received the prior year. And again, the breakdown is shockingly similar to UNC and KU - three star players (Brewer, Horford, Noah) with some senior role players, and a young player in the rotation.
Star Players: Brewer, Horford, Noah
Role Players: Humphrey, Green, Richard, Hodge
2005 - North Carolina
Raymond Felton - Junior - Impact - 5th (2005)
Sean May - Junior - Impact - 13th (2005)
Jawad Williams - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2005)
Rashad McCants - Junior - Fringe - 14th (2005)
Jackie Manuel - Senior - Undrafted (2005)
Marvin Williams - Freshman - Impact- 2nd (2005)
David Noel - Junior - Fringe - 39th (2006)
Melvin Scott - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2005)
Note that I listed 8 players, since Noel and Scott had essentially the same amount of time played that year.
This team was a bit tricky to categorize. Felton and Williams were obvious Impact players - Williams being drafted after 1 year, and Felton having been a Naismith award finalist after his sophomore year. However, May, Felton, and McCants were all Wooden award candidates going into 2004-2005. For me, however, May was a borderline Impact player - he was certainly highly recruited, and got the starting job immediately, but he was not seen as big of an impact player until his 3rd year. What is amazing, however, is that yet again we see a team with impact and fringe players sticking around for more than 2 years. The team is again dominated by a core of stars and some role players, along with a young star thrown in there.
Star Players: Felton, McCants, Williams, May
Role Players: Noel, Scott, Williams, Manuel
2004 - Connecticut
Ben Gordon - Junior - Impact - 3rd (2004)
Taliek Brown - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2004)
Emeka Okafor - Junior - Impact - 2nd (2004)
Denham Brown - Sophomore - Fringe - Undrafted (2006)
Rashad Anderson - Sophomore - Fringe - Undrafted (2006)
Josh Boone - Freshman - Fringe - 23rd (2006)
Charlie Villanueva - Freshman - Fringe - 7th (2005)
Wow, what a star studded lineup. Gordon and Okafor were certainly talented and could've been drafted earlier, but their run at a championship solidified a 2-3 position in the draft. But these were the two clear stars. The rest of the players, however, were all fringe players. Villanueva was 7th player drafted the next year largely based on potential, but he along with Boone were mostly role players on this team. Again, these players did develop into greater players, but were not instant-impacts though Boone did start and play significant time in the championship game. The rest, however, were all Fringe players and largely role players on the team. Again, however, we see that these Fringe players and Impact players were convinced to stick around.
Star Players: Gordon, Okafor
Role Players: Boone, Vilanueva, Anderson, Brown, Brown
2003 - Syracuse
Carmelo Anthony - Freshman - Impact - 3rd (2003)
Gerry McNamara - Freshman - Fringe - Undrafted (2006) - Can be classified as Impact based on the contributions he gave his freshman year, but on any other team, he would be considered a Fringe player
Hakim Warrick - Sophomore - Fringe - 19th (2005)
Kueth Duany - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2003)
Jeremy McNeil - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2003)
Craig Forth - Sophomore - Fringe - Undrafted (2005)
Billy Edelin - Freshman - Fringe - Undrafted (2005)
My first reaction at this roster was... wow, look at all those no-names. Syracuse 2003 was certainly a case where having the right impact young players can take a team to a championship game. In fact, this can be considered a poster-child example for a team with some impact freshmen to win it all. However, this team was almost entirely Fringe players. McNamara made a big impact his freshman year, but he would be classified as a Fringe player on basically any other team. Unlike other team's that have tried the uber-frosh method, such as Memphis with Rose, Carmelo is obviously on a whole other level in terms of talent and skill and the results show.
Star Players: Anthony, McNamara, Warrick
Role Players: McNeil, Forth, Edelin, Duany
2002 - Maryland
Juan Dixon - Senior - Fringe - 17th (2002)
Steve Blake - Junior - Fringe - 38th (2003)
Byron Mouton - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2002)
Lonny Baxter - Senior - Fringe - 43rd (2002)
Chris Wilcox - Sophomore - Fringe - 8th (2002)
Drew Nicholas - Junior - Fringe - Undrafted (2003)
Tahj Holden - Junior - Fringe - Undrafted (2003)
On the other end of the spectrum, Maryland is an example of a team full of no-name upper-classmen with no well-known star players that wins it all. However, they were obviously extremely experienced and bought into Gary Williams' system and played up to what potential they had. This is also a case where a successful tourney run puts a lot of players onto the NBA boards where they otherwise would not have (and in typical Clipper fashion, they draft a player way higher than he should be). It is interesting to note though that a star player (Wilcox) is a Sophomore on this team.
Star Players: Dixon, Mouton, Baxter, Wilcox
Role Players: Nicholas, Holden, Blake
2001 - Duke
Shane Battier - Senior - Fringe - 6th (2001)
Jason Williams - Sophomore - Impact - 2nd (2002)
Mike Dunleavy Jr. - Sophomore - Fringe - 3rd (2002)
Nate James - Senior - Fringe - Undrafted (2001)
Chris Duhon - Freshman - Fringe - 39th (2004)
Carlos Boozer - Sophomore - Impact - 34th (2002) - 2nd round?? Oops...
Casey Sanders - Sophomore - Fringe - Undrafted (2003)
Another team with big names, but people forget that many of them became bigger in the NBA than they were in college. Battier is a classic example of a Fringe player - his first two seasons in the NCAA were nothing to write home about, but he took off his 3rd and 4th years to become the star of the team. Williams and Boozer were obvious impact players (still no idea how Boozer fell to the 2nd round) from the get-go. This was a pretty star-studded team with a mix of young impact players and some senior leaders.
Star Players: Battier, Williams, Dunleavy, Boozer
Role Players: James, Duhon, Sanders
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what does this all mean? Well looking at the past 9 champions, we see a pretty obvious trend:
- 2001 Duke, 2003 Syracuse, and 2006 Florida are the only teams to win where the majority of it's star players were underclassmen. In the case of Duke and Florida, however, they had a few key role players that were upperclassmen. Only Syracuse got by on basically star freshmen and sophomores, but the Carmelo Anthony's come around only once every decade or so.
- 2002 Maryland is the perfect example of a team of no-namers that has the right combination of age, experience, coaching, leadership and chemistry that gets them to the championship without very much talent.
- The championship teams these 9 years heavily favor those teams who retained a lot of Impact and Fringe players for 3 years or more. And, if one pays attention to the trend after the one-and-done rule was implemented, we see that they are almost always entirely the same combination of being heavily junior/senior laden with a sprinkle of freshmen and sophomore contributors.
So there may not be a "magical formula" for success at a championship team, but the trend is pretty clear fromabove: counting on uber-freshmen stars to win it all for you has only worked once these past 9 years. The rest of the teams were able to maintain impact AND fringe players for more than 2 years.
Looking at that, is it any surprise that our best year's came when we were heavy in these fringe players?
So Blue Bland's assertion is correct - we might not be getting the high Impact recruits, but we aren't retaining our Fringe players either, and history suggests that having a lot of Fringe Players with some Impact players in is the likeliest path to success.
Going forward, it will be interesting to see which direction CBH heads. Obviously recruiting great player's will help, but we need to retain them.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
43 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Stockpiling
I would argue that certain players listed above would have been instant impact guys if they had gone to just about any other DI school. When you look at teams that manage to dominate for five to ten years (mini-dynasties, not to be confused with the one true college b-ball dynasty) the trend is noticable. Stockpile talent.
You have Ed Davis listed as a fringe player, yet the NBA has been drooling over this kid basically from day one. So why the discrepancy. It’s not just the potential factor. Ed Davis didn’t get big minutes last year because he had to play behind juniors and seniors who had been Mickey Ds All-Americans too. Same can be said for Charlie Villanueva and Josh Boone. They would have been the stars at most schools but Calhoun had managed to stockpile NBA type talent and they had to fight for their minutes.
The programs that have been consistantly in the hunt over the last decade or so have this in common – they have brought in multiple NBA-caliber players each year and forced them to fight each other for minutes.
Over at Kansas there’s a kid named Elijah Johnson who was the #24 player in the country (per Rivals) coming out of high school last year. Currently he’s averaging 8 minutes a game backing up Sherron Collins who was the #21 player in the country coming out of high school a few years back. How has such a highly touted recruited as Collins managed to stick around for four years, because he had to play behind Mario Chalmers and Russell Robinson numbers 12 and 27 respectively coming out of high school. Now that’s called reloading.
You're right
That’s why it’s an imperfect science classifying them as one or another, but the point was to illustrate that these teams can retain player’s and hence stockpile them as you stated.
I will say though that “Impact” is meant more for those players who’s skills are great enough to surpass those that would otherwise be starting on that team – as in KU’s case, Elijah Johnson is backing up Sherron Collins but Xavier Henry is starting because he’s on that level.
What a great analysis - thanks Nick
I think the story we are all going to have to keep an eye on is Tyler Honeycutt. If Howland wants to bring this program back to where he built it up, he will need Honeycutt back for at least his third season. If Honeycutt leaves after next season, it will be another blow and raise more question about the trend of Howland not being able to retain fringe players.
Agreed
Honeycutt is a great example of a guy who has the talent and skills to succeed in the NBA, but isn’t an instant big-time player, and can turn into a big time star and impact player after a few years in college. But that requires retaining him for his 3rd year.
Ed O'Bannon blew out his knee
early in his sophomore season, missed the rest of that year, came back as a junior and had a mediocre season, and hence came back again and had a legendary senior season. Had he not gotten hurt, I’m fairly certain he would’ve been an early departure, and 1995 never would have happened.
Obviously we can’t rely on freak injuries to impact or fringe players to keep them around longer. I think Howland has to recalibrate his recruiting pitch away from our program being a “gateway to the NBA” and focus on bringing in a player who is likely to have a stronger affinity to the program, embrace collegiate life and education, and more likely to form a stronger bond with himself and the other coaches. Not easy to do. But I beleive from your examples above, other coaches at other programs are doing a better job at bringing in this type of player than Howland is at this point in time.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
Ed O'Bannon did not blow out his knee in his sophomore season
He blew out his knee BEFORE his freshman year. He had a medical redshirt that year (90-91), and then was a RS FR in 91-92 during MacLean’s senior season.
Not sure where you get this “medicore season” stuff for his junior year. He averaged 18/9 as a junior and was All-Conference as well as 3rd team NABC All-American. In fact, he was also All-Conference as a sophomore when he averaged 17/7.
The Other Thing About O'Bannon
Is that we were lucky to get him. He was signed at UNLV and only came here after recruiting violations put UNLV on probation. So he and Charles ended up here. My recollection is that Ed was just a so so player for much of his UCLA career. His outside shot was hit and miss until midway through the Pac10 season as a senior. He caught fire during the second half and all the way through the NCAA tourney. We also had Zedek Sr., Edney Sr, Charles O, So, Henderson Fr, and Toby Bailey Fr.. Cameron Dollar So. off the bench. That was a stockpile year. Senior four year leadership was the key to that win. Ed O had not played well enough to garner NBA attention as a high first rounder before then.
by 75NatChamps on Feb 11, 2010 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
lol
No kidding. I was there was Ed O’s four magical years. Even his first appearance in a UCLA uniform was a little more than “so so.” Thunder dunk right over a hapless Stanford defender. Pauley was bumpin.
I think when people remember Ed O before his senior season Tulsa game comes to mind and that brings up bad memories. For me I keep thinking of how he just went off against Michigan in that second round game in sophomore season. Too bad Harrick sat him down. Ugh.
He was awesome....
I remember the day he signed, I wasn’t even at UCLA yet. One of friends was giddy all day because of it.
Anyway, his range improved by leaps and bounds in his senior year. But, he was always an incredible player.
Seems like the lesson here
is that we have too many players who are not up to the standard of being NBA fringe players; and we have not had many players who could have elevated themselves from low first round to top 5 by staying an additional year (just one, possibly, in JH).
Most of the NBA fringe players on our recent rosters have stayed 3 years or more (AA, LRMAM, DC, Hollins, Bozeman). JF and JH didn’t stay 3 years, but a number of ‘fringe’ players listed on the championship teams above left early too.
The teams above often have NBA fringe players to bring off the bench. We have not had that at any point. We started 5 fringe NBA players in our first final four, with freshman edition DC our best reserve and little else behind. 2nd final four started three NBA fringe players along with JS and LMR, with freshman edition RW our most talented reserve and young versions of JK, MR and PAA there as well. Our third final four had two impact players (KL and sophomore edition RW) and two NBA fringe guys (LRMAM and DC), along with JS – all starters played 33+, with LMR, PAA and JK getting limited minutes.
Then last year we had one supposed impact player, one fringe player, and three non-fringe players starting; with freshman editions of Gordon and ML looking now like the only possible future fringe players on the bench.
Seems to me we have too many bad players with scholarships. I have a lot of affection for PAA, JS and particularly LMR, but none of them are really NBA fringe players (JS might have been but for injury), but all started for at least a year. ND, MR, JK have all logged major minutes and are definitely not NBA fringe players.
Great point
Lack of depth certainly was the issue in 2008, when we didn’t have anyone to sub in for a severely slumping JS (who was a liability on defense as well).
Depth
Has always been an issue with our team during our successful years, and it’s certainly come to a head this year.
Looking back at it, 2006 was a bit understandable – after all, though we had 6 fringe NBA players (Farmar, Afflalo, Hollins, Bozeman, Collison, Luc), 4 of the contributors were freshmen or sophomores, with Bozeman and Hollin’s development having suffered under the prior regime. We didn’t have much beyond that, but given that the rest of the player’s were either young or lacked talent given the situation, it was understandable.
2007 really stand’s out too… we literally played with a rotation of 6 players that year (LMR, PAA, AA, DC, JS, LRMAM) so when AA was given those fouls early in the FF, the drop off in team effectiveness was huge.
Your last paragraph is definitely most telling… we just simply have too many bad players with scholarships right now, so it will be crucial we see development in our other young players into better players, and that our recruitment is more accurate. Recruiting misses do occur to all teams, but few good team’s end up with multiple bad ones
I somewhat agree, but I think this is overly formulaic
IMO, talent is on a continuum, not broken into distinct categories. There is a wide range of “fringe” type players and “impact” players, and sometimes the two blend together. I know you weren’t intending to label these guys as either or, but it oversimplifies the issues.
I also think you labeled too many as fringe. If you were going to place the players in boxes, I would think you would need a category for collegiate role players. Again, all role players are not equal, but I think it would help the analysis.
IMO, CBH recruited too many low end-fringe/role players who either, a) are not good enough, or b) are not good for his system. Throw in early departures, and we have the mess we are in.
I do agree with your conclusion (I do think Duke 2001 was mostly “impact” type players though). Not only in general, but specifically for CBH’s scheme. Not many prima donna recruits are going to play the kind of defense that he requires. Getting the slightly less talented player who is willing to work to improve is key.
by AllHailMightyBruins on Feb 11, 2010 8:20 AM PST reply actions
Awesome analysis and thought provoking
Great job with your piece Nick. Based on what you shared, CBH’s (possible) error is that he’d trying to stand in two canoes at the same time; the canoe of “get the best freshman impact player I can find” and the “build around those guys with fringe players.” But when he can’t do both we find ourselves where we are now with little of either. The solution looks to lie in the direction of better player profiling/recruiting and a better narrative on “why stay at UCLA for at least three years.” I understand why the early-leavers jump for NBA cash, but how few of those guys get the championship ring? How many look back at their time at UCLA and wonder “what if?” “What if I would have stayed one more year, could our team have been the one that brought home the next banner to Pauley.” UCLA has one of the best narratives in the world of college basketball. Question is do we have the best sales person too? Can’t believe I’m starting to go down this road…
We have standards
Great analysis. The listings of players for the championship teams include very few one-and-dones (most notably Carmelo). But those were the guys you mentioned at the top of the piece. We could not even think of recruiting the Tyreke Evanses and John Walls, any more than we would have considered OJ2 or Derrick Rose. Whatever else is true, KL was a student-athlete, and for what it’s worth, Holiday had no issues like those of the three above. KL was on PTI last night and said he wouldn’t trade anything for his year at UCLA, but he simply couldn’t pass up the opportunity presented to him. Unlike Derrick Rose, who had to get out before the sheriff caught up to him.
The conclusion is correct: we need guys who are willing to stay at least into their junior years, but how can you guarantee that? You can’t keep any student from dropping out of school, whether it’s Bill Gates or KL. If their press clippings were remotely true, this year’s team (with Holiday) should have been a contender, and it really shouldn’t have been this bad even without him.
UCLA is UCLA. Our basketball history runs from Ralph Bunche through Jackie Robinson, Rafer Johnson, Lew/Kareem, Big Bill, and a host of men who have earned respect and renown. We can’t be a Calipari team and we never will be.
My Vision of the Future
It’s 2012 and we are entering the NCAA tourney with a #1 seed.
The scouting report is as follow:
Howland convinced Tyler Honeycutt and Josh Smith, who has a slow start as a freshmen but improved quickly, to come back to win a championship in 2011-12. With a 5-star scoring 2 guard coming in, they have a shot to win it all.
C- Josh Smith. He cut 30 lbs and looks like a young Shaq, using muscle and footwork to dominate on the inside. A great second line of defense on the occasions outside defenders are beat off the dribble.
PF- Reeves Nelson. He has turned in to what many consider the John Brockman. His offseason work each year led to his great 13 footer which opens up his ability to power drive to the hoop at will.
SF- Tyler Honeycutt. Often used as a point forward, his all around game sparks the offense. His 16/8/6 stats have NBA teams projecting him as a top 10 pick.
SG: Player X shoots the ball from the outside like few freshmen have. His athelticism allows him to finish inside with easy, and he is very smooth. The X factor in pushing the Bruins to the top.
PG: Lazeric Jones. A defensive Menace to opposing PGs, his size and quickness is the key to the Bruins man to man pressure defense. A much improved 3 point shot from the outside makes the Bruins punish those who try to doubel team Honeycutt and Player X.
Bench:
Tyler Lamb: Great overall game and scoring punch off the bench. The Bruins second best defensive player. He often comes in to shut down the hot hand. What he lacks in athleticism he makes up for in tenacity and many compare him to AA, the past UCLA great.
Brendan Lane: The skilled PF has a great shot and high bball IQ. His ability to draq inside help D out to 16 feet lets Josh Smith do work inside, or opens up driving lanes for guards.
This is obvious a huge dream. My point I think this last recruiting class had many “fringe” players that could lead to a one-and-done superstar to want to come here to win a championship with all these skilled, experienced player at some point. Guys like Reeves Nelson are perfect to build a college team around.
UCLA '08
Great Analysis and Comments
Thank you, Nick and the others. This is one of the best posts I’ve read on the subject and I want to thank you and BN. I don’t think it would have been possible without all of the prior discussion that we’ve been having on the topic—some of it not quite so pretty or very comfortable.
I wonder if CBH or Guerrero (when he’s not lobbying for an NCAA position) have read this? Wouldn’t it be nice to hear their thoughts here too? I don’t expect that to happen, but why not?
Bruins Forever
One thing I noticed
And IMO more important that getting fringe players to hang around for 3 or 4 years (most stay for 3 anyways-sans JF) is getting the impact guys to come back for at least a second season (or 3rd if they rode the pine their freshman year a la RW).
All of the teams listed above except for Syracuse won with impact players in at least their second year of the program. This is because when the impact player stays, the team develops greater chemistry and it becomes clear what everyone’s role is and how to best utilize the impact player. Just look at how long it took for us realize that we needed to get the ball into KL more often his freshman year. Imagine if he, along with Luc and either DC or RW had stayed another year. The team would have been firing on all cylinders from the get go and would have been a monster come tournament time.
As has been noted before, this is where Howland has failed miserably, not recruiting or coaching, but retaining. This year’s freshman appear to be very solid fringe players, along with a current fringe and future impact player in Honeycutt. As Nestor said above, Howland absolutely needs to keep Honeycutt a 3rd year, because assuming Smith returns, I’m convinced that a 2011-12 lineup of Smith, Nelson, Honeycutt, Lamb (or Lee if he ever comes to his senses), and Jones can take the title. That team will have 2 multi-year impact starters along with veteran fringe players on the court and off the bench. It should also have an impact freshman coming off the bench, which if you notice is how many of the top programs retain their top talent (by not needing to start them right away).
Yep
I think it’s your last para that’s the key. The more I think of that is the key for Howland to get us out of this current rut. Of course it will help him immensely if he can either bring back Keating or bring in one or two new assistants in his mold to jump start recruiting and also help him connect with the players. If we can make that run in two seasons, perhaps we can hope the same mistakes will not be repeated again leading to the travails of this season.
just curious
how do you propose CBH – or any college coach – retain a top 5 draft pick player?
I think JF left a year earlier than was ideal (though, as you note, we had to give him 35 mins a game as a freshman due to the bare cupboard left by Lavin and Ced’s injury, which played into his early departure), and I could go either way on the LRMAM argument, but I don’t see how you can blame CBH for KL and RW leaving when they left. Likewise on AA to be honest- he was a 3 year starter, and a national All-American in his junior year IIRC, and had tested the waters at the end of his soph year.
Slightly off-topic, but it’s also worth thinking about how the sizes of incoming classes play into this – we had no juniors on our first Final Four run because Ariza was the only guy theoretically in that class, so we had a ton of frosh and sophs in the mix. The unbalanced class sizes meant we only got a third scholie for RW when JF went to the NBA, and we had only two scholies for Kevin Love’s class. Then we ended up with an ghost class there when Stanback left… etc etc
by britishbruin on Feb 11, 2010 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
I don't necesarly blame CBH
but it does seem to be a weakness of his because convincing them to come back can be done. 2 coaches in particular come to mind: Roy Williams and Bill Self. Both of them have convinced multiple potential 1st-rounders to stay another year such as Felton or the Collins/Aldrich duo.
If I knew how, I would be down in the Morgan Center right now telling everyone from Howland to the guy who changes the water cooler. It could be any number of things…helping them to see the team’s championship potential with Player X there, really emphasizing how much Player X’s draft stock could improve with one more year, not starting Player X from the get go (this has more to do with depth). I’m not saying Howland isn’t doing any of these things, but it seems pretty clear that he’s not great at it. He never came across as the salesperson type like CRN is. Howland is more X’s and O’s and Jimmies and Joes.
If I had to pick one, I would say that not starting as a freshman plays the largest role in how long an impact player hangs around, which is why we will see just how good Self is this year as he tries to convince Xavier Henry to hang around. Of course there are many other factors as well such as Player X’s commitment to academics, what market he plays in (LA is very different than Lawrence), and who is in Player X’s ear about his potential. This is why you can’t flat out say that it’s CBH’s fault that players leave early, but I think it’s more than fair to say he doesn’t thrive at it. And of course none of that changes the fact that it is absolutely vital to the program and possibly his job that CBH keep Honeycutt here for 3 years.
I guess here is where we are talking past each other
We have had several players projected as late-1st, early-2nd round players, and I can see the case that you need to be able to retain those guys. JF left as soon as he figured he was a first round pick; AA came back for his junior year to make sure he got into the 1st round; DC came back for his junior and senior years, probably climbing a few spots.
We have lost two players as top-5 draft picks. I don’t know that Roy Williams and Bill Self have brought back many people for an additional year after they could have been top-5 players. That is why I am not clear that we need to worry about finding ways to avoid losing the likes of KL and RW.
It seems that the type of player we have not had on the roster at all is the guy who projects as “definitely mid-to-late 1st round this year, but could definitely be a lottery pick next year if he goes back and has a solid season”. Jrudas may have been the most likely candidate.
The other thing about bringing back talented players – often you hear commentators say that a player ‘ought’ to go back to college to work on some aspect of their game (e.g. work on being a better court general because they project as a PG in the NBA, learn how to defend their position because they look like flashy one-way players; or simply become more physically mature; etc). Of the guys we sent to the NBA early, it is unclear to me what you would want KL, JF or AA to work on for another year, as they all seem to be pretty complete players. RW could have done with some work on his outside shot and/or running the point, but was already a top-5 pick and looks great running with Durant on the Thunder. Again, Jrudas is the guy who obviously could have shown more with another year, in terms of physical development and running the game. Luc could have added more of a jump shot to his game to be an NBA 3, but he was almost certainly going to end up playing the 4 for us if he came back as a senior.
I still believe we need more of an influx of good players (or, in reference to an earlier post, a “No Scrubs” policy…) rather than coming up with some way of squeezing more out of the slightly low number of good players we currently recruit.
by britishbruin on Feb 11, 2010 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
You make a good point
Regarding mid-late first rounders who could stay one more year and join the lottery. That’s exactly what Collins and Aldrich of Kansas were, and we just haven’t had those players outside of Jrue
by Sideout11 on Feb 11, 2010 3:04 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
right exactly
Collins and Aldrich could see the $$ upside to returning and raising their stock. If RW had risen slightly less meteorically, he could have been that guy, but top-5 is hard to turn down.
by britishbruin on Feb 11, 2010 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
Don't forget DC HURT his draft standing by staying
He was projected higher after his junior year than he went after his senior year. He was also an AP third team All American his junior year as the second best player on a final four team but did not make the top three AP teams his senior year. He hurt his stock in staying
I was shocked he stayed, but obviously he is doing well now. So he may have made the best decision. But after 2009, for him personally I am not so sure.
Actually he didn't
After he got destroyed by Derrick Rose, his draft stock took a tumble. I love DC and what he has done for UCLA but he stayed an extra year because he was going to be a low first round or high second if he left at the end of junior year after getting hosed by Memphis.
I'm with Nestor on this
DC staying made no sense, except in light of that performance against Memphis. It shocked everyone and pretty much messed up Howland’s recruiting strategy. If he thought that DC would have stayed, I strongly doubt he would have gone after Jrue Holiday, or he would have made it clear to him that he wouldn’t be playing PG his first year.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Also
I feel that Honeycutt is in that mold of mid-first round to lottery pick, so we shall see.
by Sideout11 on Feb 11, 2010 3:05 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
yup
let’s see him build himself up (but not quite enough to be NBA lottery material) over the summer, test the waters at the end of his soph year and be evaluated as mid-to-late first round, and come back to lead the Bruins to glory as a junior.
by britishbruin on Feb 11, 2010 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
good points
Keeping the top-5 picks, or even the guaranteed lottery pick players is tough if not downright impossible. We shouldn’t be worrying about keeping the likes of KL and RW – unfortunately, I don’t think CBH did a very good job in terms of planning for them (RW was a bit of a surprise I suppose, but no excuse on KL).
And frankly, I don’t think most teams that have had success have counted on one and done’s staying – again, a look at the list above, only 2003 Syracuse saw an obvious one-and-done come in and take them all the way – so recruitment has to fit that obvious fact. I mean, if LeBron James had to go to college one year, you could try all you like, you should know that this guy isn’t staying.
The "definitely mid-to-late 1st round this year, but could definitely be a lottery pick next year if he goes back and has a solid season" is the type of player we should be looking at. JF was this, and probably should have stayed a 3rd year. AA and DC were also these types of players.
Most of the team’s above (outside of Florida 2006-2007 and Syracuse) won with a core contingent of sophomores and juniors who fit that same description (and in the process of winning it all, saw their stock rise)
Wasn't Bobo supposed to be the next center?
I remember him being highly touted out of high school.
Bruins Forever
by bruinsince69 on Feb 12, 2010 6:47 PM PST up reply actions
Bobo wasn't considered to be instantly ready for the starting lineup, iirc
That said, he was expected to be a solid + contributor by this stage. Although Centers do have quite the hit or miss quality coming out of HS.
formerly bruinhoo
wasn't JH/ML/JA supposed to be the next guard
I remember them being highly touted out of high school (in response to your comment about planning for RW’s departure).
Sure, maybe they were there as insurance for DC turning pro rather than RW, but we did bring in a lot of guards. The only other thing that could have been done was to have picked up someone else instead of Chase Stanback, given we only had two scholarships that year.
by britishbruin on Feb 12, 2010 7:05 PM PST up reply actions
The Henry point will be interesting
If Bill Self somehow keeps Xavier Henry around, I’d have to start asking questions as to how he managed to keep him around
But that in itself is a recruiting/playtime strategy. As pointed out, Henry was brought in along with Elijah Johnson, a potential impact player, but one more solidly in the “mid to late first round” type of guy. Henry is a lottery pick. So with the one and done rule, Henry gets play time because he’s probably going to jump anyways while Johnson likely won’t (not just because Collins is ahead of him – but also based on talent and room for improvement)
It’s like 2008 with Love – Love was too good not to play. But 2009, with Jrue, had we not had depth issues, he probably should have gotten less playtime
X has been in a bit of a slump
but he’s an absolute freak of an athlete. I could see a pretty strong argument for him either way. Sherron Collins is a senior, so he’s definitely gone. Cole Aldrich is a junior, but could have gone pro last year. Even though he’s been in an offensive slump, he’s still a lottery pick, and with Collins gone, I’d be shocked if Aldrich stays. Without the two of them, next year’s team won’t be seen as a guaranteed Final Four/Two/One team like this year’s seems to be. On the flip side, if X Henry stays, there’s no denying he’s The Man next year. There’s still a pretty good stable after Collins and Aldrich leave, as KU is amazingly deep.
Another KU-related note applicable to our Bruins: Marcus Morris has been playing great ball lately, probably competing with Collins for ‘best’ status at the moment. After KU destroyed Texas, Bill Self told some reporters "Guys, he’s not one of the better players in the league, he’s one of the better players in the country." Rather than being a prima-donna, Morris said “I wouldn’t say I’m one of the better players in the league. I wouldn’t say I’m one of the better players in the country. I’d just say I’m a player.” That’s the combination of effort and attitude that we need to get back to.
retaining talent will always be an uphill battle
The combined populations of Chapel Hill, Lawrence, Lexington, Storrs, and Durham would still be less than the San Fernando Valley. Los Angeles is the 2nd largest market in the nation, and our athletes are immersed in a culture that is more conducive to living out your dreams in the bright lights of the professional stage. We’re a big-city university that is the mecca of college hoops located in the city with the biggest NBA stage. The NBA light shines brightest in LA because of the Lakers. While the other big cities are identified with other sports (NY: Yankees, Chicago: Bears, Boston: Red Sox, SF: 49ers), LA is the preeminent basketball city. It makes it that much harder for our program to retain talent when all year long they’re subjected to ubiquitous commercial hype machine.
While true on exposure...
A lot of these recruits already play AAU ball and/or come from markets outside of those college towns. Not to mention that they often get their games televised by ESPN and what not, so it’s not like they don’t have dreams of playing in the NBA.
"Fringe" versus fringe, and the uniqueness of Honeycutt
One of the points I tried to make in my post was that our prematurely departed fringe players weren’t quite fringe enough. JF and AA were projected as having a 20-30 pick limit, with JF having perhaps some more potential, but neither had lottery hopes. The more emphasis NBA scouts put on potential the more static draft-stock becomes.
I’m going to guess that Honeycutt will have lottery potential, and the choice between leaving early or staying might be a choice between a top-20 and lottery. That would be the first such fringe situation we’ve had to deal with (excepting Holliday).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
