CMP poll question

[BoilerBiker]

Izzo had much more talent, any way you can measure it

I like your comparison to MSU. We were pretty close in talent to them.

agree more with the revised statement.

I think you went down the wrong trail. When I asked for folks to watch more basketball and look at the talent on the court, I did not mean pacifically MSU, which was no longer playing by the time of the post I made.

ok? i mentioned msu per your paragraph/comparison above.

i guess i'm not clearly understanding what you are saying in regards to team results, individual talent, etc.
are you saying sweet 16 teams like wisconsin are better and more talented than msu or pu, since they advanced that much further and msu & pu were eliminated in game 1?

what about 2014, where many would argue uconn was 'better' than kentucky because they actually won head to head. but before that season and that final game, they would contend uk was 'better' because of individual talent with an abundance of 5 star ratings/nba prospects/athleticism/etc.

One more point. I would have to say that Shaq was probably the most impressive college center I have ever watched. His teams never made it to the S16 IIRC. Centers do not a champion make.

if this dates back that far (let alone before recent rule changes), does that concern you about painters recruiting and game plan? some of our top players have been big men, and we now have by far the biggest purdue roster under painter. much of our offense revolves around the centers. should he have been more focused on making guard heavy rosters all these years?

 

[mathboy]

agree more with the revised statement.


ok? i mentioned msu per your paragraph/comparison above.

i guess i'm not clearly understanding what you are saying in regards to team results, individual talent, etc.
are you saying sweet 16 teams like wisconsin are better and more talented than msu or pu, since they advanced that much further and msu & pu were eliminated in game 1?

what about 2014, where many would argue uconn was 'better' than kentucky because they actually won head to head. but before that season and that final game, they would contend uk was 'better' because of individual talent with an abundance of 5 star ratings/nba prospects/athleticism/etc.


if this dates back that far (let alone before recent rule changes), does that concern you about painters recruiting and game plan? some of our top players have been big men, and we now have by far the biggest purdue roster under painter. much of our offense revolves around the centers. should he have been more focused on making guard heavy rosters all these years?

Yep. - that's my answer...

Thanks for all the hard work puling all this together, and pulling it all out of context. I mean really, who gives a poop?

 

[BoilerBiker]

You way over estimate the "talent" on this Purdue team. Please watch a few other teams before making these kinds of statements. I suggest watching some of the Sweet Sixteen teams - check out the speed and versatility of their guards, and the athleticism of their post players. Remember, 7 foot is only an inch from 6'11", so don't think a 7 footer is that big an advantage based on just height.

By making statements like you did, you imply a level of incompetence of our coach that simply is not the case. I ask you to directly compare the MSU situation this year with Purdue's. Don't give me a bunch of crap about how good Izzo was in the past. Let's just talk about this year, since you use this same measuring stick for Painter. Izzo had much more talent, any way you can measure it, and did even worse than Painter in the NCAA's.

I like your comparison to MSU. We were pretty close in talent to them. Just how far did MSU go in the tournament?

I think you went down the wrong trail. When I asked for folks to watch more basketball and look at the talent on the court, I did not mean pacifically MSU, which was no longer playing by the time of the post I made.

One more point. I would have to say that Shaq was probably the most impressive college center I have ever watched. His teams never made it to the S16 IIRC. Centers do not a champion make.

i did not intend to pull anything out of context. (i reposted both posts to make sure)
but i do agree with your second, revised statement that purdue's talent is pretty close to msu's.

 

[mathboy]

i did not intend to pull anything out of context. (i reposted both posts to make sure)
but i do agree with your second, revised statement that purdue's talent is pretty close to msu's.

Let me help you sort this out. In the first quote, I was making the point that MSU had a better team, on paper, than Purdue was. The quote was from my response to someone saying Izzo got a bye for his loss, but we should put Painter on the hot seat for his. MSU players had better high school rankings, if you buy into that sort of thing, etc. They were also ranked 2nd in the country when we were lucky to have broken into the top 10 at the very end of the season. Arguably, and proven in the BIG championship game, MSU had the better team of the two. I don't think there is any dispute that MSU was better on a neutral court. The teams were very close through both games they played against one another, which could lead to the idea that Matt Painter got more out of his team than Tom Izzo did this year. I won't support that conjecture, because it is a lot like arguing about angles and pins.

Now the second quote deals with the relative talent level of the two schools when looked at nationally. Purdue played better than their relative talent level, and MSU played about even or better as well. Both coaches got a lot out of their teams. Neither Purdue nor MSU proved to be that good, and suffered similar fates in the NCAA. I was implying the talent was in the same range. Both teams were over valued in the rankings IMHO, and played better than their talent. MSU was a one-trick pony named Valentine, and we lacked guard speed and ball handling. Similar talent, similar fates. That is all that was intended in those two quotes. I see no inconsistency in what I said.

 

[BoilerBiker]

MSU players had better high school rankings, if you buy into that sort of thing, etc.

this specific core statement is what i continually refute - it is contrary to what I find.
below is info posted several weeks ago.

On paper, Painter actually out recruited top teams ranked 2-5 in the ap poll on average.
-Only Kansas even had a top 5 class among the ap top 5.
-Izzo's 2013 guys were ranked almost as low as Hale/lawson before.
(And even considering further things like roster turnover, we had lost 3 guys (2 4 stars, 1 3 star), msu lost 2 guys (1 5 star, 1 3 star)).

 

[banshee90]

Ah the ol' "you are not a coach" argument against having an opinion. Well...

I'm not a chef, but I know they over cooked my steak last night before I sent it back.
I'm not in the military, but I'm sure you should never start a land war in Asia.
I'm not a doctor, but in my opinion, that snotty nose brat over there needs a kleenex.
I'm not a mechanic, but in my opinion, my car won't start because it is out of gas.

I'm not a coach or player, but my opinion, we should have won against UALR, Cincy, Kansas, VCU, Wofford, North Florida, Richmond, Gardner Webb....

Iowa and Illinois ****ing choke artist

 

[mathboy]

this specific core statement is what i continually refute - it is contrary to what I find.
below is info posted several weeks ago.

On paper, Painter actually out recruited top teams ranked 2-5 in the ap poll on average.
-Only Kansas even had a top 5 class among the ap top 5.
-Izzo's 2013 guys were ranked almost as low as Hale/lawson before.
(And even considering further things like roster turnover, we had lost 3 guys (2 4 stars, 1 3 star), msu lost 2 guys (1 5 star, 1 3 star)).

This is interesting. Your argument hinges entirely on the player’s high school rankings, and does not reflect what he was able to do in college. Okay. I think that has some intrinsic faults, but let’s work with it anyway. Hopefully, I transcribed the numbers correctly. I am doing 3 things at the same time as I am composing this, so I would not be surprised if I make a mistake. It will not be the first today!

Purdue’s senior class in 2016, the class of 2012, was ranked 20th by Rivals and 23rd by 247 Sports. MSU’s senior class was ranked 13th and 12th respectively. MSU is significantly better, right? Not only that, but in that class were Costelo and Valentine, who was much more of impact players than Davis and Hammons. Ours were very good, but Valentine was recognized by the national media as one of the best players in the country.

Going to the next year we are 24th and 27th. That is the current junior class of… Kendal Stevens. Okay, MSU is NR and 74th. Not a good year for them, but we are looking at a small sample indeed. Wait, How about Enron Harris? A later MSU 5-star transfer not mentioned in the initial recruiting class. However, I will note that Purdue wins this year, but it is a frail win. We got Hill, but Harris is the better of the two players. Smotherman, our other junior DNP this year.

Okay, so let’s look at the real core of our Purdue team, the sophomore class (2014). This is Edwards, Mathias, Haas, etc. - our key starters. As expected, they are well ranked, at 33rd and NR (Really?) in both polls. MSU gets 47th and 30th. So a split decision – we can call it a draw.

How about the freshman class? Purdue gets 28th and 38th, while MSU got 23rd and 25th. Another MSU win, but a slight win. We get Swanigan and Cline. MSU gets Deytona, Aherns, Conner, McQuaid.

Seems like the experts considered Purdue superior in 1 out of 4 classes that made up our team this year, but that was a one person class by the time we played. The class year won by Purdue was offset by a 5-star transfer into MSU (Harris). I would also argue that an X-star guard is a superior player to an X-star post. MSU got the guards and we got post players.

I guess I will stand by my statement that MSU had more talent than Purdue this season. Even if you just measure it by high school rankings, I think my statement stands. The fact that we split W/L this year is a pretty significant positive for our team IMHO.

You and I might disagree on some of these things, but I appreciate the effort you put forth to pull these facts, and post them on the board. The more we chew on real facts, the better we will understand our direction and our situation.

 

[TC4THREE]

This is interesting. Your argument hinges entirely on the player’s high school rankings, and does not reflect what he was able to do in college. Okay. I think that has some intrinsic faults, but let’s work with it anyway. Hopefully, I transcribed the numbers correctly. I am doing 3 things at the same time as I am composing this, so I would not be surprised if I make a mistake. It will not be the first today!

Purdue’s senior class in 2016, the class of 2012, was ranked 20th by Rivals and 23rd by 247 Sports. MSU’s senior class was ranked 13th and 12th respectively. MSU is significantly better, right? Not only that, but in that class were Costelo and Valentine, who was much more of impact players than Davis and Hammons. Ours were very good, but Valentine was recognized by the national media as one of the best players in the country.

Going to the next year we are 24th and 27th. That is the current junior class of… Kendal Stevens. Okay, MSU is NR and 74th. Not a good year for them, but we are looking at a small sample indeed. Wait, How about Enron Harris? A later MSU 5-star transfer not mentioned in the initial recruiting class. However, I will note that Purdue wins this year, but it is a frail win. We got Hill, but Harris is the better of the two players. Smotherman, our other junior DNP this year.

Okay, so let’s look at the real core of our Purdue team, the sophomore class (2014). This is Edwards, Mathias, Haas, etc. - our key starters. As expected, they are well ranked, at 33rd and NR (Really?) in both polls. MSU gets 47th and 30th. So a split decision – we can call it a draw.

How about the freshman class? Purdue gets 28th and 38th, while MSU got 23rd and 25th. Another MSU win, but a slight win. We get Swanigan and Cline. MSU gets Deytona, Aherns, Conner, McQuaid.

Seems like the experts considered Purdue superior in 1 out of 4 classes that made up our team this year, but that was a one person class by the time we played. The class year won by Purdue was offset by a 5-star transfer into MSU (Harris). I would also argue that an X-star guard is a superior player to an X-star post. MSU got the guards and we got post players.

I guess I will stand by my statement that MSU had more talent than Purdue this season. Even if you just measure it by high school rankings, I think my statement stands. The fact that we split W/L this year is a pretty significant positive for our team IMHO.

You and I might disagree on some of these things, but I appreciate the effort you put forth to pull these facts, and post them on the board. The more we chew on real facts, the better we will understand our direction and our situation.

Yea. Averaging class ranks is a very backwards way of looking at it because it assumes each class is equal which they clearly aren't and it assumes that players 11-13 are as important as players 1-3 which is also false. I also have no clue why teams like North Carolina and Duke were omitted.

The bottom line is that none of our classes making up this roster have even been in the top 10 and we have only 1 5-star recruit on the roster. While I believe we had talent that was capable of making it to the Final Four in the perfect circumstances, we had nowhere near enough talent to create that expectation.

 

[BoilerGal74]

You clearly don't watch much college basketball outside of Purdue.

Especially this year...

 

[BoilerBiker]

This is interesting. Your argument hinges entirely on the player’s high school rankings, and does not reflect what he was able to do in college. Okay. I think that has some intrinsic faults, but let’s work with it anyway. Hopefully, I transcribed the numbers correctly. I am doing 3 things at the same time as I am composing this, so I would not be surprised if I make a mistake. It will not be the first today!

Purdue’s senior class in 2016, the class of 2012, was ranked 20th by Rivals and 23rd by 247 Sports. MSU’s senior class was ranked 13th and 12th respectively. MSU is significantly better, right? Not only that, but in that class were Costelo and Valentine, who was much more of impact players than Davis and Hammons. Ours were very good, but Valentine was recognized by the national media as one of the best players in the country.

Going to the next year we are 24th and 27th. That is the current junior class of… Kendal Stevens. Okay, MSU is NR and 74th. Not a good year for them, but we are looking at a small sample indeed. Wait, How about Enron Harris? A later MSU 5-star transfer not mentioned in the initial recruiting class. However, I will note that Purdue wins this year, but it is a frail win. We got Hill, but Harris is the better of the two players. Smotherman, our other junior DNP this year.

Okay, so let’s look at the real core of our Purdue team, the sophomore class (2014). This is Edwards, Mathias, Haas, etc. - our key starters. As expected, they are well ranked, at 33rd and NR (Really?) in both polls. MSU gets 47th and 30th. So a split decision – we can call it a draw.

How about the freshman class? Purdue gets 28th and 38th, while MSU got 23rd and 25th. Another MSU win, but a slight win. We get Swanigan and Cline. MSU gets Deytona, Aherns, Conner, McQuaid.

Seems like the experts considered Purdue superior in 1 out of 4 classes that made up our team this year, but that was a one person class by the time we played. The class year won by Purdue was offset by a 5-star transfer into MSU (Harris). I would also argue that an X-star guard is a superior player to an X-star post. MSU got the guards and we got post players.

I guess I will stand by my statement that MSU had more talent than Purdue this season. Even if you just measure it by high school rankings, I think my statement stands. The fact that we split W/L this year is a pretty significant positive for our team IMHO.

You and I might disagree on some of these things, but I appreciate the effort you put forth to pull these facts, and post them on the board. The more we chew on real facts, the better we will understand our direction and our situation.

yeah i agree with your more detailed analysis - that is on the current status of the entire roster - years of changes, additional transfers, weighing different positions, players developing, etc. (better work than me!)
that's taking it all the way from point A (high school recruits) to point B (today's roster).
what i'm trying to point out is strictly point A - before any of these guys ever arrive to college.

TC says "The bottom line is that none of our classes making up this roster have even been in the top 10 and we have only 1 5-star recruit on the roster."
that's true for purdue.... but that was also true for msu and the others (for incoming freshman).
kansas is the only one of the AP top 5 that really sticks out as having a significant advantage in initial recruiting rankings.

so how did msu, virginia, villanova, xavier overcome their lesser recruit rankings and beat out purdue and even blue blood programs not named kansas?
how do purdue's rankings go from being similar to those teams at point A, to many of our fans having lower expectations at point B?
you've started to touch on some above, and we've mentioned some before.

-recruit rankings are just that inaccurate year in, year out - purdue guys are that overrated to begin with?
-do izzo, bennett, wright, mack get more out of their players (development, motivation, game plan, etc)?
-does painter get guys who are maybe higher rated but do not necessarily fit his system?
-have some players regressed under painter? (shooters have been mentioned before)
-poor player retention - does painter get unlucky with head-case/me-first guys? poorer judge of character?
-has painter recruited the wrong roster type? too many big men, not enough guards? (we've increased to our biggest size yet, and you've noted that as far back as shaq that centers don't necessarily win titles, which was way before recent rule changes).

(it would be great to weigh the data by class year somehow since an entire year's national class could be better/worse than another year - but i don't know an accurate way, hence the avg., it would also be great to include all 350+ schools but i can't find easy downloadable data, so that's why no unc/duke/etc - just the top 5 which was the original comparison of purdue 'talent').

 

[lbodel]

yeah i agree with your more detailed analysis - that is on the current status of the entire roster - years of changes, additional transfers, weighing different positions, players developing, etc. (better work than me!)
that's taking it all the way from point A (high school recruits) to point B (today's roster).
what i'm trying to point out is strictly point A - before any of these guys ever arrive to college.

TC says "The bottom line is that none of our classes making up this roster have even been in the top 10 and we have only 1 5-star recruit on the roster."
that's true for purdue.... but that was also true for msu and the others (for incoming freshman).
kansas is the only one of the AP top 5 that really sticks out as having a significant advantage in initial recruiting rankings.

so how did msu, virginia, villanova, xavier overcome their lesser recruit rankings and beat out purdue and even blue blood programs not named kansas?
how do purdue's rankings go from being similar to those teams at point A, to many of our fans having lower expectations at point B?
you've started to touch on some above, and we've mentioned some before.

-recruit rankings are just that inaccurate year in, year out - purdue guys are that overrated to begin with?
-do izzo, bennett, wright, mack get more out of their players (development, motivation, game plan, etc)?
-does painter get guys who are maybe higher rated but do not necessarily fit his system?
-have some players regressed under painter? (shooters have been mentioned before)
-poor player retention - does painter get unlucky with head-case/me-first guys? poorer judge of character?
-has painter recruited the wrong roster type? too many big men, not enough guards? (we've increased to our biggest size yet, and you've noted that as far back as shaq that centers don't necessarily win titles, which was way before recent rule changes).

(it would be great to weigh the data by class year somehow since an entire year's national class could be better/worse than another year - but i don't know an accurate way, hence the avg., it would also be great to include all 350+ schools but i can't find easy downloadable data, so that's why no unc/duke/etc - just the top 5 which was the original comparison of purdue 'talent').

Analyzing/comparing basketball recruiting classes is dangerous.

It isn't like football where, although a team might have a stronger need in a couple different positions than others, you still need to basically have guys in every position. If you end up with 4-5 scholarship QBs, that's fine. You have the scholarship flexibility to add a couple extra of a position if you have the quality guys to sign. In basketball, you aren't going to have four 7' centers for a variety of reasons.

That being said, it's easier to compare football classes because of this. Sure, you'll have some classes that may be smaller and you'll have some be larger, but you're basically recruiting all positions every year.

Whereas with basketball, you don't have the scholarship numbers to be that flexible and you have to be highly targeted on what you need to fit a certain spot. So it's not just a matter of let's get as high of star recruit as we can and then deal with making it a team.

Finding the right fit, from personality to style to position, etc., is just as important as talent level and we've learned that. Ronnie Johnson was a 4 star #14 PG in the country recruit. He ended up being a horrible fit on multiple levels. Knock on wood, Carsen Edwards may not be quite as highly ranked as Ronnie, but he has, on paper, a lot of the actual NEEDS that Purdue has from that position.

Same thing with Isaac. At the center position, when it comes to talented centers - you often have to break them in as freshmen after your previous center leaves. That's hardly ideal. With Isaac, I don't think Purdue fans realize how lucky we are that Isaac not only was a big plus for helping AJ develop, but his unselfishness his first two years is a rarity. Isaac may not be a five star Diamond Stone - but he'll be with us four years, 2 as a key backup, 2 as a starter and still very talented. Again, he fit the needs perfectly.

So when it comes to basketball recruiting, there's a lot more intangibles. Maryland was arguably the most talented team in the Big Ten this year - particularly spread across all positions (IU didn't have a center like Stone). But I didn't think they particularly played very well together and it didn't show a lot of the times how talented they were.

And no, I'm not saying talent doesn't matter. It absolutely does. And it's always nice to have that highly ranked four star, fringe 5 star guy. But there's a lot more that goes into basketball recruiting than just talent.

 

[mathboy]

yeah i agree with your more detailed analysis - that is on the current status of the entire roster - years of changes, additional transfers, weighing different positions, players developing, etc. (better work than me!)
that's taking it all the way from point A (high school recruits) to point B (today's roster).
what i'm trying to point out is strictly point A - before any of these guys ever arrive to college.

That's a lot of stuff to chew on! You are hitting the key points though. Let me try to give some quick thoughts on these questions. These are just my opinion, and hardly qualify as facts. Not enough time this morning to really give it more.

-recruit rankings are just that inaccurate year in, year out - purdue guys are that overrated to begin with? I think we have both benefitted from under-ranked kids (Think Baby Boilers) and we have suffered over-ranked kids. Probably no different than any other program. Even this year we see several MSU guys leaving that were ranked fairly well.

-do izzo, bennett, wright, mack get more out of their players (development, motivation, game plan, etc)? I think our players develop as well as any in both skill and basketball IQ. If there is any fault in the scope of this question, it might be motivation and emotional engagement in the game. It is hard to pin down, but sometimes we come out and play tantative instead of aggressive. Not always. There are games where we are definitly the aggressor.

-does painter get guys who are maybe higher rated but do not necessarily fit his system? I don't think so over all. There have been some misfits, but very few. Not every kid has the will and the interest to learn the game beyond the high school level.

-have some players regressed under painter? (shooters have been mentioned before). We have to be careful not to use the kid's last high school game as the measuring stick. Defense is so much better in college. I think the kids have so much to learn that often basic shooting comes last in priority. Shooting is a confidence thing. Seniors have confidence and freshmen usually don't. Shooting in your own gym = confidence. Shooting in a forign gym = lack of confidence, right? I don't see this as an issue unique to Purdue.

-poor player retention - does painter get unlucky with head-case/me-first guys? poorer judge of character? Our retention is no better and no worse than average. This aspect does not really play into the real concerns. Yeh, I don't like seeing a kid with potential leave, but we have not had the kind of high level kid leave and strike it rich else where (think Utoff going from Wiconsin to Iowa).

-has painter recruited the wrong roster type? too many big men, not enough guards? (we've increased to our biggest size yet, and you've noted that as far back as shaq that centers don't necessarily win titles, which was way before recent rule changes). Yes, I think Painter tends to center on who he wants to recruit. Drivers? Big men? Shooters? Playmekers? ...and does so with strong focus, sometimes to the exclusin of more well rounded players. We have some pretty good role-players.

We have big men & shooters who can't dribble, and we have dribblers that can't shoot. What he built for 2015/2016 was an inside-outside team of big men and shooters. We need a well rounded player who can make the pieces fit together. (Think "Denzel Valentine" like player).

It just needs one or two good playmakers, and some luck, to go deep in the NCAA's. We have a few missing pieces yet. Almost every team in the country has something missing, right? Even with a Valentine, there are no guarantees in the NCAA's. We should have beaten ALR and MSU should have beaten MTS. 'nuff said.

So, here is the deal. There is a successful model out there. Syracuse, L'ville, and North Carolina have followed it very well, and they are perennial FF type teams. I am not ready for our program to go down that path. I like that Painter is well known for his integrity. We can still do this thing, but we need to realise that Painter's approach is not going to build a UK team of 5-star players. We will need to sort through the lesser players to find those that have the skill and the will to compete. That is a lot harder to do and there will be miss-steps along the way.