Bilas and Calipari Disagree

[kyjeff1]

Bwahaha...I'm not 1/10th the homer that you are. You claimed that a league that had one top 10 team other than Kentucky for a decade consistently churns out top end teams. And that's just one of a million delusional comments that emerge from your keyboard.

I'll ask again, for the 100th time...is it your claim that all the numbers I posted are meaningless, and that KU is a fraud because a few of their lesser teams (plus a great team that choked) lost to midmajors?

I just told you that Duke/K have 4 fewer wins in the tourney during Self's tenure at KU, despite similar seeding and being "prepared" by the ACC. Yet, to you, they've "more than held their own," while KU has failed miserably and is a fraud. I'm done talking about this. It's like debating with a brick wall.

Can you please direct me to the post where I said KU was/is a fraud? Find it and quote it here.

My points are that you are obsessed with UK and in my opinion, the SEC is a tougher conference than the BIG12.

Sorry you struggle with that, but at no time would KU dominate the SEC the way they did the BIG12.

Now that doesn't mean I think KU is a fraud, I just think the BIG12 has a bunch of middle of the road teams and a stud blue blood team.

But, go back and find where I said Kansas is/was/has been/can be a fraud. You make these wild accusations constantly and act like they're facts. This is one of them.

Also, you never gave me your conference rankings. Where do you rank all 5 conferences?

 

[Random UK Fan]

You guys are great, keep it up!

I'm a little surprised @uncfan in ky hasn't jumped in on this. He and Jeff had a classic thread going a few months back. I miss that thread.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Can you please direct me to the post where I said KU was/is a fraud? Find it and quote it here.

My points are that you are obsessed with UK and in my opinion, the SEC is a tougher conference than the BIG12.

Sorry you struggle with that, but at no time would KU dominate the SEC the way they did the BIG12.

Now that doesn't mean I think KU is a fraud, I just think the BIG12 has a bunch of middle of the road teams and a stud blue blood team.

But, go back and find where I said Kansas is/was/has been/can be a fraud. You make these wild accusations constantly and act like they're facts. This is one of them.

Also, you never gave me your conference rankings. Where do you rank all 5 conferences?

Oh, sorry..you didn’t specifically use the word fraud. Just everything but.

You did say that Duke has more than held their own while KU has floundered, despite having four more tourney wins in that span. Doesn’t compute.

Anyway, in a typical year, I’d rank them:
ACC, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Big East, Pac 12.

I think the ACC is generally the best in a given year, while the Big 12 and Big 10 have some years at the top. I can’t remember the last year in which you could make a solid argument for the SEC being tops.

You can have your opinion, of course, but facts don’t really back it up. KU has had a LOT more top 10 and ranked teams to contend with over the years. Basically all the SEC's success (aside from Kentucky) has come from one program. And even that program is anything but consistent. Essentially, Florida has a few really good teams per decade. You can't point to their back-to-back titles and a few other sporadic runs as evidence that the SEC consistently produces contenders. It doesn't. And you can't deny that there are a ton of bottom feeders to fatten up on in any given year.

Yes, the Big 12 has a lot of average programs. But, virtually every year, KU has to deal with 1 or 2 top 10 teams and several ranked teams. That's not the case for Kentucky in the SEC. 1 top 10 team in a decade. Several seasons without even multiple top 25 teams.

14 straight gives the appearance that it was easy, but it wasn't. They struggled to earn many of those, often having to steal it late in the game, along with several co-championships.

 

[kyjeff1]

Oh, sorry..you didn’t specifically use the word fraud. Just everything but.

You did say that Duke has more than held their own while KU has floundered, despite having four more tourney wins in that span. Doesn’t compute.

Anyway, in a typical year, I’d rank them:
ACC, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Big East, Pac 12.

I think the ACC is generally the best in a given year, while the Big 12 and Big 10 have some years at the top. I can’t remember the last year in which you could make a solid argument for the SEC being tops.

You can have your opinion, of course, but facts don’t really back it up. KU has had a LOT more top 10 and ranked teams to contend with over the years. Basically all the SEC's success (aside from Kentucky) has come from one program. And even that program is anything but consistent. Essentially, Florida has a few really good teams per decade. You can't point to their back-to-back titles and a few other sporadic runs as evidence that the SEC consistently produces contenders. It doesn't. And you can't deny that there are a ton of bottom feeders to fatten up on in any given year.

Yes, the Big 12 has a lot of average programs. But, virtually every year, KU has to deal with 1 or 2 top 10 teams and several ranked teams. That's not the case for Kentucky in the SEC. 1 top 10 team in a decade. Several years without even multiple top 25 teams.

14 straight gives the appearance that it was easy, but it wasn't. They struggled to earn many of those, often having to steal it late in the game, along with several co-championships.

So basically our rankings aren’t far off. You have the BIG12 3rd, one spot ahead of the SEC and I have them flip flopped.

Just depends on what year we're talking about. I would put the SEC ahead of the BIG12 in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018.

I think the SEC was stronger at the top during those years. I just really don't value average teams that have no shot at reaching the FF. The SEC had at least 2 FF calibre teams or a truly dominant team (2012 and 2015) that would put the conference ahead.

I can understand it if someone, namely you, disagrees. But when 1 program dominates a conference for as long as KU did, it's not a good argument for your side. The conference comes off as weak.

Then, when you follow that up with first weekend losses in the NCAAT, particularly the ones against mid majors, it really hurts your argument.

Well, this has been fun. All this noise for pretty much nothing.

UK>>>KU

 

[schoonerwest]

So basically our rankings aren’t far off. You have the BIG12 3rd, one spot ahead of the SEC and I have them flip flopped.

Just depends on what year we're talking about. I would put the SEC ahead of the BIG12 in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018.

I think the SEC was stronger at the top during those years. I just really don't value average teams that have no shot at reaching the FF. The SEC had at least 2 FF calibre teams or a truly dominant team (2012 and 2015) that would put the conference ahead.

I can understand it if someone, namely you, disagrees. But when 1 program dominates a conference for as long as KU did, it's not a good argument for your side. The conference comes off as weak.

Then, when you follow that up with first weekend losses in the NCAAT, particularly the ones against mid majors, it really hurts your argument.

Well, this has been fun. All this noise for pretty much nothing.

UK>>>KU

I only looked at 2010 but how do you consider the SEC to be better than the Big 12 when these are the results.

Big 12 had the overall #1 seed
Big 12 went 9-7 in the tournament. SEC went 6-4
Big 12 had 7 teams ranked at one point, including 2 different #1's. SEC had 6 teams ranked at one point.
Big 12 had 7 tournament teams. SEC had 4.
Both had 2 teams make the Elite 8.
Big 12 was #1 ranked RPI conference. The SEC was #4.

Edit - The Big 12 had a higher rated #1 seed. They also had a #2 and a #3 seed(which IMO, makes them legitimate Final Four threats). The SEC’s 2nd best team was a #4 seed. How were the stronger at the top?

 

[ExitFlagger]

So basically our rankings aren’t far off. You have the BIG12 3rd, one spot ahead of the SEC and I have them flip flopped.

Just depends on what year we're talking about. I would put the SEC ahead of the BIG12 in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018.

I think the SEC was stronger at the top during those years. I just really don't value average teams that have no shot at reaching the FF. The SEC had at least 2 FF calibre teams or a truly dominant team (2012 and 2015) that would put the conference ahead.

I can understand it if someone, namely you, disagrees. But when 1 program dominates a conference for as long as KU did, it's not a good argument for your side. The conference comes off as weak.

Then, when you follow that up with first weekend losses in the NCAAT, particularly the ones against mid majors, it really hurts your argument.

Well, this has been fun. All this noise for pretty much nothing.

UK>>>KU

Bottom line: There's no denying KU's consistency during that streak. While everyone else had NIT appearances, or mediocre teams with low seeds, KU was never worse than a 4, and usually a 1 or 2. And despite some chokes, they're still at or near the top in tourney wins under Self. They probably should have another title or two, or at least a few more final fours, but shit happens. Lots of injuries and suspensions had a role in that. Losing players like Embiid and Azubuike for the tourney makes a difference, believe it or not. I'd love to have seen UK try to win that title without Anthony Davis. How far do you think they'd have gone without Wall or Cousins?

When comparing the leagues, KU and Kentucky have to be removed from the equation. Obviously they don't play themselves, and the whole point of this is to determine which league is harder to win. I've conceded that KU wouldn't have won the SEC in '14. I just looked at the other years during the streak, from 05 to 09. '06 and '07 would have gone to Florida (although KU was right there with FL in 07 and even beat them head to head), but you can't make a good argument for any others in the SEC's favor. So KU would have only won 11 of 14. I see your point now.

If you take out Florida, it doesn't look pretty. Period. Yet you give this image of a balanced conference that "consistently has several top end teams." Just not true at all.

Having one team that would have stolen a few of those titles away from KU doesn't equate to having a better conference in the average year. And certainly not a deeper one with more games vs tough competition.

The thing about all this is that national analysts and unbiased parties would echo my thoughts. The computers also agree. Yet you act like I'M the irrational one here.

I know you think that there's a giant conspiracy to hold the SEC down. I'll bet you have to restrain yourself from claiming that SEC teams would be ranked higher if polls weren't biased. Similar to your conspiracy theory regarding SEC teams being left out of the tourney because the committee hates them. But no, you're not a homer.

 

[kyjeff1]

I only looked at 2010 but how do you consider the SEC to be better than the Big 12 when these are the results.

Big 12 had the overall #1 seed
Big 12 went 9-7 in the tournament. SEC went 6-4
Big 12 had 7 teams ranked at one point, including 2 different #1's. SEC had 6 teams ranked at one point.
Big 12 had 7 tournament teams. SEC had 4.
Both had 2 teams make the Elite 8.
Big 12 was #1 ranked RPI conference. The SEC was #4.

Edit - The Big 12 had a higher rated #1 seed. They also had a #2 and a #3 seed(which IMO, makes them legitimate Final Four threats). The SEC’s 2nd best team was a #4 seed. How were the stronger at the top?

I made an error here. When I pulled up the stats for the BIG12, I clicked on the link for 2010/11 instead of 2009/10. There's a big difference in the top of the league those two years.

So, 2010 goes to the BIG12 easily.

 

[kyjeff1]

Bottom line: There's no denying KU's consistency during that streak. While everyone else had NIT appearances, or mediocre teams with low seeds, KU was never worse than a 4, and usually a 1 or 2. And despite some chokes, they're still at or near the top in tourney wins under Self. They probably should have another title or two, or at least a few more final fours, but shit happens. Lots of injuries and suspensions had a role in that. Losing players like Embiid and Azubuike for the tourney makes a difference, believe it or not. I'd love to have seen UK try to win that title without Anthony Davis. How far do you think they'd have gone without Wall or Cousins?

When comparing the leagues, KU and Kentucky have to be removed from the equation. Obviously they don't play themselves, and the whole point of this is to determine which league is harder to win. I've conceded that KU wouldn't have won the SEC in '14. I just looked at the other years during the streak, from 05 to 09. '06 and '07 would have gone to Florida (although KU was right there with FL in 07 and even beat them head to head), but you can't make a good argument for any others in the SEC's favor. So KU would have only won 11 of 14. I see your point now.

If you take out Florida, it doesn't look pretty. Period. Yet you give this image of a balanced conference that "consistently has several top end teams." Just not true at all.

Having one team that would have stolen a few of those titles away from KU doesn't equate to having a better conference in the average year. And certainly not a deeper one with more games vs tough competition.

The thing about all this is that national analysts and unbiased parties would echo my thoughts. The computers also agree. Yet you act like I'M the irrational one here.

I know you think that there's a giant conspiracy to hold the SEC down. I'll bet you have to restrain yourself from claiming that SEC teams would be ranked higher if polls weren't biased. Similar to your conspiracy theory regarding SEC teams being left out of the tourney because the committee hates them. But no, you're not a homer.

LOL, Kansas would not have won 11 of 14 in the SEC.

You keep saying KU has all these tournament wins and high seeds to prove your point, but even though UK totally misses the NCAAT twice and averaged a much lower seed, somehow UK has more tournament wins. How does that happen?

Face it, you're a KU/BIG12 homer that hates UK so much you can't control yourself.

The biggest difference between us on here is I call a spade a spade. If KU does something great, I say something about it. Same for Duke and UNC*** (yuck).

Heck, I'll even compliment Louisville when they're not in trouble (double yuck).

But you… haha, I have yet to see you say anything good about another program, Conference or coach unless it supports your obsessed agenda.

 

[ExitFlagger]

LOL, Kansas would not have won 11 of 14 in the SEC.

You keep saying KU has all these tournament wins and high seeds to prove your point, but even though UK totally misses the NCAAT twice and averaged a much lower seed, somehow UK has more tournament wins. How does that happen?

Face it, you're a KU/BIG12 homer that hates UK so much you can't control yourself.

The biggest difference between us on here is I call a spade a spade. If KU does something great, I say something about it. Same for Duke and UNC*** (yuck).

Heck, I'll even compliment Louisville when they're not in trouble (double yuck).

But you… haha, I have yet to see you say anything good about another program, Conference or coach unless it supports your obsessed agenda.

Name something that I've said that even approaches the homerism you've shown in this thread alone.

I'm plenty complimentary of teams that aren't my own. You're just rustled because I don't often compliment your team, largely because there isn't a fanbase in sports that dogs on other programs more. Your average fan hates everyone and never gives credit where it's due.

Complimenting Louisville is no surprise. A lot of Kentucky fans secretly support the in-state rival.

KU has more tourney wins than Kentucky during Self's tenure. And the millennium. KU is either 1st or 2nd in tourney wins over the last two decades. Not bad for a program that "flounders" in the tourney constantly. If they had played to seed in a few more seasons, they'd be blowing the rest away. So, basically, you're knocking them for not blowing everyone away.

As far as averaging a much lower seed, I'm not sure why you'd brag about that. Most of those teams had very high expectations and floundered all year. Why do those teams get a pass while good teams that choked in one game get torn to pieces?

Speaking of the Calipari era, specifically, it's easy to see that many of his teams get better throughout the year due to being led by talented freshmen that tend to improve greatly and become more comfortable between the first game and the last. So they may sometimes enter the tourney with a lower seed, but that doesn't mean that they should have lower expectations. And it doesn't mean that the SEC schedule prepared them better for the tourney. They just grew, as they would have anywhere.

You can LOL all you want. Name the years in which KU would not have won the SEC (besides 06, 07 and 14). I'll wait.

 

[jhmossy]

No way UK has most wins all time if they played in the ACC

 

[kyjeff1]

Name something that I've said that even approaches the homerism you've shown in this thread alone.

I'm plenty complimentary of teams that aren't my own. You're just rustled because I don't often compliment your team, largely because there isn't a fanbase in sports that dogs on other programs more. Your average fan hates everyone and never gives credit where it's due.

Complimenting Louisville is no surprise. A lot of Kentucky fans secretly support the in-state rival.

KU has more tourney wins than Kentucky during Self's tenure. And the millennium. KU is either 1st or 2nd in tourney wins over the last two decades. Not bad for a program that "flounders" in the tourney constantly. If they had played to seed in a few more seasons, they'd be blowing the rest away. So, basically, you're knocking them for not blowing everyone away.

As far as averaging a much lower seed, I'm not sure why you'd brag about that. Most of those teams had very high expectations and floundered all year. Why do those teams get a pass while good teams that choked in one game get torn to pieces?

Speaking of the Calipari era, specifically, it's easy to see that many of his teams get better throughout the year due to being led by talented freshmen that tend to improve greatly and become more comfortable between the first game and the last. So they may sometimes enter the tourney with a lower seed, but that doesn't mean that they should have lower expectations. And it doesn't mean that the SEC schedule prepared them better for the tourney. They just grew, as they would have anywhere.

You can LOL all you want. Name the years in which KU would not have won the SEC (besides 06, 07 and 14). I'll wait.

This is silly. I've let this go too long. I'm not going to continue to watch you chase your tail, then deny doing it.

Have a good day. Sheesh.

 

[ExitFlagger]

This is silly. I've let this go too long. I'm not going to continue to watch you chase your tail, then deny doing it.

Have a good day. Sheesh.

You have a bad habit of projecting.

Still waiting for a list of seasons in which KU would not have won the SEC from '05-'18, aside from the three that I mentioned.

If you're going to "LOL" @ something, you should be ready to back it up.

 

[Random UK Fan]

No way UK has most wins all time if they played in the ACC

I definitely have to agree with this. Concominantly, I'd have to say they would also likely dilute any dynasties there too.

 

[Random UK Fan]

Name the years in which KU would not have won the SEC (besides 06, 07 and 14). I'll wait.

Was that the year with Karl-Anthony Towns & co.?

 

[ExitFlagger]

Was that the year with Karl-Anthony Towns & co.?

It was the year that you went to the title game as an 8 seed.

But this is assuming that Kentucky and KU were hypothetically swapped. Florida was the #1 overall in 14, I think.

 

[ExitFlagger]

So, you’re conceding 11 of 14?

That’s what I thought.

 

[schoonerwest]

So, you’re conceding 11 of 14?

That’s what I thought.

Kansas would’ve had a chance in 2007. That was a pretty damn good team and they actually beat Florida early in the year. I don’t think they were better than them but I do remember Florida losing some games in February when they shouldn’t have. The chatter on them at the time was that they were just disinterested and waiting for the tournament to start.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Kansas would’ve had a chance in 2007. That was a pretty damn good team and they actually beat Florida early in the year. I don’t think they were better than them but I do remember Florida losing some games in February when they shouldn’t have. The chatter on them at the time was that they were just disinterested and waiting for the tournament to start.

Yeah...conceding that one is honestly a little generous. They were relatively equal. Who knows how the conference season would have played out.

There might be one other season for which you could make a decent case for the SEC, but 10 of them really aren’t even debatable.

 

[schoonerwest]

Yeah...conceding that one is honestly a little generous. They were relatively equal. Who knows how the conference season would have played out.

There might be one other season for which you could make a decent case for the SEC, but 10 of them really aren’t even debatable.

KU would not have won the SEC in 2006, likely 2007, 2012, 2014 and 2015. Those Florida/Kentucky teams were a lot better than those Kansas teams in those seasons. Just my opinion.

Edit - I do think the only team that would’ve had a chance at 14 straight in the Big 12 is Duke. The streak is really impressive. It shows how consistent Kansas has been at being an elite program this century.

 

[ExitFlagger]

KU would not have won the SEC in 2006, likely 2007, 2012, 2014 and 2015. Those Florida/Kentucky teams were a lot better than those Kansas teams in those seasons. Just my opinion.

Edit - I do think the only team that would’ve had a chance at 14 straight in the Big 12 is Duke. The streak is really impressive. It shows how consistent Kansas has been at being an elite program this century.

My hypothetical is based on replacing Kentucky with KU in the SEC. The debate is over which of the two faces stronger competition in the average year.

Between '05 and 2018, the '06, '07 and '14 Florida teams would have likely won the league over KU (with '07 being close to 50/50). One other season might be somewhat debatable, but most are not.

They wouldn't have won quite as many in the SEC as the Big 12. On the flipside, a few of the co-championships probably wouldn't have occurred in the SEC either. And in some years, they'd probably have won by more games. Overall, similar domination.

As for Duke, they'd have come close, but there are a few seasons in which I don't think they could have pulled it off. Namely '07. They had a pretty average team that year, and the Big 12 had top 10 A&M and the Durant Texas team.

 

[Random UK Fan]

@Hank_ @IUfanBorden @Scotty00 @Quavarius @MrBaracus @crazyqx83 @DallasJayhawk @jhmossy @kyjeff1 @lurkeraspect84

I just tagged you guys since you had some good back-and-forth at the beginning of the thread. Happened to see this today. Does the article below alter anyone's thoughts on the subject? Just food for thought. Carry on.


How do college basketball programs impact player development?
Is college basketball about recruiting talent or producing it?

By Jamie Boggs@jamiewboggs Jul 9, 2019, 8:30am EDTSHARE

Photo by Rocky Widner/NBAE via Getty Images

A common recruiting pitch for top basketball prospects is how a college program can put you in the position to be a successful NBA player. Most of them have strong examples of alums that have had strong careers in the league, but there are a few that are known for putting out more pros than others.

A big debate about colleges claiming credit for producing college basketball players is whether they are developing players into pros or simply recruiting players destined for greatness. If you ask Jay Bilas, colleges have much less to do with player development than they claim.


RSCIhoops@RSCIhoops
· Jul 6, 2019

Great piece of analysis using RSCI rankings to show ...Which college basketball programs actually develop NBA talent | Kentucky Sports Radio ⁦@HoopsInsights⁩ ⁦@JayBilas⁩ ⁦@KySportsRadio⁩ http://kentuckysportsradio.com/basketball-2/which-college-basketball-programs-actually-develop-nba-talent/ …


Which college basketball programs actually develop NBA talent | Kentucky Sports Radio
By SEAN VINSEL Talent In, Talent Out The NCAA loves to remind us that most college athletes "go pro in something other than sports." At the highest levels of college basketball, however, players are...

kentuckysportsradio.com

Jay Bilas

✔@JayBilas

By that analysis, Oak Hill Academy “develops” and “produces” the most NBA players. Or, is the magic period of development limited only to the several months of college?

In response to a recent article on KSR by Sean Vinsel of Hoops Insight statistically breaking down players over-performing their expectations coming out of high school, Bilas tweeted:

“By that analysis, Oak Hill Academy “develops” and “produces” the most NBA players. Or, is the magic period of development limited only to the several months of college?”

Whether you agree with Bilas or not, Vinsel’s breakdown is compelling. Using the RSCI player rankings for high school players entering college from 2012-2018, he looks at the raw numbers of NBA players produced by schools, how those players perform going into the NBA Draft, and the impact of each school on how likely those players are to over-perform their RSCI expectations from high school.

Based on the RSCI Top 100 players during that time frame, Kentucky has both signed the most players (36) and produced the most NBA players (23). Duke is second in both categories.

But the really meaningful statistics introduced by Vinsel come when he uses a regression analysis to determine the actual impact a college program has a player’s chances of being drafted in three significant areas: being drafted at all, being drafted in the first round, and rookie salary.

Surprisingly, only two schools show a statistically significant improvement to their players’ draft chances: Kentucky and UCLA.

The impact of college programs on players being drafted.
Sam Vinsel, Hoops Insight
It was pretty shocking to see how well UCLA performs at helping players exceed their expectations. But given the sample size we are dealing with, these numbers are legit.

Breaking it down further, for players drafted in the first round, Kentucky remains at a statistically significant 15% effect. UCLA drops to 11%, and has too few players to be significantly significant.

Looking at rookie salaries, Kentucky again has a statistically significant effect as their players have earned $798,512 more than expected based on their RSCI player ranking. Duke is the only other school reaching statistical significance in this category, as their players have earned $419,761 more than expected.

To sum up Vinsel’s work, Kentucky has consistently helped their players outperform expectations in every major category. There are other schools doing good work, as well.

But when it comes to players leaving Kentucky better than when they came in, we now have statistical data to back up the arguments we often make about players like Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Tyler Herro.

Take that, Jay Bilas.

Read Sam Vinsel’s guest post on KSR here, where he shows the complete depth of his statistical analysis.

 

[schoonerwest]

@Hank_ @IUfanBorden @Scotty00 @Quavarius @MrBaracus @crazyqx83 @DallasJayhawk @jhmossy @kyjeff1 @lurkeraspect84

I just tagged you guys since you had some good back-and-forth at the beginning of the thread. Happened to see this today. Does the article below alter anyone's thoughts on the subject? Just food for thought. Carry on.


How do college basketball programs impact player development?
Is college basketball about recruiting talent or producing it?

By Jamie Boggs@jamiewboggs Jul 9, 2019, 8:30am EDTSHARE

Photo by Rocky Widner/NBAE via Getty Images

A common recruiting pitch for top basketball prospects is how a college program can put you in the position to be a successful NBA player. Most of them have strong examples of alums that have had strong careers in the league, but there are a few that are known for putting out more pros than others.

A big debate about colleges claiming credit for producing college basketball players is whether they are developing players into pros or simply recruiting players destined for greatness. If you ask Jay Bilas, colleges have much less to do with player development than they claim.


RSCIhoops@RSCIhoops
· Jul 6, 2019

Great piece of analysis using RSCI rankings to show ...Which college basketball programs actually develop NBA talent | Kentucky Sports Radio ⁦@HoopsInsights⁩ ⁦@JayBilas⁩ ⁦@KySportsRadio⁩ http://kentuckysportsradio.com/basketball-2/which-college-basketball-programs-actually-develop-nba-talent/ …


Which college basketball programs actually develop NBA talent | Kentucky Sports Radio
By SEAN VINSEL Talent In, Talent Out The NCAA loves to remind us that most college athletes "go pro in something other than sports." At the highest levels of college basketball, however, players are...

kentuckysportsradio.com

Jay Bilas

✔@JayBilas

By that analysis, Oak Hill Academy “develops” and “produces” the most NBA players. Or, is the magic period of development limited only to the several months of college?

In response to a recent article on KSR by Sean Vinsel of Hoops Insight statistically breaking down players over-performing their expectations coming out of high school, Bilas tweeted:

“By that analysis, Oak Hill Academy “develops” and “produces” the most NBA players. Or, is the magic period of development limited only to the several months of college?”

Whether you agree with Bilas or not, Vinsel’s breakdown is compelling. Using the RSCI player rankings for high school players entering college from 2012-2018, he looks at the raw numbers of NBA players produced by schools, how those players perform going into the NBA Draft, and the impact of each school on how likely those players are to over-perform their RSCI expectations from high school.

Based on the RSCI Top 100 players during that time frame, Kentucky has both signed the most players (36) and produced the most NBA players (23). Duke is second in both categories.

But the really meaningful statistics introduced by Vinsel come when he uses a regression analysis to determine the actual impact a college program has a player’s chances of being drafted in three significant areas: being drafted at all, being drafted in the first round, and rookie salary.

Surprisingly, only two schools show a statistically significant improvement to their players’ draft chances: Kentucky and UCLA.

The impact of college programs on players being drafted.
Sam Vinsel, Hoops Insight
It was pretty shocking to see how well UCLA performs at helping players exceed their expectations. But given the sample size we are dealing with, these numbers are legit.

Breaking it down further, for players drafted in the first round, Kentucky remains at a statistically significant 15% effect. UCLA drops to 11%, and has too few players to be significantly significant.

Looking at rookie salaries, Kentucky again has a statistically significant effect as their players have earned $798,512 more than expected based on their RSCI player ranking. Duke is the only other school reaching statistical significance in this category, as their players have earned $419,761 more than expected.

To sum up Vinsel’s work, Kentucky has consistently helped their players outperform expectations in every major category. There are other schools doing good work, as well.

But when it comes to players leaving Kentucky better than when they came in, we now have statistical data to back up the arguments we often make about players like Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Tyler Herro.

Take that, Jay Bilas.

Read Sam Vinsel’s guest post on KSR here, where he shows the complete depth of his statistical analysis.

How does he determine what the % is for those players expected to be drafted?

 

[ExitFlagger]

@Hank_ @IUfanBorden @Scotty00 @Quavarius @MrBaracus @crazyqx83 @DallasJayhawk @jhmossy @kyjeff1 @lurkeraspect84

I just tagged you guys since you had some good back-and-forth at the beginning of the thread. Happened to see this today. Does the article below alter anyone's thoughts on the subject? Just food for thought. Carry on.


How do college basketball programs impact player development?
Is college basketball about recruiting talent or producing it?

By Jamie Boggs@jamiewboggs Jul 9, 2019, 8:30am EDTSHARE

Photo by Rocky Widner/NBAE via Getty Images

A common recruiting pitch for top basketball prospects is how a college program can put you in the position to be a successful NBA player. Most of them have strong examples of alums that have had strong careers in the league, but there are a few that are known for putting out more pros than others.

A big debate about colleges claiming credit for producing college basketball players is whether they are developing players into pros or simply recruiting players destined for greatness. If you ask Jay Bilas, colleges have much less to do with player development than they claim.


RSCIhoops@RSCIhoops
· Jul 6, 2019

Great piece of analysis using RSCI rankings to show ...Which college basketball programs actually develop NBA talent | Kentucky Sports Radio ⁦@HoopsInsights⁩ ⁦@JayBilas⁩ ⁦@KySportsRadio⁩ http://kentuckysportsradio.com/basketball-2/which-college-basketball-programs-actually-develop-nba-talent/ …


Which college basketball programs actually develop NBA talent | Kentucky Sports Radio
By SEAN VINSEL Talent In, Talent Out The NCAA loves to remind us that most college athletes "go pro in something other than sports." At the highest levels of college basketball, however, players are...

kentuckysportsradio.com

Jay Bilas

✔@JayBilas

By that analysis, Oak Hill Academy “develops” and “produces” the most NBA players. Or, is the magic period of development limited only to the several months of college?

In response to a recent article on KSR by Sean Vinsel of Hoops Insight statistically breaking down players over-performing their expectations coming out of high school, Bilas tweeted:

“By that analysis, Oak Hill Academy “develops” and “produces” the most NBA players. Or, is the magic period of development limited only to the several months of college?”

Whether you agree with Bilas or not, Vinsel’s breakdown is compelling. Using the RSCI player rankings for high school players entering college from 2012-2018, he looks at the raw numbers of NBA players produced by schools, how those players perform going into the NBA Draft, and the impact of each school on how likely those players are to over-perform their RSCI expectations from high school.

Based on the RSCI Top 100 players during that time frame, Kentucky has both signed the most players (36) and produced the most NBA players (23). Duke is second in both categories.

But the really meaningful statistics introduced by Vinsel come when he uses a regression analysis to determine the actual impact a college program has a player’s chances of being drafted in three significant areas: being drafted at all, being drafted in the first round, and rookie salary.

Surprisingly, only two schools show a statistically significant improvement to their players’ draft chances: Kentucky and UCLA.

The impact of college programs on players being drafted.
Sam Vinsel, Hoops Insight
It was pretty shocking to see how well UCLA performs at helping players exceed their expectations. But given the sample size we are dealing with, these numbers are legit.

Breaking it down further, for players drafted in the first round, Kentucky remains at a statistically significant 15% effect. UCLA drops to 11%, and has too few players to be significantly significant.

Looking at rookie salaries, Kentucky again has a statistically significant effect as their players have earned $798,512 more than expected based on their RSCI player ranking. Duke is the only other school reaching statistical significance in this category, as their players have earned $419,761 more than expected.

To sum up Vinsel’s work, Kentucky has consistently helped their players outperform expectations in every major category. There are other schools doing good work, as well.

But when it comes to players leaving Kentucky better than when they came in, we now have statistical data to back up the arguments we often make about players like Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Tyler Herro.

Take that, Jay Bilas.

Read Sam Vinsel’s guest post on KSR here, where he shows the complete depth of his statistical analysis.

Like others have said, I think the answer lies somewhere between Bilas's blanket statement and Calipari's expected response. But I still lean more toward the Bilas side. I think, for the most part, the same players would have been drafted had they played under another solid coaching staff. We all know that the NBA drafts largely on potential anyway.

How does he determine the % expected to be drafted? Seems like a very subjective number.

I think the biggest factor here is that Calipari has just had an enormous number of top 25 and top 10 players in that span. The players he's had that weren't top 25 were generally still between 26 and 40. The ones outside that range generally went undrafted or transferred.

 

[schoonerwest]

That graph also doesn't take into account players ranked below 100 on RSCI. Kansas has had two players drafted that weren't ranked at all. Not sure about the other teams. Is it more impressive for a borderline 5 star player to get drafted after his freshman year or be an unranked player that gets drafted after he plays all 4?

 

[Hank_]

The problem with Bilas’ take is that instead of providing any sort of statistical or logical support for his opinion, he simply throws his hands up and says “fatalism”.



What a dismissive slap in the face to any and all of those coaches - ignoring the obvious non-sequitor of what is actually being addressed by those exercises.

Such an odd hill to adamantly die on, right?

Top 50 recruit
4 year starter under the GOAT
5th round draft pick that never played a game in the NBA because, and I quote, “I wasn’t good enough”.

Must have been fate.

 

[ExitFlagger]

What it boils down to is Bilas is speaking his mind, while Calipari is saying what he has to. It wouldn’t exactly help future recruiting (or his ego) if he agreed.

His examples raise valid questions. If Davidson could “produce” the greatest shooter of all time, why couldn’t they even get a single other player drafted?

The players with pro potential usually get there, no matter where they start. Can Calipari get them there sooner than others? I don’t know. There’s really no way to know. No one else has had the same amount of talent in that span. No one but Duke is even in the same ballpark.

A good exercise would be to look at his top 100 draft rate at Memphis. That would resemble the talent level of the average upper-tier program much more closely. You just can’t compare a guy whose average recruit is top 10 to someone whose average player is in the 50-100 range and treat it like it’s apples to apples.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

 

[Big_Blue79]

My hypothetical is based on replacing Kentucky with KU in the SEC. The debate is over which of the two faces stronger competition in the average year.

Between '05 and 2018, the '06, '07 and '14 Florida teams would have likely won the league over KU (with '07 being close to 50/50). One other season might be somewhat debatable, but most are not.

They wouldn't have won quite as many in the SEC as the Big 12. On the flipside, a few of the co-championships probably wouldn't have occurred in the SEC either. And in some years, they'd probably have won by more games. Overall, similar domination.

Interesting thought experiment. 2013 and 2017 might have been close, at least based on KenPom ratings (which are after the tournament on the public side of the site). I think 2007 is a clear Florida win if they were engaged (that team was a forgotten great because they clearly coasted so much), but that early game between Kansas and Florida (I think in a small arena in Las Vegas) was a heck of a game.