Author Topic: Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect  (Read 1518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect
« on: August 24, 2016, 05:58:33 PM »

Online celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15718
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I've always kind of had the idea that future NBA superstars would always be good enough to lead even the most horrible supporting cast to the NCAA tournament. I wasn't sure if this was all in my head though so went back a couple of draft classes to see if this was true for the top 5 picks and the lottery as a whole. Obviously European players aren't relevant for this, but was curious how many players were top 3-8 picks that couldn't make it to the big dance (with simmons obviously being a really curious case)

I am sure it is has happened many times, but in the recent era (since high schoolers have been forced to play one year) the guys that come to mind from recent drafts all did it.

2016: Ingram, Brown, Hield, Dunn, Poetl, Sabonis Prince etc all made tourney.
Criss was only player not to appear

Note: While some of these schools make it every year some like Providence, California clearly do not and Dunn definitely did not have lots of talent alongside him outside of Bentil

2015: Every lottery pick was on an NCAA tourney team

Note: This means very little because all were at traditional basketball powers with possible exception of ohio state and wisconsin (who don't make it every year). Also high number of foreign players decereased analyzed players.

2014: I believe every player in top 17 that played in college made the tourney. Some non super dominant basketball powerhouses included such as Creighton, Oklahoma state, michigan, nc state (they actually have not been that great the last decade),

2013: It looks like Bennet actually led UNLV to the tourney. However, there were two more notable examples here as Caldwell Pope (Georgia) and Mcollum (Lehigh) and were unable to lead their teams to the tourney.

2012: I may have missed someone here cause I did not go as rigorously as I did on other years. It seems like every one in the lottery made it with the exception of Lillard who led weber state to 24-6 but not good enough for the tournament. Some non traditional powerhouses to be led to the tourney included Washington, St Bonaventure,

I don't really have time to go back to many more years, but I really can't think of another example of the top of my head were a number 1 or number 2 pick couldn't get their team to the dance.
Off memory, even players like Michael Olowakandi led Pacific of all places to the tourney. Obviously there is a big confounding factors that many of these players go to Kentucky, Kansas or UNC that make the tourney every single year, while LSU does not. However, does it say something about how polished Simmons is that he couldn't make a bigger influence on the game's outcomes? Or was it a historically bad supporting cast?

Re: Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2016, 06:37:05 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
Just like with the NBA, I will never judge a player in a vacuum.  If Ben Simmons plays on a bad team and is dominate, I will give him credit for excelling in the areas I expect him to (especially because Simmons put up historical stats, as much as some tried to paint him as a failure).  If Jaylen Brown is a slasher and struggles some on a team with zero spacing I will acknowledge that too.

The same applies to the NBA.  If LeBron reaches the Finals alongside Larry Hughes I will give him his credit even if he gets crushed by the Spurs.  It takes a good team to win a championship.  The clear flip side to this is for example that UNC team with Sean May, Rashad McCants, Ray Felton, and Marvin Williams.  Felton and Williams have had long careers but I think clearly that was a disappointing group coming out of college.  There are plenty of examples along those lines with guys who had a lot of success in college.

Beyond this, you just have to also keep in mind the pro game is different.  A slasher lacking shooting will need to work on his shot in the NBA but also he is going to have more room to operate with NBA spacing and will be in transition much more often, with guards who can really pass the ball.   Top level athletes will continue to be top level but average for college level athletes start to look slow. The NBA game is different and that needs to be said.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2016, 06:44:17 PM »

Online celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15718
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Just like with the NBA, I will never judge a player in a vacuum.  If Ben Simmons plays on a bad team and is dominate, I will give him credit for excelling in the areas I expect him to (especially because Simmons put up historical stats, as much as some tried to paint him as a failure).  If Jaylen Brown is a slasher and struggles some on a team with zero spacing I will acknowledge that too.

The same applies to the NBA.  If LeBron reaches the Finals alongside Larry Hughes I will give him his credit even if he gets crushed by the Spurs.  It takes a good team to win a championship.  The clear flip side to this is for example that UNC team with Sean May, Rashad McCants, Ray Felton, and Marvin Williams.  Felton and Williams have had long careers but I think clearly that was a disappointing group coming out of college.  There are plenty of examples along those lines with guys who had a lot of success in college.

I mean I think the Lebron part of this kind of speaks more to what I am asking. You could put Lebron on any single team in the NBA last year and I believe he would make the playoffs on that team. He is that good and impacts the game that much. Conversely, outside of a few players that end up at really small schools like Lehigh and Weber State where they have to win the conference tournament to make the dance, it seems like all top prospects from recent years have been able to lead their team to the tourney prior to being a top pick. At a Michigan, NC State, Illinois, UNLV it seems like just being a future NBA player is enough to pull those teams into the tournament and it was pretty unusual Simmons couldn't push his teams success to that level in college. Why was that?

Re: Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2016, 06:53:59 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
For me I would put it at a weak supporting cast but also I think Simmons is a particularly interesting prospect that is a really strong example of a player that will be better in the NBA than he could be in college.  A big whose main skills are passing and the transition game is not best suited to college basketball.

Now, I can't lie in that as much as I do like Simmons he does have some question marks more than other prospects of his level, guys like Durant.  But I really feel strongly about how bad his fit is for college over the pros.  I also have some concern about the team around him in Philly too but we will see.  I think his fit with the Celtics would have been outstanding.  The Lakers would have been better for him as well.

Also I would just say you give LeBron as your example but I do not have LeBron expectations for Simmons (especially as I consider LeBron one of the absolute GOATS no question).   LeBron is one of the most complete players to ever play, and thus is a great fit for any team basically. There are questions you could have about some fits with some guys a bit further down the list on the best players in the league with how they fit on certain teams and said teams getting to the Playoffs.  Anthony Davis is one of the best players in the league I would say and the Pelicans have been consistently bad.  Cousins is another guy I certainly have among the league's best players and the Kings have also been consistently bad.  I will be interested to see Westbrook this year solo.  Probably Paul Pierce's best year was on a really bad team.

I know we are talking college but yeah just that aside on that topic.  I a lot of great prospects haven't made the choice to go to LSU like Simmons did.  People can question it in ways but I still have high expectations for Simmons.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2016, 07:02:27 PM by Snakehead »
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2016, 07:06:29 PM »

Online celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15718
  • Tommy Points: 1386
For me I would put it at a weak supporting cast but also I think Simmons is a particularly interesting prospect that is a really strong example of a player that will be better in the NBA than he could be in college.  A big whose main skills are passing and the transition game is not best suited to college basketball.

Now, I can't lie in that as much as I do like Simmons he does have some question marks more than other prospects of his level, guys like Durant.  But I really feel strongly about how bad his fit is for college over the pros.  I also have some concern about the team around him in Philly too but we will see.  I think his fit with the Celtics would have been outstanding.  The Lakers would have been better for him as well.

Also I would just say you give LeBron as your example but I do not have LeBron expectations for Simmons (especially as I consider LeBron one of the absolute GOATS no question).   LeBron is one of the most complete players to ever play, and thus is a great fit for any team basically. There are questions you could have about some fits with some guys a bit further down the list on the best players in the league with how they fit on certain teams and said teams getting to the Playoffs.  Anthony Davis is one of the best players in the league I would say and the Pelicans have been consistently bad.  Cousins is another guy I certainly have among the league's best players and the Kings have also been consistently bad.  I will be interested to see Westbrook this year solo.  Probably Paul Pierce's best year was on a really bad team.

I know we are talking college but yeah just that aside on that topic.  I a lot of great prospects haven't made the choice to go to LSU like Simmons did.  People can question it in ways but I still have high expectations for Simmons.

I'll grant you that Cousins and Davis are interesting people for this kind of debate. One of the prime reasons people are leary of how great Cousins actually is is because of the records of his team throughout his career. While they are not all-stars by any stretch of the imagination he had NBA caliber players on that team last year. Koufas, Bellenelli, Gay, Rondo, Collison have all gotten minutes on teams that made the playoffs to varying degrees and could be in rotations on playoff teams. Is it all terrible coaches? I'm not so sure.

With Davis I would have given him more of a pass. He did actually lead them to the playoffs when they had even of health and gave the eventual champion warriors a few tough games. Last year when injuries to holiday, evans and anderson relegated to him trying to get the ball from Tony Douglas and the like I just don't think there was a whole lot he could do.

Re: Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2016, 09:27:03 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
By collegiate success are you taking good grades or good play:

Good grades:
Talent and skill are what makes a player.   Some guys are dumb and still play because of their talent and skill.    If talent and skill  is even, you take the smarter guy, it matters then.   Not so much otherwise.   I think it can help with the learning curve and transition from college to pro game. 
There are different kinds of intelligence.   I loved Bird, he had the best basketball IQ but I would not call him book smart.   Now he had this and excellent skill and great talent.  I can say with certainty that college success does not always translate into NBA success.   Just ask Danny Ferry.


Good Play:
Good play is important to even get to the league for some.   Some guys get in on potential too.   There have been some guys who had great college careers like Adam Morrison and the Jimmer that struggled as pros.   Their collegiate careers got them into the league.   There have been guys like Fab Melo who had bad college careers and got into the league.  It really depends on the individual GM evaluating the prospect and what they like.   I think Collegiate Success with some talent is a good way to get picked.   But then again look at Skal, he did horrible at the NCAA last year and was still picked high based on potential.  A guy like Bender was a top ten pick without a lost of success overseas.

Re: Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2016, 01:32:12 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Winning a National Championship as a Freshman is kinda cool.  But overall, nah.  Nobody cares if you stay 4 years, improve every year, and eventually win College Player of the Year and a National Title.  By then, all the best players from your recruiting class are long gone and playing in the NBA.

Re: Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2016, 08:18:54 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33431
  • Tommy Points: 1532
A NCAA tournament appearance really isn't collegiate success since most of the top high school players go to the top college programs (and for the record Ohio State and Wisconsin are top college programs often making deep runs).  I mean take Brown.  Cal had two surefire NBA players (Brown and Rapp), but Cal played 1 NCAA tournament game and this is Brown's line: 1 of 6 for 4 points, 7 turnovers, 5 fouls (so he fouled out and did so in just 17 minutes), 2 rebounds, and 0 assists, steals, and blocks.  Cal was the 4 seed and lost to the 13 seeded Hawaii team.  Is that collegiate success?  I'd say no. 

The inverse is also true.  Let's call this the Adam Morrison or Dennis Hopson effect.  Near 30 point scorers at significant enough programs (each won at least 1 tournament game their final year), who dominate college but make terrible professionals (we can equate this to the top level option QB in college and does nothing professionally - Charlie Ward, Tim Tebow, etc.). 
« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 08:25:10 AM by Moranis »
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Does Collegiate Success Mean Anything for Top Tier Prospect
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2016, 08:29:00 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I think it means less than it used to. I think at one point a guy could lead Indiana State to the finals and it meant something.

I think the last time we saw something like that was Gordon Hayward.

I think a player like Buddy Hield still means something and may be a tie breaker, but it just doesn't mean what it used to.

The NCAA is watered down now. Far more than when the Fab Five was running around.  I think the Kevin Garnett high school era changed the game. When that happened you had a bunch of sophomores like Sheed and J Stackhouse and guys like Allen Iverson that had played as a freshman and then burst onto the scene and you could tell for them collegiate success was a great indicator. And a freshman coming out like Stephon was pretty unusual. But the high school era changed all that and it's largely gone now.

Ben Simmons could have practically had a disastrous freshman year and I don't think he would have slipped out of lottery (unless injury) as long as he had good interviews, no arrests, and good work outs.

Case in point would be Nerlens Noel. His Kentucky team was a disaster, and it didn't really matter.