Samardo Samuels was not even in the talk of being the #1 player. Not in the discussion. Revisionism at its best. He was # 9 at the highest point and clearly didn't have a position in college due to his poor combination of physical skills and physical attributes. Powerfully built, but no vertical jump; he could shoot but was too slow to create.
L1C4 is Back...
- Thread starter zipp
- Start date
Samardo! Funny. He had better stats than MKG coming out of college. Yep. Better stats his rookie year as well if you factor in the MPG. And most importantly, he really didn't have a glaring hole in his game like MKG( 3 pt shooting). I guess SS didn't have a heart of a lion though. Or guys just get signed on their relationship alone with powerful shoe reps. No stats needed. Makes you wonder about the integrity of game.
Did I mention Charlotte(Nike U) just handed out a nice new contract to MKG for all the little things he does. LOL
Good news for Charlotte fans, I doubt he'll ever play another game for them. Just pretend like the knee injury was too much to over come. Oh what could have been.
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO only Cousins, Davis, Terrence Jones were solid picks. The rest of the draft picks just makes you shake your head. Really? What was the logic to hurry up and get these guys into the league again? Let's kill the fan experience, and load the league up with potential. Great idea.
I sure miss the 80's early 90's NBA. Those guys could be nasty. Real competitive stuff. Back then a guy like Shaq even had to wait his turn. Cause he'd be playing against grown men that didn't like him.
I sure miss the 80's early 90's NBA. Those guys could be nasty. Real competitive stuff. Back then a guy like Shaq even had to wait his turn. Cause he'd be playing against grown men that didn't like him.
Could you imagine any of these youngsters having to drive in and meet Bill Lambier in the lane? LOL~~ He would have snapped a PG in half if they dared to come in the lane which was HIS area. The game has changed so much now. Now the NBA is weak sauce.
For example, Tim Duncan played at Wake Forrest for 4 years. He is arguably the best power forward to ever play the game of basketball. He learned how to play in college under Skip Prosser (RIP coach) and THEN came in NBA ready. Very few do that today which has watered down the NBA game, and IMO has killed the college game too.
Duncan has been in the league now for close to 20 years. No freaking way he would still be playing at that high level had the other top prospects stayed in school to be more NBA ready before making the jump. He has feasted on younger inexperienced players who may have more raw talent, but they just doesn't understand the game the way he does.
I miss the 80's and early 90's too meltdown213. That was great basketball back then.
For example, Tim Duncan played at Wake Forrest for 4 years. He is arguably the best power forward to ever play the game of basketball. He learned how to play in college under Skip Prosser (RIP coach) and THEN came in NBA ready. Very few do that today which has watered down the NBA game, and IMO has killed the college game too.
Duncan has been in the league now for close to 20 years. No freaking way he would still be playing at that high level had the other top prospects stayed in school to be more NBA ready before making the jump. He has feasted on younger inexperienced players who may have more raw talent, but they just doesn't understand the game the way he does.
I miss the 80's and early 90's too meltdown213. That was great basketball back then.
He absolutely was ranked that high. I remembered him as being as high as #2. After reading this post I checked Rivals, where he was #9 in the final rankings.
On ESPN, he was #2 in the final rankings: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/playerrankings/_/class/2008/order/true
#2 on Scout as well: http://www.scout.com/college/basketball/recruiting/topic/2008-basketball-prospects?type=players
In both of those rankings, Brandon Jennings was #1, which made Samardo the highest ranked player on those lists who played in college.
247 Composite rankings has him at 4th in that class (as does the RSCI composite rankings): http://247sports.com/Season/2008-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool
I couldn't agree more. I've always felt the new "stars" today are more in line with a fabricated boy band. Half of LBJ competition is against potential. Whereas Oscar Robertson played against men. Can you imagine LBJ trying to guard the Mailman? LOL. Too funny. Unfortunately I don't see those days coming back.
Pay the kiddies in 'sneaker snacks" and pocket the real money. MJ just signed a wing that can't shoot. But hey, it's still a real sport.
Say what you want about SS. He average more than Cousins, Davis, Nerlens, Jones, Stein and Randle coming out of college.
Last edited:
No, you don't get it. You see, the kids that are elite coming out of HS have already been putting in the hard work. It's the 2 and 3 star kids that haven't put the work in yet and wait until they are in a college system before they start taking care of their body and learn how to train the right way. You can sit there and think that the kids that play for UL somehow work harder because they're there for 4 years when it was those same kids that either didn't have the physical tools or didn't put the hard work in before they got to college.
Keep on thinking that just because a kid is one and done that he doesn't work hard. Laziness doesn't net you a 7-1 record against a program that apparently works so much harder.
If Pitino thought he could win with Mcdonald's All Americans he would work harder to get them but apparently he thinks his method works better for him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Averaged more what?
Here's a fun fact for you. When you are on a team with a bunch of talent you will not average large numbers in any statistical category. I'll let you figure out why.
More than thirty 5-star kids are what get you little motivational records like that.
But as far as what matters, not anymore titles.
"Elite program", my a$$...
Points.
What? No, They would have average more as a team in points scored. Someone get kyjeff some more sneaker snacks.
This is a very subjective thing to say.It's possible that some of those 5 stars have put in that work,but also possible some have been dominate because of superior talent and physicality .As far as the 2-3 star guys,same thing....subjective.Some have not worked hard,but others have and lack talent and physical strength or good teaching.The latter not anything to be ashamed of.
We've talked about misleading graphs before, and even though this particular one has been dismantled dozens of times, this silly man continues to post it for some reason.LPT fans have a lot of excuses reconciling one title with this...
"Elite program", my a$$...
Do UK teams actually have twice as much talent as Duke teams? Three times as much talent as Kansas and Arizona? Four times as much talent as UNC? Six or seven times as much talent as Florida and Ohio State?
And if not, why not? What might be the problem with this graph?
Last edited by a moderator:
I answered your question or one like it previously. You either didn't get the message or you don't like the answer...
Previously, the context of the LPT rebuttal was that it doesn't necessarily mean that the other teams' rosters are that skewed with 5-star talent. But that would only be true if LPT's 5-star roster attrition was significantly higher than other schools. That is, if LPT had a lot more true OAD guys.
So, I deep-dived the LPT and Duke recruit data... As of the date of the analysis--which was just a few months ago--the average LPT 5-star kid spends about 1-1/2 years on the roster. The average Duke kid's tenure is a tad more, just under two years.
IIRC, LPT has an average of about eight 5-star kids on its roster at a given point in time vs. five for Duke. Keep in mind that Duke is 2nd best in the country in that regard.
And of course, Duke has two titles in that timespan vs. one for LPT.
Clearly, LPT has dominant talent. And LPT fans are fixated on, mesmerized by recruiting. So Pitino Lite gets a pass among LPT nation. But the results can't be reconciled.
"Elite program", my a$$...
He will soon be 98-1 vs your coach...We love our HOF coach..have you seen the recruits coming next year....40-0
I will applaud you for accurately summarizing the counter argument. That doesn't always happen on message boards. That doesn't go unappreciated.
But where the heck did you get 8 and 5? Those are way off.
Five stars on Cal's rosters: ('10 up to '15 season): 5, 4, 6 (harrow's transfer year), 5, 7, 9. That is an average of *drum roll* - exactly 6 five-stars per roster.
For Duke, I'm not going to go all the way back, because unlike UK, I can't just look at their rosters and tell you who was a five star, so it would take substantially longer. So if I'm wrong and you feel compelled to smack me with numbers that go further back, I welcome the attempt -
but I'm certain you're understating Duke's numbers, as well - They tied us with the all time record of 9 burger boys last year, not sure how many five stars, but c'mon... and the year before that, I know they had 7 five stars (the freshmen trio, plus Hood, Sulaimon, Jefferson, Dawkins).
That's two years right there - a third of the time frame in question, so to get the average all the way down to 5, there would've had to have been some doozies in the years before with only 2 or 3 five stars at most. You and I both know that's not the case. 5 is probably the minimum they've had at any point in that span, meaning the average is substantially higher. And on a side note, this year they have at least 7 or 8 five stars once again. They brought in four new ones and only lost 3.
Worst case scenario, they have the average down around 5.5 or something, that's still only 1/2 difference between UK and Duke.
So yes, your measure of five stars per roster was a good step in evaluating the situation more accurately, but the numbers you threw out were either miscalculated or dishonest. The average is 6 for UK (go check the rosters) probably around 6 for Duke, around 5 for Kansas, not sure about the UNC numbers, but I know before the scandal smoke started to rise, they were still killing it - they were preseason #1 over us in the '12 season, and as you might recall, pundits were touting that they had the same amount of HS talent as we did but with more experience. Now obviously, that fails to factor in what Davis turned into, but the point remains the same regarding HS talent Roy had acquired. And I know he's had at least one class with 3 different five stars since then.
So when you actually look at the numbers in a way that is meaningful and accurate, you understand that he enjoys little or no five star advantage over K, an advantage of maybe 1 extra five star over other elite recruiters' rosters, and maybe 2 extra against sub elite recruiting schools like Florida and UCONN and OSU who probably average closer to 4 (since they stick around longer)
THAT is there are problems with your presentation. Either you have a very faulty memory, or you're being willfully dishonest. Neither the graph nor the ratio you attempted to recall gives anything close to an accurate summary of what's been going on.
You say the results can't be reconciled, but there's nothing to reconcile once we look at the actual numbers.
So yes, Cal has had the most talent, a similar amount to K, whom he split the series with. And he has a dramatic winning record against most other coaches, including nearly all of the legends. But he hasn't been running around with twice as much talent as the other top schools, and everybody else on the scene haven't been helpless kittens - there are multiple others with burger boys to spare. And he's produced as well as anyone has produced in CBB history in his first 6 years at a new school. Bad coaches don't do that.
You want to see squandered talent, go look at Barnes or Pastner or Leonard Hamilton or Lorenzo Romar. Hell, Self is a much better candidate for the title than Cal.
Crappy coaches don't average 30 wins a season and make the tourney five straight years at a mid major with one tourney appearance in history - they don't split the series with the '96 friggin' wildcats coached by Rick Pitino, including a 10 point victory where Rick has one of the most talented rosters of all time, and Cal has two guys on the roster who had high major offers. Even if that coach paid for those two guys with giant bags of cocaine - It just makes zero sense to say that he sucks at coaching.
I get sports hate, and I get wanting your rivals to lose. But for many, it's not enough that you want the rival coach to lose - you have to also say he's a really bad guy, doesn't care about his players, is a huge ass in person, kicks puppies, cheats on his wife, would slit your throat for a dollar, sucks at coaching, probably has ED, etc. It's so silly. I don't get it when UK fans do it to Rick, either.
A coach is almost invariably somewhere between what his fanbase and the rival fanbase thinks of him. A flawed human who teaches kids how to play a sport. Good aspects, bad aspects, the whole deal. Just like everybody else.
The most recent championship is something many UL fans cling to. I will take the most total wins, more banners, and much better head to head results!
I may not be recalling the averages correctly, but they are heavily skewed. Look at it this way...
Through the 2015 classes, LPT had recruited 27 five-star kids and Duke 12. Those kids have all suited up for both schools by now--the 2016 kids in the chart have not. So, multiply 27 by 1.5 years, and you get 40.5 total years of five-star kids spread across six seasons. This year is Pitino Lite's seventh at LPT. And 40.5 divided by 6 equals 6.75 five-star kids on the roster per year. Yeah, 8 was high.
For Duke, the math is 12 times 2 or 24 years spread over the same six seasons, which equals 4.00 kids per year. So, LPT has almost seven kids on the roster on average vs. Duke's four. Again, bear in mind that Duke is second nationally in the number of five-star kids; so, everyone else is operating with even more of a talent disadvantage.
Slice it and dice it anyway you want, there's no way to reconcile the talent with the results. (And now it looks like it's gonna be SEVEN years and one title...)
"Elite program", my a$$.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
ACC NEWS: UNC Board Advocating for New Conference
- Latest: Sultan__of__Swine