Let's Give Them Something To Talk About, Part II: Next Year
My point had nothing to do with the expectations for TV and Freddie coming out of high school. It is based on my expectations from their play during their freshman years. I expected more out of their careers after their freshman seasons. Freddie was disappointing for 2 1/2 years and TV turned into a decent scorer whose rebounding and defense were both on the wrong side of bad.
Agree that the sample size is small but for the most part I haven't been very impressed with the player development. I don't think Esho improved all that much last year from his rs freshman campaign and Putney clearly regressed. Chaz was very good but not as good as his sophomore year if you ask me. Well maybe better in some areas but not in other areas is a better way of putting it. Sampson had the injury so the jury is out and Farrell battled his own injury issues.
There are obviously a lot of younger players who have time to develop, and I do hope they will.
Agree that the sample size is small but for the most part I haven't been very impressed with the player development. I don't think Esho improved all that much last year from his rs freshman campaign and Putney clearly regressed. Chaz was very good but not as good as his sophomore year if you ask me. Well maybe better in some areas but not in other areas is a better way of putting it. Sampson had the injury so the jury is out and Farrell battled his own injury issues.
There are obviously a lot of younger players who have time to develop, and I do hope they will.
I'm not sure what you saw from TV and Riley during their freshmen years that led you to believe they'd be better than what we saw during their senior years. TV became a much improved all-around offensive threat by his senior year (his rebounding #'s and defense were poor his senior year, but they were never impressive). Riley's game was much improved by his senior year. Maybe your expectations were unrealistic.
Putney made huge improvements from his freshman to sophomore years. I'm at a loss to explain what happened during his junior year. Morgan was way better his sophomore and junior years than he was as a freshman. With Esho, we have no way of knowing what kind of a player he was during that red-shirt year, maybe he improved a lot between then and his first year playing. I will agree he didn't seem to improve much this year.
As far as I can tell Chaz has improved a great deal from his freshman year at Hosftra. I think he was better this year than last, with the only negative being his outside shooting was down.
Putney made huge improvements from his freshman to sophomore years. I'm at a loss to explain what happened during his junior year. Morgan was way better his sophomore and junior years than he was as a freshman. With Esho, we have no way of knowing what kind of a player he was during that red-shirt year, maybe he improved a lot between then and his first year playing. I will agree he didn't seem to improve much this year.
As far as I can tell Chaz has improved a great deal from his freshman year at Hosftra. I think he was better this year than last, with the only negative being his outside shooting was down.
- InnervisionsUMASS
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17645
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
- Location: Milford, MA
- Contact:
TV's sophomore year halted what he could have become. Playing through those injuries stunted his development. After seeing his freshman year, I expected him to be a star here, but I changed my expectations of him after his sophomore year.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades
^ I think a lot of college basketball fans have unrealistic expectations when it comes to player development. To many, there's expectation that every player is going to make marked improvement every year. That's just not realistic. Some players are going to get a lot better, i.e. Stephane Lasme. But then you look at guys like Anthony Anderson, Rashaun Freeman and Tony Barbee and their production didn't seem to change much from their freshman to senior years.
Ok. I guess we just disagree.
I looked at Vinson as a freshman, shooting 46% from the floor, averaging almost 10 points a game, 5 1/2 rebounds a game in 25 minutes. Those are very promising numbers for a freshman are they not? His sophomore year was a huge disappointment and while his #'s rebounded his junior year they still were not any better than what he did as a freshman. His senior year he adds 2 points a game to his scoring and shoots the ball better from three, but rebounds at just under 4 rpg (for a senior power forward?) and fouls go up to nearly 4 a game. I don't really consider that improvement. Maybe as a scorer yes but it wasn't a huge improvement and the other areas of the game certainly did not improve and even regressed some. I would expect more from a player who showed a lot of promise as a freshman.
I looked at Riley as a freshman, saw a kid who scored just over 9 a game in under 20 minutes a game, took a ton of 3's hitting at a 35% clip. He needed to clean up his shot selection, work on his ballhandling and defense. Sophomore/junior years are terrible, #'s go down across the board, the shot selection, ball handling and defense do not improve. Halfway through his senior year and its more of the same. Then Morgan gets injured, Riley gets his minutes and yes he did shoot the ball better and his defense was better. Still it took an injury to even get him the chance to do that. Again, he showed a decent amount of promise his freshman year -- I would expect more from him.
Morgan did improve from his freshman year -- cannot debate that even though I still think he was a little overrated offensively and his shot selection (especially from deep) was certainly questionable. He got a lot more rope from people than Riley did because he did have those streaks where he couldn't miss and his all around game was better.
Chaz, you could go either way on. Certainly was improved from his play at Hofstra as a freshman. No debate there although I never saw him play at Hofstra.
Putney nobody can seem to explain but the fact is the fact. Last year he was terrible after a very good sophomore campaign. Maxie was a solid contributor again but didn't improve much from his rs frosh campaign.
We can go down the line some more but we should probably just agree to disagree.
I looked at Vinson as a freshman, shooting 46% from the floor, averaging almost 10 points a game, 5 1/2 rebounds a game in 25 minutes. Those are very promising numbers for a freshman are they not? His sophomore year was a huge disappointment and while his #'s rebounded his junior year they still were not any better than what he did as a freshman. His senior year he adds 2 points a game to his scoring and shoots the ball better from three, but rebounds at just under 4 rpg (for a senior power forward?) and fouls go up to nearly 4 a game. I don't really consider that improvement. Maybe as a scorer yes but it wasn't a huge improvement and the other areas of the game certainly did not improve and even regressed some. I would expect more from a player who showed a lot of promise as a freshman.
I looked at Riley as a freshman, saw a kid who scored just over 9 a game in under 20 minutes a game, took a ton of 3's hitting at a 35% clip. He needed to clean up his shot selection, work on his ballhandling and defense. Sophomore/junior years are terrible, #'s go down across the board, the shot selection, ball handling and defense do not improve. Halfway through his senior year and its more of the same. Then Morgan gets injured, Riley gets his minutes and yes he did shoot the ball better and his defense was better. Still it took an injury to even get him the chance to do that. Again, he showed a decent amount of promise his freshman year -- I would expect more from him.
Morgan did improve from his freshman year -- cannot debate that even though I still think he was a little overrated offensively and his shot selection (especially from deep) was certainly questionable. He got a lot more rope from people than Riley did because he did have those streaks where he couldn't miss and his all around game was better.
Chaz, you could go either way on. Certainly was improved from his play at Hofstra as a freshman. No debate there although I never saw him play at Hofstra.
Putney nobody can seem to explain but the fact is the fact. Last year he was terrible after a very good sophomore campaign. Maxie was a solid contributor again but didn't improve much from his rs frosh campaign.
We can go down the line some more but we should probably just agree to disagree.
Good point on the injury for TV. Perhaps that did set him back from becoming what he could've been.
As for expecting too much in terms of player improvement there is a bit of truth to that in some areas. Some players have already maxed out their abilities -- Freeman is a good example of that. Barbee is to an extent, but he did improve as a player, the reason his #'s didn't necessarily show it was because the team that started winning games with incredible balance on offense. The other example Anthony Anderson had a fine career but there is nothing wrong with saying I expected more from him.
Neither of us is wrong or right -- it just comes down to our own expectations.
As for expecting too much in terms of player improvement there is a bit of truth to that in some areas. Some players have already maxed out their abilities -- Freeman is a good example of that. Barbee is to an extent, but he did improve as a player, the reason his #'s didn't necessarily show it was because the team that started winning games with incredible balance on offense. The other example Anthony Anderson had a fine career but there is nothing wrong with saying I expected more from him.
Neither of us is wrong or right -- it just comes down to our own expectations.
It is you that are thinking in extremes. You can't get more extreme thenNilesGold wrote:^ You're thinking in the extremes. I think money is the biggest motivator for a lot of high level D1 college basketball players, but certainly not all of them. Sure, Jordan and many others are motivated just to be the best, but I think part of that is only because they've already achieved wealth.
I think you might be underestimating the ego/dreams of high school and underclassmen basketball players, even those who go to UMass. I find it highly likely that most of them did hold some belief that they might make the NBA between the time after they committed to UMass and before their junior year of college. When that's gone, pushing themselves that extra amount becomes harder.
Sure, great coaching staffs are able to motivate kids in whatever way works. But like everything else there's a sliding scale and I don't think we've seen enough to make the conclusion that DK is bad at player development/motivation.
ultimate can you?
"ultimate motivator is money" is extreme.
The idea that college players stop trying hard to be better when they realize they will not be playing in the NBA is extreme and almost insulting to college players.
They are competitors. When they are on the court they want to be respected for their play.
High school, college, AAU, street ball money is not the ultimate reason they play. It may be a big factor for some but not most.
Jordan was motivated to be the best long before he became weathly it started when he didn't make his high school team.
I think you are over estimatling the number of high school and college tplayer who truly beleive they can make the NBA. Dream about it of course everyone would, hope they can some but really beleive it not the majority.
I do agree with you that we have not seen enough to make the conclusion that DK is bad at player development. But the partial eviidence so far is not showing that he is.
FYI I am a big DK supportor and think in the long run he will be good for UMASS and dop good things here at UMASS.
"This is my dream job''
I shouldn't have called money the "ultimate" motivator and I used the wrong words to describe your thinking. You aren't thinking in the extremes, you're thinking in black & white terms with no regard for the grey areas. Money is a very big motivator for many high level D1 basketball players, but certainly not all of them. Even ones that are motivated by money, that's only part of the motivation, maybe a small part, maybe a large part, but it does matter.nale wrote: It is you that are thinking in extremes. You can't get more extreme then
ultimate can you?
"ultimate motivator is money" is extreme.
The idea that college players stop trying hard to be better when they realize they will not be playing in the NBA is extreme and almost insulting to college players.
They are competitors. When they are on the court they want to be respected for their play.
High school, college, AAU, street ball money is not the ultimate reason they play. It may be a big factor for some but not most.
Jordan was motivated to be the best long before he became weathly it started when he didn't make his high school team.
I think you are over estimatling the number of high school and college tplayer who truly beleive they can make the NBA. Dream about it of course everyone would, hope they can some but really beleive it not the majority.
@ Jackson96
I love looking at stats, but player development isn't always about putting up better #'s. So Riley and TV are the only players who have played 4 years at UMass under DK thus far. Without looking at stats, just watching, Riley was significantly better his senior year than he was as a freshman, it doesn't matter that he only put up those #s after Morgan got injured, he was a better player and he did what he did. TV became a much better all-around offensive player, while his defense and rebounding I honestly can't really remember what they were like before, but they still suck. So maybe Riley got better and TV got better in some areas, like I said before, not everyone is going to make huge improvements, we need more data to make an accurate assessment about DK's ability to develop players.
I love looking at stats, but player development isn't always about putting up better #'s. So Riley and TV are the only players who have played 4 years at UMass under DK thus far. Without looking at stats, just watching, Riley was significantly better his senior year than he was as a freshman, it doesn't matter that he only put up those #s after Morgan got injured, he was a better player and he did what he did. TV became a much better all-around offensive player, while his defense and rebounding I honestly can't really remember what they were like before, but they still suck. So maybe Riley got better and TV got better in some areas, like I said before, not everyone is going to make huge improvements, we need more data to make an accurate assessment about DK's ability to develop players.
So we agree.NilesGold wrote:I shouldn't have called money the "ultimate" motivator and I used the wrong words to describe your thinking. You aren't thinking in the extremes, you're thinking in black & white terms with no regard for the grey areas. Money is a very big motivator for many high level D1 basketball players, but certainly not all of them. Even ones that are motivated by money, that's only part of the motivation, maybe a small part, maybe a large part, but it does matter.nale wrote: It is you that are thinking in extremes. You can't get more extreme then
ultimate can you?
"ultimate motivator is money" is extreme.
The idea that college players stop trying hard to be better when they realize they will not be playing in the NBA is extreme and almost insulting to college players.
They are competitors. When they are on the court they want to be respected for their play.
High school, college, AAU, street ball money is not the ultimate reason they play. It may be a big factor for some but not most.
Jordan was motivated to be the best long before he became weathly it started when he didn't make his high school team.
I think you are over estimatling the number of high school and college tplayer who truly beleive they can make the NBA. Dream about it of course everyone would, hope they can some but really beleive it not the majority.
Different players have different motivations.
Players have different parts in different proportions in their motivations.
All along I was in the grey area of different stokes for different folks.
Some player expect the NBA some dream of it. Coaches and players are both responsible for developement and motivation.
I was at all not black and white.
We do agree on the main point we need more data to make an accurate assessment about DK's ability to develop players.
"This is my dream job''
-
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:13 am
Good discussion re: player development. This will sound a bit off the reservation, but here's my odd theory on it in regards to DK: so many of the guys he's recruited are non-traditional players. Non-traditional players when it comes to body type. Non traditional when it comes to position (very few guys have been purely one position). Non traditional when it comes to HS experience (Putney, Esho were kind of sleepers who, if I'm not mistaken, didn't real get serious about basketball until much later down the line). s a result, one of the trade-offs in that equation is perhaps a less traditional evolution of one's skill set. If a guy is a pure 4 or pure 5, you know what to work on with them. That's why I suspect Berg and Cady might evolve more traditionally (and, indeed, Cady did improve form his freshman year). Work on your footwork, work on your low-post game, etc. Clear, tangible things to improve. With guys like Put or Samp or Javorn or Maxie, they were recruited as talented basketball players or talented athletes more so than as talented 2 guards or talented power forwards. Remember, many of these guys were recruited here when we were still doing the dribble drive motion. That offense requires a level of versatility that while helpful in terms of getting guys who can do a lot of things pretty well, doesn't necessarily get you guys who have a clear trajectory to do any one thing extraordinarily well. As a result, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, you're left with less predictability when it comes to development. You're left with a more balanced group who can all do lots of little things but few if any who can do any one thing superbly.
So, in a sense, I wouldn't be surprised if Put averaged 14 next year, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he averaged six or seven. Same thing with Maxie and Samp. I suspect we'll see similarly up-and-down trajectories from those hybrid type guys coming in (Santee, Coleman, Berger, Dyson) throughout the course of their careers as well. That's not necessarily or a bad thing. Partly, it's a testament to DK that he is capable of getting athletic guys who can play right away. That said, I would expect similarly up and down stuff from this type of player unless we move to a system that features more definitive roles. Also, I would be disappointed if we didn't see more improvement from Cady, DG, Chaz, TBerg. These are guys who actually fit a prototypical position and thus can focus on a more limited range of things to improve each off season.
So, in a sense, I wouldn't be surprised if Put averaged 14 next year, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he averaged six or seven. Same thing with Maxie and Samp. I suspect we'll see similarly up-and-down trajectories from those hybrid type guys coming in (Santee, Coleman, Berger, Dyson) throughout the course of their careers as well. That's not necessarily or a bad thing. Partly, it's a testament to DK that he is capable of getting athletic guys who can play right away. That said, I would expect similarly up and down stuff from this type of player unless we move to a system that features more definitive roles. Also, I would be disappointed if we didn't see more improvement from Cady, DG, Chaz, TBerg. These are guys who actually fit a prototypical position and thus can focus on a more limited range of things to improve each off season.
Niles
Numbers are definitely not the entire story I agree with that. But weren't you the same guy who told us Dyson can't shoot from deep because of his three point shooting % as a senior in hs and not actually watching him play?
With TV and Riley, we get both -- we have watched them play and have looked at their numbers. I've acknowledged that TV became a well-rounded scorer but his actual production didn't increase to the level I was hoping for and his defense/rebounding were terrible. Riley was ok for the second half of his senior year...my point about it taking an injury to give him the chance was only for context in that he was having the same crappy year as a senior and then got a chance to play more because of injury. It doesn't matter why he got the chance -- this I recognize -- but it does provide context.
I just know when I think about TV and Riley's career, I don't think "Wow those guys were good players who got the most out of their careers at UMass." Rather I think, "Eh, both of them should have had better careers." I use the #'s to support what I see. Maybe TV's injury hindered his career. Maybe Freddie's tweeting hindered his career (joking). I don't know -- I just expected more and part of that falls back on the coaching staff.
If you are content with what TV and Riley did, that's all well and good. It does make me wish I had you as one of my teachers during my years in school. Like I said before we'll just have to disagree and call it a day. I expected more. You didn't.
I know the sample size for player development under DK is small -- all I've been saying is this, along with his in-game coaching, are the two areas that concern me the most. I hope my concerns are proven to be unfounded but for right now I'm just going by what I see. That's all any of us can do.
Numbers are definitely not the entire story I agree with that. But weren't you the same guy who told us Dyson can't shoot from deep because of his three point shooting % as a senior in hs and not actually watching him play?
With TV and Riley, we get both -- we have watched them play and have looked at their numbers. I've acknowledged that TV became a well-rounded scorer but his actual production didn't increase to the level I was hoping for and his defense/rebounding were terrible. Riley was ok for the second half of his senior year...my point about it taking an injury to give him the chance was only for context in that he was having the same crappy year as a senior and then got a chance to play more because of injury. It doesn't matter why he got the chance -- this I recognize -- but it does provide context.
I just know when I think about TV and Riley's career, I don't think "Wow those guys were good players who got the most out of their careers at UMass." Rather I think, "Eh, both of them should have had better careers." I use the #'s to support what I see. Maybe TV's injury hindered his career. Maybe Freddie's tweeting hindered his career (joking). I don't know -- I just expected more and part of that falls back on the coaching staff.
If you are content with what TV and Riley did, that's all well and good. It does make me wish I had you as one of my teachers during my years in school. Like I said before we'll just have to disagree and call it a day. I expected more. You didn't.
I know the sample size for player development under DK is small -- all I've been saying is this, along with his in-game coaching, are the two areas that concern me the most. I hope my concerns are proven to be unfounded but for right now I'm just going by what I see. That's all any of us can do.
I never said Dyson can't shoot from deep, my exact words were:Jackson96 wrote:Numbers are definitely not the entire story I agree with that. But weren't you the same guy who told us Dyson can't shoot from deep because of his three point shooting % as a senior in hs and not actually watching him play?
"He made less than 1 3pt shot a game and shot a mediocre 34%, so he's not exactly a 3pt marksman right now."
and this:
"When you have a decent sample size, data can be pretty telling, especially when it comes to something like how good of a shooter they are. You could spend several hours watching someone play and be completely mis-led about their abilities if they're having a good or bad shooting day.
Dyson took enough three's (68 this season I believe) to get a relatively good idea of how good a 3pt shooter he is right now. Maybe he'll make major improvements this summer and be lights out next year, or maybe it will take him a couple years, or maybe he'll never be a great 3pt shooter.
P.S. There are some things that are impossible to discern from stats. For example, I couldn't tell you what kind of a defender Dyson is."
Riley not starting doesn't provide any meaningful context. The guy developed and got better, he got less playing time before Morgan was injured because Morgan became a better player than he did. That doesn't take anything away from Riley's improvements.Jackson96 wrote: With TV and Riley, we get both -- we have watched them play and have looked at their numbers. I've acknowledged that TV became a well-rounded scorer but his actual production didn't increase to the level I was hoping for and his defense/rebounding were terrible. Riley was ok for the second half of his senior year...my point about it taking an injury to give him the chance was only for context in that he was having the same crappy year as a senior and then got a chance to play more because of injury. It doesn't matter why he got the chance -- this I recognize -- but it does provide context.