MBB: Pac-12 season awards - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: MBB: Pac-12 season awards (/thread-21683.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: MBB: Pac-12 season awards (/thread-21683.html)
MBB: Pac-12 season awards - burger - 03-09-2021
Oscar Da Silva - first team all-conference AND first team all-defensive team (somehow, he's the first Stanford player to ever do both in the same season)
Jaden Delaire - most improved player!
Bryce Wills - honorable mention, all-defensive team (surely he's first team if he hadn't missed all those games)
Ziaire Williams - honorable mention, all-freshman team
Evan Mobley won player, freshman and defensive player of the year. I think Oscar would've been competitive for player of the year if the team hadn't gone off the rails the last few weeks. Oh, well.
https://pac-12.com/article/2021/03/09/2020-21-pac-12-mens-basketball-all-conference-honors-and-annual-performance
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - martyup - 03-09-2021
I just think it's wrong to give the POY the DPOY. If you are going to do that then split them up into OPLY and DPOY. Also, POY should not also win Freshman POY. Let another player have some recognition. The ultimate prize is POY, so why throw away other awards on him?
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - burger - 03-09-2021
(03-09-2021, 11:13 AM)martyup Wrote: I just think it's wrong to give the POY the DPOY. If you are going to do that then split them up into OPLY and DPOY. Also, POY should not also win Freshman POY. Let another player have some recognition. The ultimate prize is POY, so why throw away other awards on him?
It doesn't bother me. Ayton won POY and freshman of the year a couple of years ago, and it's happened twice before that. I think of the different awards as a Venn diagram, and some years the circles will overlap.
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - martyup - 03-09-2021
(03-09-2021, 11:32 AM)burger Wrote:(03-09-2021, 11:13 AM)martyup Wrote: I just think it's wrong to give the POY the DPOY. If you are going to do that then split them up into OPLY and DPOY. Also, POY should not also win Freshman POY. Let another player have some recognition. The ultimate prize is POY, so why throw away other awards on him?
It doesn't bother me. Ayton won POY and freshman of the year a couple of years ago, and it's happened twice before that. I think of the different awards as a Venn diagram, and some years the circles will overlap.
I once coached football and wrestling. We would always try to spread out the awards to give as many kids as possible some recognition. I never felt that the MVP resented not winning some of the lesser awards. I believe that awards motivate players. The more players that get awards, the more motivation. Maybe it's different at the conference level, but I can't help but believe that the more players that get recognized the more likely other players will choose to join a team in the conference or stay on a team in the conference rather than transfer to a team in another conference or declare for the NBA draft.
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - BostonCard - 03-09-2021
And thus concludes Ziaire Williams Pac-12 career, not even on an all-freshman team.
BC
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - SamuelMcF - 03-09-2021
Andy Enfield gets Coach of the Year for signing a mega-whale (by hiring his dad...otherwise he was coming here) and surrounding him with transfers.
Of the 15 first- and second-team All-Conference players, 6 were transfers.
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - old spanish trail - 03-09-2021
As one writer says, "he was thrown in to a screwed up situation". Imo, he is a willing and excellent defender, one of our best rebounders, quick for his size, has a beautiful mid range and deep shot, and early on was described as a great team member. Then, it all went south.
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - Papa John - 03-09-2021
So Josh Childress is still the only Stanford men's BB player to win Player of the Year.
However, Stanford has had four Freshmen of the Year:
John Revelli (1981)
Johnny Rogers (1982)
Brevin Knight (1994)
Casey Jacobsen (2000, shared with Jason Kapono from UCLA)
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - BostonCard - 03-09-2021
No question that the college basketball landscape is more challenging to Stanford than it was a couple decades ago. However, I believe that there is a group of academically admissible players that could wind up being college contributors for 3 - 4 years which could form the nucleus of a Stanford resurgence, but I think it will take a different style of recruiting and talent evaluation than Haase has pursued.
BC
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - Phogge - 03-09-2021
Adapt or die. Program has one foot in the grave.
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - terry - 03-09-2021
(03-09-2021, 11:57 AM)BostonCard Wrote: And thus concludes Ziaire Williams Pac-12 career, not even on an all-freshman team.
BC
Is Williams definitely leaving?
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - BobK - 03-09-2021
Do the 6 teams who finished with a worse record have both feet in the Grave?
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - BostonCard - 03-09-2021
(03-09-2021, 03:09 PM)terry Wrote:(03-09-2021, 11:57 AM)BostonCard Wrote: And thus concludes Ziaire Williams Pac-12 career, not even on an all-freshman team.
BC
Is Williams definitely leaving?
He has not announced anything, so I suppose hope could spring eternal, but everything I've heard is that he is as good as gone, and that seems to jibe with what Sam has heard.
BC
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - BobK - 03-09-2021
He’s always been one and none. Why would he change after this wreck of a late season ?
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - Goose - 03-09-2021
(03-09-2021, 03:45 PM)BobK Wrote: He’s always been one and none. Why would he change after this wreck of a late season ?The only possible reason he wouldn't go is that he has been told his draft stock has cratered and he needs to restore his draft stock by playing another year and showing something. Since we aren't hearing that has happened, no reason to stay.
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - AlbanyCardinal - 03-09-2021
I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, which I now see as the only bright spot in his coaching. I know you think ZW has been a disappointment that reflects poorly on Haase's recruiting; to me, it reflects poorly on his coaching and use of players. No coach in the country would have passed on ZW. He's whiffed on a few guys and has struggled to land good post players, but otherwise his recruiting has been surprisingly good, imo.
(03-09-2021, 02:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: No question that the college basketball landscape is more challenging to Stanford than it was a couple decades ago. However, I believe that there is a group of academically admissible players that could wind up being college contributors for 3 - 4 years which could form the nucleus of a Stanford resurgence, but I think it will take a different style of recruiting and talent evaluation than Haase has pursued.
BC
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - 76lsjumb - 03-09-2021
(03-09-2021, 05:38 PM)AlbanyCardinal Wrote: I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, which I now see as the only bright spot in his coaching. I know you think ZW has been a disappointment that reflects poorly on Haase's recruiting; to me, it reflects poorly on his coaching and use of players. No coach in the country would have passed on ZW. He's whiffed on a few guys and has struggled to land good post players, but otherwise his recruiting has been surprisingly good, imo.
(03-09-2021, 02:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: No question that the college basketball landscape is more challenging to Stanford than it was a couple decades ago. However, I believe that there is a group of academically admissible players that could wind up being college contributors for 3 - 4 years which could form the nucleus of a Stanford resurgence, but I think it will take a different style of recruiting and talent evaluation than Haase has pursued.
BC
I think BC has the better argument here. "Good recruiting" to my mind is recruiting that gives the team the best chance to win on a consistent basis, both during a given season and over many seasons. At some schools [but not very many], that can be done by continually re-stocking with "one-and-done" 5-star HS recruits, complemented as necessary with the requisite grad transfers and a few decent 4-year [or maybe even 3-year] role players.
Stanford is not one of those schools. At Stanford, you need recruiting very much along the lines of what BC describes. Getting those types of players would be the hallmark of a "good recruiter" at Stanford [and at least a few other consistently good schools with coaches who seem to be able to do that].
Thus, I think a reasonable argument can be made that Tyrell Terry was not a particularly "good recruit" for Stanford; I would have much preferred another Claude Terry. Similarly, should Ziaire Williams choose to leave after one year, I think history will show that he did little to lift the Stanford hoops program, and certainly much less than the other Williams [in her senior season] playing Stanford hoops this season.
Judging from Terry and Williams, it appears that the type of 5-star recruit Haase has been able to recruit is the player with "an incredible amount of potential." The problem is that such potential very rarely develops instantly during freshman year to a sufficient extent to carry a whole team, or even make a substantially material difference. Evan Mobleys don't come along all the time [and, when they do, you apparently have to recruit and sign the entire family to get them to come]. As a result, what Stanford gets is an occasional peek at what some pro team might be getting in a couple of years, not a successful season now. The triple-double against an abysmal UW team was fun to watch [as was the Alabama game, when I was thinking maybe WAS that good already], but, alas, they almost certainly won't be enough to get Stanford into the tournament.
Moreover, as this scenario repeats itself season after season, it will likely become increasingly difficult for Haase to convince those rising 5-star HS players to spend that one season at Stanford.
In sum, a coach who gets a bunch of 3-stars, with an occasional 4-star, and then convinces them regularly to stay in school, develop their potential over the long-term, and has a reasonably consistent winning program as a result, seems to me to be a "good recruiter." A coach who manages to convince 5-star players to come to a school to play one season on a team that is consistently mediocre is just someone who recruits good players.
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - SamuelMcF - 03-09-2021
(03-09-2021, 06:22 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(03-09-2021, 05:38 PM)AlbanyCardinal Wrote: I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, which I now see as the only bright spot in his coaching. I know you think ZW has been a disappointment that reflects poorly on Haase's recruiting; to me, it reflects poorly on his coaching and use of players. No coach in the country would have passed on ZW. He's whiffed on a few guys and has struggled to land good post players, but otherwise his recruiting has been surprisingly good, imo.
(03-09-2021, 02:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: No question that the college basketball landscape is more challenging to Stanford than it was a couple decades ago. However, I believe that there is a group of academically admissible players that could wind up being college contributors for 3 - 4 years which could form the nucleus of a Stanford resurgence, but I think it will take a different style of recruiting and talent evaluation than Haase has pursued.
BC
I think BC has the better argument here. "Good recruiting" to my mind is recruiting that gives the team the best chance to win on a consistent basis, both during a given season and over many seasons. At some schools [but not very many], that can be done by continually re-stocking with "one-and-done" 5-star HS recruits, complemented as necessary with the requisite grad transfers and a few decent 4-year [or maybe even 3-year] role players.
Stanford is not one of those schools. At Stanford, you need recruiting very much along the lines of what BC describes. Getting those types of players would be the hallmark of a "good recruiter" at Stanford [and at least a few other consistently good schools with coaches who seem to be able to do that].
Thus, I think a reasonable argument can be made that Tyrell Terry was not a particularly "good recruit" for Stanford; I would have much preferred another Claude Terry. Similarly, should Ziaire Williams choose to leave after one year, I think history will show that he did little to lift the Stanford hoops program, and certainly much less than the other Williams [in her senior season] playing Stanford hoops this season.
Judging from Terry and Williams, it appears that the type of 5-star recruit Haase has been able to recruit is the player with "an incredible amount of potential." The problem is that such potential very rarely develops instantly during freshman year to a sufficient extent to carry a whole team, or even make a substantially material difference. Evan Mobleys don't come along all the time [and, when they do, you apparently have to recruit and sign the entire family to get them to come]. As a result, what Stanford gets is an occasional peek at what some pro team might be getting in a couple of years, not a successful season now. The triple-double against an abysmal UW team was fun to watch [as was the Alabama game, when I was thinking maybe WAS that good already], but, alas, they almost certainly won't be enough to get Stanford into the tournament.
Moreover, as this scenario repeats itself season after season, it will likely become increasingly difficult for Haase to convince those rising 5-star HS players to spend that one season at Stanford.
In sum, a coach who gets a bunch of 3-stars, with an occasional 4-star, and then convinces them regularly to stay in school, develop their potential over the long-term, and has a reasonably consistent winning program as a result, seems to me to be a "good recruiter." A coach who manages to convince 5-star players to come to a school to play one season on a team that is consistently mediocre is just someone who recruits good players.
Tyrell Terry was not even close to a 5-star recruit. Nobody expected him to be NBA draft-level good as a freshman. He was supposed to be the 4-year PG of the future.
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - AlbanyCardinal - 03-09-2021
Hmmm, I don't think Terry was ever conceived as a one-and-done player. He was a 4-star, IIRC, who surprised many. How many 5-star one-and-dones has Haase brought to the Farm? You make it seem as if it's his bread and butter. Overall I agree with you that Stanford can't build its program around one-and-dones, but since it can't attract transfers, which many programs are now relying on, I think a % of one-and-dones is fine and even advisable. I still think recruiting has been the best part of Haase's coaching, which isn't exactly a compliment since he's been unable to do much with with it in terms of actual results on the court.
(03-09-2021, 06:22 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:(03-09-2021, 05:38 PM)AlbanyCardinal Wrote: I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, which I now see as the only bright spot in his coaching. I know you think ZW has been a disappointment that reflects poorly on Haase's recruiting; to me, it reflects poorly on his coaching and use of players. No coach in the country would have passed on ZW. He's whiffed on a few guys and has struggled to land good post players, but otherwise his recruiting has been surprisingly good, imo.
(03-09-2021, 02:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: No question that the college basketball landscape is more challenging to Stanford than it was a couple decades ago. However, I believe that there is a group of academically admissible players that could wind up being college contributors for 3 - 4 years which could form the nucleus of a Stanford resurgence, but I think it will take a different style of recruiting and talent evaluation than Haase has pursued.
BC
I think BC has the better argument here. "Good recruiting" to my mind is recruiting that gives the team the best chance to win on a consistent basis, both during a given season and over many seasons. At some schools [but not very many], that can be done by continually re-stocking with "one-and-done" 5-star HS recruits, complemented as necessary with the requisite grad transfers and a few decent 4-year [or maybe even 3-year] role players.
Stanford is not one of those schools. At Stanford, you need recruiting very much along the lines of what BC describes. Getting those types of players would be the hallmark of a "good recruiter" at Stanford [and at least a few other consistently good schools with coaches who seem to be able to do that].
Thus, I think a reasonable argument can be made that Tyrell Terry was not a particularly "good recruit" for Stanford; I would have much preferred another Claude Terry. Similarly, should Ziaire Williams choose to leave after one year, I think history will show that he did little to lift the Stanford hoops program, and certainly much less than the other Williams [in her senior season] playing Stanford hoops this season.
Judging from Terry and Williams, it appears that the type of 5-star recruit Haase has been able to recruit is the player with "an incredible amount of potential." The problem is that such potential very rarely develops instantly during freshman year to a sufficient extent to carry a whole team, or even make a substantially material difference. Evan Mobleys don't come along all the time [and, when they do, you apparently have to recruit and sign the entire family to get them to come]. As a result, what Stanford gets is an occasional peek at what some pro team might be getting in a couple of years, not a successful season now. The triple-double against an abysmal UW team was fun to watch [as was the Alabama game, when I was thinking maybe WAS that good already], but, alas, they almost certainly won't be enough to get Stanford into the tournament.
Moreover, as this scenario repeats itself season after season, it will likely become increasingly difficult for Haase to convince those rising 5-star HS players to spend that one season at Stanford.
In sum, a coach who gets a bunch of 3-stars, with an occasional 4-star, and then convinces them regularly to stay in school, develop their potential over the long-term, and has a reasonably consistent winning program as a result, seems to me to be a "good recruiter." A coach who manages to convince 5-star players to come to a school to play one season on a team that is consistently mediocre is just someone who recruits good players.
RE: MBB: Pac-12 season awards - 76lsjumb - 03-09-2021
My bad on Terry, I guess. I didn't see anything in his freshman season that suggested to me that he was ready for the NBA by any stretch, so I just assumed that he must have been projected as one of those HS players who was perceived as having sufficient potential even before the season began to be considered a one-and-done [however many stars he got]. I don't think that disproves my point, though. A "good recruiter" should also have the ability/intuition/gut feelings/whatever to know whether a recruit would be willing to stick around for more than one season even if he turned out to be better than projected in his freshman season.
And I don't think getting 5-star recruits [which, I confess, I used in a somewhat generic manner to mean recruits who liley had offers from several schools with a much better current b'ball rep than Stanford] is Haase's "bread and butter," although if you take away those, the "good recruiter" label seems to me to be a little less warranted.
Look, I'm not sure we actually disagree much, since I also see no strong evidence of Haase's ability to develop the players he does get. You may be right: getting one-and-dones, not developing them, and having them leave may not be all that different in the long run from [and might even be better than] getting less talented players, not developing them, and having them stick around for four years.