[Goose]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

I agree that "one and done" in general isn't a good model for Stanford basketball. I think Montgomery was fortunate to coach in the era he did. That past is no longer recent I'm afraid. It is now much more difficult to keep very talented players in college. If you are a first round pick, or think you are anyway, it is hard to argue staying in school is prudent. The downside risk to the player is too great. You could get injured, which may end your career or at the very least put a ? by your name. You could also demonstrate that your "potential" isn't nearly what people thought it was. If I am Tyrell Terry I go pro for sure. Right now, they think I am great. I may actually be just OK, but the stars aligned and I have a golden opportunity. There used to be a lot more "prove it" in the NBA draft. Staying around to do so made some sense. It doesn't anymore. If you expect to play professional basketball and can do so starting today, waiting makes no sense. If you can get paid proving you belong, why not do so? A prudent man might say "What if I don't make it?", but that isn't the mindset of these players.

Haase actually had a reputation as a "blue collar" coach who did more with less, at least when he first arrived. That is certainly the persona he projects. It may be that he isn't the guy to deal with the "one and done" types. He is an "I love you guys" coach. Maybe doesn't work so well with players who see the team as a stepping stone.

[Goose]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

I agree that "one and done" in general isn't a good model for Stanford basketball. I think Montgomery was fortunate to coach in the era he did. That past is no longer recent I'm afraid. It is now much more difficult to keep very talented players in college. If you are a first round pick, or think you are anyway, it is hard to argue staying in school is prudent. The downside risk to the player is too great. You could get injured, which may end your career or at the very least put a ? by your name. You could also demonstrate that your "potential" isn't nearly what people thought it was. If I am Tyrell Terry I go pro for sure. Right now, they think I am great. I may actually be just OK, but the stars aligned and I have a golden opportunity. There used to be a lot more "prove it" in the NBA draft. Staying around to do so made some sense. It doesn't anymore. If you expect to play professional basketball and can do so starting today, waiting makes no sense. If you can get paid proving you belong, why not do so? A prudent man might say "What if I don't make it?", but that isn't the mindset of these players.

Haase actually had a reputation as a "blue collar" coach who did more with less, at least when he first arrived. That is certainly the persona he projects. It may be that he isn't the guy to deal with the "one and done" types. He is an "I love you guys" coach. Maybe doesn't work so well with players who see the team as a stepping stone.