[AlbanyCardinal]

I tend to agree, CTcard. It's hard to put a finger on what goes wrong with Haase's teams, but each and every year they regress as the season wears on. I agree with others who have stated that one glaring deficiency is not so much lack of depth as a well-rounded lineup. Haase's teams therefore have matchup problems against certain teams and struggle to sustain success into the second half of each season. 

I certainly don't want to make excuses for Haase (especially this season and last), but I still think he's had some bad luck on the Farm. Okpala bolting after only one full season under his belt is a good starting place. Reid Travis, Cormac Ryan, and Tyrell Terry come to mind, too. Would TT have declared without Covid? Maybe, maybe not. Some of this is the state of college hoops and the NBA, as several have commented. Some of it might fall more on Haase's shoulders than bad luck per se. With this kind of attrition, filling in gaps with transfers is one quick solution, but Haase doesn't have this option.

Like others, I don't expect Haase to be fired after this season. But I'd completely understand if he were. Either way, I don't feel particularly hopeful that Stanford hoops will return to its glory days (or even top four in the conference) any time soon. However it plays out, sure hope I'm wrong.

The only possible reason he wouldn't go is that he has been told his draft stock has cratered ...

Well, another possible reason is that he sees a value in school.

[And no, I have no indication that is the case here.]

I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, 

I find the player development issue complex.
There is no doubt some players have developed well. Delaire winning most improved player is exhibit A. Da Silva, Jones, and even Kisunas individually have come along quite well.
For others that is less so. 

I don't find his schemes that bad.
On offense they move the ball well and get lots of open shots. Even though they cannot shoot well, they still have the second highest FG percentage in the conference.
On defense, they play tough on-ball defense, force the ball to the baseline, and have a usually effective double team on the opponent's big. Their FG percentage defense is #2 in the conference.
In fact, it's amazing that the team can be that efficient on offense and defense and still be this poor.

There are issues, of course. Stanford has kept its spot as worst in the league in TOs per game (though only second worst in conference only games). Stanford has stayed solidly in last place in three point shooting, despite being #2 in FG percentage overall. Those are two areas that hurt.

[AlbanyCardinal]

I tend to agree, CTcard. It's hard to put a finger on what goes wrong with Haase's teams, but each and every year they regress as the season wears on. I agree with others who have stated that one glaring deficiency is not so much lack of depth as a well-rounded lineup. Haase's teams therefore have matchup problems against certain teams and struggle to sustain success into the second half of each season. 

I certainly don't want to make excuses for Haase (especially this season and last), but I still think he's had some bad luck on the Farm. Okpala bolting after only one full season under his belt is a good starting place. Reid Travis, Cormac Ryan, and Tyrell Terry come to mind, too. Would TT have declared without Covid? Maybe, maybe not. Some of this is the state of college hoops and the NBA, as several have commented. Some of it might fall more on Haase's shoulders than bad luck per se. With this kind of attrition, filling in gaps with transfers is one quick solution, but Haase doesn't have this option.

Like others, I don't expect Haase to be fired after this season. But I'd completely understand if he were. Either way, I don't feel particularly hopeful that Stanford hoops will return to its glory days (or even top four in the conference) any time soon. However it plays out, sure hope I'm wrong.

The only possible reason he wouldn't go is that he has been told his draft stock has cratered ...

Well, another possible reason is that he sees a value in school.

[And no, I have no indication that is the case here.]

I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, 

I find the player development issue complex.
There is no doubt some players have developed well. Delaire winning most improved player is exhibit A. Da Silva, Jones, and even Kisunas individually have come along quite well.
For others that is less so. 

I don't find his schemes that bad.
On offense they move the ball well and get lots of open shots. Even though they cannot shoot well, they still have the second highest FG percentage in the conference.
On defense, they play tough on-ball defense, force the ball to the baseline, and have a usually effective double team on the opponent's big. Their FG percentage defense is #2 in the conference.
In fact, it's amazing that the team can be that efficient on offense and defense and still be this poor.

There are issues, of course. Stanford has kept its spot as worst in the league in TOs per game (though only second worst in conference only games). Stanford has stayed solidly in last place in three point shooting, despite being #2 in FG percentage overall. Those are two areas that hurt.

[BostonCard]

I agree that for a solid first round pick, the current incentive structure strongly pushes players to enter the NBA draft.  I certainly can't blame a potential lottery pick or even a mid-first-round pick for going pro, and it's why I think it makes sense to be cautious with clear one-and-done players.  That doesn't mean you don't recruit them, but rather that you recruit them selectively (for example, if you have a strong core and you think a one-and-done can take the team to the next level).  It does not seem to be prudent to try to build your team around one-and-dones.

The calculus is different for marginal first round picks or second round picks.  These are players who might be able to improve their draft stock by staying and developing as college players.  Maybe they improve their mid-range jumper, or their range or address a perceived weakness and go from marginal first round picks to mid-first round picks, which is not insubstantial.  The 30th pick in the draft gets an average of $1.7 million a year.  The 15th pick in the draft gets close to $3 million a year.  And of course, a second round pick doesn't get a guaranteed contract. 

So, as a coach, you have to be able to convince a player that the value of moving up in the draft exceeds the risk and opportunity cost.  So far, our coach has not been able to make the case that guys like Okpala and Terry would have benefited from staying at Stanford another year, even though they were in that marginal area (late first round, early second) where there was the greatest potential to move up.  To me, that is a failing.

My model for all of this is the 2018 Villanova national championship team.  Four of its players were drafted to the NBA, but none of them were first year players; in fact Mikal Bridges, who was eventually picked 10th, was a redshirt junior (fourth year player).

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree that for a solid first round pick, the current incentive structure strongly pushes players to enter the NBA draft.  I certainly can't blame a potential lottery pick or even a mid-first-round pick for going pro, and it's why I think it makes sense to be cautious with clear one-and-done players.  That doesn't mean you don't recruit them, but rather that you recruit them selectively (for example, if you have a strong core and you think a one-and-done can take the team to the next level).  It does not seem to be prudent to try to build your team around one-and-dones.

The calculus is different for marginal first round picks or second round picks.  These are players who might be able to improve their draft stock by staying and developing as college players.  Maybe they improve their mid-range jumper, or their range or address a perceived weakness and go from marginal first round picks to mid-first round picks, which is not insubstantial.  The 30th pick in the draft gets an average of $1.7 million a year.  The 15th pick in the draft gets close to $3 million a year.  And of course, a second round pick doesn't get a guaranteed contract. 

So, as a coach, you have to be able to convince a player that the value of moving up in the draft exceeds the risk and opportunity cost.  So far, our coach has not been able to make the case that guys like Okpala and Terry would have benefited from staying at Stanford another year, even though they were in that marginal area (late first round, early second) where there was the greatest potential to move up.  To me, that is a failing.

My model for all of this is the 2018 Villanova national championship team.  Four of its players were drafted to the NBA, but none of them were first year players; in fact Mikal Bridges, who was eventually picked 10th, was a redshirt junior (fourth year player).

BC

[AlbanyCardinal]

The only reason I might blame Haase for all those guys bolting is if they saw things in his coaching/scheme/use of personnel that they didn't like and thus left. That might have been part of their calculus. Otherwise, though, it feels too easy to criticize Haase for having recruited a diamond in the ruff like Terry. For all we know, Covid changed the calculus dramatically for TT. There are more pressing concerns for Haase as a coach, imo.

I agree that for a solid first round pick, the current incentive structure strongly pushes players to enter the NBA draft.  I certainly can't blame a potential lottery pick or even a mid-first-round pick for going pro, and it's why I think it makes sense to be cautious with clear one-and-done players.  That doesn't mean you don't recruit them, but rather that you recruit them selectively (for example, if you have a strong core and you think a one-and-done can take the team to the next level).  It does not seem to be prudent to try to build your team around one-and-dones.

The calculus is different for marginal first round picks or second round picks.  These are players who might be able to improve their draft stock by staying and developing as college players.  Maybe they improve their mid-range jumper, or their range or address a perceived weakness and go from marginal first round picks to mid-first round picks, which is not insubstantial.  The 30th pick in the draft gets an average of $1.7 million a year.  The 15th pick in the draft gets close to $3 million a year.  And of course, a second round pick doesn't get a guaranteed contract. 

So, as a coach, you have to be able to convince a player that the value of moving up in the draft exceeds the risk and opportunity cost.  So far, our coach has not been able to make the case that guys like Okpala and Terry would have benefited from staying at Stanford another year, even though they were in that marginal area (late first round, early second) where there was the greatest potential to move up.  To me, that is a failing.

My model for all of this is the 2018 Villanova national championship team.  Four of its players were drafted to the NBA, but none of them were first year players; in fact Mikal Bridges, who was eventually picked 10th, was a redshirt junior (fourth year player).

BC

[AlbanyCardinal]

The only reason I might blame Haase for all those guys bolting is if they saw things in his coaching/scheme/use of personnel that they didn't like and thus left. That might have been part of their calculus. Otherwise, though, it feels too easy to criticize Haase for having recruited a diamond in the ruff like Terry. For all we know, Covid changed the calculus dramatically for TT. There are more pressing concerns for Haase as a coach, imo.

I agree that for a solid first round pick, the current incentive structure strongly pushes players to enter the NBA draft.  I certainly can't blame a potential lottery pick or even a mid-first-round pick for going pro, and it's why I think it makes sense to be cautious with clear one-and-done players.  That doesn't mean you don't recruit them, but rather that you recruit them selectively (for example, if you have a strong core and you think a one-and-done can take the team to the next level).  It does not seem to be prudent to try to build your team around one-and-dones.

The calculus is different for marginal first round picks or second round picks.  These are players who might be able to improve their draft stock by staying and developing as college players.  Maybe they improve their mid-range jumper, or their range or address a perceived weakness and go from marginal first round picks to mid-first round picks, which is not insubstantial.  The 30th pick in the draft gets an average of $1.7 million a year.  The 15th pick in the draft gets close to $3 million a year.  And of course, a second round pick doesn't get a guaranteed contract. 

So, as a coach, you have to be able to convince a player that the value of moving up in the draft exceeds the risk and opportunity cost.  So far, our coach has not been able to make the case that guys like Okpala and Terry would have benefited from staying at Stanford another year, even though they were in that marginal area (late first round, early second) where there was the greatest potential to move up.  To me, that is a failing.

My model for all of this is the 2018 Villanova national championship team.  Four of its players were drafted to the NBA, but none of them were first year players; in fact Mikal Bridges, who was eventually picked 10th, was a redshirt junior (fourth year player).

BC

[Goose]

The 4th pick in last year's draft, Patrick Williams from FSU, didn't start a single game and his stats on the season were 9/4/1. He is now averaging more points per game for the Chicago Bulls than he did in his single year in college. Has started every game.

So he is now doing better against what should be more capable players than he did in college. It has only been a year so it isn't a long "development" process. Why do you think that happened? I personally believe that 1) his level of effort in college has to be questioned and 2) the NBA isn't really basketball. It is entertainment, and defense doesn't entertain. If he couldn't deliver much in college and is now a better than average pro (with not a long "G" league gestation) it has to mean that the NBA and college are such different games that there is little correlation (or he mailed it in at FSU).

[Goose]

The 4th pick in last year's draft, Patrick Williams from FSU, didn't start a single game and his stats on the season were 9/4/1. He is now averaging more points per game for the Chicago Bulls than he did in his single year in college. Has started every game.

So he is now doing better against what should be more capable players than he did in college. It has only been a year so it isn't a long "development" process. Why do you think that happened? I personally believe that 1) his level of effort in college has to be questioned and 2) the NBA isn't really basketball. It is entertainment, and defense doesn't entertain. If he couldn't deliver much in college and is now a better than average pro (with not a long "G" league gestation) it has to mean that the NBA and college are such different games that there is little correlation (or he mailed it in at FSU).

[lex24]

I’ll be blunt.  With the current state of college basketball, I think it’s going to be difficult for any coach to succeed at Stanford. (I’ll define success as Montgomery level). 

If I’m AD, what I’m looking for in an HC for Stanford basketball first and foremost is ability to develop players.  I’m then looking for someone  to recruit guys that will most likely stay, and improve.  So that you have teams led by upperclassmen that have developed their skills and have a heightened understanding of the game.

As far as the type of players I recruit, I’m focusing on size and three point shooting.  Yes, you need someone that can beat people off the dribble and create for others.  And obviously a PG that can handle ball pressure and distribute.  But mostly, it’s a three point game now. If you can’t shoot the three, you aren’t going to win consistently. Stanford, I believe, has a better chance to recruit and develop size and shooting in sufficient numbers then it does a bunch of athletic slashers.  Size plays well defensively, also.  Give me long wings.  Better for defending the three.  

I’d look at Wisconsin, Iowa and Gonzaga’s assistants and see if any fit the bill. ( I always find myself looking at Wisconsin, in both football and basketball.)  They have an 8 man rotation.  6 of the 8, including their top 5 in minutes are seniors, with three being redshirt seniors.  

On the football side, Chryst is my poster guy for creative power football.
[/quote]

[lex24]

I’ll be blunt.  With the current state of college basketball, I think it’s going to be difficult for any coach to succeed at Stanford. (I’ll define success as Montgomery level). 

If I’m AD, what I’m looking for in an HC for Stanford basketball first and foremost is ability to develop players.  I’m then looking for someone  to recruit guys that will most likely stay, and improve.  So that you have teams led by upperclassmen that have developed their skills and have a heightened understanding of the game.

As far as the type of players I recruit, I’m focusing on size and three point shooting.  Yes, you need someone that can beat people off the dribble and create for others.  And obviously a PG that can handle ball pressure and distribute.  But mostly, it’s a three point game now. If you can’t shoot the three, you aren’t going to win consistently. Stanford, I believe, has a better chance to recruit and develop size and shooting in sufficient numbers then it does a bunch of athletic slashers.  Size plays well defensively, also.  Give me long wings.  Better for defending the three.  

I’d look at Wisconsin, Iowa and Gonzaga’s assistants and see if any fit the bill. ( I always find myself looking at Wisconsin, in both football and basketball.)  They have an 8 man rotation.  6 of the 8, including their top 5 in minutes are seniors, with three being redshirt seniors.  

On the football side, Chryst is my poster guy for creative power football.
[/quote]

[lex24]

The 4th pick in last year's draft, Patrick Williams from FSU, didn't start a single game and his stats on the season were 9/4/1. He is now averaging more points per game for the Chicago Bulls than he did in his single year in college. Has started every game.

So he is now doing better against what should be more capable players than he did in college. It has only been a year so it isn't a long "development" process. Why do you think that happened? I personally believe that 1) his level of effort in college has to be questioned and 2) the NBA isn't really basketball. It is entertainment, and defense doesn't entertain. If he couldn't deliver much in college and is now a better than average pro (with not a long "G" league gestation) it has to mean that the NBA and college are such different games that there is little correlation (or he mailed it in at FSU).

They play much better defense in NBA than college.  The game is entirely different. It’s predicated on length athleticism and 3’s. With a couple exceptions, there is not much low post play.  With most teams, its run, spread, slash, kick, shoot. With some high pick and rolls thrown in. Plus you have a much deeper 3, and players with the ability to shoot it from 5 feet beyond the arc.  Off the dribble. Often creating their own space with a step back. Meaning there is more floor to cover.   The athleticism is off the charts.  Absent that athleticism, most have little chance. So they are looking first and foremost at athletic ability and the potential to grow.

Look at Wiseman.  He is lost half the time on the floor.  Awful defensively. Lousy rebounder for a 7 footer with length.  But he’s 19 and  incredibly athletic.  So you bet on his body maturing and he learns the game at the NBA level. He played 3 college games. No 2 overall pick. 

Compare Garza.  Also around 7 feet.  Tremendous feet down low.  Great post moves. Can hit a college three.  But he’s slow and he can’t jump a lick.  He’s a great college player.  But he has, I think, a very low NBA upside.  So late first round at best.  More likely a second round pick.

[lex24]

The 4th pick in last year's draft, Patrick Williams from FSU, didn't start a single game and his stats on the season were 9/4/1. He is now averaging more points per game for the Chicago Bulls than he did in his single year in college. Has started every game.

So he is now doing better against what should be more capable players than he did in college. It has only been a year so it isn't a long "development" process. Why do you think that happened? I personally believe that 1) his level of effort in college has to be questioned and 2) the NBA isn't really basketball. It is entertainment, and defense doesn't entertain. If he couldn't deliver much in college and is now a better than average pro (with not a long "G" league gestation) it has to mean that the NBA and college are such different games that there is little correlation (or he mailed it in at FSU).

They play much better defense in NBA than college.  The game is entirely different. It’s predicated on length athleticism and 3’s. With a couple exceptions, there is not much low post play.  With most teams, its run, spread, slash, kick, shoot. With some high pick and rolls thrown in. Plus you have a much deeper 3, and players with the ability to shoot it from 5 feet beyond the arc.  Off the dribble. Often creating their own space with a step back. Meaning there is more floor to cover.   The athleticism is off the charts.  Absent that athleticism, most have little chance. So they are looking first and foremost at athletic ability and the potential to grow.

Look at Wiseman.  He is lost half the time on the floor.  Awful defensively. Lousy rebounder for a 7 footer with length.  But he’s 19 and  incredibly athletic.  So you bet on his body maturing and he learns the game at the NBA level. He played 3 college games. No 2 overall pick. 

Compare Garza.  Also around 7 feet.  Tremendous feet down low.  Great post moves. Can hit a college three.  But he’s slow and he can’t jump a lick.  He’s a great college player.  But he has, I think, a very low NBA upside.  So late first round at best.  More likely a second round pick.

[Goose]

They play much better defense in NBA than college.  The game is entirely different. It’s predicated on length athleticism and 3’s. With a couple exceptions, there is not much low post play.  With most teams, its run, spread, slash, kick, shoot. With some high pick and rolls thrown in. Plus you have a much deeper 3, and players with the ability to shoot it from 5 feet beyond the arc.  Off the dribble. Often creating their own space with a step back. Meaning there is more floor to cover.   The athleticism is off the charts.  Absent that athleticism, most have little chance. So they are looking first and foremost at athletic ability and the potential to grow.

When the NBA plays defense, it does so at a much higher level than in college. However, due to the great athleticism etc. that you point out, playing defense is exhausting and does not bring rewards justifying the required effort. When you have guys who can jack up a shot from anywhere on defense's half court and have it go in most of the time, you really can't defend against that. You certainly can't do it over a long season where you play 4 or 5 games a week. Guys take plays off on defense all the time. When the playoffs arrive, you will see more intensity and more defense. Night in, night out, not so much. As you point out, the NBA is looking for athletes that can meet the NBA physical requirements. Hopefully when they find those guys they can teach them to play basketball and not look "lost" out there. Some of them are capable of it, most aren't. That is why guys who can meet the physical requirements AND actually have basketball skills are so important in the league.

[Goose]

They play much better defense in NBA than college.  The game is entirely different. It’s predicated on length athleticism and 3’s. With a couple exceptions, there is not much low post play.  With most teams, its run, spread, slash, kick, shoot. With some high pick and rolls thrown in. Plus you have a much deeper 3, and players with the ability to shoot it from 5 feet beyond the arc.  Off the dribble. Often creating their own space with a step back. Meaning there is more floor to cover.   The athleticism is off the charts.  Absent that athleticism, most have little chance. So they are looking first and foremost at athletic ability and the potential to grow.

When the NBA plays defense, it does so at a much higher level than in college. However, due to the great athleticism etc. that you point out, playing defense is exhausting and does not bring rewards justifying the required effort. When you have guys who can jack up a shot from anywhere on defense's half court and have it go in most of the time, you really can't defend against that. You certainly can't do it over a long season where you play 4 or 5 games a week. Guys take plays off on defense all the time. When the playoffs arrive, you will see more intensity and more defense. Night in, night out, not so much. As you point out, the NBA is looking for athletes that can meet the NBA physical requirements. Hopefully when they find those guys they can teach them to play basketball and not look "lost" out there. Some of them are capable of it, most aren't. That is why guys who can meet the physical requirements AND actually have basketball skills are so important in the league.

[BostonCard]

The only reason I might blame Haase for all those guys bolting is if they saw things in his coaching/scheme/use of personnel that they didn't like and thus left. That might have been part of their calculus. Otherwise, though, it feels too easy to criticize Haase for having recruited a diamond in the ruff like Terry. For all we know, Covid changed the calculus dramatically for TT. There are more pressing concerns for Haase as a coach, imo.

Terry was a four-star player; hard to call him a diamond in the rough.  He certainly exceeded expectations based on a limited sample, and you are correct that COVID may well have changed the calculus. That being said, COVID-19 was not an issue with Okpala, who also bolted early, evidently not convinced that he could improve his draft position as a late first round/early second round player (he was drafted with the second pick of the second round).  To a lesser extent, you have to wonder why Haase was not able to convince Reid Travis to stay for his fifth year, and what it said about Travis' assessment of the program's chance for success and his personal development.

To be fair, we are dealing with small sample sizes.  Maybe Harrison Ingram will come in next year and decide to stay till his junior year and be the bedrock of a resurgent Stanford basketball program and leave to be drafted in the top-10 after becoming Pac-12 player of the year and leading Stanford to the sweet sixteen, and with him as a base, we develop a self-sustaining nucleus of good college basketball players and get back to competitive basketball.  I wouldn't bet on it, but hope is eternal.

By the way, with regards to the one-and-done rule, see this article:

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-w...er-report/

Looks like talks between the league and the players are stalled, but you may see more players going to the G-league for a year and forgoing college.  I think if that becomes the standard for players not interested in college, that may benefit Stanford.

BC

[BostonCard]

The only reason I might blame Haase for all those guys bolting is if they saw things in his coaching/scheme/use of personnel that they didn't like and thus left. That might have been part of their calculus. Otherwise, though, it feels too easy to criticize Haase for having recruited a diamond in the ruff like Terry. For all we know, Covid changed the calculus dramatically for TT. There are more pressing concerns for Haase as a coach, imo.

Terry was a four-star player; hard to call him a diamond in the rough.  He certainly exceeded expectations based on a limited sample, and you are correct that COVID may well have changed the calculus. That being said, COVID-19 was not an issue with Okpala, who also bolted early, evidently not convinced that he could improve his draft position as a late first round/early second round player (he was drafted with the second pick of the second round).  To a lesser extent, you have to wonder why Haase was not able to convince Reid Travis to stay for his fifth year, and what it said about Travis' assessment of the program's chance for success and his personal development.

To be fair, we are dealing with small sample sizes.  Maybe Harrison Ingram will come in next year and decide to stay till his junior year and be the bedrock of a resurgent Stanford basketball program and leave to be drafted in the top-10 after becoming Pac-12 player of the year and leading Stanford to the sweet sixteen, and with him as a base, we develop a self-sustaining nucleus of good college basketball players and get back to competitive basketball.  I wouldn't bet on it, but hope is eternal.

By the way, with regards to the one-and-done rule, see this article:

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-w...er-report/

Looks like talks between the league and the players are stalled, but you may see more players going to the G-league for a year and forgoing college.  I think if that becomes the standard for players not interested in college, that may benefit Stanford.

BC

[lex24]

They play much better defense in NBA than college.  The game is entirely different. It’s predicated on length athleticism and 3’s. With a couple exceptions, there is not much low post play.  With most teams, its run, spread, slash, kick, shoot. With some high pick and rolls thrown in. Plus you have a much deeper 3, and players with the ability to shoot it from 5 feet beyond the arc.  Off the dribble. Often creating their own space with a step back. Meaning there is more floor to cover.   The athleticism is off the charts.  Absent that athleticism, most have little chance. So they are looking first and foremost at athletic ability and the potential to grow.

When the NBA plays defense, it does so at a much higher level than in college. However, due to the great athleticism etc. that you point out, playing defense is exhausting and does not bring rewards justifying the required effort. When you have guys who can jack up a shot from anywhere on defense's half court and have it go in most of the time, you really can't defend against that. You certainly can't do it over a long season where you play 4 or 5 games a week. Guys take plays off on defense all the time. When the playoffs arrive, you will see more intensity and more defense. Night in, night out, not so much. As you point out, the NBA is looking for athletes that can meet the NBA physical requirements. Hopefully when they find those guys they can teach them to play basketball and not look "lost" out there. Some of them are capable of it, moist aren't. That is why guys who can meet the physical requirements AND actually have basketball skills are so important in the league.

Sure they take some possessions (and even games off)  defensively.  But I inferred from your comment (perhaps wrongfully) that you were saying that they played “better” defense in college.  They don’t. In fact they don’t do anything better in college.  It is much  easier to defend in college, cause the courts compressed and you don’t have near as many scorers.  The game is considerably slower to boot.

[lex24]

They play much better defense in NBA than college.  The game is entirely different. It’s predicated on length athleticism and 3’s. With a couple exceptions, there is not much low post play.  With most teams, its run, spread, slash, kick, shoot. With some high pick and rolls thrown in. Plus you have a much deeper 3, and players with the ability to shoot it from 5 feet beyond the arc.  Off the dribble. Often creating their own space with a step back. Meaning there is more floor to cover.   The athleticism is off the charts.  Absent that athleticism, most have little chance. So they are looking first and foremost at athletic ability and the potential to grow.

When the NBA plays defense, it does so at a much higher level than in college. However, due to the great athleticism etc. that you point out, playing defense is exhausting and does not bring rewards justifying the required effort. When you have guys who can jack up a shot from anywhere on defense's half court and have it go in most of the time, you really can't defend against that. You certainly can't do it over a long season where you play 4 or 5 games a week. Guys take plays off on defense all the time. When the playoffs arrive, you will see more intensity and more defense. Night in, night out, not so much. As you point out, the NBA is looking for athletes that can meet the NBA physical requirements. Hopefully when they find those guys they can teach them to play basketball and not look "lost" out there. Some of them are capable of it, moist aren't. That is why guys who can meet the physical requirements AND actually have basketball skills are so important in the league.

Sure they take some possessions (and even games off)  defensively.  But I inferred from your comment (perhaps wrongfully) that you were saying that they played “better” defense in college.  They don’t. In fact they don’t do anything better in college.  It is much  easier to defend in college, cause the courts compressed and you don’t have near as many scorers.  The game is considerably slower to boot.

[Brickcity]

They play much better defense in NBA than college.  The game is entirely different. It’s predicated on length athleticism and 3’s. With a couple exceptions, there is not much low post play.  With most teams, its run, spread, slash, kick, shoot. With some high pick and rolls thrown in. Plus you have a much deeper 3, and players with the ability to shoot it from 5 feet beyond the arc.  Off the dribble. Often creating their own space with a step back. Meaning there is more floor to cover.   The athleticism is off the charts.  Absent that athleticism, most have little chance. So they are looking first and foremost at athletic ability and the potential to grow.

When the NBA plays defense, it does so at a much higher level than in college. However, due to the great athleticism etc. that you point out, playing defense is exhausting and does not bring rewards justifying the required effort. When you have guys who can jack up a shot from anywhere on defense's half court and have it go in most of the time, you really can't defend against that. You certainly can't do it over a long season where you play 4 or 5 games a week. Guys take plays off on defense all the time. When the playoffs arrive, you will see more intensity and more defense. Night in, night out, not so much. As you point out, the NBA is looking for athletes that can meet the NBA physical requirements. Hopefully when they find those guys they can teach them to play basketball and not look "lost" out there. Some of them are capable of it, moist aren't. That is why guys who can meet the physical requirements AND actually have basketball skills are so important in the league.

Sure they take some possessions (and even games off)  defensively.  But I inferred from your comment (perhaps wrongfully) that you were saying that they played “better” defense in college.  They don’t. In fact they don’t do anything better in college.  It is much  easier to defend in college, cause the courts compressed and you don’t have near as many scorers.  The game is considerably slower to boot.

Watching Okpala play, I never got the sense that he was into "team basketball." Not surprised that he jumped ship ASAP.

What will be interesting is a guy like Isa Silva. Let's assume for the moment he wins the starting PG spot next season and has a great year. My guess is he'll bolt too. I remember watching an interview with him - I think it may have been at the time of his Stanford commitment - and he couldn't stop talking about his desire to play in the NBA. I'd never heard a Stanford recruit talk so blatantly about his dream of playing in "the league." That's not to say that he's not a team-oriented guy or won't love playing at Stanford. What I do think it means is that the moment he thinks he has a shot to be drafted - especially if it's in the first round - he's gonzo.

[Brickcity]

They play much better defense in NBA than college.  The game is entirely different. It’s predicated on length athleticism and 3’s. With a couple exceptions, there is not much low post play.  With most teams, its run, spread, slash, kick, shoot. With some high pick and rolls thrown in. Plus you have a much deeper 3, and players with the ability to shoot it from 5 feet beyond the arc.  Off the dribble. Often creating their own space with a step back. Meaning there is more floor to cover.   The athleticism is off the charts.  Absent that athleticism, most have little chance. So they are looking first and foremost at athletic ability and the potential to grow.

When the NBA plays defense, it does so at a much higher level than in college. However, due to the great athleticism etc. that you point out, playing defense is exhausting and does not bring rewards justifying the required effort. When you have guys who can jack up a shot from anywhere on defense's half court and have it go in most of the time, you really can't defend against that. You certainly can't do it over a long season where you play 4 or 5 games a week. Guys take plays off on defense all the time. When the playoffs arrive, you will see more intensity and more defense. Night in, night out, not so much. As you point out, the NBA is looking for athletes that can meet the NBA physical requirements. Hopefully when they find those guys they can teach them to play basketball and not look "lost" out there. Some of them are capable of it, moist aren't. That is why guys who can meet the physical requirements AND actually have basketball skills are so important in the league.

Sure they take some possessions (and even games off)  defensively.  But I inferred from your comment (perhaps wrongfully) that you were saying that they played “better” defense in college.  They don’t. In fact they don’t do anything better in college.  It is much  easier to defend in college, cause the courts compressed and you don’t have near as many scorers.  The game is considerably slower to boot.

Watching Okpala play, I never got the sense that he was into "team basketball." Not surprised that he jumped ship ASAP.

What will be interesting is a guy like Isa Silva. Let's assume for the moment he wins the starting PG spot next season and has a great year. My guess is he'll bolt too. I remember watching an interview with him - I think it may have been at the time of his Stanford commitment - and he couldn't stop talking about his desire to play in the NBA. I'd never heard a Stanford recruit talk so blatantly about his dream of playing in "the league." That's not to say that he's not a team-oriented guy or won't love playing at Stanford. What I do think it means is that the moment he thinks he has a shot to be drafted - especially if it's in the first round - he's gonzo.

[Papa John]

I was curious to see how 247sports 5-star men's BB recruits perform in college, so I looked up Pac-12 5-stars from 2016-2019 and their conference awards for their freshman season. I decided to use the Ziaire Williams baseline and group the players as "Greater than Ziaire"--meaning better than honorable mention all frosh team--or "Less than or Equal to Ziaire"--honorable mention all frosh team or worse.

Of the 22 5-stars from 2016-2019, 11 were Greater than Zaire and 11 were Less than or Equal to Ziaire

Of the Greater than Ziaire group:
7 were one and done, drafted
2 were one and done, not drafted
2 were two and done, not drafted

Of the Less than or Equal to Ziaire group:
5 were one and done, drafted
1 was one and done, not drafted
1 was two and done, drafted

4 are still playing college basketball, although two of those transferred

So I have two takeaways:
1. Ziaire Williams result, at least by the metric that I used, is near the median for 5-star men's BB players in the Pac-12. For every Lonzo Ball we have one Kobi Simmons.
2. The NBA has little or no problem with players from the Less than or Equal to Ziaire category. 5 out of 7 of those players who left college after one or two years were drafted.

This year only two 5-star players signed with Pac-12 schools: ZW at Stanford and Joshua Christopher at ASU. Both made Honorable Mention for the All Freshman Team.

Greater than Ziaire
* Rawle Alkins (Arizona)--All Freshman Team--two and done, not drafted
* Lonzo Ball (UCLA)--Freshman of the Year; All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team; Honorable mention All Defensive Team--one and done, drafted by the Lakers
* TJ Leaf (UCLA)--All Freshman Team; All Pac-12 First Team--one and done, drafted by the Pacers
* Markelle Fultz (Washington)--All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team--one and done, drafted by the 76ers

* Deandre Ayton (Arizona)--All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team; All Defensive Team--one and done, drafted by the Suns
* Kris Wilkes (UCLA)--All Freshman Team--two and done, not drafted
* Louis King (Oregon)--Honorable mention All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team--one and done, not drafted
* Moses Brown (UCLA)--All Freshman Team; Honorable mention All Defensive Team--one and done, not drafted
* Nico Mannion (Arizona)--All Pac-12 Second Team; All Freshman Team--one and one, drafted by the Warriors
* Onyeka Okongwu (USC)--All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team--one and done, drafted by the Hawks
* Isaiah Stewart (Washington)--All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team--one and done, drafted by the Blazers


Less than or Equal to Ziaire
* Kobi Simmons (Arizona)--no awards--one and done, not drafted
* Emmanuel Akot (Arizona)--no awards--played two season with Arizona, transferred to Boise State
* Jaylen Hands (UCLA)--no awards, two and done, drafted by the Clippers
* Troy Brown (Oregon)--Honorable mention All Freshman Team--one and done, drafted by the Wizards
* Bol Bol (Oregon)--no awards--one and done, drafted by the Heat
* Kevin Porter, Jr. (USC)--no awards--one and done, drafted by the Bucks
* N'Faly Dante (Oregon)--no awards--still at Oregon, but injured
* CJ Walker (Oregon)--no awards--transferred to UCF
* Josh Green (Arizona)--no awards--one and done, drafted by the Mavericks
* Isaiah Mobley (USC)--no awards--still playing for USC
* Jaden McDaniels (Washington)--no awards--one and done, drafted by the Lakers

[Papa John]

I was curious to see how 247sports 5-star men's BB recruits perform in college, so I looked up Pac-12 5-stars from 2016-2019 and their conference awards for their freshman season. I decided to use the Ziaire Williams baseline and group the players as "Greater than Ziaire"--meaning better than honorable mention all frosh team--or "Less than or Equal to Ziaire"--honorable mention all frosh team or worse.

Of the 22 5-stars from 2016-2019, 11 were Greater than Zaire and 11 were Less than or Equal to Ziaire

Of the Greater than Ziaire group:
7 were one and done, drafted
2 were one and done, not drafted
2 were two and done, not drafted

Of the Less than or Equal to Ziaire group:
5 were one and done, drafted
1 was one and done, not drafted
1 was two and done, drafted

4 are still playing college basketball, although two of those transferred

So I have two takeaways:
1. Ziaire Williams result, at least by the metric that I used, is near the median for 5-star men's BB players in the Pac-12. For every Lonzo Ball we have one Kobi Simmons.
2. The NBA has little or no problem with players from the Less than or Equal to Ziaire category. 5 out of 7 of those players who left college after one or two years were drafted.

This year only two 5-star players signed with Pac-12 schools: ZW at Stanford and Joshua Christopher at ASU. Both made Honorable Mention for the All Freshman Team.

Greater than Ziaire
* Rawle Alkins (Arizona)--All Freshman Team--two and done, not drafted
* Lonzo Ball (UCLA)--Freshman of the Year; All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team; Honorable mention All Defensive Team--one and done, drafted by the Lakers
* TJ Leaf (UCLA)--All Freshman Team; All Pac-12 First Team--one and done, drafted by the Pacers
* Markelle Fultz (Washington)--All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team--one and done, drafted by the 76ers

* Deandre Ayton (Arizona)--All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team; All Defensive Team--one and done, drafted by the Suns
* Kris Wilkes (UCLA)--All Freshman Team--two and done, not drafted
* Louis King (Oregon)--Honorable mention All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team--one and done, not drafted
* Moses Brown (UCLA)--All Freshman Team; Honorable mention All Defensive Team--one and done, not drafted
* Nico Mannion (Arizona)--All Pac-12 Second Team; All Freshman Team--one and one, drafted by the Warriors
* Onyeka Okongwu (USC)--All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team--one and done, drafted by the Hawks
* Isaiah Stewart (Washington)--All Pac-12 First Team; All Freshman Team--one and done, drafted by the Blazers


Less than or Equal to Ziaire
* Kobi Simmons (Arizona)--no awards--one and done, not drafted
* Emmanuel Akot (Arizona)--no awards--played two season with Arizona, transferred to Boise State
* Jaylen Hands (UCLA)--no awards, two and done, drafted by the Clippers
* Troy Brown (Oregon)--Honorable mention All Freshman Team--one and done, drafted by the Wizards
* Bol Bol (Oregon)--no awards--one and done, drafted by the Heat
* Kevin Porter, Jr. (USC)--no awards--one and done, drafted by the Bucks
* N'Faly Dante (Oregon)--no awards--still at Oregon, but injured
* CJ Walker (Oregon)--no awards--transferred to UCF
* Josh Green (Arizona)--no awards--one and done, drafted by the Mavericks
* Isaiah Mobley (USC)--no awards--still playing for USC
* Jaden McDaniels (Washington)--no awards--one and done, drafted by the Lakers

[gailtate]

Adapt or die. Program has one foot in the grave.

And the other one on a banana peel.

---

If you're a hot-shot recruit, do you come to Stanford right now for "player development" under this coaching staff?

[gailtate]

Adapt or die. Program has one foot in the grave.

And the other one on a banana peel.

---

If you're a hot-shot recruit, do you come to Stanford right now for "player development" under this coaching staff?

[lex24]

Adapt or die. Program has one foot in the grave.

And the other one on a banana peel.

---

If you're a hot-shot recruit, do you come to Stanford right now for "player development" under this coaching staff?

 I tend to believe that hot shot recruits are looking for exposure and the fastest path possible to NBA.  I’m looking to play for Calipari and the like.  So, no.  But I don’t think the problem in that vein is Haase.  I attribute it to the institution  (and the general lack of interest).

[lex24]

Adapt or die. Program has one foot in the grave.

And the other one on a banana peel.

---

If you're a hot-shot recruit, do you come to Stanford right now for "player development" under this coaching staff?

 I tend to believe that hot shot recruits are looking for exposure and the fastest path possible to NBA.  I’m looking to play for Calipari and the like.  So, no.  But I don’t think the problem in that vein is Haase.  I attribute it to the institution  (and the general lack of interest).

[Goose]

Sure they take some possessions (and even games off)  defensively.  But I inferred from your comment (perhaps wrongfully) that you were saying that they played “better” defense in college.  They don’t. In fact they don’t do anything better in college.  It is much  easier to defend in college, cause the courts compressed and you don’t have near as many scorers.  The game is considerably slower to boot.

When the NBA teams choose to play defense, they do it much better than the college teams. They have the athletes to do things the college teams can't. However, defense isn't as "important" on a night in night out basis in the NBA because the offenses are so much better proportionally and the rules are set up to favor offense (as you point out even the court size does that). It is like the run game in the NFL. Yes, when they do it they do it better than college, but most of the time they throw the ball. It is what the league thinks the fans want to see, so they make sure that happens by tweaking the rules until it does. Absolutely it is much easier to defend in college for the reasons you cite. That is why they place a greater premium on doing so. It has a higher reward than other alternatives anf failure to do so a larger downside. It is a different game in the NBA. I think we basically agree about this.

The real question here is what contribution a one and done can make to a college team. If said player already has great basketball skills he can make a lot of difference. The trick is to find such guys and keep them motivated in college. I hope that the "mandatory" year of college is negotiated out of the next CBA. It makes no sense that a guy who the NBA thinks is ready has to "waste" a year playing a game that is only marginally preparing him for his professional future. If the players know it is a waste of their time, they aren't going to give full effort to it. This is especially true if it doesn't affect their draft position.

[Goose]

Sure they take some possessions (and even games off)  defensively.  But I inferred from your comment (perhaps wrongfully) that you were saying that they played “better” defense in college.  They don’t. In fact they don’t do anything better in college.  It is much  easier to defend in college, cause the courts compressed and you don’t have near as many scorers.  The game is considerably slower to boot.

When the NBA teams choose to play defense, they do it much better than the college teams. They have the athletes to do things the college teams can't. However, defense isn't as "important" on a night in night out basis in the NBA because the offenses are so much better proportionally and the rules are set up to favor offense (as you point out even the court size does that). It is like the run game in the NFL. Yes, when they do it they do it better than college, but most of the time they throw the ball. It is what the league thinks the fans want to see, so they make sure that happens by tweaking the rules until it does. Absolutely it is much easier to defend in college for the reasons you cite. That is why they place a greater premium on doing so. It has a higher reward than other alternatives anf failure to do so a larger downside. It is a different game in the NBA. I think we basically agree about this.

The real question here is what contribution a one and done can make to a college team. If said player already has great basketball skills he can make a lot of difference. The trick is to find such guys and keep them motivated in college. I hope that the "mandatory" year of college is negotiated out of the next CBA. It makes no sense that a guy who the NBA thinks is ready has to "waste" a year playing a game that is only marginally preparing him for his professional future. If the players know it is a waste of their time, they aren't going to give full effort to it. This is especially true if it doesn't affect their draft position.

[donkey687]

Adapt or die. Program has one foot in the grave.

And the other one on a banana peel.

---

If you're a hot-shot recruit, do you come to Stanford right now for "player development" under this coaching staff?

I really like our frosh class.  O'Connell, Murrell, Taitz and Angel will all likely be four year players and major contributors as upperclassmen. I think development of Murrell and Angel could be very big like we saw with DaSilva, Delaire and Landry Fields.  I really like incoming frosh Silva although he is hoping he is not a four year player.  There are some nice building blocks for a consistently winning program.

[donkey687]

Adapt or die. Program has one foot in the grave.

And the other one on a banana peel.

---

If you're a hot-shot recruit, do you come to Stanford right now for "player development" under this coaching staff?

I really like our frosh class.  O'Connell, Murrell, Taitz and Angel will all likely be four year players and major contributors as upperclassmen. I think development of Murrell and Angel could be very big like we saw with DaSilva, Delaire and Landry Fields.  I really like incoming frosh Silva although he is hoping he is not a four year player.  There are some nice building blocks for a consistently winning program.

[PVTree]

This year only two 5-star players signed with Pac-12 schools: ZW at Stanford and Joshua Christopher at ASU. Both made Honorable Mention for the All Freshman Team.

Isn't frosh Mobley a 5-star too?

[PVTree]

This year only two 5-star players signed with Pac-12 schools: ZW at Stanford and Joshua Christopher at ASU. Both made Honorable Mention for the All Freshman Team.

Isn't frosh Mobley a 5-star too?

[martyup]

With tonight's performance against Cal, Harrison Ingram might just change his mind.

[martyup]

With tonight's performance against Cal, Harrison Ingram might just change his mind.

[old spanish trail]

Thar's been my concern, Marty.

[old spanish trail]

Thar's been my concern, Marty.

[Papa John]

This year only two 5-star players signed with Pac-12 schools: ZW at Stanford and Joshua Christopher at ASU. Both made Honorable Mention for the All Freshman Team.

Isn't frosh Mobley a 5-star too?

Of course! I had Isaiah there and I guess that must have registered as Evan in my mind. Yes, the Internet predicts that 5-star all-everything Evan Mobley from USC, if he declares, will be a lottery pick in this year's NBA draft.

[Papa John]

This year only two 5-star players signed with Pac-12 schools: ZW at Stanford and Joshua Christopher at ASU. Both made Honorable Mention for the All Freshman Team.

Isn't frosh Mobley a 5-star too?

Of course! I had Isaiah there and I guess that must have registered as Evan in my mind. Yes, the Internet predicts that 5-star all-everything Evan Mobley from USC, if he declares, will be a lottery pick in this year's NBA draft.