2015 Final Four contrasting approaches
There is more than one way to skin a cat or get to a Final Four. One way is to use the Duke/Kentucky/Kansas/UNC way of grabbing as many top 35 guys (or as in the case of Kentucky, top 25 guys) and then throw them out there for a year or two and try to out talent other teams and then move on to the next class of five stars as this year’s team heads to the NBA. Or, you can use the MSU/Wisconsin/UCONN method of signing guys ranked in the 100-200 range (or as in the case of Wisconsin, 200+) and try to develop them over a 4-5 year period to become a well-oiled machine that can beat you with their system and efficiency. Of course, all coaches try to get as good of players as they can (you are trying, Wisconsin, right?), but somehow they seem hard to come by.
With that in mind, I looked at this past season’s final four teams (I threw in Michigan in case anyone was wondering how we compare). I listed each team’s players in order of average minutes played per game, with the number of average minutes played appearing in the column representing the recruiting class that they were in. I totaled the minutes by class for each team so that we could easily see how many minutes each team was getting from freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. Because Kentucky went 10 deep, I included the top 10 players for each team. In the first column, I included each player’s 247 Sports Composite Ranking.
Duke |
||||||
247 Sports |
Fr. |
Soph |
Jr |
Sr |
RS Sr |
|
Rank |
Player |
2014 |
2013 |
2012 |
2011 |
2010 |
33 |
Cook |
35.9 |
||||
7 |
T. Jones |
33.1 |
||||
1 |
Okafor |
30.7 |
||||
13 |
Winslow |
28.8 |
||||
30 |
Jefferson |
22.2 |
||||
37 |
M. Jones |
20.3 |
||||
13 |
Saulaimon |
19.3 |
||||
26 |
Ojeleye |
10.5 |
||||
62 |
Plumlee |
9.4 |
||||
25 |
Allen |
8.1 |
||||
247 |
Total |
100.7 |
30.8 |
41.5 |
45.3 |
0 |
Wisconsin |
||||||
247 Sports |
|
Fr. |
Soph |
Jr |
Sr |
RS Sr |
Rank |
Player |
2014 |
2013 |
2012 |
2011 |
2010 |
218 |
Kaminsky |
32.6 |
||||
145 |
Hayes |
|
32.5 |
|||
207 |
Gasser |
|
32.1 |
|||
12 |
Dekker |
29.8 |
||||
111 |
Koenig |
|
27.6 |
|||
201 |
Jackson |
27.4 |
||||
200 |
Dukan |
|
16.6 |
|||
239 |
Showalter |
7.7 |
||||
230 |
Brown |
6.8 |
||||
254 |
Dearring |
2.8 |
||||
1,817 |
Total |
0 |
69.7 |
37.5 |
60 |
48.7 |
Kentucky |
||||||
247 Sports |
|
Fr. |
Soph |
Jr |
Sr |
RS Sr |
Rank |
Player |
2014 |
2013 |
2012 |
2011 |
2010 |
6 |
Arron Harrison |
25.8 |
||||
5 |
Andrew Harrison |
25.4 |
||||
43 |
Cauley-Stein |
25.4 |
||||
19 |
Ulis |
22.9 |
||||
10 |
Lyles |
21.9 |
||||
22 |
Booker |
21.8 |
||||
5 |
Towns |
20.7 |
||||
8 |
Polythress |
20.3 |
||||
10 |
Johnson |
17.3 |
||||
18 |
Lee |
11.7 |
||||
146 |
Total |
87.3 |
80.2 |
45.7 |
0 |
0 |
Michigan State |
||||||
247 Sports |
|
Fr. |
Soph |
Jr |
Sr |
RS Sr |
Rank |
Player |
2014 |
2013 |
2012 |
2011 |
2010 |
105 |
Valentine |
32.8 |
||||
188 |
Trice |
32.6 |
||||
17 |
Dawson |
29.8 |
||||
290+ |
Forbes |
27.1 |
|
|||
92 |
Costello |
20.1 |
||||
104 |
Nairn |
19.1 |
||||
137 |
Schilling |
17.4 |
||||
149 |
Bess |
11.4 |
||||
219 |
Clark |
11.1 |
||||
290 |
Ellis |
8.9 |
||||
1,591 |
Total |
41.6 |
26.3 |
80 |
62.4 |
0 |
Michigan |
||||||
247 Sports |
|
Fr. |
Soph |
Jr |
Sr |
RS Sr |
Rank |
Player |
2014 |
2013 |
2012 |
2011 |
2010 |
28 |
Irvin |
36.1 |
||||
215 |
LeVert |
35.8 |
||||
44 |
Walton |
33.3 |
||||
171 |
Albrecht |
31.4 |
||||
326 |
Dawkins |
19.9 |
||||
203 |
Doyle |
18.7 |
||||
385 |
Abdur-Rahkman |
17.7 |
||||
27 |
Chatman |
15.3 |
||||
253+ |
Bielfeldt |
13.6 |
|
|||
86 |
Donnal |
11.3 |
||||
1,738 |
Total |
71.6 |
80.7 |
67.2 |
13.6 |
0 |
Fr. |
Soph |
Jr |
Sr |
RS Sr |
||
2014 |
2013 |
2012 |
2011 |
2010 |
||
247 |
Duke |
100.7 |
30.8 |
41.5 |
45.3 |
0 |
1,817 |
Wisconsin |
0 |
69.7 |
37.5 |
60 |
48.7 |
146 |
Kentucky |
87.3 |
80.2 |
45.7 |
0 |
0 |
1,591 |
Michigan State |
41.6 |
26.3 |
80 |
62.4 |
0 |
1,738 |
Michigan |
71.6 |
80.7 |
67.2 |
13.6 |
0 |
Duke got nearly 101 minutes from freshmen, Kentucky got over 87 and Wisconsin got zero. On the other hand, Wisconsin Seniors contributed 109 minutes compared to Duke’s 45 and Kentucky’s zero. If you compare the first and second year players against the upper classmen, Duke is 132/87, Kentucky is 168/46, Wisconsin is 70/146 and MSU is 68/142.
If you compared Wisconsin’s player rankings against Kentucky and Duke, you might expect a 30-point Badger loss. The fact that Wisconsin defeated the Wildcats and played the Blue Devils right down to the wire, speaks well for Bo Ryan’s system (and UCONN last year). On the other hand, Kentucky did go 38-1 and Duke won it all, both using more of the 5 star approach. For further contrast, note the total of each team’s player ranking. Kentucky’s total is only 146. MSU had 5 players with an individual ranking number higher than 146, Michigan had 6 and Wisconsin had 7.
Although these four coaches seem to be using different philosophies, they all have been successful. MSU, Duke and Wisconsin have been in all of the last 16 tournaments, while Kentucky has been in 14. Between them, they have 24 Elite Eight appearances, 17 Final Four appearances and 8 Championship Game appearances in those last 16 tournaments.
MSU's final four this year was a fluke.
My work here is done
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do... www.jobs-review.com
It would be interesting if Coach of the Year nominations took this kind of information into account, since true "coaching" (in my opinion) involves more than taking star talent and putting it on the floor. Maybe they could divide the balloting into "recruiter of the year" and "coach of the year" designations, since I think someone like Beilein does a lot more real coaching and developing of his players than most of these other guys.
and just cruise to the NC. An average coach would not have done as well as Coach Cal because it's all about managing personalities and egos. He got them to play together and was able to reach to the NC. Saying anybody can coach them to NC is false especially if they're not a people's person.
not get sanctioned for APR? Is it because basketball involves too few people to affect APR?
Sanctioned? UK's APR is actually pretty good. Players who are in good academic standing when they leave college to pursue a professional career don't hurt a school's APR.
say what you want about UK and Calipari but it's pretty clear he was ahead of the curve and now more and more coaches (first Self, now Coach K) are adopting the same approach: go get as many 1 and Done's as possible and surround them with 2-3 really good players. Fact is though, not all schools can pull this off (odd to me that LSU is becoming successful at it. I totally understand how UK, KU, Duke and UNC get it done).
If Izzo or Bo Ryan could land 3+ Top 50 players every year, they would do the same. Since they can't, their teams are made up of fewer (if any) 1 and Done's but they still get 4* types who will play 3-4 yrs. Simple question: would you rather have a veteran team comprosed of 3* and 4* players or an inexperienced team made up of 5* peppered with a few 4*? Been proven in recent years that both systems work.
Comments