Moussa Diabate Combine Testing Numbers
I saw this on Twitter. Ratings are among all centers that were tested. Hard to imagine that he will not be drafted with this much athletic potential.
Lane Agility: 11.16 (1st) Shuttle Run: 2.9 (1st by a WIDE margin) 3/4 Sprint: 3.26 (1st)
Standing Vert: 29 (2nd) Max Vert: 36 (1st)
His career is what’s most important but I’ll be honest, I was really hoping to see what he could do next year in college.
In any case, good luck to him!
Juwan time to build that roster up through the portal.
Both Howards will have solid minutes.
Yup. As expected but still very impressive. It's tough watching him go. I bet he would have absolutely taken off in his 2nd season at M.
Despite an underwhelming freshman season (at least in some facets of his game), Moussa is constantly proving himself and is going to soon be a former wolverine playing significant minutes in the league. I am glad he found his footing and is showing flares of his potential. I would much rather have someone jump and go high in the first round decisively than have potential but end up in the second round or worse. I think in this new-ish NIL/transfer portal world, we have to keep hope that we can adjust by filling in talent gaps, increasing our NIL offering and increasing our ability to play the transfer market. Two of the best sustained indicators of success for Michigan are 1). how well we can identify (and attract) talent and 2). how well we develop that talent into pros that outperform expectations. Based on the Duncans, Leverts, Pooles and those to come soon, we have the reputation of a talent springboard, that should benefit the smart, long-term thinking 16-18 year olds and their families, so long as we can pay them enough in their 18-21 years to offset the assumed few hundred thousand dollar gap between us and the Miamis, Texas institutes, SECs and presumably more. I bet this compares well to some of our high profile recruiting misses. If we can add a third indicator- an outcome based on performance, say a national championship once every decade or Big Ten championship banner once every 3 years- I doubt we will complain about our deficiencies. Note to self, never underestimate our fans (fire Bakich/Beilein).
Many teams (won't name names) can't get to the Sweet 16 regularly despite recruiting well while holding onto high potential players much longer. I am fairly happy where we are, noting we have still yet to see a fully realized (whatever that means) Juwan Howard team trending upward into the tourney.
Shit. He's gone. Be cool to have more Wolverines in the NBA.
He was always gone.
Best of luck!
Michigan has turned into a one and done school...
Which is exactly what every powerhouse basketball program is.
Villanova isn’t a one and done school and I’m sure there are other examples. That said, while you have plan for kids to leave after a year, if you know that is a possibility, I by no means think we should avoid those players or discourage them from taking the leap to the NBA if that’s what they want.
Villanova has had multiple one and done players during their decade run and the years they’ve won championships it’s heavily involved one of those Freshman and also a couple 2 and done sophomores.
There’s this idea that jay wright recruited like beilein and it’s wrong. He was getting a 5 star relatively frequently and top 50 guys every year.
So, I decided to actually look this up. I don't think the overall sentiment of your point is wrong, Villanova has had some young players leading their teams.
But the list of one and done Villanova players going back to the Kyle Lowry/Randy Foye days in 2006 is just one. Omari Spellman.
Saddiq Bey was 2 years. Mikal Bridges was 3. Brunson was 3. Robinson-Earl was 2 years. And so on.
Jay Wright very openly talks about his shift in strategy after briefly being tempted by the highest rated guys. And even though he didn't recruit many of them in the past ten years (see the recruiting profiles of Kris Jenkins, Josh Hart, Donte Divencenzo, Saddiq Bey, Gillespie - none of them were top 50 guys), it's not five stars per se that are the problem.
Lots of five stars are ranked as such because they're really good, skilled basketball players but that the NBA will be skeptical about. Like, Jalen Brunson. He's short, not particularly long or quick, doesn't scream NBA athleticism. So despite being a five star, he was the kind of player that was almost certainly going to have to play 2-3 years. But he came in relatively polished. The exact kind of college player you want. Those are the five stars he focused on.
Guys that knew they wouldn't get drafted based on measureables alone and didn't treat college like a one year stop for which their biggest focus was not getting hurt.
Even Omari Spellman, his only one and done ever, was a 6'9 270 lb guy that didn't project well to the NBA (and is not there now - he's playing overseas) so was a bit of surprise he left.
The very raw, but very athletic guys like Moussa are the kind of five stars that are less worth it. At least Moussa had a good attitude, seemed like a great kid, so he wasn't disruptive like some of the guys Wright stopped recruiting, but he wasn't a highly plus player (although he would have been a lot better as a center so part of it was roster construction) and now he's gone.
The smart teams don't recruit those players much anymore. That's why they go to Memphis and Texas (under Smart at least) and Georgetown and LSU and other places that will play them right away...but not have a whole lot of team success.
For the record, I do think Houstan was a guy that was more like Brunson as a relatively polished guy that doesn't scream NBA potential/athleticism. I think he's just benefitting from a very bad draft class so it seems like someone will take him.
They were both after Eli Brooks, and he almost went to Nova..... so I guess one can say they recruit the same...
Quite the opposite.
Villanova dabbled in one-and-dones, it was disastrous, and they reverted to developing mostly four stars.
Kansas has quietly made a similar shift and won the title this year. They had zero (!!!) freshmen and only one sophomore in their 9 man rotation this year.
Baylor doesn't get one and dones and they won in 2021.
UVA doesn't get one and dones.
Even UNC doesn't do the one and done thing much anymore aside from a guy here and there.
The only bluebloods that still get one and dones as a strategy: Duke and Kentucky and each have only won once with multiple one-and-dones (Duke in 2015 and UK in 2012).
Only two of the last six champions have had even a single one-and-done player (Omari Spellman for Nova in 2018 and Tony Bradley for UNC in 2017) and all of the last six were very experienced with lots of upperclassmen.
Only Kentucky has been close to a pure one and done school. So not every powerhouse does this, do they...
Because of 1, maybe 2, players?
Hunter Dickinson, now entering his 3rd season at Michigan.
I'm still holding out hope.
Yeah, I know it's probably foolish but hoping doesn't hurt anyone and it feels good for now.
And don't forget he was 1st in body fat!
I’d say last in body fat. But I’m a glass half full kind of guy.
Obligatory: username checking out
A glass half full of fat?
"Vanilla milkshake. Just a vanilla milkshake..."
I expected this from Diabate. I felt he’d test the waters and his athletic profile would be too great for teams to pass up and he’d shoot up the boards and be gone.
I was less certain about Houstan leaving but absolutely see the upside in his game for NBA teams. As inconsistent as he was for Michigan last year, there’s plenty of film and scouting on him from his time in high school and playing international ball to say he has elite shooting upside. A 6’8” guy with shooting ability is a big time prospect to NBA teams and Houstan is a guy teams probably feel confident they can “fix.”
A lot of people seem to forget that these guys are drafted largely on how good teams think they are GOING to be and not necessarily on how good they are right now. They’re looking for guys with profiles they think can be molded into contributing players at the NBA level.
How do you moneyball this? Take centers like Hunter or Kofi Cockburn who dominate at the college level but don't project well to the NBA? Beilein took guys who were probably 4 year guys but he was so damn good at player development that they'd go in 1-2 years anyway.
I haven't really watched any Kentucky or Memphis basketball but my understanding is that they have a crazy amount of one and done guys and are mediocre most years. Everyone thinks the Fab5 magic can happen for them, but in most cases it doesn't.
I think Juwan Howard would agree with your approach. Seems like we generally target dominant post players as bigs and undersized ballhandlers as PGs. Then you fill out your lineup with NBA wings.
Still hard to believe how good the Fab Five were. If the G league thing didn't exist, Juwan would have had a great class
It was still pretty rare that Beilein guys would leave in 2 years. The anchors of all of his teams except the 2013-14 teams were still 3 or 4 year guys: Douglas, Novak, JMo, MAAR, Robinson, Simpson, Irvin, Walton, Teske, Livers, Mathews were all four year guys. And even Wagner and Wilson were 3 year guys.
The 2013 class was unique with GR3, McGary and Stauskas going early. But other than them, it was just Morris, Poole and Burke that shot up boards to be two year guys. And Iggy was the only one and done ever for Beilein (that I recall..).
I think you have to do what Jay Wright and Tony Bennet, and even this years Bill Self team do: get a bunch of skilled three and four year guys that are not quite the lengthy athletic guys that the NBA covets and teach them to play the game and they'll do it better then everyone else when they're upperclassmen.
I think you do the exact opposite with your centers. Traditional ball-dominant, paint-bound bigs are the opposite of money ball. There's a reason Dickinson and Kofi haven't been to a final four, IMO. I think you need defense first (maybe even only) centers that are either just not quite athletic enough to make up for their lack of offensive skill, like Baylors guys two years ago (Thamba and Tchamwa-Tchatcoua) or Diakite for UVA or Nova's endless stream of 6'8 guys that are too short for the NBA.
Obviously, you're toeing a fine line. Hard to predict which guards are going to be skilled but just barely not athletic enough or which bigs will be athletic but barely not skilled or tall enough. The irony of UNC this past year is that they were good largely because their top recruits from the year or two before ended up not playing up to expectations. So they got sophomore Caleb Love, Junior Armando Bacot, etc. Those are five star guys with experience. So there's a lot of luck involved. And for them, the cost was bad years in the previous couple of seasons when their five stars were playing badly.
I’d say the ideal mix is what we’re doing now. Load up on guys ranked in the 50-100 range that are more likely to be around at least 3 years and then swing for the fences on a couple top 50 guys that you’re only going to get for a year or two. Guys that have the potential to really separate your team from the rest of the pack.
In an ideal world, you get more out of a guy like Houstan that was billed as a premier shooter. If he had some consistency beyond the arc and could shoot away from Crisler, that would have really changed the profile of this team. Diabate was a really raw 5* that was ranked because of his immense potential and athleticism, so I don’t think he really fits the bill of someone who would help carry a team.
Obviously Michigan doesn’t have the recruiting profile to consistently recruit one and dones but they have shown the ability to get that second and third tier guy. You can really build a great program on the backs of guys like that and end up a key 5* addition away from being a title favorite.
All shooters get better in the NBA.
Here's the original tweet (from MattD):
I know Matt sees Diabate as a center at the NBA level in the mold of a Kevon Looney (with Bam Adebayo as the long-term development goal). I do think there will be some variance in that opinion and some will see him as a PF, in which case the agility numbers will not stand out as much, even though they are still good.
He has to be the lightest of the centers in this testing. His numbers should also be compared against PF.
Now do Sekou Doumbouya.
So all hoppy guys who have trouble you know shooting are what the NBA is gonna pick. Looks like yes
For NCAA avoid top level athletes and focus on 4 year players. Throw in 1 high level athlete a class and know he is gone in 1 year so you just keep 1 roster spot for that guy and let everyone else marinate 3-4 years. WIN. Villanova style.
Doumbouya is 2 inches shorter with about 3 inches less wingspan which is a pretty big difference. Diabate can play small ball center which means he can get away with not being a shooter.
That said, Diabate is absolutely a risky project. But the upside (and the lack of great options) mean that he'll def get drafted.
This is a serious question (and not snark), because I don’t really follow the NBA anymore, but do teams prioritize things like this now, over, say, shooting? I know it’s a five-out shooter’s league now, so are these numbers enough to override that?
There are still quite a few teams who play four out around a C. Those teams don't want someone they can dump the ball into necessarily. They want a guy like Adebayo or Gobert who can switch and/or protect the rim. Moussa is very much a fit for that style.
For a center, generally yes. They want their centers to be defense first. Best to be able to switch everything, protect the rim, rebound, and finish at the rim in transition and off screen-and-rolls. Shooting matters less for centers if they can do those things. To the point above, most teams play four out with a center setting screens and rolling.
For non-centers, they're both valued. And it's almost impossible to be bad at either shooting or defense/athleticism and stick as a non-center in the NBA. You can get away with being mediocre at one if you're good at the other, but it's hard to hide a bad shooting wing or guard and it's even harder to hide a poor defensive player (because the other team will exploit him endlessly).
The one exception is if you can be an elite creator, and set up other guys or get to the rim, you can get away with being a bad shooter (like Rondo or Simmons who also have to be very good defenders).
Basically, the NBA cares about three things: shooting/finishing, creating and defending. You have to be good at two or elite at one and not horrible at the other two to stick in a rotation. If you're elite at two, you're an all-star. Elite at all three and you're a hall of famer. Moussa's numbers suggest he should be good at defense and finishing.
but but but he is too thin!
What a beast. I guess the combine can make a difference if you are that dominant.
I've always kind of felt like Diabate could be a "poor mans" Kevin Garnett. Similar measurables and athletic ability. Garnett famously almost came to UofM but decided to go straight to the NBA instead. Hopefully Moussa has an NBA career like Garnett and we can look back positively on the one year he was a wolverine.
He does have a similar body type but he has a long way to go skill wise to be in that conversation.
hence "poor mans".
LOL
CMon man
Moussa makes more sense as a project because of this otherwordly athleticism; you can let him mature for a year or two on the bench and then have an elite athlete with solid skills.
Bambi on skates when handling the ball in the paint. For a tall guy gets his shot blocked an awful lot. Could really benefit from another year in college.
Some people need to see this, exactly why a guy like moussa who’s game isn’t ready will get drafted and will go. Develop in the g league where it’s 100% basketball with a paycheck and no class. Good for you Moussa
I am of the opinion that Diabate going pro early is a mistake for him. We all saw his play in the tournament. Diabate is an athletic marvel who is the equivalent of the guy with the really deep voice who has no communications skills. Basketball still requires skills. The NBA is a terrible place to develop because if you are a work in progress you will be spending all of your time sitting on a bench or traveling. Diabate was so clueless at the end that Howard took his chances with Brandon Johns which says a lot. Diabate was so out of it he could not even catch an entry pass. If Diabate could not do anything against Villanova's undersized front court, what is going to happen in the NBA when he is up against athletes who are perhaps not twitchy as him but are an order of magnitude better then what he observed in college. If anyone has a track record for developing a big man, I would say that is Juwan Howard. Yet Diabate thinks he will get better instruction in the G league?
That all said my understanding from pundits is that UM will improve via subtraction as Houstan can drop down to the 4 where he will have better matchups. If I had a choice of Dickinson/Houstan verse Diabate/Houstan I would choose the former. Diabate would be better off transferring then bolting for the pro's.
Let's not use the word mistake... Rather, the opportunity is so much better to stay, get better under Howard, and then go in the lottery, vs the G league.
Same with Houstan. Both have better shots to go in top half of first and land the big contract, with another season.