Talent vs system

[pogo]

In the Zack Brown thread Rlh talked about talent and being able to evauluate talent to work in a system. I always felt that MT would try and mold the individual no matter what to fit his system whereas HCGM has a system and adapts it to a degree to fit the player strenghts. In this type of scenario I believe HCGM and staff do a better job of finding and evaluating the players that will fit into their system rather than finding an athlete and forcing him to blend into a system.

[wufan]

So, I kinda disagree. Here's my take:

HCGM - Finds players to fit his system. Those players are athletic, skilled, expected to be hard working. Those that don't meat all three criteria will likely find a new home. The more athletic, skilled and hard working the player, the more HCGM wants him in his system.

HCMT - Finds players to fit his system. Those players are skilled, expected to be hard working. Athleticism is a bonus, but only helpful if they are skilled. HCMT had a ceiling. Anything beyond that ceiling was considered a waste of time. Because HCMT was looking for players that didn't have the athleticism to play in the BCS, they were more likely to be mediocre than those recruits that HCGM has brought in.

[wufan]

FWIW, HCMT and staff worked really, really hard at recruiting. They targeted "best fit" recruits that were passed over by the BCS for one reason or another. Look at Fridge, Gal, Wilson, Howard, Bradley as examples of those that were considered to be BCS, but were "passed on."

[wu_shizzle]

Both run motion offense, but HCMT seemed to use the traditional PG,SG,SF,PF,C "positions" while HCGM seems to like 2 ballhandlers, 2 wings and a forward.

Both run mostly man defense, but HCMT dreams of the day he could get the intensity out of his defense that HCGM gets.

When I look back, I really think both coaches try and fit players into their system.

[shockmonster]

Turgeon M/M defense was a sagging defense. Marshall wants to get into your face and then take away the passing lanes whenever possible (Marshall played Louisville a little differently taking away the drive from their quick players). Turgeon usually played 7-8 players per game. Marshall plays 10. Marshall wants players who are physical and everyone rebounds. Marshall's teams go deep enough that if a player isn't playing physical defense, etc., he sits them down. Those are the main differences that I've seen.

[wufan]

Let's discuss HCGM recruiting style versus Mike Cohen.

[WSUwatcher]

Let's discuss HCGM recruiting style versus Mike Cohen.

Marshall is better.

Gee, that was easy.

[ShockTalk]

Let's discuss HCGM recruiting style versus Mike Cohen.

HCGM goes anywhere it takes and lands recruits from all over. Cohen couldn't find top recruits in his own backyard that wanted to come to WSU.

[Rlh04d]

I think he certainly fits the system to the player strengths. But I think the main things he looks for aren't necessarily what a recruiting service or the NBA looks for. Intensity, defense, bit of an edge, willingness to throw themselves at loose balls, etc. Obviously he looks for NBA talent as well, but I think he has a mental blueprint he looks for in players beyond that. In that way, finding the right player goes beyond recruiting ratings or NBA potential. It's finding the guys that will fight and do anything to win.

[Dan]

Don't underestimate the player's personality and upbringing. He's looking for players who are winners but also not big egos. Nobody comes into the system with guaranteed playing time but everyone comes in with a chance to play.

[Rlh04d]

Moving this over from filling up the Zach Brown thread:

I do agree that Marshall is a good evaluator. His staff goes the extra mile to find players like Baker. I don't agree that the recruiting services are good at it. They miss a lot.

I disagree with you.

Take a loot at the 2012 NBA Draft and their ratings on just Rivals:

1	Anthony Davis	5* (#2)	United States
2	Michael Kidd-Gilchrist	5* (#3)	United States
3	Bradley Beal	5* (#4)	United States
4	Dion Waiters	4* (#29)	United States
5	Thomas Robinson	4* (#31)	United States
6	Damian Lillard	2* (UNR)	United States
7	Harrison Barnes	5* (#2)	United States
8	Terrence Ross	4* (#48)	United States
9	Andre Drummond	5* (#2?)	United States
10	Austin Rivers	5* (#1)	United States
11	Meyers Leonard	4* (#31)	United States
12	Jeremy Lamb	4* (#76)	United States
13	Kendall Marshall	4* (#32)	United States
14	John Henson	5* (#5)	United States
15	Maurice Harkless	4* (#41)	United States
16	Royce White#	5* (#19)	United States
17	Tyler Zeller	4* (#33)	United States
18	Terrence Jones	5* (#13)	United States
19	Andrew Nicholson	2*	Canada
20	Evan Fournier	UNR	France
21	Jared Sullinger	5* (#5)	United States
22	Fab Melo	5* (#16)	Brazil
23	John Jenkins	5* (#15)	United States
24	Jared Cunningham	4* (#76)	United States
25	Tony Wroten	5* (#14)	United States
26	Miles Plumlee	3* (#101)	United States
27	Arnett Moultrie	3* (UNR)	United States
28	Perry Jones III	5* (#9)	United States
29	Marquis Teague	5* (#5)	United States
30	Festus Ezeli	3* (#145)	Nigeria

30 picks. 26 were ranked in the top 150, 25 in the top 76, 23 in the top 50, 21 in the top 33. 15 were 5*'s. Only 6 were lower than a 4* ... and of those six, only three were born in the US, increasing the difficulty of scouting (plus Ezeli was new to the sport, like Orukpe, and Fournier was a professional player in France already). The three Americans are the only ones I would say the recruiting services "missed on," and I'd be hard pressed to include Miles Plumlee (at #101 nationally) in that list. Obviously Damian Lillard was a huge miss.

I get the desire to see that one big exception and play the "they don't know what they're talking about!" game, but the "misses" are in fact incredibly rare. The vast majority of NBA first round draft picks continue to be ranked in the top 50 by the recruiting services. I'm not sure what the percentage of 5* players in general go to the NBA in the first round -- obviously that would be another way to look at it, to see how many they ranked that high became busts.

[shockmonster]

Moving this over from filling up the Zach Brown thread:


I disagree with you.

Take a loot at the 2012 NBA Draft and their ratings on just Rivals:

1	Anthony Davis	5* (#2)	United States
2	Michael Kidd-Gilchrist	5* (#3)	United States
3	Bradley Beal	5* (#4)	United States
4	Dion Waiters	4* (#29)	United States
5	Thomas Robinson	4* (#31)	United States
6	Damian Lillard	2* (UNR)	United States
7	Harrison Barnes	5* (#2)	United States
8	Terrence Ross	4* (#48)	United States
9	Andre Drummond	5* (#2?)	United States
10	Austin Rivers	5* (#1)	United States
11	Meyers Leonard	4* (#31)	United States
12	Jeremy Lamb	4* (#76)	United States
13	Kendall Marshall	4* (#32)	United States
14	John Henson	5* (#5)	United States
15	Maurice Harkless	4* (#41)	United States
16	Royce White#	5* (#19)	United States
17	Tyler Zeller	4* (#33)	United States
18	Terrence Jones	5* (#13)	United States
19	Andrew Nicholson	2*	Canada
20	Evan Fournier	UNR	France
21	Jared Sullinger	5* (#5)	United States
22	Fab Melo	5* (#16)	Brazil
23	John Jenkins	5* (#15)	United States
24	Jared Cunningham	4* (#76)	United States
25	Tony Wroten	5* (#14)	United States
26	Miles Plumlee	3* (#101)	United States
27	Arnett Moultrie	3* (UNR)	United States
28	Perry Jones III	5* (#9)	United States
29	Marquis Teague	5* (#5)	United States
30	Festus Ezeli	3* (#145)	Nigeria

30 picks. 26 were ranked in the top 150, 25 in the top 76, 23 in the top 50, 21 in the top 33. 15 were 5*'s. Only 6 were lower than a 4* ... and of those six, only three were born in the US, increasing the difficulty of scouting (plus Ezeli was new to the sport, like Orukpe, and Fournier was a professional player in France already). The three Americans are the only ones I would say the recruiting services "missed on," and I'd be hard pressed to include Miles Plumlee (at #101 nationally) in that list. Obviously Damian Lillard was a huge miss.

I get the desire to see that one big exception and play the "they don't know what they're talking about!" game, but the "misses" are in fact incredibly rare. The vast majority of NBA first round draft picks continue to be ranked in the top 50 by the recruiting services. I'm not sure what the percentage of 5* players in general go to the NBA in the first round -- obviously that would be another way to look at it, to see how many they ranked that high became busts.

5 Star ratings are no brainer picks. They don't take an a good evaluator. How many 5 star picks have the Shockers had the past 25 years? None
4 Star picks are not very tough either. How many Shockers have been 4 star picks the past 25 years? Again none. How many 4 and 5 star picks in the Valley the past 25 years? Again probably none. 24 of the 30 names listed for the NBA have been 4 and 5 star picks. Almost every evaluator would agree with the names who have 4 and 5 stars. The question that you should answer for good evaluations are how many 2 star players should be 3 star players or how many 3 star players should be 4 star players? Or how many unranked players should have been 3 or 4 star players? It looks from you list that 6 out of the 30 players that are on your NBA list should have been on the list but were left off because they became good enough to be picked by the NBA. That's 1 in 5 or 20% who were bad evaluations. Calipari doesn't evaluate or recruit these players. These are the types of players that Marshall is recruiting and evaluating.

[Rlh04d]

5 Star ratings are no brainer picks. They don't take an a good evaluator. How many 5 star picks have the Shockers had the past 25 years? None
4 Star picks are not very tough either. How many Shockers have been 4 star picks the past 25 years? Again none. How many 4 and 5 star picks in the Valley the past 25 years? Again probably none. 24 of the 30 names listed for the NBA have been 4 and 5 star picks. Almost every evaluator would agree with the names who have 4 and 5 stars. The question that you should answer for good evaluations are how many 2 star players should be 3 star players or how many 3 star players should be 4 star players? Or how many unranked players should have been 3 or 4 star players? It looks from you list that 6 out of the 30 players that are on your NBA list should have been on the list but were left off because they became good enough to be picked by the NBA. That's 1 in 5 or 20% who were bad evaluations. Calipari doesn't evaluate or recruit these players. These are the types of players that Marshall is recruiting and evaluating.

I don't think you read my post very well. As I pointed out, only three of those players could possibly fit into the "bad evaluation" scenario, because you wouldn't expect the recruiting services to be scouting people outside of the US in the same way. And I think putting Plumlee in that category is a huge stretch anyway; he was a top 150 recruit who spent four years with one of the five best coaches in college basketball history.

And how many are bad evaluations, and how many are simply based on growth of a player? Both physically and mentally -- some kids will simply continue to get taller after going to college, which can drastically change their recruiting stock. Some are new to the game, maybe playing a single season of basketball, and so their growth potential is far higher. Some get far better with good coaching. I think you're dismissing the entire potential of growth here. You're demanding a level of perfection that is utterly impossible.

I love the work Marshall's doing, but Marshall's staff isn't evaluating every single high school player in the entire country.

Of course there will be misses. There will be players that have tons of potential and don't have the work ethic to be successful in college. Or who get injured. There will be players that for whatever reason weren't solid recruits in high school -- maybe because they didn't put in as much work in high school, or they were new, or still growing, or poorly coached, or lacking strength training, or in the middle of nowhere (Baker) and barely seen. Even if the recruiting services are only correct about 80% of the time, that's a huge success rate for evaluating every single player in the country.

Is Marshall bad at evaluating talent because a few of our recruits haven't panned out? We're not hitting 100%, either. Clearly Orukpe never hit the potential someone with his physical gifts had, and I'm sure never became what Marshall hoped he would be.

[shockmonster]

I don't think you read my post very well. As I pointed out, only three of those players could possibly fit into the "bad evaluation" scenario, because you wouldn't expect the recruiting services to be scouting people outside of the US in the same way. And I think putting Plumlee in that category is a huge stretch anyway; he was a top 150 recruit who spent four years with one of the five best coaches in college basketball history.

And how many are bad evaluations, and how many are simply based on growth of a player? Both physically and mentally -- some kids will simply continue to get taller after going to college, which can drastically change their recruiting stock. Some are new to the game, maybe playing a single season of basketball, and so their growth potential is far higher. Some get far better with good coaching. I think you're dismissing the entire potential of growth here. You're demanding a level of perfection that is utterly impossible.

I love the work Marshall's doing, but Marshall's staff isn't evaluating every single high school player in the entire country.

Of course there will be misses. There will be players that have tons of potential and don't have the work ethic to be successful in college. Or who get injured. There will be players that for whatever reason weren't solid recruits in high school -- maybe because they didn't put in as much work in high school, or they were new, or still growing, or poorly coached, or lacking strength training, or in the middle of nowhere (Baker) and barely seen. Even if the recruiting services are only correct about 80% of the time, that's a huge success rate for evaluating every single player in the country.

Is Marshall bad at evaluating talent because a few of our recruits haven't panned out? We're not hitting 100%, either. Clearly Orukpe never hit the potential someone with his physical gifts had, and I'm sure never became what Marshall hoped he would be.

You can argue with yourself. Like I said some time ago, you have more faith in the recruiting ranking system than do I. I don't have a problem with the Top 50 (5 stars are easy), but between 75-100 and 100-175, I think that a number of mistakes are made. They can't see them all play and therefore, they just don't know.

[Rlh04d]

You can argue with yourself. Like I said some time ago, you have more faith in the recruiting ranking system than do I. I don't have a problem with the Top 50 (5 stars are easy), but between 75-100 and 100-175, I think that a number of mistakes are made. They can't see them all play and therefore, they just don't know.

I guess I have to argue with myself. With such detailed responses as "I think" and zero actual evidence to support your opinions, there's nothing to actually argue. You're welcome to your subjective opinion, I suppose.

Just think that's kind of interesting considering your post dismissing "subjective opinion" in the Omega Harris thread.

You certainly might be correct, but you're doing nothing to prove it.