The 2017 NBA draft is likely to be the league’s most freshman-dominant selection, well, ever. Since the one-and-done rule was enacted over a decade ago, the record for most freshmen taken as lottery picks is eight.
That occurred just two years ago in 2015. Sing along with me: Karl-Anthony Towns, D’Angelo Russell, Jahlil Okafor, Stanley Johnson, Justise Winslow, Myles Turner, Trey Lyles, and Devin Booker.
However this freshman class we currently have before us looks like it’s going to beat that record with ease. Right now on the mock draft boards, one of the few people on earth who’s not currently a college freshman but who stands an excellent chance of being taken in the lottery is Belgium’s own Frank Ntilikina. Another potential gate-crasher here could be Cal sophomore Ivan Rabb.
Other than those guys and their ilk, however, the top of the draft may be thick with freshmen, to wit:
He makes twos, threes, and all kinds of symbolic sense. (Kelly Presnell, Arizona Daily Star)
With February now upon us, I want to update the yay-scoring hallelujah I posted at ESPN.com a few weeks back. Here are the changes we’ve seen in major-conference play since 2013, in order of magnitude…
1. Scoring’s up 12.3 percent
There are exactly eight more points scored per 40 minutes of major-conference play than there were in the 2013 season. You can now expect a team to put 73.3 points on the board. (Well, not literally. On average.)
2. Three-point attempts are up by 9.4 percent
Changes Nos. 1 and 2 are correlated. (Ahem, coaches.) Note that both major-conference play and Division I basketball as a whole are more perimeter-oriented than they’ve ever been. This statement specifically includes the 2007-08 season, back when it was widely said there were “too many threes” and the three-point line was therefore moved back a foot. Now there are more threes than there were when there were too many threes. Personally I’m fine with it. Continue reading
Not counting the 10 suits, a group like this only happens in Division I once every 1.8 years.
Now that Duke is rounding into form health-wise, this may be an appropriate moment to revisit the idea of the category 5 roster. With Mike Krzyzewski giving serious minutes to Jayson Tatum and the coach also saying that Harry Giles may play before Christmas, this epochal-roster-strength stuff is no longer a conceptual exercise where the Blue Devils are concerned. The speculative “when Duke gets healthy” dream pieces have been retired, and unalloyed present-tense adulation (heresy just two weeks ago) has begun in earnest.
A category 5 roster is one that returns at least 40 percent of its possession-minutes from the previous season, and adds a freshman class that rates out at 25 recruiting points or better based on Drew Cannon’s canonical front-loaded evaluative curve.
Duke has the nation’s only category 5 roster for 2016-17. Here’s how the Blue Devils and Kentucky fare on the metrics in question this season:
Duke 56 36.6
Kentucky 26 35.4
Indiana is ranked No. 13 in week four. Could be good to know later…. (AJ Mast, AP)
We are now in week four of the college basketball season, and here are the top 13 teams from the latest AP poll:
3. North Carolina
12. Saint Mary’s
You might be asking why I brought the curtain down on the nation’s top teams at No. 13 instead of an equally arbitrary but more customary number ending in a zero or a five.
Let me stress the word “arbitrary,” but, for now, here’s a fact worth pondering:
Every year since 2004, the eventual national champion has come from one of the top 13 teams in week four’s AP poll. Continue reading
This season Markelle Fultz will turn out to be brilliant, disappointing or something in between, and of course Washington either will or will not make the NCAA tournament. But I for one promise not to brand Fultz as a disappointment simply because the Huskies don’t receive a bid. In fact, I think it rather likely that Fultz will live up to the hype, and that Lorenzo Romar’s guys will not go dancing. There may be far less friction between these two scenarios than we’re inclined to assume.
In the one-and-done era, there is precious little precedent for a freshman single-handedly and dramatically altering the trajectory of his non-blue-chip program’s season. Yet for some reason, a decade in, we’re still talking like this should indeed happen simply as a matter of course.
We talked like that last year with Ben Simmons despite a preseason chorus of smug pre-Trump laptops saying that LSU, even with the best freshman in the country, was likely to be a bubble team. We may talk like that again with Fultz this season (though yesterday’s loss at home to Yale certainly won’t get any bandwagons rolling).
This gap between the observed performances of the past and our expectations for the near-future has come to constitute something of an esteem tariff that a coach like Romar chooses to pay when signing a one-and-done-track player like Fultz. What a terrible coach, we say. He can’t even do what’s hardly ever been done by anyone else before. It’s a vein of criticism that dates from the widespread disbelief that Kevin Durant could end his freshman season anywhere except the Final Four. It’s been a hearty perennial ever since. Continue reading
How many games will they win this season? What seed will they get in the tournament? Who among them will go pro next summer? Good questions. (Mark Zerof, USA Today)
I may be exhibiting the slightest degree of occupational bias, but it is my considered opinion that predicting future events in college basketball represents the most difficult forecasting gig there is, period. Please consider this post a tribute, then, to Ken Pomeroy, Dan Hanner, David Hess, and all of my intrepid colleagues who are engaged in this inherently hazardous line of work. It’s brutal out here.
If there’s a similarly daunting predictive challenge, I’m yet to find it. Other sports? Football introduces some interesting randomness, what with the microscopic number of games, alpha-and-omega nature of the quarterback position and win-probability-shattering pick-sixes. Yet somehow even the gridiron can’t give us anything to compare with Middle Tennessee State on March 18, 2016. (Spoken like a repentant forecaster.) At the end of the day pro sports and college football alike bequeath upon their predictors the cardinal blessing of year-to-year carryover in elite personnel. In college hoops, conversely, the best players by definition (almost) always leave. Continue reading
If Thomas Walkup bumps into any Villanova players, he can set them straight on which team really had the most remarkable shooting performance of 2015-16.
Watching Villanova do amazing NCAA tournament things in terms of scoring against Miami and in terms of shooting against Oklahoma made me realize I didn’t really have good information close at hand to describe just how amazing this was. I resolved to be better prepared the next time a once-in-a-generation feat takes place.
In the offseason I’ve compiled a quick and dirty record book of the best scoring and shooting performances in the seven thousand major-conference games that have been played since 2006. Last week I rolled out part one of this data, the 10 best scoring games we’ve seen in major-conference play in the last decade. One takeaway here was that if you want to see historically insane scoring, your chances are increased dramatically by attending a Big Ten game on senior day-slash-night.
Now I want to look at shooting. If you’re wondering how impressed you should have been by the 82.7 effective field goal percentage that Jay Wright’s team posted against the Sooners, the answer there is “extremely.” Out of seven thousand games (6,996, if you must know), I’ve only seen that mark bettered twice. In fact teams record an eFG north of 80 percent, on average, less than once a year.
opponent H/A eFG PPP PF PA MOV
1. Clemson 12-Jan-11 Georgia Tech H 83.3 1.31 87 62 25
2. Ohio St. 6-Mar-11 Wisconsin H 83.0 1.61 93 65 28
3. Providence 23-Feb-14 Butler A 82.1 1.37 87 81 6
4. Illinois 6-Jan-11 Northwestern H 80.7 1.20 88 63 25
5. W. Virginia 31-Jan-07 Rutgers A 80.4 1.48 89 83 6
6. Illinois 29-Dec-10 Iowa A 80.2 1.30 87 77 10
7. Arizona 7-Mar-09 Stanford H 80.0 1.41 101 87 14