BearlyCareAnymore said:
calumnus said:
BearlyCareAnymore said:
calumnus said:
01Bear said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
01Bear said:
Welcome Jake!
He'll get the chance to develop a highlight reel any human would envy at Cal. As part of that, I hope to see consistently solid defense and also the ability to shoot the 3 (at or above 36%) and free throws (at or above 80%). If he can do that, not only will he be a lottery pick, but Cal will probably end up in the Tournament come March.
Go Bears!
Not trying to be a "negabear" here, just being real. He played 10 minutes per game last year but you've got him as a potential "lottery pick" and our current squad in the tournament? You might want to review your expectations.
You'll note that in my post, I mentioned if he can consistently play solid defense, hit 3s at a 36%+ clip and free throws at an 80%+ rate, then he could become a lottery pick. Looking at his stats last year, his outside shooting was 21%. He'll need to work on his shooting in the offseason to get to 36%+. But with his build and athleticism (not to mention his lineage), if he can hit the metrics I listed, he'll likely be lottery bound. If that happens, Cal will likely make the Tournament.*
*Historically, when Cal has had a lottery pick, it has made the Tournament. Lottery pick players usually help elevate their college squads so that, with rare exception, they usually play in the NCAA Tournament.
Agreed, as they say "You can't teach size and athleticism." Moreover, you didn't say it would happen or put odds on it happening, or even that it would happen this year, just if he can do those things he will be a lottery pick.
We can debate the chances of it happening given it didn't happen for him last year (though Madsen has already helped several players dramatically elevate their games), but I'd think with the very recent example of Fernando Mendoza, we wouldn't write off anyone's chances. If you would have asked me Fernando's chances of being a first rounder much less the #1 pick two years ago, or even a year ago, versus Wilkins' chances of being a lottery pick, I would go with Wilkins 100% I think his development will be fun to watch in any case.
I'm not talking about Wilkins here, but the "you can't teach athleticism" cliche is the motto of failed scouting organizations everywhere. 1. You actually can develop athleticism. 2. Guys with poor shooting and or handles and huge athleticism coming out of high school overwhelmingly fail because while yes it is theoretically possible to teach poor shooters to shoot and poor handlers to handle, it turns out it is extremely hard to do when they are five years behind their peers in skill development. There are notable exceptions to be sure, but that is why they call them exceptions.
When Billy Beane brought Moneyball to the A's, one of the components that is more rarely talked about is how baseball at the time was much more focused on high school prospects and Beane changed that. He felt his scouts would look at a high school player and fantasize about their unlimited potential and were down on college players because their potential was a more known quantity, meaning the ceiling was set. Their were a hundred high school players who could be the next Willie Mays (and none of them ever were) while almost no college players could be, but you knew a lot more what there skill set is. Athleticism without skill is nothing.
As for Mendoza, on the infamous "pigs fly" thread, I argued to much derision that if you looked at Mendoza's first two years compared with Jared Goff's based on stats and metrics instead of memories colored by the fact that Goff went on to be first pick, they were remarkably similar. This despite the fact that Goff benefited from a well designed, pass oriented offense with very good offensive coaches and a deep bench of great receivers while Mendoza had a crappy offense with crappy coaches and a shallow bench of poor receivers. As I said, Goff made a big jump his junior year and Mendoza would have to as well to repeat what Goff did. Guess what? He did. Fact is that many first round picks at QB look exactly like Mendoza as a freshman, which is a totally different from saying most guys who look like Mendoza become first round picks.
Sorry, but this is a hot button for me because I think our hit rate on "you can't teach athleticism" recruits with limited skill is close to zero. I still remember the same Cal fans who drooled over crappy basketball players dumping all over Ryan Anderson's video when the guy had obviously massive skill which would then lead him to leave early for the NBA. The next time I see a "you can't teach athleticism" recruit become as good a player for us as RA will certainly be the first one I can remember.
It may have touched a hot button for you, but that is not the point here.
We aren't talking about guys with skills, but limited athleticism, that is a different story. And yes, using advanced metrics (Moneyball) is the best way to find those guys. Guys who hit a high percentage of threes is the most obvious. Fat guys in basketball are often downgraded even when they are proven great players. From Charles Barkley to our own Andre Kelly (and multiple players before him).
However, we are talking about a specific player here and he is on the other end of the spectrum. All that was said in this thread is that "if Wilkens develops skills" (that he has not yet demonstrated) "he can be a lottery pick. Not that he would be one without developing those skills. Not that an NBA team would draft him that high for development. And part of that statement was the fact he is a legacy and looks the part (and would get that boost, the very thing Moneyball preaches against). I thought Pippen benefited from that last year, making him the player announcers focused on despite other players being more valuable for us.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing if Madsen and staff can develop Wilkens. However, I personally would like to see us next bring in someone who has skills coming in, three and D would be my preference.
Pippen and Wilkins are not analogous. Pippen's profile was he was a good shooter with good handles. He was not a "you can't teach athleticism" guy at all. He was a guy who needed an opportunity and maybe needed the year of development under his belt. The thing they have in common - being legacies, is irrelevant to who they are as players.
And I don't think "if player X develops a lot of skills he doesn't have, he can be a lottery player" is very good analysis. That is just another way of saying "you can't teach athleticism". A lot of guys can be lottery picks if they develop a lot of skills they don't have. It is not the same thing when you have a guy who has one skill where he is somewhat deficient.
That was my point with the Moneyball analogy. There are a ton of guys who "if they develop skills can be a lottery pick". Most of them don't. Saying that a guy who is athletic could be a lottery pick if he develops skills isn't really saying anything, but it is implying a whole lot that is unwarranted until the guy actually develops some of those skills.
How many 5'8" guys with a 24" vertical and short arms have you seen get drafted into the league, let alone get drafted in the lottery? I'll wait.
There's a reason teams will draft someone with length and athleticism, even if the guy doesn't have the skills needed for the league just yet. While those players tend not to get drafted in the lottery, it does happen on occasion (especially for big men--see, Thabeet, Hasheem; Wiseman, James). The hope is that those players will develop the skills either in the D/G-League (since 2001) or on the bench.
While your moneyball argument may give you the potential to become a great NBA GM, unfortunately, since you're not actually a NBA GM, we'll never know how valid your argument really is. That said, we have and continue to see guys with length, height, and athleticism get drafted, especially as role players. In this era where 3-and-D guys are command a premium, tall, athletic players are even more important. The hope is that they'll be able to guard multiple (ideally, all five) positions and also be able to hit 3 pointers at league average or better. These guys don't have to become all-stars, they just need to be capable role players who.
That said, guys who can shoot, but lack athleticism and/or height can still make the NBA. But unless they shoot the lights out (around 40% behind the arc), they tend to be much less desirable. I'm not saying they're not valued (especially as every team is looking for 3-point threats) but when was the last time you saw someone who was 6'0", lacked length and athleticism (hence can't guard his position), shot league average (or below) from 3, and still made (let alone stuck around) in the Association? However, you still see guys who are long and athletic (but can't shoot) stick around in the NBA because they have the athletic ability (and the desire) to play solid defense against multiple positions. In other words, height/length and athleticism still count for a whole heck of a lot in today's NBA.
Now, of course, Wilkins isn't a big; he's a wing player. That means he needs to be able to show accuracy from behind the arc as well as the ability to defend guards and forwards (and ideally, even centers). His length and athleticism will be a desirable, but absent the other attributes I mentioned, he will not become a lottery pick. Having an iconic father will get him some attention, but, again, without the other attributes I mentioned, he's not going to be a lottery pick.
However, as I mentioned in my previous post, should he become a lottery pick, Cal will likely be a Tournament team. Again, while it's also possible that a lottery pick doesn't make the NCAA Tournament, that's more the exception to the rule than the rule. In short, my hope is that Jake develops into a lottery pick next year and leads Cal to the NCAA Tournament. If you want to nega that, feel free. But I, for one, will root for him to develop into a lottery pick and to lead Cal back into the Dance.
