Bear Down Wildcats

rgdeuce wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: This would be my best comparison: Andrea Bargnani.

That's a really good comp. And a number 1 pick himself. I didn't want to go overboard with the Dirk reference but it paints a picture on how tall/shooting/stretch offense is so big and makes everything else forgivable.

Beachcat97 wrote: Okay. But isn't the question really what kind of player he can be for Arizona this year? Who knows what kind of player LM will mature into? NBA All-Star? Total bust? Euro players with his skill set have been dicey. That's not a knock on LM; it's just what we've seen over the last several years.
How will he impact this year's team? Can he be a dominant Pac 12 player in his one season in college?

Put it this way, I'm sure many here would not be surprised if he was all Pac-12 first team. I'm sure many here would also EXPECT him to be that if he wasn't on a team with this much talent. His offense will take a hit when you got Alkins, Simmons, Trier, Dusan, Smith, etc. who will be taking shots too, but the kid is going to have several monster nights, believe that.

My hold back on the Dirk comparison is just because a lot of things have to go right to be a superstar on the next level like Dirk. Bargnani is a good example in my mind of how valued being an agile big who can really shoot it is. Bargnani has never really broken through into Dirk territory, but has had a long, productive NBA career. Even if someone never really breaks into that superstar level, a guy with Lauri's ability still isn't likely to disappoint on the next level.

I agree with the assessment that Lauri's stats may not blow someone away the way they would if he was surrounded by fewer weapons. No matter how good Lauri is, Zo is probably our #1 option.

Beachcat's "dominant player" isn't the standard. Jaylen Brown and Aaron weren't necessarily dominant in conference, but that didn't define their pro draft positions. Lauri should be good with flashes of greatness. I'll take that.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Beachcat's "dominant player" isn't the standard. Jaylen Brown and Aaron weren't necessarily dominant in conference, but that didn't define their pro draft positions. Lauri should be good with flashes of greatness. I'll take that.

Jaylen Brown and Aaron Gordon were both first team All Pac 12 as freshmen. If that's not dominance, I'm not sure what is.

Beachcat97 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Beachcat's "dominant player" isn't the standard. Jaylen Brown and Aaron weren't necessarily dominant in conference, but that didn't define their pro draft positions. Lauri should be good with flashes of greatness. I'll take that.

Jaylen Brown and Aaron Gordon were both first team All Pac 12 as freshmen. If that's not dominance, I'm not sure what is.

Brown scored 14 ppg for a 3rd place Pac team that lost in the first round of the NCAA. Good yes, but you have a pretty low standard for dominant. By that measure, Ryan Anderson's 15 and 10 approaches being a Shaq level monster.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Beachcat's "dominant player" isn't the standard. Jaylen Brown and Aaron weren't necessarily dominant in conference, but that didn't define their pro draft positions. Lauri should be good with flashes of greatness. I'll take that.

Jaylen Brown and Aaron Gordon were both first team All Pac 12 as freshmen. If that's not dominance, I'm not sure what is.

you have a pretty low standard for dominant. By that measure, Ryan Anderson's 15 and 10 approaches being a Shaq level monster.

I'm not among the voters for the first team Pac-12, but I'm going to assume that these guys know more about the game than you or I do. Low standard? Seriously? The college game is shorter, fewer points are scored. Guys can be dominant without averaging 30 points per game. Kevin Love's freshman numbers were just a tad better than Anderson's. Was Love a dominant college player?

Jaylen Brown was not a dominant player lol

Beachcat97 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Beachcat's "dominant player" isn't the standard. Jaylen Brown and Aaron weren't necessarily dominant in conference, but that didn't define their pro draft positions. Lauri should be good with flashes of greatness. I'll take that.

Jaylen Brown and Aaron Gordon were both first team All Pac 12 as freshmen. If that's not dominance, I'm not sure what is.

you have a pretty low standard for dominant. By that measure, Ryan Anderson's 15 and 10 approaches being a Shaq level monster.

I'm not among the voters for the first team Pac-12, but I'm going to assume that these guys know more about the game than you or I do. Low standard? Seriously? The college game is shorter, fewer points are scored. Guys can be dominant without averaging 30 points per game. Kevin Love's freshman numbers were just a tad better than Anderson's. Was Love a dominant college player?

I'll preface this with saying that I like both Jaylen Brown and Aaron Gordon, Gordon more than Brown.

Name one objective indicator that Jaylen Brown was dominant. He did not lead the league in any category. His team had decent, but not outstanding, success. Getting votes for all conference does not equal dominant.

Aaron Gordon was a dominant defensive player. Offensively, he was a mixed bag. At least he was dominant in some phase of the game, which Brown was not.

Do I know more than all conference voters? If they were contending Jaylen Brown was dominant last year, I'll put my knowledge up against theirs, because that just isn't really justified at all.

Let's back-track a little. This whole business of "dominance" came up within the context of my argument that freshmen who "dominate" are oftentimes very attractive to NBA scouts. Maybe you'd prefer a softer term than "dominate," yeah? How about "thrived" or "starred" or "excelled" or whatever? I didn't mean for this to become a discussion of Jaylen Brown's (or Aaron Gordon's) freshman season, though that's what it's become. Both players won Pac 12 FOY, and both guys were first team all Pac 12. In my mind, that distinguishes them in a significant way from other guys who entered the draft in those years, not necessarily because they were statistically dominant, but because they performed very well against top-flight competition, so well in fact that they were lavished with all sorts of awards at the end of the season, and were drafted in the top five.

This is the point I was making: freshmen who perform at the level that AG and JB did are often valued more greatly than juniors and seniors with similar numbers.

Beachcat97 wrote:Let's back-track a little. This whole business of "dominance" came up within the context of my argument that freshmen who "dominate" are oftentimes very attractive to NBA scouts. Maybe you'd prefer a softer term than "dominate," yeah? How about "thrived" or "starred" or "excelled" or whatever? I didn't mean for this to become a discussion of Jaylen Brown's (or Aaron Gordon's) freshman season, though that's what it's become. Both players won Pac 12 FOY, and both guys were first team all Pac 12. In my mind, that distinguishes them in a significant way from other guys who entered the draft in those years, not necessarily because they were statistically dominant, but because they performed very well against top-flight competition, so well in fact that they were lavished with all sorts of awards at the end of the season, and were drafted in the top five.

This is the point I was making: freshmen who perform at the level that AG and JB did are often valued more greatly than juniors and seniors with similar numbers.

Fair enough. If the question is whether Lauri will produce on the level of a Jaylen Brown, my answer would remain the same: yes, I would expect that he would.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Let's back-track a little. This whole business of "dominance" came up within the context of my argument that freshmen who "dominate" are oftentimes very attractive to NBA scouts. Maybe you'd prefer a softer term than "dominate," yeah? How about "thrived" or "starred" or "excelled" or whatever? I didn't mean for this to become a discussion of Jaylen Brown's (or Aaron Gordon's) freshman season, though that's what it's become. Both players won Pac 12 FOY, and both guys were first team all Pac 12. In my mind, that distinguishes them in a significant way from other guys who entered the draft in those years, not necessarily because they were statistically dominant, but because they performed very well against top-flight competition, so well in fact that they were lavished with all sorts of awards at the end of the season, and were drafted in the top five.

This is the point I was making: freshmen who perform at the level that AG and JB did are often valued more greatly than juniors and seniors with similar numbers.

Fair enough. If the question is whether Lauri will produce on the level of a Jaylen Brown, my answer would remain the same: yes, I would expect that he would.

If Lauri has as good a year as Brown did, I think we'll all be very pleased.

Beachcat97 wrote:I'm not among the voters for the first team Pac-12, but I'm going to assume that these guys know more about the game than you or I do.

I seriously would not assume that. Not being glib...I just really would not assume that. The voters are biased like fans, have less exposure to the league than a hardcore Cats fan, and are not always well-informed at all....

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Name one objective indicator that Jaylen Brown was dominant.

Hype.

edited to add: Oh, objective.

I got nothing...foul trouble maybe?

Beachcat97 wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:Pump your breaks there. There are plenty of guys who dominated at the college level who get passed up by the NBA, or don't get taken in the first round. Men dominating boys in college does not necessarily translate into men dominating men in the NBA. That does happen with some players, but the rest are in the league because they do one or two things really good and/or have a few plus physical/athletic attributes that are in demand.

Notice that I said dominated "as freshmen." That's the key. Dominant freshmen (A Davis, J Wall, J Okafor, T Jones, J Parker, D Rose, K Love, A Gordon, S Johnson, and so on) carry a certain mystique. They were able to dominate at a very high level of competition (D-1 hoops) as 18 year olds, which often augurs big things at the next level. This is why the NBA Draft is a futures market, so to speak. Ben Simmons is going to get the NBA scouts more excited than Kris Dunn, even though there have been plenty of college juniors and seniors who went on to have great careers.

Diamond Stone was dominant as a freshman and went in the 2nd round of a weak draft. Tony Wroten was an outstanding college freshman and nearly slipped into the second round and would be a 2nd rounder in this coming draft. Anthony Bennett dominated in college and has been a flop in the NBA. Tyler Ennis still has plenty of time, but remember how good he was in college, hasn't done anything in the league yet. And your argument doesn't account for guys who dominated as freshman but stayed, be it a different era or input to do so. What if they didn't take the advice and went? Mystique means nothing. Measuring players against their peers is a starting point, but they arent going, "wow, that freshman averages 19 ppg, lets use our lottery pick on him."

rgdeuce wrote: Measuring players against their peers is a starting point, but they arent going, "wow, that freshman averages 19 ppg, lets use our lottery pick on him."

Bullsh*t. What you're saying flies in the face of what's actually happened. Simmons, Towns, Wiggins, Bennett, Davis, Irving...I mean, freshmen stars are the NBA's favorite commodity. You have to go back to '09 (Blake Griffin) to find someone who wasn't a freshman taken #1, and beyond that, Bogut in '05. And this is only #1 picks! It doesn't account for the many, many freshmen simply drafted in the lottery.

It's not that they're saying "wow, he averages 19ppg, let's pick him." It's that since the age rule was instated, guys who would've gone straight to the pros are now playing one year of college ball, and many of them are doing very, very well as freshmen. You've listed some guys who weren't drafted as highly, but that group is significantly outnumbered by the group who in fact were taken not only in the first round but the lotto.

Why does the NBA love taking a chance on Anthony Bennett instead of Oladipo or Zeller or McCollum (all available in the '13 draft)? It's not a simple answer, but there's one thing that's been obvious: NBA GMs love star freshmen. It's been this way for a while now.

Beachcat97 wrote:

rgdeuce wrote: Measuring players against their peers is a starting point, but they arent going, "wow, that freshman averages 19 ppg, lets use our lottery pick on him."

Bullsh*t. What you're saying flies in the face of what's actually happened. Simmons, Towns, Wiggins, Bennett, Davis, Irving...I mean, freshmen stars are the NBA's favorite commodity. You have to go back to '09 (Blake Griffin) to find someone who wasn't a freshman taken #1, and beyond that, Bogut in '05. And this is only #1 picks! It doesn't account for the many, many freshmen simply drafted in the lottery.

It's not that they're saying "wow, he averages 19ppg, let's pick him." It's that since the age rule was instated, guys who would've gone straight to the pros are now playing one year of college ball, and many of them are doing very, very well as freshmen. You've listed some guys who weren't drafted as highly, but that group is significantly outnumbered by the group who in fact were taken not only in the first round but the lotto.

Why does the NBA love taking a chance on Anthony Bennett instead of Oladipo or Zeller or McCollum (all available in the '13 draft)? It's not a simple answer, but there's one thing that's been obvious: NBA GMs love star freshmen. It's been this way for a while now.

You're missing the point. The point is that the player's college productivity is not the determining factor in draft position.

Use RG's example of Wroten. He produced better stats than Jaylen Brown. Why did he get drafted lower? Because stats are a relatively small factor in the draft position of college freshmen.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:

rgdeuce wrote: Measuring players against their peers is a starting point, but they arent going, "wow, that freshman averages 19 ppg, lets use our lottery pick on him."

Bullsh*t. What you're saying flies in the face of what's actually happened. Simmons, Towns, Wiggins, Bennett, Davis, Irving...I mean, freshmen stars are the NBA's favorite commodity. You have to go back to '09 (Blake Griffin) to find someone who wasn't a freshman taken #1, and beyond that, Bogut in '05. And this is only #1 picks! It doesn't account for the many, many freshmen simply drafted in the lottery.

It's not that they're saying "wow, he averages 19ppg, let's pick him." It's that since the age rule was instated, guys who would've gone straight to the pros are now playing one year of college ball, and many of them are doing very, very well as freshmen. You've listed some guys who weren't drafted as highly, but that group is significantly outnumbered by the group who in fact were taken not only in the first round but the lotto.

Why does the NBA love taking a chance on Anthony Bennett instead of Oladipo or Zeller or McCollum (all available in the '13 draft)? It's not a simple answer, but there's one thing that's been obvious: NBA GMs love star freshmen. It's been this way for a while now.

Because stats are a relatively small factor in the draft position of college freshmen.

Maybe so, but this doesn't change the fact that NBA GMs have a long love affair with college freshmen.

Beachcat97 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:

rgdeuce wrote: Measuring players against their peers is a starting point, but they arent going, "wow, that freshman averages 19 ppg, lets use our lottery pick on him."

Bullsh*t. What you're saying flies in the face of what's actually happened. Simmons, Towns, Wiggins, Bennett, Davis, Irving...I mean, freshmen stars are the NBA's favorite commodity. You have to go back to '09 (Blake Griffin) to find someone who wasn't a freshman taken #1, and beyond that, Bogut in '05. And this is only #1 picks! It doesn't account for the many, many freshmen simply drafted in the lottery.

It's not that they're saying "wow, he averages 19ppg, let's pick him." It's that since the age rule was instated, guys who would've gone straight to the pros are now playing one year of college ball, and many of them are doing very, very well as freshmen. You've listed some guys who weren't drafted as highly, but that group is significantly outnumbered by the group who in fact were taken not only in the first round but the lotto.

Why does the NBA love taking a chance on Anthony Bennett instead of Oladipo or Zeller or McCollum (all available in the '13 draft)? It's not a simple answer, but there's one thing that's been obvious: NBA GMs love star freshmen. It's been this way for a while now.

Because stats are a relatively small factor in the draft position of college freshmen.

Maybe so, but this doesn't change the fact that NBA GMs have a long love affair with college freshmen.

I think you're reversing the causation. The NBA doesn't care if they're freshmen. More talented players spend less time in college, and the NBA loves more talented players.

It's been said before, but the NBA drafts on potential. If you are very talented, it isn't gonna help your draft stock to smooth the rough edges in your game before you leave. This is why people who said Aaron should stay to improve his jump shot...

Spiff is dominating BeachCat97. Scouts don't love freshman for being freshman. It's the first year they can consider them.

BC, you're just reversing the causation like Spliff said. Guys like Simmons, Wiggins, Kyrie, and Anthony Davis are your new Kobe's, Garnett's, McGrady's, and Dwight Howards because of the new one-year requirement that wasn't around for those guys. From Simmons, Wiggins, Kyrie, and Davis would be #1 picks, several would have been #1 picks regardless, and maybe Kyrie is still in the lottery or close to it. Say they were going to be pick #5 out of high school, their dominant play as freshmen would not be the big driving force behind them being picked at #1. Those guys are perceived to be NBA ready (or close) when they are 17 already, it's just a case of NBA ready players dominating their peers. But with that said, their draft spot may go up because ACC basketball is a higher competition level than high school, so by showing they can dominate at a level higher than before (and with bigger players than high school), using a #1 pick on him as a frosh is less riskier than using it on him as a HS senior. It's still not a for sure thing with the elite size, athleticism and polished skill as the NBA, but u have a somewhat better read. Guys also can improve weaknesses in that year that were a concern, or show that it wasn't as big of a concern as expected, but on the flip side, that can expose them and validate concerns.

Two perfect examples of on-court success not translating into draft positioning. Paul Pierce and TJ McConnell. Paul Pierce was the best player in college basketball his final year at Kansas, yet he went 10th. A lot of GMs felt his potential had a lower ceiling because of physical/athletic questions - It suited him fine in college, but against bigger stronger faster NBA players? Of course, the rest is history. Olawakandi, Vince Carter, Jamison, Bibby, LaFrentz, Traylor, Jason Williams, Larry Hughes and Dirk were all taken ahead of him accordingly. Some of that is team position need, but still, out of those players, Pierce is 2nd to only Dirk in terms of best career. We know TJ's story and why teams didn't even take a chance with a 2nd round pick with him when he was the best point guard in the country if you ask someone who actually watches games and didn't hop on the D'Angelo Russell or Delon Wright bandwagon

Sucks he'll only be here a year.

Main Event wrote:

Sucks he'll only be here a year.

I'm trying not to get too excited, but it's really hard.

I always try to stay cautiously optimistic about these incoming freshmen, but I'm tossing that out with Lauri. Watching the video I have and hearing the things I've heard, I think a lot of us will not only be happy with what we see, actually seeing it play out will still be above what we thought. I can guess we will be screaming out on D and about some rebounds, but offensively, I still think our minds will be blown. This guy is going to be a matchup nightmare for almost anyone. Teams will need a Ray Smith for him

Spaceman Spiff wrote: I'm trying not to get too excited, but it's really hard.

Merkin wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: I'm trying not to get too excited, but it's really hard.

What makes you think that statement was not a direct comment on my current physical state?

When people I trust say things about Lauri like have been said, I get happy. When the film shows the same, I get really, really happy. Like SJ, AG type happy. I am really starting to believe he is the heir to that bloodline.

B E A S T

Please retire John

Miller says Arizona Wildcats freshman Lauri Markkanen is 'ahead of the game'

http://tucson.com/online/video/watch-mi ... e2f57.html" target="_blank

GB and Lauri make McCain look like a jockey

Secret is out.

Must have been watching Don Maclean climaxing 10x on air during the red/blue game.

Merkin wrote:

I like that. Defensively, he's a great option for the packline, where hedging and recovering matters more than shotblocking.

Freshman forward Lauri Markkanen ready to carry load, Cats

By Bruce Pascoe Arizona Daily Star Updated 3 hrs ago



“You can see by just watching him move that he’s very, very talented athletically,” Miller said. “He’s played in a faster game. FIBA basketball is a faster game, and when you’re playing at the national level there’s some of the greatest coaches in the world. So he’s seen ball-screen defense, and he knows how to play on the perimeter and the post.

“So because of that he’s ahead of the game in many ways right now. … You can tell he knows what he’s doing. There’s gonna be an adjustment, but I think eventually at some point this season you’ll see him flourish.”

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... 0f514.html" target="_blank

From the article:

“I don’t see much of a language barrier with him,” UA forward Ray Smith said. “Lauri actually shocks me sometimes because I’ll say a joke and he’ll look at me and I’ll think, ‘Oh, he doesn’t get it.’

“Then he’ll go, ‘You know, I do get it. It’s not funny.’”

That's hilarious.

gumby wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Dude looks pretty jacked.

Should help him finnish.

Note the date (Sept. 13), and lack of credit from Don McLean.

gumby wrote:

gumby wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Dude looks pretty jacked.

Should help him finnish.

Note the date (Sept. 13), and lack of credit from Don McLean.

Obviously Don should come mclean about where he got that idea.

Don't think it will Don on him.

Well done. I give you a standing 8 clap

*Drool*

This kids a top 5 pick

Kid can Finish

Sean Olson wrote:Kid can Finish

You're doing it wrong.

Does this team have a go-to player?

Chicat wrote:

Sean Olson wrote:Kid can Finish

You're doing it wrong.

He also knows Finnish

Longhorned wrote:Does this team have a go-to player?

The more, the merrier.

Sean Olson wrote:

Chicat wrote:

Sean Olson wrote:Kid can Finish

You're doing it wrong.

He also knows Finnish

Points for not trying to work in "Helsink'em".

Without gushing, the Finn is a very special player. That is all.

BigSkyCatinMT wrote:Without gushing, the Finn is a very special player. That is all.

Go ahead and gush...I am! What a STUD!!!

Bangkok Wildcat wrote:

BigSkyCatinMT wrote:Without gushing, the Finn is a very special player. That is all.

Go ahead and gush...I am! What a STUD!!!

OK, gush I will! reminds me of Kaminsky, but much younger. All over the court. Special player.