Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1896
Reg: 11-29-04
|
11-06-20 01:44 PM - Post#316121
Any opinions on our recruited class of HS 2020 seniors? How does it stack up with the rest of the ivies? Are we done? Some of our insiders alluded to someone else still considering - was that Spinoso or is there someone else?
Let the conversations begin!
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-06-20 05:44 PM - Post#316126
In response to Penndemonium
I feel much better about it than I did a couple of months ago (and I was never doom and gloom about it in the first place).
We’re still clearly behind Harvard for this class. I think there is an argument we have the second best class, though Princeton appears comparable. Yale has two good ones, but not a deep class. As with the Dingle/Martz group, I think the staff knows what it is looking for and got kids it is excited about. However, after Holland the big offers aren’t there. Seems to be some evidence that Larson and Spinosa were starting to pick up better offers later in the cycle. Hopefully we were ahead of the curve there.
The question remains whether there is a true two way big in the mix of the last 3 classes. MLL may be a defensive presence; Larson and Spinosa may have more offensive potential, but there is some question as to whether they will be able to defend, at least initially. You don’t necessarily need the 2 way guy to compete, but it certainly doesn’t hurt. Excited to see what Larson’s senior year looks like.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-06-20 08:05 PM - Post#316130
In response to Penndemonium
It’s always hard to compare classes of different sizes at this stage.
I think Harvard’s is clearly tops. From there, there’s definitely an argument for a number of teams, but I’d probably go Brown and Princeton next. Brown continues to recruit really well, especially from the NEPSAC. From there I’d probably go Yale and Penn, but I’ll be curious to see what, if anything, Yale adds to what it has and whether Molloy can rebound. That would determine the order at that level (or whether Yale could move up).
Columbia’s probably in its own tier from there, then Cornell and Dartmouth, but I’d entertain arguments.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-06-20 11:03 PM - Post#316133
In response to mrjames
Brown has the one good big coming in. But after that, three of their four recruits have no other public division one offers that I am aware of. And then Lilly has a few, but nothing particularly impressive. I guess I have trouble seeing why their class is better than Penn’s. Even in New England, their guys aren’t as highly rated or recruited as Smith and Larson.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-07-20 11:22 AM - Post#316136
In response to SomeGuy
I don’t usually put much stock in NERR until their in-season updates that include the myriad postgrad/transfers on the ranking list, but I think Brown did *much, much* better in New England than you’re giving them credit for.
Mike’s had some sneaky good classes, but this might be his first obvious strong class.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-07-20 11:59 AM - Post#316139
In response to mrjames
Agreed this is probably Mike’s best class thus far. I think they have a good group. I just would put it behind Penn and Princeton. I think the offers received shows the difference. But I do think it is fairly close.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1896
Reg: 11-29-04
|
11-07-20 04:46 PM - Post#316140
In response to SomeGuy
I haven't followed as closely as many of you, but the one player who seemed obviously a star for the future was Bennett Pitcher. He just seemed to be a physical beast with skills. That is something less likely to suffer in transition to college. Every Ivy team can use that.
Our class is a confusing one for me. McMullen, Smith, Holland, Spinoso, and Larson. I guess I would name Holland most likely to succeed. I wouldn't call them deep projects, but none looks like a clear cut Ivy star. Each looks like they could possibly thrive in Donahue's system. It's a class that's strong on skills and shooting, but not so strong on brute athleticism.
The ones that develop their strength and who also have the psychological tools will have the best careers.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-07-20 06:05 PM - Post#316144
In response to Penndemonium
Well, as Mike said above, we’ll see what happens this high school season, and we’ll see how that impacts the NERR rankings. But for now, Larson (15) remains ahead of Pitcher (19), and they both moved up a number of spots. I agree that Pitcher looked good on tape and is obviously an athlete (and a big one). But his team last year lost just about every game it played (at least that is on the internets), often by a lot. Of course, Larson was sitting on the bench on a much better team, so who knows. But it seems pretty clear that he will be a focal point at NMH this year. My prediction, and I know less than Mike James and a lot of others, is that both guys are going to see their stock continue to rise in their senior years.
I will take a short premature victory lap on my prediction back when mrjames and others were hammering Penn about failing to land a big. I said we would get a big ranked higher than Pitcher. For now, we’ve got one (at least in NERR). Stop the counting now!
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-07-20 06:09 PM - Post#316145
In response to mrjames
Mike,
Any idea how many freshmen recruits across the league didn’t end up enrolling this year? I know Yale had 2. If you put Ghassam in the 2021 class, they probably jump to #2 for 2021. But of course the evaluation of their 2020 class would take a significant hit.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-07-20 07:39 PM - Post#316147
In response to SomeGuy
It’s a very good point. I know we still don’t technically know if every team isn’t playing this season, but for at least some of the Ivies (and likely all) the rankings will implicitly end up being a 2020 & 2021 combined ranking, since they’ll all be newcomers together...
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-08-20 12:06 AM - Post#316152
In response to mrjames
On the other hand, for those who started this year, we will probably be looking at a 3 year Ivy basketball career, while for those starting college next year we will be looking at 4. To give a specific example, assuming no season, Basa-Ana likely will only play 3 years at Yale, while Gharram will play 4.
So they will be the same for thinking about first year impact, but not in terms of career impact. Still some unknowns in terms of how eligibility will work, etc. But I would guess that the Ivies will be losing a year of most Ivy players, including this year’s freshman (while the kids themselves will not lose a year of eligibility overall). So I think it makes sense to still separate out the classes. I have a feeling we don’t have full info on who is in school and who isn’t, though. I’m guessing Yale isn’t the only team that has a bunch of kids taking a semester (or year) off. They’re just the only team where that info is public.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4358
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-08-20 10:08 AM - Post#316158
In response to SomeGuy
if you want to focus on NERR rankings, note that they were recently updated:
12. Owusa-Anane B
14. Cooley B
15. Larson PE
18. Smith PE
19. Pitcher H
22. Malloy Y
30. Ragland Cor
32. Erold B
39. Stanbard Col
46. Zene Col
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-08-20 04:17 PM - Post#316175
In response to SomeGuy
Yeah, I mean, for purposes of my win share analysis, I'd probably combine them, but with the outright assumption that we'd cut the WS projection for the 2020 class by about 30% or so.
That being said, typically when I think about incoming classes, I tend to think about early impact more than later impact (a lot can happen between freshman and senior year and we kind of want to know how the team will be affected today).
So, in thinking about 2021-22, I'd probably rank the overall classes (2020 and 2021) like this:
1) Harvard - the combined class is probably as good, if not better, than the 2016 class.
2) Yale - Basa Ama and Poulakidas could have played at the high-major level and there are a bunch of other potential strong contributors there too
3) Brown - I really think the 2021 class is strong and the 2020 class ain't bad either, but this is generally where things get arguable between them and Princeton.
4) Princeton - Martini is probably the best player out of the bunch but lots of others make sense as Princeton fits.
5) Penn - The 2020 class was an unmitigated disaster, but 2021 is good enough to keep it ahead of the Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth group - seems much closer to those three than fourth on this list.
Columbia, Cornell and Dartmouth are in some order below that. I think all three have players to point to that could be exciting. You could argue that some of their overall hauls are better than Penn's... I'll let others make that argument, though.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-08-20 04:41 PM - Post#316176
In response to mrjames
Your second paragraph is exactly the opposite argument from the that you have made when I have pointed out that the last two Penn freshman classes have fairly easily produced the most win shares.
Edited by SomeGuy on 11-08-20 04:42 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Current Assessment?
11-08-20 05:26 PM - Post#316178
In response to SomeGuy
Correct. In a normal year, it’s tough to compare the performance of freshmen, especially using win shares, because they’re so heavily dependent on opportunity. That’s not to say all comparisons are pointless (rate stats for players that get meaningful minutes can be useful), but win shares are obviously lopsided when one player plays 80% of team mins and another plays 30%. (You can use win shares per 40, but those can get wonky in small sample).
My implicit assumption in all of this is that after clearing the decks of the tremendous 2016 class league-wide and having another year of a lot of departed seniors, the 2020 and 2021 classes will be pretty universally needed to contribute off the bat. In a world where there are a similar number of minutes up for grabs, win shares are a better comparison tool. Obviously, for those teams that still do have a lot of contributing upperclassmen, the win shares won’t be as useful for the 2020 and 2021 classes.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1896
Reg: 11-29-04
|
11-09-20 04:29 PM - Post#316329
In response to mrjames
mrjames, is your #5 assessment of Penn's class based on a lack of star power or quantity of recruits? Also, did our Juco transfer factor in your thinking? Regardless of the relative ranking, our class looks a lot better now than it did 3 months ago!
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-09-20 06:41 PM - Post#316356
In response to Penndemonium
No on the JUCO transfer. So, that could indeed be a source of upside.
There is a reasonable case to be made that Penn’s 2020 class was the worst in the league. I don’t think that would be my take, but it’s not outlandish to suggest such.
This year’s class is better both in terms of quality and at least attempting to address need. Beating out Columbia for Holland at least re-established Penn as in that top five group, not languishing down with Columbia, Cornell and Dartmouth. Folks can make arguments for where Penn is among the top five exclusively for the 2021 class, and probably saying anything but first *could* be right by the time we get through the senior seasons. But taken as a combined set, 2020 put Penn in such a deep hole relative to the other teams in the top four, that I can’t see it that easily being better than fifth across the two classes.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-09-20 07:23 PM - Post#316362
In response to mrjames
Part of the reason we don’t all see it as a hole, though, is the strength of last year’s freshman class, where we might have 5 multi-year starters. Would it be nice to have another big in the class behind them? Obviously. But I think the strength of the prior class mitigates the “miss†some (and, as I’ve pointed out before, the miss may tell you something about what the staff thinks of MLL’s development and Wang’s health).
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1896
Reg: 11-29-04
|
11-11-20 08:38 PM - Post#316550
In response to SomeGuy
I like a lot about Donahue's team management, teaching, and leadership of the Quakers. I have to admit to being a bit stumped about what to make about our recruiting.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6406
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-11-20 09:05 PM - Post#316552
In response to Penndemonium
Yes, I’m a big fan overall. He’s convinced me enough that I trust they know what they are doing, or at least that they deserve a chance to see how it works out over the next couple of years. If we have a big post AJ dip (which we certainly might), I will re-evaluate. Thus far, our Donahue trajectory has been forward overall (big jump, then a plateau).
Specifically regarding recruiting, he seems light years ahead of the prior coach in terms of recruiting to a system/plan (and finding kids who buy in and stick with the program). So it has gotten better. We’ll see whether the oncourt results reward my faith and optimism. Or I guess maybe we won’t. These next two years would have been important for evaluating Donahue, but the pandemic may make it hard to evaluate anyone.
|
