Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indiana

    Kentucky versus Wizards

    Gary Williams claims Kentucky can beat the Washington Wizards at Rupp. (Remember when people were speculating about the 1999 Duke team being able to beat an NBA team?) Stan Van Gundy has a great quote in response: "Look, it's absurd...I mean, people will say, 'Oh, Kentucky, you know's, got four NBA players.' Yeah, well the other team's got 13."
    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/77...wizards-absurd

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by JG Nothing View Post
    Gary Williams claims Kentucky can beat the Washington Wizards at Rupp. (Remember when people were speculating about the 1999 Duke team being able to beat an NBA team?) Stan Van Gundy has a great quote in response: "Look, it's absurd...I mean, people will say, 'Oh, Kentucky, you know's, got four NBA players.' Yeah, well the other team's got 13."
    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/77...wizards-absurd
    Stan Van Gundy is correct. Kentucky is a very very good college basketball team. But they'd get killed by Washington. Kentucky has two players who are sure-fire NBA starters, a third who is a borderline starter (Jones), and a couple of guys who are probably role players (Lamb and Teague). Washington may not have what it takes to beat NBA teams, but they'd kill a college team.

    PG: Washington has John Wall, Jordan Crawford (who averaged 20ppg at Xavier), and Shelvin Mack (whom we all know for his Final Four runs at Butler). Kentucky has Marcus Teague and Doron Lamb. Huge edge to Washington.

    SG: Washington has Crawford. Guys like Roger Mason and Maurice Evans (who were very solid college players) barely crack the rotation. Kentucky has Lamb and Miller. Again, edge to Washington, though not by as much as at PG.

    SF: Washington has Rashard Lewis (a 6'10" former NBA star who is still pretty good) and Chris Singleton (6'10" All-ACC defensive stopper). Kentucky has MKG and Miller. I'll give this one a push or possible edge to Kentucky, but Lewis and Singleton would make life VERY difficult for MKG and are far better than Miller.

    PF: Washington has Trevor Booker (former star at Clemson), Andray Blatche (6'11" guy who averaged 17 and 8 last year in the NBA), and Kevin Seraphin (a 6'9", 265lb widebody who shows promise). Kentucky has Jones (undersized) and Wiltjer (skinny). Huge edge to Washington.

    C: Washington has Nene (a 6'11", 260lb load inside that dwarfs Davis) and Blatche. Kentucky has Davis and Vargas. Big edge to Washington here.

    Kentucky has a fantastic college team with four guys who will certainly play at the next level (2-3 of them may be impact players). But Washington has a full team of NBA players. They have former college stars playing role player minutes. It's just a different level. Even the very best of college teams would likely get beat by the typical bottom feeder NBA teams. It's just the nature of filtering talent from one level to the next.

  3. #3
    Laron profit was right.he says wizards by 30.i believe Mr.Williams may have wanted some attention by making that statement.

  4. #4
    We've talked about this at work the other day. The Bobcats (the worse team in the league) would beat Kentucky by 20. Heat, Thunder or Bulls might beat them by 40 or 50.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Van Gundy's comment is great..lol. And he's totally right, my guess is Kentucky would get beat by the benches of most NBA teams. Same argument went for Alabama vs an NFL team. On the face it sounds plausible, but then you think about how intensely selective pro teams are..those guys are at such an elite level. And just because you are a high lottery pick obviously does not ensure NBA success...my guess is that some of those bench players that would school Kentucky were also lottery picks.
    Mmmm, BBQ!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Not clear that 2012 KY has as much talent as either team from the 2001 final.

    Duke - 5 good NBA players starting (Duhon, Dunleavy, JWil, Boozer, Battier)
    Arizona - 5 guys drafted including 3 good NBA guys (Jefferson, Arenas, Walton) + Wright and Woods

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by JG Nothing View Post
    Gary Williams claims Kentucky can beat the Washington Wizards at Rupp. (Remember when people were speculating about the 1999 Duke team being able to beat an NBA team?) Stan Van Gundy has a great quote in response: "Look, it's absurd...I mean, people will say, 'Oh, Kentucky, you know's, got four NBA players.' Yeah, well the other team's got 13."
    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/77...wizards-absurd
    No way that would happen. KY could not even beat Vandy in their conference final. Just because one team seems dominant in the college game says more about the state of college ball than the quality of that supposed dominant team. KY is a very good team but I would not even rank them with the best college teams of all time. We will see if they can win it all.
    dukelifer

  8. #8
    The same things have been said about UNLV 91, Duke 92, UK 96, Duke 99, etc. And then they get shot down by more reasonable people.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyFan View Post
    The same things have been said about UNLV 91, Duke 92, UK 96, Duke 99, etc. And then they get shot down by more reasonable people.
    Yeah, it's laughable. Even bad NBA teams are bigger, deeper, and more talented at the top than college teams. Davis is a dominant college C. In the NBA? He's a skinny PF (he'll be good, but he'll have to get a lot stronger to be a star). Jones is a great college PF. At the NBA level he's a tweener and more likely a SF. Kidd-Gilchrist is a stud SF at the college level who could even play PF in a pinch. In the NBA he's a SG/SF. Lamb is a small SG who would likely be a backup. Teague is a good but not great college PG who'd be a reserve in the NBA. Miller probably doesn't make the NBA and Wiltjer would be at best a fringe player for his outside shooting ability (and that's several years from now).

    There have been far better college teams than this Kentucky team, and even those would get killed in the NBA. The size, strength, depth, and talent is just worlds different.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by dukelifer View Post
    No way that would happen. KY could not even beat Vandy in their conference final. Just because one team seems dominant in the college game says more about the state of college ball than the quality of that supposed dominant team. KY is a very good team but I would not even rank them with the best college teams of all time. We will see if they can win it all.
    Let's not diminish the talent on Vandy... 3 NBAers and a bunch of seniors.

    I still can't believe we didn't beat Wisc and then Cuse.
    "Something in my vicinity is Carolina blue and this offends me." - HPR

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    There's no doubt whatsoever that every NBA team is significantly better than every college team.

    With that being said, I'm starting to doubt the conventional wisdom that a college team has no chance of beating on NBA team in a one game situation if the game is played with college rules and the college team is playing at home. I no longer think Kentucky would go 0-82 in the NBA.

    CDu analyzed the match-ups and found that the Wizards have an edge at every position, except maybe one push. Doesn't that also describe (forgive me for bringing it up) Lehigh against Duke? Again, there's no doubt the Wizards are better than Kentucky - but is the talent gap that much bigger than the one between George Mason and Connecticut? Van Gundy is right, the Wizards have 13 NBA players to Kentucky's 4 or whatever it ends up being. But I'm sure if we think hard enough everyone on this board could find an example of a team with 0 NBA players beating a team with 3 or more NBA players in one game situations.

    I'm not sure that a historically good college team (and we're not sure Kentucky is that yet, but let's just say) wouldn't have, say, a 10-20% chance of beating a terrible NBA team on its home floor playing with college rules and referees.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    There's no doubt whatsoever that every NBA team is significantly better than every college team.

    With that being said, I'm starting to doubt the conventional wisdom that a college team has no chance of beating on NBA team in a one game situation if the game is played with college rules and the college team is playing at home. I no longer think Kentucky would go 0-82 in the NBA.

    CDu analyzed the match-ups and found that the Wizards have an edge at every position, except maybe one push. Doesn't that also describe (forgive me for bringing it up) Lehigh against Duke? Again, there's no doubt the Wizards are better than Kentucky - but is the talent gap that much bigger than the one between George Mason and Connecticut? Van Gundy is right, the Wizards have 13 NBA players to Kentucky's 4 or whatever it ends up being. But I'm sure if we think hard enough everyone on this board could find an example of a team with 0 NBA players beating a team with 3 or more NBA players in one game situations.

    I'm not sure that a historically good college team (and we're not sure Kentucky is that yet, but let's just say) wouldn't have, say, a 10-20% chance of beating a terrible NBA team on its home floor playing with college rules and referees.
    Could they beat an NBA team? On the right night, sure. But they'd more regularly get blown out. Saying they could possibly occasionally beat a terrible NBA team is much different than saying they would beat a terrible NBA team.

    I'd put it at more like 5-10% chance (maybe less). But sure, there's a chance.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Let me pose a different hypothetical -- I don't think the Washington Wizards, in the one-and-done format of the NCAA Tourney combined with their relatively unmotivated style of play, could win this year's National Championship. Just my opinion. Proceed to attack.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Quote Originally Posted by freedevil View Post
    Let me pose a different hypothetical -- I don't think the Washington Wizards, in the one-and-done format of the NCAA Tourney combined with their relatively unmotivated style of play, could win this year's National Championship. Just my opinion. Proceed to attack.
    you don't think they *could* win? as in, zero chance? that is hard to believe. they would be, by far, the most talented team in the field.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    you don't think they *could* win? as in, zero chance? that is hard to believe. they would be, by far, the most talented team in the field.
    Fair point -- I don't think they *would* win. Agree that they certainly could, and would be favored by hypothetical pundits to do so. Just don't think they would win.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by freedevil View Post
    Fair point -- I don't think they *would* win. Agree that they certainly could, and would be favored by hypothetical pundits to do so. Just don't think they would win.
    I think you're underestimating the talent gap between the NBA and college. See my post above. Consider these guys from a college perspective - not relative to the NBA players.

    The NBA has so much talent that it makes really good players look pedestrian. Those guys would be monsters in the college game. Heck, many of them WERE monsters in the college game.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I think you're underestimating the talent gap between the NBA and college. See my post above. Consider these guys from a college perspective - not relative to the NBA players.

    The NBA has so much talent that it makes really good players look pedestrian. Those guys would be monsters in the college game. Heck, many of them WERE monsters in the college game.
    I don't agree that the list of players you put forth consist of people who would, today, be "monsters in the college game." Other than John Wall, each of those players was inconsistent during their college careers and were far from "monsters" in my eyes, many of them particularly so. John Wall even appears to have regressed during his time in the NBA. Shelvin Mack was awesome come tourney time, but unless my memory is really doing me a disservice, Trevor Booker, Maurice Evans, Roger Mason, and Chris Singleton don't make me nervous at all. I'm not saying these players are only worth a cup of coffee and a doughnut, I'm just saying I think you're overestimating the talent gap between bad NBA teams (the Wizards and Bobcats seem to be bad in a historical way) and college.

    Perhaps EA Sports can come out and do an automated test of this hypo? Would be kind of fun!

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by freedevil View Post
    I don't agree that the list of players you put forth consist of people who would, today, be "monsters in the college game." Other than John Wall, each of those players was inconsistent during their college careers and were far from "monsters" in my eyes, many of them particularly so. John Wall even appears to have regressed during his time in the NBA. Shelvin Mack was awesome come tourney time, but unless my memory is really doing me a disservice, Trevor Booker, Maurice Evans, Roger Mason, and Chris Singleton don't make me nervous at all. I'm not saying these players are only worth a cup of coffee and a doughnut, I'm just saying I think you're overestimating the talent gap between bad NBA teams (the Wizards and Bobcats seem to be bad in a historical way) and college.

    Perhaps EA Sports can come out and do an automated test of this hypo? Would be kind of fun!
    Crawford averaged 20+ ppg at Xavier. Booker averaged 15+ ppg and 8+ rpg in both his junior and senior year and never averaged below 10 and 6. Evans averaged 22+ ppg at Wichita St as a sophomore and 15+ ppg as a junior at Texas. Shelvin Mack averaged 14ppg and 16ppg and was one of the primary stars in leading two Butler teams to the Final Four. Chris Singleton was widely regarded as the best defensive player in the ACC in his last two years in college. Roger Mason averaged 15 ppg as a sophomore and 18 ppg as a junior at Virginia. Brian Cook averaged 20ppg for Illinois. Forgive me if I think your memory of those players is a bit fuzzy. They were unquestionably stars in college. Wall only looks like he regressed because he's playing against NBA talent. And that's still ignoring guys like Nene, Blatche, Seraphin, Vesely, and Lewis, who would have been stars in college had they come to college and not gone straight to the NBA (or to the NBA via foreign pro teams).

    I think you're letting the view of their NBA careers mislead you. The NBA has a way of making really good basketball players look mediocre. Don't let that fool you. Battier was a stud in college. In the NBA he's a role player. Redick was a dominant college scorer. Williams was All-American caliber in college. They're all role players in the NBA. It's a different world.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I think you're letting the view of their NBA careers mislead you. The NBA has a way of making really good basketball players look mediocre. Don't let that fool you. Battier was a stud in college. In the NBA he's a role player. Redick was a dominant college scorer. Williams was All-American caliber in college. They're all role players in the NBA. It's a different world.

    Yeah, plus we're not talking about the college version of these players, we're talking about playing them RIGHT NOW. These guys have been in the NBA for a couple years where they've continued to develop their games and get stronger and quicker, practicing against the best players and being catered to by professional training staffs. The college guys have raw talent but they're also still 19-ish years old.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Crawford averaged 20+ ppg at Xavier. Booker averaged 15+ ppg and 8+ rpg in both his junior and senior year and never averaged below 10 and 6. Evans averaged 22+ ppg at Wichita St as a sophomore and 15+ ppg as a junior at Texas. Shelvin Mack averaged 14ppg and 16ppg and was one of the primary stars in leading two Butler teams to the Final Four. Chris Singleton was widely regarded as the best defensive player in the ACC in his last two years in college. Roger Mason averaged 15 ppg as a sophomore and 18 ppg as a junior at Virginia. Brian Cook averaged 20ppg for Illinois. Forgive me if I think your memory of those players is a bit fuzzy. They were unquestionably stars in college. Wall only looks like he regressed because he's playing against NBA talent. And that's still ignoring guys like Nene, Blatche, Seraphin, Vesely, and Lewis, who would have been stars in college had they come to college and not gone straight to the NBA (or to the NBA via foreign pro teams).

    I think you're letting the view of their NBA careers mislead you. The NBA has a way of making really good basketball players look mediocre. Don't let that fool you. Battier was a stud in college. In the NBA he's a role player. Redick was a dominant college scorer. Williams was All-American caliber in college. They're all role players in the NBA. It's a different world.
    You described them as "monsters" of the college game. None were in my mind. Their stats don't change that fact. Particularly Brian Cook's (which I was surprised to see, but he doesn't impress me, sorry).

    (As an side, you didn't mention Jordan Crawford in your original post, and I failed to remember he was even on the Wizards' roster; I also failed to remember Nene's presence. To be clear, I did not dispute Shelvin Mack's talent, but do believe he played inconsistently leading up to tourney time -- and I watched Butler's games because they were so fun to see.)

    Still don't think the Wizards would win. I've never seen an NBA team appear to care so little. Just my opinion.

Similar Threads

  1. KenPom versus the RPI
    By Olympic Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 05-15-2012, 10:34 PM
  2. NBA Draft Discussion: Wizards #1
    By theAlaskanBear in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 05-23-2010, 08:52 PM
  3. Duke versus UNC
    By rthomas in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-25-2010, 12:51 PM
  4. Wizards Have a Problem: Gil's Comin back
    By greybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2008, 06:59 PM
  5. Duke versus Kentucky: Battle on the Beach!
    By dukestheheat in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 10:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •