Kentucky versus Wizards

[JG Nothing]

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/7749118/stan-van-gundy-calls-notion-kentucky-wildcats-defeating-washington-wizards-absurd

[CDu]

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/7749118/stan-van-gundy-calls-notion-kentucky-wildcats-defeating-washington-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.

[wavedukefan70s]

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

[muzikfrk75]

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.

[CameronBornAndBred]

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.

[freshmanjs]

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

[dukelifer]

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/7749118/stan-van-gundy-calls-notion-kentucky-wildcats-defeating-washington-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.

[BobbyFan]

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.

[tdrake51]

.I have always thought the more interesting question is, who's roster would you rather have if you were a GM. For instance, I may take UKs roster over the Bobcats right now. With Charlotte, you pretty much know what you have and what the ceiling is (except for Kemba and maybe Gerald). With UK, there is a possibility to have 2 or 3 players who are better then anyone on the Bobcats roster.

[CDu]

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.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

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.

[Wander]

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.

[CDu]

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.

[freedevil]

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.

[freshmanjs]

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.

[CDu]

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.

They absolutely COULD win, and would be the hands-down favorite. Seriously, look at that roster from a college perspective. Trevor Booker, Shelvin Mack, Maurice Evans, Roger Mason, and Chris Singleton were all college stars and All-Conference players. They are role players for the Wizards. John Wall was an All-American. They have three 6'11" big men in their rotation (two of whom are good NBA players already) and a 6'9" space eater. They have 8 first round picks (3 high lottery picks) and another two guys who dropped to the second round as high schoolers but have proven themselves to be 10+ ppg guys in the NBA.

Is it possible that they could lose a game in the Final Four? Sure, there's always a chance with the 3 point line in basketball. But they'd steamroll everyone before the Final Four and would be HEAVY favorites in the Final Four.

[freedevil]

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.

[CDu]

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.

[UrinalCake]

So here's another hypothetical - could a college ALL-STAR team, given a couple weeks to practice together, beat the Wizards or the Bobcats? You'd have Anthony David and MK Gilchrist, Perry Jones, a couple of the UNC guys... basically the entire draft lottery on one team. Now there's not quite as much of a physical mismatch, but of course you still have the difference in experience and maturity.

[CDu]

So here's another hypothetical - could a college ALL-STAR team, given a couple weeks to practice together, beat the Wizards or the Bobcats? You'd have Anthony David and MK Gilchrist, Perry Jones, a couple of the UNC guys... basically the entire draft lottery on one team. Now there's not quite as much of a physical mismatch, but of course you still have the difference in experience and maturity.

That would be a more interesting case. Pulling from the AP All-American teams:

Zeller, Davis, Sullinger, Robinson, Kidd-Gilchrist, Crowder, Canaan, Jenkins, McDermott, Marshall, Denmon, and one of Jones, Lillard, Green, or Tyshawn Taylor. That team would stand a VERY good chance of beating the Bobcats.

And that was just using the All-American list. We could find an even better squad looking at the lottery guys. Of course, picking a team of lottery picks against a bad NBA team (which doesn't necessarily have even that many lottery picks) isn't necessarily fair.

[freedevil]

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!

[langdonfan]

I feel like I need to have the same conversation with Gary Williams that I often have with my six year old: "No, son, Duke won't EVER play the Panthers, because the Duke players are young college students like your brother, and the Panthers are adults who work like mommy and daddy." ;-)

[CDu]

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.

[langdonfan]

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 agree. COULD they win, yes. Hey, I'm a dreamer. WOULD they win? Lol...the odds are strongly against it.

[UrinalCake]

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.

[freedevil]

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.

[CDu]

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.

To put it another way. Imagine this lineup:
6'9", 230lb, 20ppg, 7.6rpg, Big Ten PoY, 2nd Team All-American
6'7", 240lb, 15.2ppg, 8.4rpg, 1.5bpg, 1st Team All-ACC, 2nd Team All-ACC as a junior
6'8", 230lb, 13.1ppg, 6.8rpg, 2.0spg, 1.5bpg, 3rd Team All-ACC, ACC DPoY
6'5", 200lb, 18.6ppg, 4.1apg, 3rd Team All-ACC
6'3", 215lb, 16.0ppg, 3.4apg, starred on two NCAA Finalist teams
7'0", 235lb, 9.4ppg, 7.1rpg, 4.5bpg, Big East DPoY
6'5", 220lb, 15.6ppg, 5.3rpg, 3rd Team All Big-12
6'4", 195lb, 20.5ppg, 3rd Team All-American, famously dunked on LeBron James

Think that a team with that talent wouldn't be among the favorites come tourney time? I sure do. And that group is a bunch of role players or end of the bench guys on one of the worst teams in the NBA.

[CDu]

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.

Actually, I did mention Crawford. And Nene. And while you don't think those guys were great college players, the facts disagree with you. All but one of them were All-Conference (some multiple times). Two were major conference defensive players of the year and others were all-conference defensively. Two were All-Americans. Several were first round picks. And none are major players on one of the worst teams in the league. And that's ignoring Wall, Nene, Blatche, and Rashard Lewis.

They may not look like they care at the NBA level. But they'd smoke pretty much everyone in college basketball without thinking twice.

[freedevil]

Think that a team with that talent wouldn't be among the favorites come tourney time? I sure do. And that group is a bunch of role players or end of the bench guys on one of the worst teams in the NBA.

Let me understand your position then -- are you describing the Wizards as just "favorites" (as described above) or are you saying, as a collection of "monsters" of the college game, they would absolutely win the NCAA tourney (as you appear to be suggesting in other posts)? I may be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be transitioning from a Wizards-would-destroy-the-competition-100%-of-the-time, to just mere favored-status. As Duke fans all know, favorites don't always win National Championships.

Which brings me back to my original hypothetical -- I have not said the Wizards wouldn't be favored, nor have I meant to imply the Wizards wouldn't be favored, in this year's NCAA tourney. All I'm opining on is that I don't think the Wizards would actually win this year's NCAA tourney.

[Lar77]

College rules; college refs; no money riding on the game (maybe that eliminates some teams ;)). Maybe win 1 out of ten. Just as an aside, since NBA players started playing for the USA team, who was the last college player to make the squad?

[freedevil]

Actually, I did mention Crawford.

You did not mention Crawford in the post I quoted. I now see you mentioned them earlier.

You also seem to think 15 ppg make someone a "monster" who could "smoke" everyone in college basketball. Austin Rivers averaged 15 ppg and was first-team all ACC. I really like Austin's game, wish him well in the NBA and am extremely happy he chose Duke -- he's no "monster" and he could not "smoke" everyone in college basketball.

[CDu]

Let me understand your position then -- are you describing the Wizards as just "favorites" (as described above) or are you saying, as a collection of "monsters" of the college game, they would absolutely win the NCAA tourney (as you appear to be suggesting in other posts)? I may be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be transitioning from a Wizards-would-destroy-the-competition-100%-of-the-time, to just mere favored-status. As Duke fans all know, favorites don't always win National Championships.

Which brings me back to my original hypothetical -- I have not said the Wizards wouldn't be favored, nor have I meant to imply the Wizards wouldn't be favored, in this year's NCAA tourney. All I'm opining on is that I don't think the Wizards would actually win this year's NCAA tourney.

Well, nothing is 100%, so I'm not saying that. Almost anything can happen in a single-game elimination. But I'd say that the current Wizards' roster would be the absolute, hands-down, biggest favorites of any team in the history of the tournament, favorites. I'd say they'd be like a 80+% favorite to win it all. And that is a ludicrously high probability relative to what even the most heavily-favored teams get pre-tourney (even the most heavily-favored college teams aren't more than a 30-40% chance of winning).

Their risk of losing in the first two weekends would be close to zero. They might be at a 5-10% chance of losing to a REALLY great college team in the Final Four. That's about it. They're so much bigger, faster, stronger, and loaded with more talent that even if they didn't care at first they'd pull it together and win against almost anybody.

[freedevil]

Their risk of losing in the first two weekends would be close to zero. They might be at a 5-10% chance of losing to a REALLY great college team in the Final Four. That's about it. They're so much bigger, faster, stronger, and loaded with more talent that even if they didn't care at first they'd pull it together and win against almost anybody.

I'm with you on the odds of a first round loss.

I think they actually would have a 5-10% chance of losing to a hot team in the Elite 8.

I put their odds in the Final Four (either in the semi's or the finals) at closer to 70/30 in the Wizards' favor, maybe 75/25.

The reason I put so much stock in the "don't care" factor is one of the interesting discussions on PTI last night about how the Dream Team reacted to losing to some really great college stars (I believe in some short scrimmages). The Dream Team, as I recall, didn't care much and ended up losing... The next time they played, the story goes, they did not let the college players score. Not caring is a real killer in my mind. Particularly for the lowly Wizards.

[jacone21]

I'm with you on the odds of a first round loss.

I think they actually would have a 5-10% chance of losing to a hot team in the Elite 8.

I put their odds in the Final Four (either in the semi's or the finals) at closer to 70/30 in the Wizards' favor, maybe 75/25.

The reason I put so much stock in the "don't care" factor is one of the interesting discussions on PTI last night about how the Dream Team reacted to losing to some really great college stars (I believe in some short scrimmages). The Dream Team, as I recall, didn't care much and ended up losing... The next time they played, the story goes, they did not let the college players score. Not caring is a real killer in my mind. Particularly for the lowly Wizards.

Since this is an entirely hypothetical, imaginary tournament... can we not also hypothetically imagine that they would care?


I love the off season.

[freedevil]

Since this is an entirely hypothetical, imaginary tournament... can we not also hypothetically imagine that they would care?


I love the off season.

Ha! Clearly you haven't subjected yourself to any Wizards games or you'd know caring is beyond even their hypothetical capabilities... :)

[MChambers]

So here's another hypothetical - could a college ALL-STAR team, given a couple weeks to practice together, beat the Wizards or the Bobcats? You'd have Anthony David and MK Gilchrist, Perry Jones, a couple of the UNC guys... basically the entire draft lottery on one team. Now there's not quite as much of a physical mismatch, but of course you still have the difference in experience and maturity.

Some of us will recall when the Dream Team, in preparation for the Olympics, scrimmaged against a group of college players, including Grant Hill, Bobby Hurley, Allen Houston, and Chris Webber. The collegians won the first scrimmage. The pros then woke up (among other things, they put Jordan on Hurley) and beat the collegians. So, yes, I think it is possible that a college all-star team could win that game, but you also have to remember that the college game is not as strong as it was 20 years ago, due to early entry.

[CDu]

You did not mention Crawford in the post I quoted. I now see you mentioned them earlier.

You also seem to think 15 ppg make someone a "monster" who could "smoke" everyone in college basketball. Austin Rivers averaged 15 ppg and was first-team all ACC. I really like Austin's game, wish him well in the NBA and am extremely happy he chose Duke -- he's no "monster" and he could not "smoke" everyone in college basketball.

You quibble over the term "monster" and miss the forest for the trees. These guys were all All-Conference players. They were all among the best their conferences had to offer, and they played in big-time conferences. Two were All-Americans. And they're role players and end-of-bench guys on the Wizards. And you're going to argue whether or not they were "monsters?"

Cook was a monster his senior year (one of the ten best players in college). Booker was a beast and two-time All-ACC. Mack was a college star. Evans was an Big-12. N'Diaye was the Big East DPoY. Singleton was All-ACC and ACC DPoY. Mason was 3rd Team All-ACC. Crawford was 3rd Team All-American (one of the 15 best in college). Whether or not you consider them monsters, they were college stars. And they'd be secondary players to guys who were (Wall) or would have been (Lewis, Blatche, Nene) monsters.

[subzero02]

Games aren't played on paper... The Wizards or Bobcats should easily beat Kentucky. Kentucky trailed for significant amounts of time against each of its 3 SEC tournament opponenets(losing to Vanderbilt). However, in a one done format or pick up game, Kentucky could pull off the major upset(especially if they shoot like they did against Georgia and have an effective transition game)

[CDu]

Games aren't played on paper... The Wizards or Bobcats should easily beat Kentucky. Kentucky trailed for significant amounts of time against each of its 3 SEC tournament opponenets(losing to Vanderbilt). However, in a one done format or pick up game, Kentucky could pull off the major upset(especially if they shoot like they did against Georgia and have an effective transition game)

I absolutely agree that if the stars aligned Kentucky could beat the Wizards. But for the sake of argument, let's play the matchups game.

Kentucky's strengths are that they are very long and athletic and have several capable scorers and ballhandlers. But they'd actually be at a size disadvantage against Washington. Nene is taller and MUCH stronger than Davis. Booker is as big and better than Jones at PF. Singleton isn't as good as Kidd-Gilchrist, but he's taller, longer, and an amazing defender. He'd give Kidd-Gilchrist fits. The alternative is Rashard Lewis, who is even taller than Singleton, though not as good defensively. At SG, Crawford is better than Doron Lamb. And Mason and Evans are better than Miller off the bench. Wall is far better than Teague at PG, and his backup (Mack) is also better.

Think foul trouble inside could play a role? Brian Cook (a former All-American) would be the backup to Booker. Andray Blatche (6'11", 260, averaged 16.8ppg and 8rpg last year) steps in as Nene's backup. Not a huge dropoff there. Kevin Seraphin (a 6'9", 265lb beast) is the backup to those guys. And if things got really crazy at PF or C, Jan Vessely (a 6'11" lottery pick) is available for spot minutes. If Davis or Jones gets in foul trouble for Kentucky, you're looking at Vargas or Wiltjer. On the perimeter, the Wildcats have 4 guys for 3 spots. The Wizards run two All-Americans and a defensive stud out there and bring a 6'10" 15+ ppg NBA scorer off the bench along with three former All-conference players, all 6'3" or taller.

The Wizards more than match up in terms of size, strength, athleticism, and talent across the board. And they're far deeper in terms of that talent. Basically, the Wildcats would have to hope it got in a track meet because in a half-court game they'd be turned into a 3pt shooting team. Davis isn't going to post up on Nene or Blatche with any success. Booker matches up very well athletically with Jones, as does Singleton. Singleton and Lewis provide great length and athleticism against Kidd-Gilchrist to try to minimize Kentucky's one advantage. The trio of Crawford, Mason, and Evans are better than Lamb and Miller. And the combo of Wall and Mack is better than than Teague.

I don't see Kentucky being able to create the turnovers or win the battle on the glass enough to speed up the game. And in a half-court game the Wizards' superior size, strength, and athleticism would make life really really tough for the Cats. If they rain enough 3s and somehow keep Nene, Blatche, Booker, and company off the offensive boards, maybe they could win once in a rare while.

[crimsonandblue]

You quibble over the term "monster" and miss the forest for the trees. These guys were all All-Conference players. They were all among the best their conferences had to offer, and they played in big-time conferences. Two were All-Americans. And they're role players and end-of-bench guys on the Wizards. And you're going to argue whether or not they were "monsters?"

Cook was a monster his senior year (one of the ten best players in college). Booker was a beast and two-time All-ACC. Mack was a college star. Evans was an Big-12. N'Diaye was the Big East DPoY. Singleton was All-ACC and ACC DPoY. Mason was 3rd Team All-ACC. Crawford was 3rd Team All-American (one of the 15 best in college). Whether or not you consider them monsters, they were college stars. And they'd be secondary players to guys who were (Wall) or would have been (Lewis, Blatche, Nene) monsters.

Take a look at Nick Collison, a former Jayhawk I follow. He had a "monster" performance against Duke in the 2003 tourney. 33 and 19. He was a great college player. He averages 20 minutes a game, and 4 points and 4 rebounds for the Thunder this year and has averaged 7 and 6 for his career. As you've said, it's just a whole other level. If you're a mediocre NBA player, you were likely insanely good in college.

[Billy Dat]

A key point is that we shouldn't be comparing the kind of college players these guys were, we need to focus on the fact that they changed their bodies and games to make it in the NBA.

For example, Orlando Magic JJ Redick would DESTROY Duke POY JJ Redick. Duke JJ Redick would not be able to breath as pro JJ Redick d'ed him up, and Duke JJ Redick would bounce of NBA JJ Redick as he tried to cover him thanks to the pounds of lean muscle he has added to his frame. Pro JJ would blow past college JJ as if his feet were mired in cement.

That's why the Wizards would kill Kentucky, or any collection of college pros you put in front of them. It's also why, in 2 years, a 5 of Davis, Teague, Kidd-Gilchrest, Jones and Lamb could probably win a game against the current Wizards starting 5, they should all be pros and will have pro bodies and pro seasoning by then.

It reminds me of the anecdote of Dahntay coming back to Duke during his rookie year in the NBA and doing whatever he wanted against our Final Four 2004 squad. The guys on the team couldn't get over the difference from his just being in the NBA for 4 months. It was like a man against boys.

[CDu]

A key point is that we shouldn't be comparing the kind of college players these guys were, we need to focus on the fact that they changed their bodies and games to make it in the NBA.

For example, Orlando Magic JJ Redick would DESTROY Duke POY JJ Redick. Duke JJ Redick would not be able to breath as pro JJ Redick d'ed him up, and Duke JJ Redick would bounce of NBA JJ Redick as he tried to cover him thanks to the pounds of lean muscle he has added to his frame. Pro JJ would blow past college JJ as if his feet were mired in cement.

That's why the Wizards would kill Kentucky, or any collection of college pros you put in front of them. It's also why, in 2 years, a 5 of Davis, Teague, Kidd-Gilchrest, Jones and Lamb could probably win a game against the current Wizards starting 5, they should all be pros and will have pro bodies and pro seasoning by then.

It reminds me of the anecdote of Dahntay coming back to Duke during his rookie year in the NBA and doing whatever he wanted against our Final Four 2004 squad. The guys on the team couldn't get over the difference from his just being in the NBA for 4 months. It was like a man against boys.

You make a very good point about the physical and basketball development of the NBAers. However, I'd still favor the Wizards against the UK team with 2 years of development. The current UK team would have arguably two of the 3 best players on the court in such a game 2 years from now (Davis, Wall, and Kidd-Gilchrist as the top 3). But I'd take the Wizards for several of the rest of the spots (Nene, Crawford, Lewis, Jones, Blatche, Booker, Singleton, Lamb, Teague, Evans, Mason, Mack, Miller, Seraphin, Vessely). The height and athleticism still favors the Wizards. But it'd be a much better game then, for sure.

[UrinalCake]

For example, Orlando Magic JJ Redick would DESTROY Duke POY JJ Redick. Duke JJ Redick would not be able to breath as pro JJ Redick d'ed him up, and Duke JJ Redick would bounce of NBA JJ Redick as he tried to cover him thanks to the pounds of lean muscle he has added to his frame. Pro JJ would blow past college JJ as if his feet were mired in cement.

This reminds me of playing NBA Jam and having the same guys on opposite teams playing against each other. Imagine JJ and Gerald Henderson going against their former selves; those two have developed so much since their time here.

As an aside, this also provides an argument for guys leaving early rather than staying in college to continue developing. The rate at which they can develop in the NBA is much, much faster, with the strong caveat that they have to be good enough to stay on a roster and be given a chance. If they fall below that threshold they'll likely drop out of the league and wish they had stayed in college.

[Billy Dat]

As an aside, this also provides an argument for guys leaving early rather than staying in college to continue developing. The rate at which they can develop in the NBA is much, much faster, with the strong caveat that they have to be good enough to stay on a roster and be given a chance. If they fall below that threshold they'll likely drop out of the league and wish they had stayed in college.

Good point, and it's a really fine line. While the pros were not banging down JJ's door after his first two years, he probably could have left after his junior year. His subpar NCAA performances probably helped keep him at Duke. But, I think his success helped him develop a swagger that helped him become a solid pro. Granted, he had to spend a few years figuring out how to be an effective pro, and how to forget the POY JJ in order to realize that he needed to become a different player to stick in the NBA, but being a star in college gave him that confidence, and I'd hope K and the staff had more than a little to do with instilling the work ethic required to be a pro.

[TexHawk]

Ha! Clearly you haven't subjected yourself to any Wizards games or you'd know caring is beyond even their hypothetical capabilities... :)

If you told the Wizards that many people don't think they're good enough to beat a college team, then scheduled the game, they would definitely care.

[CDu]

Good point, and it's a really fine line. While the pros were not banging down JJ's door after his first two years, he probably could have left after his junior year. His subpar NCAA performances probably helped keep him at Duke. But, I think his success helped him develop a swagger that helped him become a solid pro. Granted, he had to spend a few years figuring out how to be an effective pro, and how to forget the POY JJ in order to realize that he needed to become a different player to stick in the NBA, but being a star in college gave him that confidence, and I'd hope K and the staff had more than a little to do with instilling the work ethic required to be a pro.

The main difference is that Redick got himself a sure-fire mid 1st round draft pick by staying. Had he gone as a junior, he ran the risk of going in the second round (which is the danger zone for a player's NBA security). He may have developed faster had he gone early IF he latched on with a team. But by waiting he assured himself three years of NBA time to develop at a different pace.

[CDu]

If you told the Wizards that many people don't think they're good enough to beat a college team, then scheduled the game, they would definitely care.

Good point. The Wizards don't care because they aren't as good as the other NBA teams. It's hard to stay motivated when you're consistently losing. Make them the top dog and it is a different story.

[throatybeard]

We had this conversation on this very site ten years ago about the Duke Blue Devils and a particularly sad-sack Chicago Bulls team.

Duke lost to Indiana in the S16.

[mdj]

We had this conversation on this very site ten years ago about the Duke Blue Devils and a particularly sad-sack Chicago Bulls team.

Duke lost to Indiana in the S16.

that Indiana team would have run those Bulls off the court! Ironically 3/5 of that Duke team bacame Bulls eventually.

[Danke Shane]

Ok, this thread got me curious about something I thought I had heard about... I couldn't remember if the sport was football or basketball but wikipedia helped me out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_College_All-Star_Game

Do any of you remember this being played? They seriously had a preseason game with the previous NFL champion vs. a team of just-graduated college seniors? Sounds like a bizarre concept given the nature of the game now. Interestingly, the NFL teams were 31-9-2 in the series..

[JasonEvans]

I just wanted to quickly chime in and praise the posters who have pointed out the advantage NBA guys have in terms of seasoning, experience, and physical maturity.

What people sometimes fail to consider in these kind of absurd scenarios is that a professional male athlete tends to reach his physical peak in his mid-late 20s. Female athletes generally reach their peak 5 or so years earlier (which is one reason female tennis and golf is often dominated by teens -- something you never see in the male sports).

So, when we look at the Wizard's roster versus the Kentucky one and we say "it is men playing against boys," that is absolutely the case. When we talk about some of these Kentucky kids being better pro prospects than anyone on the Wiz or Hornets rosters, and I think a couple of them are, it is worth noting that it will likely take a couple years in the NBA for those top "prospects" to reach anything close to their potential.

The notion that the Wiz would not be a prohibitive favorite to win the NCAA tournament is a joke. No, they would not be a sure thing, but I would give them at least a 75% chance of winning - perhaps even higher. I doubt anyone would have given Kentucky or any of the great teams in recent NCAA history more than maybe a 25 or 30% chance of winning the NCAA tourney.

It is fun to laugh and dream and talk about a really great college team versus a pro one, but it would be a joke of a mismatch. Saying otherwise is just foolish.

-Jason "I recall thinking the same thing about 1999 Duke... which could not even beat the last college team it faced" Evans

[CDu]

So, when we look at the Wizard's roster versus the Kentucky one and we say "it is men playing against boys," that is absolutely the case. When we talk about some of these Kentucky kids being better pro prospects than anyone on the Wiz or Hornets rosters, and I think a couple of them are, it is worth noting that it will likely take a couple years in the NBA for those top "prospects" to reach anything close to their potential.

Yep. There are several ways to look at it. This UK team has 2-3 lottery picks, a couple of 2nd rounders who could move up in a year or so (Lamb and Teague). Only two other players would even sniff the NBA (Wiltjer and Miller), and that would not be for another few years. The Wizards have 3 lottery picks, 3 more mid-first rounders, 2 more late-first rounders, and 4 2nd rounders who have each averaged over 8+ ppg for at least 2 years (2 of them have topped 15 ppg in a season, one earned a $10+ million per year contract) in the NBA. They are way deeper to begin with in terms of talent.

And on top of that, you add the size (these guys are all as big or much bigger at the same positions, physical maturity, and additional strength training, practice time, and exposure to much better competition. The Wizards would regularly mop the floor with the Wildcats and any other team in college basketball. They could potentially lose a game against a #1 seed or a team that just couldn't miss from 3. But it'd be a very rare event and it would be the biggest upset ever.


-Jason "I recall thinking the same thing about 1999 Duke... which could not even beat the last college team it faced" Evans

One can draw some interesting parallels between this UK team and the 1999 Duke team. The 1999 team had 2 very good NBA players in Brand and Maggette, a strong role player in Battier, and 2 other players (Langdon and Avery) who spent fringe time in the league but were gone after their rookie contracts. Nobody else sniffed the NBA. The Wildcats have two guys very likely to be very good players in Davis and MKG, another guy who'll likely be a strong role player in Jones, and 2 others who will likely be fringe guys (Lamb and Teague). That said, MKG and Davis have a long way to go to be as productive as Maggette and Brand (prior to his injuries) have been, and Jones has a long way to go to match Battier.

And I think that 1999 team would have gotten destroyed by this Wizards team.

[freedevil]

And I think that 1999 team would have gotten destroyed by this Wizards team.

Steve Kerr weighed in on PTI last night and used the very same word ("destroy") to describe what the Wizards would do to Kentucky. I think I'm a party of 1 on this...

[MChambers]

Steve Kerr weighed in on PTI last night and used the very same word ("destroy") to describe what the Wizards would do to Kentucky. I think I'm a party of 1 on this...
The only argument in favor of Kentucky is that the Wizards are the Wizards, seemingly capable of taking any advantage in any situation and wasting it.

[freedevil]

The only argument in favor of Kentucky is that the Wizards are the Wizards, seemingly capable of taking any advantage in any situation and wasting it.

That's a far better articulation of my (party-of-1) argument than I have made. And I appreciate the tone in which it was made. As for Kentucky vs. Louisville, can both teams lose?

[Wander]

it is worth noting that it will likely take a couple years in the NBA for those top "prospects" to reach anything close to their potential.


On the other hand, there are guys - the most recent example being Kyrie - who are better than a lot of NBA players from the moment they step onto the court. That's certainly not the norm, but maybe Anthony Davis is one of those guys.

[Greg_Newton]

There's also the fact the NBA players are grown men in their physical prime, while college players are still kids. Someone like Raja Bell would the runaway NPOY if you put him on a college team.

Remember when they brought in the "USA select" team to scrimmage the national team, and the college guards couldn't even get the ball across halfcourt vs. Westbrook and Rondo? Just because Marquis Teague may eventually be a decent NBA player doesn't mean he wouldn't get absolutely destroyed today, versus current NBA players.

[JBDuke]

Jaded Wizards fans like myself will appreciate this one. A Washington fan, tired of the Wizards' recent tendency to blow fourth quarter leads, posted this gem on Dan Steinberg's Washington Post Sports Bog:


Pretty sure we crush Kentucky here. We're almost always up after 40 minutes.

Now, if we're playing 48, we might have problems.

[JNort]

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.

I think they would win it 99 times out of 100 and win each game by no less than 20 to 40 each game. Seriously it is not even close! The one game error I had is just in case 7 players for Washington got hurt and the team they played was also ranked number one and that said team hit at least 15 3's shooting 60% or better from long range.

[moonpie23]

well, hypothalamusly speaking, which rules (spoken and non-spoken) and which referees would we be using in this imaginary matchup?