Season in review: the players
-
Let's take a look at how we feel the players performed this year. I'll start us off with a few. Feel free to offer your own ratings here if you'd like. My grades could for sure be skewed as my mood is crap right now!
My two cents:
Darryn Peterson
Averages: 20 pts / 4 rebounds / 1.7 assists ( a shockingly low 38 assists on the year. wow) / 60 3pts made
Performance: This is a tough one. Generally his numbers are more than good for a freshman. I argue he did very little to next to nothing to make the players around him better. Ya have to add his health issues to the overall as a big negative, both for him and the team.
Score: 7 out of 10
Melvin Council
Averages: 12 pts / 5 rebounds / 5 assists / 36 3pts made
Performance: Seemingly a team leader. Fan favorite with his "dawg" PR movement. Bonus points for that. Generally a weak scorer. Needed to be more dominant offensively more than he was. Had a pretty bad end of season run. Defense seemed strong, at least the effort seemed there mostly. I'd prefer Self get guards who can take over games in all aspects (sherron, graham, etc).
Score: 7 out of 10 / End of season run lowers grade.
Tre White
Averages: 13.8 pts / 6.7 rebounds / 1.7 assists / 56 3pts made
Performance: He probably deserves a better grade than i wanna give him. Except for a few games during the regular season, he was a consistent scorer, hit the boards, defended. But he was crap in post season games. Big demerit for a very experienced player. My two cents: He's soft as hell when near the rim. Weak. Go straight at it, get a foul instead of these 360 up and unders he constantly tried.
Score: 6.5 out of 10 / I understand his stats alone say he should grade better.
I may add a few at some point.
-
Tre was definitely one of our better boarders! Not soft there.
-
Agreed. I just thought he was wimpy going to the rim. too many wild, gangly layup attempts.
-
@rockchalkjayhawk had a sweet one today.
-
My issues arent with the players. The things I want to grade here are their usage, their growth, their pay. It feels very difficult to judge them as individual contributors in a meaningful way when their capacities are very much bounded by forces external to them.
That being said I would probably give each of them an extra point over your ratings if judging how they handled their season.
-
@approxinfinity said in Season in review: the players:
My issues arent with the players. The things I want to grade here are their usage, their growth, their pay. It feels very difficult to judge them as individual contributors in a meaningful way when their capacities are very much bounded by forces external to them.
That being said I would probably give each of them an extra point over your ratings if judging how they handled their season.
Fair enough. Basically I’m simply offering a way to bitch about players to soothe our post season blues. Since these players are pros now, seems fair.
I think the “growth” category is the big issue you’re personally having with Self. Most saw no growth, and actually performed worse as the season progressed. Flory is better than last year, but we can see his flaws and kryptonite.
Usage: another Self issue.
-
@rockchalkjayhawk said in Season in review: the players:
Fair enough. Basically I’m simply offering a way to bitch about players to soothe our post season blues. Since these players are pros now, seems fair.
Does being paid somehow negate being young and dumb? Does it negate playing only one season under Coach Self, who always takes 2 years minimum to get the best out of guys?
-
@BigBad said in Season in review: the players:
@rockchalkjayhawk said in Season in review: the players:
Fair enough. Basically I’m simply offering a way to bitch about players to soothe our post season blues. Since these players are pros now, seems fair.
Does being paid somehow negate being young and dumb? Does it negate playing only one season under Coach Self, who always takes 2 years minimum to get the best out of guys?
I don’t understand what you’re asking.
This post is a simple way to discuss player performance. No nuance involved.
-
@rockchalkjayhawk sorry, not in any way trying to invalidate your post. Just where my thoughts are. yours are perfectly valid and I appreciate the angle. Mostly I'm just bummed out right now.
-
Yesterday showed the lack of team chemistry development. (Admittedly, DP's health inconsistency had a lot to do with it.) Even after a full season, however, when we needed to score, Melvin and Tre DEFERRED to DP, and DP did nothing to make them more effective participants in the offense. Could be lack of coaching OR, maybe, we were just really unlucky that we had a highly touted freshman that suffered full body cramps.
-
This team was a top 8 team on paper and in my heart at the start of the season (and at various times in the season).
But from January to present, looking objectively, they ware mostly between top 16-25. Going into the tourney, my head said that the round of 32 was the threshold for the team. If we get to S16, there should be no disappointment... But losing at the round of 32 was completely possible. And the way we lost — on a shot at the buzzer — kind of shows how close we were. Like, #17. That sucks, but that's where we landed.
It's kind of fitting when you look back on the record -- losing to West Virginia, losing at home to Cincinnati when it really mattered... Yet beating Iowa State, Houston and Arizona.. Not to mention Tennessee who is in the S16. So, we could win or we could lose...
If the game goes to OT, I like our chances, but it didn't.
Again, number 17, in a game where number 16 is still playing, and the season is over for #17.
-
@bskeet I definitely agree with this idea. I'd even say we could be 16 or 15. We are better than Texas. We are probably better than Iowa. Obviously, they are still playing and we aren't. They beat good teams when it mattered and we didn't. This was always a flawed team (every team is tbh). But they were fun. I believe they played hard, cared about each other, and most importantly, didn't give up at the end. This round of 32 loss doesn't feel great. The way it ended makes it hurt more than the last two in my opinion. But that says more about the positives of this team than the negatives to me. I WANTED to watch this team play more games. I was happy the two before were done... I love these players. They gave me an entertaining season that ended in heartbreak. If it doesn't end in a celebration I'd rather it end in heartbreak anyway.
-
@benshawks08 Exactly.
Let me posit that, while "a win is a win," not all losses are equal.
"Heartbreaks" — aka a loss in a one possession game — are actually "better" than blowouts.
Blowouts (USC, Gonzaga, Auburn.. etc.) show lack of heart, or lack of preparation, or a gross mismatch. etc. Whatever it is, blowouts indicate something dysfunctional.
With a little time to allow the emotion to seep out, I can appreciate what it took to be in the position to win it. It doesn't take the sting totally away from the loss, but the comeback showed a lot of heart.
-
Maybe one last point: Expectations color a lot of how we interpret things. NCAA seedings set expectations.
Tourney Losses:
2026: KU #4 - St Johns #5
2025: KU #7 - Arkansas #10
2024: KU #4 - Gonzaga #5
2023: KU #1 - Arkansas #8
2022
2021: KU #3 - USC #6
2020:
2019: KU #4 - Auburn #5
2018: KU #1 - Villanova #1 (Final Four)
2017: KU #1 - Oregon #3
2016: KU #1 - Villanova #2
2015: KU #2 - Wichita State #7
2014: KU #2 - Stanford #10Two years that performance matched (or exceeded) seed: 2018 and 2022.
Every other loss is an upset according to seed.
Some losses are what I would call a "tossup": 4-5 (2026, 2024, 2019), as is the 1-2 (2016). A "tossup" loss is disappointing, but the game was more of a coin flip. I try to manage expectations a bit with these.
The rest of the losses have increased disparity between seeds. Those upsets, combined with consistency of landing on the wrong side of nearly every matchup for more than a decade, makes it feel like we suck in the tourney.
And yes, let me be clear, this shows a history of underachieving. But there are a couple of big successes.
My point is that perhaps the handful of tossups NEVER going our way, makes this hurt more. Losing to a lower seed almost every year for more than a decade magnifies the sense of under-achieving.
PS: keep in mind that "exceeding" expectations means you are beating a team with a higher seed. The higher the seed, the fewer the opportunities... and it's impossible when you are a #1 seed. You can only "meet" expectations in that case (unless you win the natty.)
The system design is such that higher-seeded teams are less likely to exceed expectations and, therefore, more likely to be disappointed.
-
@bskeet the seeding wasn’t good for us this season St. John’s had won the big east tournament and regular season while being ranked in the top 10 in the last AP poll. They should’ve have been a 3 seed and this should have been an elite 8 type of match up. The road you get makes a big difference and we got the toughest draw IMO.
-
@kjayhawks2.0 As I look back at that list of NCAA tournaments, there have been seeding issues and matchup issues almost every year.
The tournament committee seems to target certain programs with potential matchups that are dramatic because of former coaching ties, regional proximity, player ties, or stylistic differences. It's not just us. But it's also not every program.
It's one of those things I just don't understand.. but it does seem like there's an eternal axe to grind somewhere in deep the NCAA.
-
@bskeet the only road we got that I want like holy smokes was in 2022. I’d rather been a 9 seed like Iowa than us as a 4 with the games we got.
