Debunking the South Carolina being "more talented" argument
I have seen over and over the argument that "South Carolina is a more talented team than Kentucky" and I'm tired of it.
Rivals 2005 team ranking Kentucky doesn't show up here (its the Jared Carter class) and neither does South Carolina
Rivals 2006 team ranking The class of Meeks, Jasper, Stevenson, and Porter comes in at number 11. South Carolina does not appear.
Rivals 2007 team ranking The class of Patterson, Legion, Stewart, and Williams registers at number 13. South Carolina is again absent.
Rivals 2008 team ranking Liggins, Miller, Galloway, and Harrelson register at number 21. Still no South Carolina.
We've all been round and round about what it really means to have 5 star rankings versus 4 stars. And yes, Legion and Jasper are gone. Ultimately, the fact that cannot be denied is that Kentucky definitively has outperformed South Carolina in the recruiting battles.
In fact, I would argue that looking over those lists... the only two teams who are arguably more talented than Kentucky are Tennessee and Florida... and we beat them!!!
I'm not a negative person by any stretch of the imagination, similarly I'm not one that looks for excuses. When I make a mistake, I will own up to it. (Often I will explain my reasoning that lead to the mistake... but I make no excuses.) Its time for this team to play to their potential. We do NOT have the talent to compete with the UConns and UNC's of the world, what we should expect is to be competitive night in and night out in the SEC. That is reasonable for a fan to expect.
0 recs |
17 comments
Comments
We're not more talented in terms of high school talent than UK...
But we are an extremely experienced team, especially compared to UK. That’s worth keeping in mind. Also, Devan Downey (Cinci) and Zam Fredrick (Ga. Tech) were transfer and so won’t show up in our Rivals rankings. Both were highly rated out of high school.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans. http://www.garnetandblackattack.com
by Gamecock Man on Feb 26, 2009 7:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This Year's Gamecocks (Roster) Almost The Same As Last Year
They just got better with a new coach playing up-tempo style and more experience.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 26, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans. http://www.garnetandblackattack.com
by Gamecock Man on Feb 26, 2009 8:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not Sure Rivals=Gospel
This doesn’t quite debunk the argument.
+ Perhaps rivals cannot adequately evaluate talent.
+Rankings are a snapshot of the players’ abilities in high school, not accounting for player development (or regression) over his career
+Rankings do not count transfers to or out of program
+Team can be more talented top to bottom (depth), but opposing team might have four very talented players that can outperform depth.
Agree that UK has talent to compete in SEC.
"Yeah, the guy wearing the $4,000 suit is holding the elevator for the guy who doesn't make that in four months. COME ON! "--GOB
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on Feb 26, 2009 8:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
UK has the talent to WIN the SEC outright.
We just didn’t.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on Feb 27, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
USC has the best point guard in the league
But the other 4 wouldn’t be in the top 5 of their positions. Just goes to show you want can happen when you have a stud PG.
by btcoop71 on Feb 27, 2009 9:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Talent is
as talent plays. We were outplayed.
by Fortunatus on Feb 27, 2009 10:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Give You 2Pat & Meeks
5 on 5: Let’s say that Patterson and Meeks are winners at their positions (5 & 2) — although I would say that the difference between Meeks and Frederick is not as great as we UK fans would like to think. The other 3 positions (1, 3 & 4) are clearly in ’Cocks favor. Considering all aspects of talent: physical, mental, experience, etc., SC is more talented than UK. Get used to it because with the exception of UGA it will be that way the remainder of the year — post-season included.
by Wild Weasel on Feb 27, 2009 5:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
2008 Comparison FWIW
USC almost identical this year to last.
Patterson out last year. UK played Bradley, Crawford, Jasper, Stevenson, Harris (mostly, with a few subs) against those same Gamecock players.
And yet, UK won that game. PG play was a HUGE difference. Heart and effort were also big factors.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 27, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A coaching change on SC's part was also a big factor
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Feb 27, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No Doubt
Darrin Horn has been a much better coach for USC. I’m really impressed with his results.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 27, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Talent Vs. Ability
I have been thinking about this a lot. I do believe that SC has more ability than UK. This is not to say that UK may have players with more talent as defined as natural ability. You can have an IQ of 200 but if you never learn, of what use is your brain? You could be born with all the musical talent in the world but if you never learn to play an instrument what band would you play in? I say the 2009 version of the same players for SC has more ability than the 2008 version. The practiced and learned how to play better. On this level of competition, players must improve every day because someone else is. That someone will beat you even if in high school, you were faster, taller, stronger and better looking. Yes even if you have more talent. Some of the current group of players may have the potential to be better. But talent, as define by natural ability, means nothing compared to your ability to perform today. After all, baskeball is a learned activity. If you never learn how to play, you’re not a player. You are just tall.
by LyricSmith on Feb 27, 2009 6:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This debate ...
… is really not a very good one.
Basketball is a team sport. Nobody should know this better than Kentucky fans. When we were drubbing teams back in 1991-92 with Pelphrey, Feldhaus, Mashburn, Brown, Ford, Woods, Farmer, Brassow, and Riddick among others, could you argue that we were more talented than 60% of the teams we played? No. Mashburn was the only NBA player on the team. We took Duke, a team that had more talent in three of their starting five than UK had on its entire roster put together, to the wire.
Talent and team are different things. USC probably does not have an NBA player on it’s entire roster right now. Not one. Devan Downey and Zam Fredrick will make money playing basketball, but not in the League. Downey is a midget and lacks the extreme athleticism needed in the NBA when you are that small. Zam Fredrick’s shot takes 15 seconds to release, and right now he doesn’t have NBA range. Both those guys will be playing overseas, as will maybe one or two of the rest.
UK has at least two players who will be in the NBA both likely first-round draft picks (Meeks will be one next year), and could have four (I’m still not sure Liggins is good enough, but he could be, and Miller could develop into an NBA player). Stevenson will make money overseas, and Harrellson may as well if he improves. Even A.J. Stewart is potentially an overseas player, although I don’t think he has enough natural ability to develop into an NBA player.
The reason the South Carolina players look so good is because they are playing very well together. That makes everybody look a lot better than they are. Not only that, coach Horn has inspired them to play above their heads, which makes them look all-world. But they aren’t.
When I see people raise this talent issue, I just shake my head. This is such a tired debate, and although having a certain minimum level of talent is critical to ultimate success, what is most important is the ability to play well together. A winning team is about teamwork, and enough talent to be able to carry out the team concept effectively against any team. We saw that in the 1992 ’Cats, the Suffocats, and many other times in Kentucky history.
Kentucky has plenty of talent if they played well as a team and with maturity. Winning with talent alone is also certainly possible, but as we have seen from North Carolina in the last two years, all the talent in the world won’t get you to the brass ring if you don’t play well together. We need to make sure we have enough talent to beat the best teams. Right now, we don’t — we need maybe one or two more stud players. The good news is, they arrive next year, and assuming Patterson and Meeks both stay, we will find out if coach Gillispie belongs here at Kentucky.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Feb 28, 2009 9:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Two Of The Most Talented UK Rosters I Can Remember > 1985 And 1987
Both teams absolutely loaded with gobs of talent. 9 HS All-Americans on each roster.
And yet, 18-13 in 1985. 18-11 in 1987.
The (1986) team in between had similar talent level. Almost identical to 1985 roster.
But the 86 Cats were 32-4.
It’s more than just talent.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 28, 2009 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Kentucky has plenty of talent if they played well as a team and with maturity."
This is my point. Many posts around here the last few weeks have stated that Kentucky doesn’t have the talent to compete in the league… my argument is that we have more than enough talent to compete in the SEC. What we don’t seem to have is the ability or the desire to play together.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Feb 28, 2009 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Much Like 2002 Cats
Oodles of talent. Didn’t like each other very much. Team chemistry missing altogether.
by FortyYearCatFan on Feb 28, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 















