Defining "Talent"

[Coach Orange]

There have been a lot of posts recently claiming that Coach Boeheim and his staff need to "fix" things because our team has way too much talent to lose games as we have. The assumption is that we should have won some, if not all, of the games we have lost because we are more talented than the other teams. Since we lost eight games, a set of wide-ranging conclusions have been offered as explanation: our offensive design is flawed, we don't play the right defense, the coach plays the wrong players, the rotation is so bad that the coach has ruined players, Boeheim has lost the team, and the game has passed him by.

In short, the conclusions add up to "Boeheim is ineffectively coaching."

Though some board members defend Coach B and the team by saying that our players' inability to shoot is the reason we lose, people postulating that Boeheim's coaching is the problem aren't challenged enough on a base assumption: what exactly makes people believe that this team is so "talented?"

There are certainly areas in which Coach Boeheim can be critically questioned--I'm not debating that since I have done it myself. Also, please understand that I am in no way attacking any individual poster on this board, either. However, it feels like many members of the board assume that there is some elixir that a coach should just provide to his players to correct all problems, immediately making all of their deficiencies magically go away. If the coach can't do this, he is deemed a bad coach, or one doing a crappy job.

The problem, though, is that no such magic elixir exists. Developing basketball talent is like teaching a student to write--it takes time, patience, and perseverance.

With that in mind, I return to this term "talent." It gets thrown around as this buzz word used to justify why a team should play up to a certain level of expectations (i.e. This team has so much talent that it should win the Big East, or it should make the Final Four).

If a team doesn't meet these lofty expectations, it seems that some fans start looking for excuses to show cause for the "underachievement"--team dissension/drama, poor coaching decisions, terrible coaching philosophy, etc.--instead of closely examining the true level of talent that a team possesses.

It's rare to see anyone using the term "talent" actually define clearly what it is and, therefore, why it should lead (through cause-and-effect) to results that better match the expectations. Even when talent is somewhat defined, there are often slippages--"athleticism" gets mistaken for "talent," as does the number of stars some recruiting service arbitrarily assigned to players.

Given how the term is often used in claims--we should win more because we have so much talent--it's imperative to define the characteristics of talent to clearly demonstrate that our collection of players (Triche, Dirty, MCW, Fair, Christmas, Baye, DCII, Grant, and Cooney) is so much more developed as a set of basketball "talents" than the players of Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, Pitt, and so on. Only by clearly defining this can we truly make logical claims as to why our "talent" is underachieving based on the results. If we are going to make similar claims about the NCAA Tourney results, we should also clearly define and examine how our "talent" lines up against teams outside of our conference.

So, I pose a question: what criteria are we as a fan base using to argue that the team has "too much talent" to be where they are: 23-8 (11-7) and fifth in the Big East? In other words, what are the defining characteristics of talent? Technical fundamentals? Tactical fundamentals? Athleticism? Statistical attributes? Intangibles? Recruiting service stars? All of the above? None of the above?

 

[Noexcuse]

So, I pose a question: what criteria are we as a fan base using to argue that the team has "too much talent" to be where they are: 23-8 (11-7) and fifth in the Big East? In other words, what are the defining characteristics of talent? Technical fundamentals? Tactical fundamentals? Athleticism? Statistical attributes? Intangibles? Recruiting service stars? All of the above? None of the above?



I think the talent defined itself on the court over the course of the season, so probably all of those things.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

There have been a lot of posts recently claiming that Coach Boeheim and his staff need to "fix" things because our team has way too much talent to lose games as we have. The assumption is that we should have won some, if not all, of the games we have lost because we are more talented than the other teams. Since we lost eight games, a set of wide-ranging conclusions have been offered as explanation: our offensive design is flawed, we don't play the right defense, the coach plays the wrong players, the rotation is so bad that the coach has ruined players, Boeheim has lost the team, and the game has passed him by.

In short, the conclusions add up to "Boeheim is ineffectively coaching."

Though some board members defend Coach B and the team by saying that our players' inability to shoot is the reason we lose, people postulating that Boeheim's coaching is the problem aren't challenged enough on a base assumption: what exactly makes people believe that this team is so "talented?"

There are certainly areas in which Coach Boeheim can be critically questioned--I'm not debating that since I have done it myself. Also, please understand that I am in no way attacking any individual poster on this board, either. However, it feels like many members of the board assume that there is some elixir that a coach should just provide to his players to correct all problems, immediately making all of their deficiencies magically go away. If the coach can't do this, he is deemed a bad coach, or one doing a crappy job.

The problem, though, is that no such magic elixir exists. Developing basketball talent is like teaching a student to write--it takes time, patience, and perseverance.

With that in mind, I return to this term "talent." It gets thrown around as this buzz word used to justify why a team should play up to a certain level of expectations (i.e. This team has so much talent that it should win the Big East, or it should make the Final Four).

If a team doesn't meet these lofty expectations, it seems that some fans start looking for excuses to show cause for the "underachievement"--team dissension/drama, poor coaching decisions, terrible coaching philosophy, etc.--instead of closely examining the true level of talent that a team possesses.

It's rare to see anyone using the term "talent" actually define clearly what it is and, therefore, why it should lead (through cause-and-effect) to results that better match the expectations. Even when talent is somewhat defined, there are often slippages--"athleticism" gets mistaken for "talent," as does the number of stars some recruiting service arbitrarily assigned to players.

Given how the term is often used in claims--we should win more because we have so much talent--it's imperative to define the characteristics of talent to clearly demonstrate that our collection of players (Triche, Dirty, MCW, Fair, Christmas, Baye, DCII, Grant, and Cooney) is so much more developed as a set of basketball "talents" than the players of Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, Pitt, and so on. Only by clearly defining this can we truly make logical claims as to why our "talent" is underachieving based on the results. If we are going to make similar claims about the NCAA Tourney results, we should also clearly define and examine how our "talent" lines up against teams outside of our conference.

So, I pose a question: what criteria are we as a fan base using to argue that the team has "too much talent" to be where they are: 23-8 (11-7) and fifth in the Big East? In other words, what are the defining characteristics of talent? Technical fundamentals? Tactical fundamentals? Athleticism? Statistical attributes? Intangibles? Recruiting service stars? All of the above? None of the above?

People have been wrong on James for 3 years.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[CaliCuse]

There have been a lot of posts recently claiming that Coach Boeheim and his staff need to "fix" things because our team has way too much talent to lose games as we have. The assumption is that we should have won some, if not all, of the games we have lost because we are more talented than the other teams. Since we lost eight games, a set of wide-ranging conclusions have been offered as explanation: our offensive design is flawed, we don't play the right defense, the coach plays the wrong players, the rotation is so bad that the coach has ruined players, Boeheim has lost the team, and the game has passed him by.

In short, the conclusions add up to "Boeheim is ineffectively coaching."

Though some board members defend Coach B and the team by saying that our players' inability to shoot is the reason we lose, people postulating that Boeheim's coaching is the problem aren't challenged enough on a base assumption: what exactly makes people believe that this team is so "talented?"

There are certainly areas in which Coach Boeheim can be critically questioned--I'm not debating that since I have done it myself. Also, please understand that I am in no way attacking any individual poster on this board, either. However, it feels like many members of the board assume that there is some elixir that a coach should just provide to his players to correct all problems, immediately making all of their deficiencies magically go away. If the coach can't do this, he is deemed a bad coach, or one doing a crappy job.

The problem, though, is that no such magic elixir exists. Developing basketball talent is like teaching a student to write--it takes time, patience, and perseverance.

With that in mind, I return to this term "talent." It gets thrown around as this buzz word used to justify why a team should play up to a certain level of expectations (i.e. This team has so much talent that it should win the Big East, or it should make the Final Four).

If a team doesn't meet these lofty expectations, it seems that some fans start looking for excuses to show cause for the "underachievement"--team dissension/drama, poor coaching decisions, terrible coaching philosophy, etc.--instead of closely examining the true level of talent that a team possesses.

It's rare to see anyone using the term "talent" actually define clearly what it is and, therefore, why it should lead (through cause-and-effect) to results that better match the expectations. Even when talent is somewhat defined, there are often slippages--"athleticism" gets mistaken for "talent," as does the number of stars some recruiting service arbitrarily assigned to players.

Given how the term is often used in claims--we should win more because we have so much talent--it's imperative to define the characteristics of talent to clearly demonstrate that our collection of players (Triche, Dirty, MCW, Fair, Christmas, Baye, DCII, Grant, and Cooney) is so much more developed as a set of basketball "talents" than the players of Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, Pitt, and so on. Only by clearly defining this can we truly make logical claims as to why our "talent" is underachieving based on the results. If we are going to make similar claims about the NCAA Tourney results, we should also clearly define and examine how our "talent" lines up against teams outside of our conference.

So, I pose a question: what criteria are we as a fan base using to argue that the team has "too much talent" to be where they are: 23-8 (11-7) and fifth in the Big East? In other words, what are the defining characteristics of talent? Technical fundamentals? Tactical fundamentals? Athleticism? Statistical attributes? Intangibles? Recruiting service stars? All of the above? None of the above?

I agree with most if not all of your post but as far as coaching is concerned,it begins with properly assessing the talent at your disposal and the various ways of using that talent to its best potential It has looked recently as though there has been no coaching adjustments or attempts to enhance the player's ability to improve their play and outcome, I see no work being done on the half court offense with sets allowing foe more open shots from those who have the best chance of making the attempted shot I see randomly set picks but very little seems planned or practiced.Coaching also includes adjusting the play of a star if necessary. MCW is reckless with the ball and Brandon Triche is a senior playing like a frightened freeman who is afraid to make a mistake.That is a coaching responsibility and Boeheim has not earned his salary this season in "coaching up"the team.

 

[Coach Orange]

I agree with most if not all of your post but as far as coaching is concerned,it begins with properly assessing the talent at your disposal and the various ways of using that talent to its best potential It has looked recently as though there has been no coaching adjustments or attempts to enhance the player's ability to improve their play and outcome, I see no work being done on the half court offense with sets allowing foe more open shots from those who have the best chance of making the attempted shot I see randomly set picks but very little seems planned or practiced.Coaching also includes adjusting the play of a star if necessary. MCW is reckless with the ball and Brandon Triche is a senior playing like a frightened freeman who is afraid to make a mistake.That is a coaching responsibility and Boeheim has not earned his salary this season in "coaching up"the team.

I agree. I'm actually a little disappointed by the lack of offensive adjustments made this year against both man and zone defenses.

For example, I mentioned in the game chat yesterday that our next backdoor cut against pressure man-to-man defense would be our first. Seems like this would be a simple adjustment to make, yet we still haven't made it after years of seeing this type of defense.

 

[RF2044]

I agree. I'm actually a little disappointed by the lack of offensive adjustments made this year against both man and zone defenses.

For example, I mentioned in the game chat yesterday that our next backdoor cut against pressure man-to-man defense would be our first. Seems like this would be a simple adjustment to make, yet we still haven't made it after years of seeing this type of defense.

Agreed. And given how so few of our plays are called from the bench, I put a lot of the failure to adjust on the PG.

What do you think, Coach Orange?

 

[SoBeCuse]

People have been wrong on James for 3 years.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

James is a very poor man's Donte Greene.

 

[Gabjon]

James is and example of athletic ability, some basketball, but very little talent for the game. I've been one of his biggest fans but the game does not come easy to him!

 

[RF2044]

James is and example of athletic ability, some basketball, but very little talent for the game. I've been one of his biggest fans but the game does not come easy to him!

To me, "talent" is a combination of four factors. Players can be "talented" [situationally] by being strong in one of the dimensions but not the others, but being strong in one is no guarantee that your "talent" will translate into effectiveness.

"Talent" can also be a function of rating well on a combination of the factors.

They are:

Athletic ability
Skill level
Game instinct
Experience / Poise

 

[Gabjon]

To me, "talent" is a combination of four factors. Players can be "talented" [situationally] by being strong in one of the dimensions but not the others, but being strong in one is no guarantee that your "talent" will translate into effectiveness.

"Talent" can also be a function of rating well on a combination of the factors.

They are:

Athletic ability
Skill level
Game instinct
Experience / Poise

To me "Talent" cannot be taught or learned it can only be developed and/or nurtured. Therefore skill level and experience do not involve talent.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

James is and example of athletic ability, some basketball, but very little talent for the game. I've been one of his biggest fans but the game does not come easy to him!

I get the feeling watching him that he's not a very bright kid. Instinct for the game (as listed above) is also VERY poor.

 

[RF2044]

To me "Talent" cannot be taught or learned it can only be developed and/or nurtured. Therefore skill level and experience do not involve talent.

Not to split hairs, but I just don't agree with that definition, Gabjon. A highly skilled player can be just as effective as a more athletic one. See: every mid-major.

And there are lots of highly athletic players who don't have a clue how to play--just like there are athletic players who impact the game on the basis of their athleticism alone.

 

[Gabjon]

I get the feeling watching him that he's not a very bright kid. Instinct for the game (as listed above) is also VERY poor.

Basketball instincts are COMPLETELY unrelated to intelligence. I know guys who had great instincts for the game and were as smart as a well trained dog, and other guys who were otherwise brilliant but would have TOs that would drive you insane!

 

[cuseatduke]

I get the feeling watching him that he's not a very bright kid. Instinct for the game (as listed above) is also VERY poor.

When I watch James play, I see someone who is almost exclusively worried about himself. It almost seems like there is no thought about the bigger picture of the basketball game at all. He seems to have an arrogance that rubs me the wrong way, as well. He and Brandon's problems are very different in this regard. I believe Brandon's problem is more one of a fragile ego (desperately wants to live up to expectations).

 

[cuseatduke]

Not to split hairs, but I just don't agree with that definition, Gabjon. A highly skilled player can be just as effective as a more athletic one. See: every mid-major.

And there are lots of highly athletic players who don't have a clue how to play--just like there are athletic players who impact the game on the basis of their athleticism alone.

Sure but the definition is talent is just not how good someone is. Someone can be good by busting their ass to improve their skill level. It doesnt make them more "talented". Talent is about innate skill level that can't be taught. Pointless arguing over definitions but it's pretty much universally agreed.

 

[Gabjon]

Not to split hairs, but I just don't agree with that definition, Gabjon. A highly skilled player can be just as effective as a more athletic one. See: every mid-major.

And there are lots of highly athletic players who don't have a clue how to play--just like there are athletic players who impact the game on the basis of their athleticism alone.

I agree that is why you need both athletic ability and instincts for the game. Skill will get you to the mid major level but talent will get you further. CJ to me is not a very skilled player but he is extremely talented.

 

[rstone7727]

Great post.. Otto Porter has talent. He can dribble the ball (handle) with either hand. He can (shoot) the ball accurately from anywhere on the court. He can (pass/court vision) to his open teammates. He plays with (heart) on offense and defense for the entire time he is in the game.

He has mastered four basketball skills and we only have two players that have mastered two of these skills. CJ (shoot)-(heart); MCW (pass/court vision)-(heart); you could argue Jerami will have three or more before he is done here but not just yet. All the other players are hard pressed to have mastered one of the skills. So no, we are not a very talented team. MickyD accolades don't count until you have proven it at a D1 level.

 

[Coach Orange]

I agree that is why you need both athletic ability and instincts for the game. Skill will get you to the mid major level but talent will get you further. CJ to me is not a very skilled player but he is extremely talented.

This is not a disagreement with your point in any way--actually, I'm building off of it. It's funny; I see CJ as a skilled player--one who came into the program with good instincts/knowledge of the game and with good, but not elite, athleticism. He has improved his overall fundamental skills (footwork, shooting, dribbling, passing, closeouts, rebounding technique, and so on) and tactical skills (reading screens, spacing, seeing the floor, defensive rotations, knowledge of game situations, etc.) over the last few seasons. It's his skill development that allows him to be so consistent--he can use his skills to find ways to impact the game. Improving his technical and tactical fundamentals even more this off-season will make him very tough to defend next year.

Based on your posts, I consider you to be quite knowledgable about the game. Because of that, it's interesting that we agree that a player like CJ is "talented," but we attribute this to almost completely different reasons. This shows why the term "talent" needs to be defined if it is going to be used to justify why we should or shouldn't win games. If we don't have consensus on what makes a good player like CJ "talented," how would we evaluate Triche's play this season?

Thanks for sharing how you see talent. It's definitely a valuable contribution to the discussion.

 

[Coach Orange]

Agreed. And given how so few of our plays are called from the bench, I put a lot of the failure to adjust on the PG.

What do you think, Coach Orange?

Actually, JB calls a set play for almost every half-court possession against man and for some possessions against zone. That said, it seems that there is something amiss. Either the players are not being coached as to what to do if teams overplay on the perimeter, or the players aren't executing the skills in the games.

Coaches that teach motion offense often criticize set-play offenses for programming kids to "go through the motions." They claim that patterns teach players the choreography of the play without instructing how to "play the game." It might be that our players just haven't mastered how to read and react appropriately when a defense takes away the cut or pass that they want to make--in other words, they're not just "playing the game."

If this is the case, then JB and the staff deserve some of the criticism they are getting because players have to be taught the reads and then drilled on each of them so many times that they become "natural." However, this teaching and drilling takes time--it would not surprise me if young/inexperienced players like MCW or Cooney (or DCII) would struggle to be on the same page in reading and reacting if they aren't "quick studies" in practice. How many hours do they say it takes to create a habit? As a collective, we may not have logged enough hours yet.

By the way, thanks for your definition of talent--it is similar to the way I would define it.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Great set of questions.
Unfortunately, there can be no answers to many of them because we can't run parallel timelines under two or more sets of conditions. We can only see what happens to the players we bring in, and can't see what might have transpired if they played for a different coach and/or in a different system.

The discussion can only be of expectations, and we can only say that we should expect more than what we're seeing. The record is just a set of numbers. How good we are or aren't can't be shown by wins over poor competition. What we might do this month may have nothing to do with what we've done over the past 12 games, but it's probably more wise to hinge your expectations on trends rather than hopes.

What's most important, though, is that those who are 'doom and gloomers' and those who are cheerleaders and fanboys are all on the same team.

Orange is religion. Don't tell me how to worship.

 

[Cowtown]

James is a very poor man's Donte Greene.

Sir, James stuck around for four years. He made a commitment and backed it up. The other guy ...

 

[Cowtown]

I'd suggest that the onus for development lies with the one who has the most to gain from it: the player.

 

[Coach Orange]

I'd suggest that the onus for development lies with the one who has the most to gain from it: the player.

In education, this is called student-centered learning. The teacher provides the resources and guidance; it's up to the student to use them in order to learn.

 

[orangecuse]

To me "Talent" cannot be taught or learned it can only be developed and/or nurtured. Therefore skill level and experience do not involve talent.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with such a narrow generalization of talent...a lot of semantics if you ask me. Are you saying players such as Steve Kerr or a John Paxon were legit NBA players because of your apparent definition of talent? Some (including Kerr himself) may argue otherwise. :noidea:

 

[Gabjon]

This is not a disagreement with your point in any way--actually, I'm building off of it. It's funny; I see CJ as a skilled player--one who came into the program with good instincts/knowledge of the game and with good, but not elite, athleticism. He has improved his overall fundamental skills (footwork, shooting, dribbling, passing, closeouts, rebounding technique, and so on) and tactical skills (reading screens, spacing, seeing the floor, defensive rotations, knowledge of game situations, etc.) over the last few seasons. It's his skill development that allows him to be so consistent--he can use his skills to find ways to impact the game. Improving his technical and tactical fundamentals even more this off-season will make him very tough to defend next year.

Based on your posts, I consider you to be quite knowledgable about the game. Because of that, it's interesting that we agree that a player like CJ is "talented," but we attribute this to almost completely different reasons. This shows why the term "talent" needs to be defined if it is going to be used to justify why we should or shouldn't win games. If we don't have consensus on what makes a good player like CJ "talented," how would we evaluate Triche's play this season?

Thanks for sharing how you see talent. It's definitely a valuable contribution to the discussion.

The talent is being able to apply the lessons learned during the "organic nature of the game" everybody is doing the same drills, watching the same film and getting yelled at by the same voice.