pennsive
Junior
Posts: 200
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-09-16 06:13 PM - Post#205979
has committed to Penn per Verbal commits. 6'8" forward from Poland via prep school in U.S. Highlight film looks good.
|
Carl0731
Sophomore
Posts: 187
Reg: 02-07-06
|
Re: Jakub Mijakowski
04-09-16 06:47 PM - Post#205980
In response to pennsive
2017 or 2016?
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-09-16 07:25 PM - Post#205981
In response to Carl0731
2016
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
Re: Jakub Mijakowski
04-09-16 07:33 PM - Post#205982
In response to Carl0731
Hmm... his video did look pretty good.
What I liked:
- A shooter (we need a few of those)
- Big improvement from Sophomore to Junior years; got a lot stronger.
- If he's really 6'7, then he is faster than most of our players that size.
- Relies on fundamental moves as opposed to just athleticism
What I didn't like
- Very little video that shows defense or rebounding capabilities
- Looks like a catch and shoot player, but perhaps could develop skills to create shots.
He looks like a faster Sam Jones or a slower Klay Thompson. He should watch videos of Klay all day to model his game.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-09-16 08:14 PM - Post#205983
In response to Penndemonium
Reminds me of Marin Kukoc who might have had a nice career at Penn had he not hurt his back
|
T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
PhD Student
Posts: 1171
Loc: Our Nation's Capital
Reg: 01-18-05
|
04-09-16 11:32 PM - Post#205986
In response to AsiaSunset
Jan Fikiel.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
04-09-16 11:56 PM - Post#205987
In response to T.P.F.K.A.D.W.
He can make open 3s and is a decent passer. Can't tell anything else. Doesn't look like he can create his own shot so Sam Jones 2.0 is a good comparison
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-10-16 10:06 AM - Post#205988
In response to PennFan10
2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uITnOW5hcMY
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
04-10-16 10:34 AM - Post#205989
In response to AsiaSunset
Neither S Jones nor Fikiel can/could possess the speed or finish on the break like this player.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-10-16 11:39 AM - Post#205990
In response to penn nation
Definitely not Fikiel who had 3 point range but almost always from the top of the key. This guy is a true 3.
Another lookalike would be Tommy McMahon, another big wing who had his career shortened by injury.
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23368
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-10-16 11:42 AM - Post#205991
In response to AsiaSunset
Kuba! Kuba!
|
tioga
Freshman
Posts: 57
Reg: 05-18-06
|
04-10-16 11:50 AM - Post#205992
In response to 10Q
Impressed with the coaching staff's success in bringing in shooters. Hopefully they will fit into the style of play planned. Some appear also to be long and fairly athletic, or in Goodman's case quick, which hopefully will help on defense. Good feeling about where the team is headed.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32812
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-10-16 11:57 AM - Post#205994
In response to tioga
None of us have any idea how these recruits will stack up on the Court. Until we see how they play at this level, optimism is hard to come by. Especially when Harvard is bringing in high major recruits. The only thing I feel at least moderately optimistic about is that I think we have a coach who knows what he wants out of players on the court. We have a high hurdle to cross before we can say we are a contender even for the playoff.
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23368
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-10-16 03:34 PM - Post#205998
In response to palestra38
Playoff?
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Jakub Mijakowski
04-10-16 04:34 PM - Post#206001
In response to palestra38
That's very true but nobody knows how Harvard recruits will turn out. The top rated recruits coming out of hs played for Harvard this year. None of them were named Sears or Lo.
I'd see Princeton and Harvard with the best chance next year. After those two it's pretty wide open. Don't underestimate the impact on Yale and Columbia losing 4 starters
Edited by AsiaSunset on 04-10-16 04:36 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-10-16 07:35 PM - Post#206004
In response to AsiaSunset
Harvard has not had the recruiting class with the highest expected win shares since 2012 (Chambers, Cummins, Okolie, Steeves and Hall). While they've had two Top 100 recruits in the 2013-2015 classes, depth is far more important than the ranking of the top recruit.
Harvard's expected win shares from the 2016 class are the highest ever, barely eclipsing the 2011 Harvard class which wound up making four NCAA tournaments and winning two NCAA games.
I'm not sure why people insist that you can't know anything about how recruiting classes will turn out. There is strong evidence that one can indeed do just that.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-10-16 08:20 PM - Post#206006
In response to mrjames
Nonsense
Harvard had two 4 star players and a bunch of 3 star players in their front court this year and a bunch of 3 stars at the guard and wing positions. Yet a 4 star like Egi didn't dominate and the pg was young and the sgs not the players Harvard expected when they were recruited
Meanwhile players like Sears, Lo, Rosenberg and Sherrod were lightly recruited
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
04-10-16 08:44 PM - Post#206007
In response to AsiaSunset
Harvard had 3 star players sitting on their bench that contributed very little like Myers, Miller and Chatfield. In fact if you go down last year's roster, it's all a bunch of 3 and 4 star recruits and a mix of AI fillers. How many 3 star players were on the Columbia team that proved to be the better team last year?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Jakub Mijakowski
04-10-16 09:12 PM - Post#206010
In response to AsiaSunset
I have posted my methodology and results on here before. I'd suggest you re-read those posts before merely dismissing this as nonsense.
My empirical research has shown that the recruiting game is about quality and quantity. A mixture of both is best, but if you have to choose one, choose quantity. That was Harvard's problem in 2013 and 2014. It essentially brought in two-man recruiting classes each year. Zena turned out to be very good. Hunter Myers turned out to be very injured. Egi and Chatfield have each battled injuries, but really haven't shown signs of amounting to much if they were completely healthy.
Harvard has had four monster classes according to the model: 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2016. The 2009 class was predicted at 35 win shares and ended up with 43. The 2011 class was predicted at 40 win shares and ended up with 55. And 2012 was predicted at 33 and should end up falling just a few short unless Siyani has a bonkers year next year.
The 2016 class is predicted at 57 win shares, which is nearly 50% higher than the next highest prediction (2009 Harvard, which as shown above that class beat handily). In comparison, the 2013 and 2014 classes, both of which also had Top 100 recruits in them, were both predicted at 14 win shares.
The reason is quite simple. It's not so much that Harvard has Top 100 kids, it's that it has FOUR of them. I know that not all four are going to be instant impact and, in fact, I have a hunch as to which are more likely than others to take more time to produce. But when you have four draws at an urn with a high proportion of great outcomes in it, that's way more valuable than having just one - not to mention the drastic reduction in variance.
But then why is this "we don't know anything until we see them on the court" narrative so ubiquitous? Quite simply, it's because most classes aren't predicted to have very high win share output. Only four going back to 2002 have been predicted at 30 win shares or above (Harvard 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2016). And the only one cracking a 20 WS expectation since Harvard last did it in 2012 was 2015 Cornell.
The fact is that most classes are likely to be pretty average, making the "we don't know anything" narrative pretty safe most of the time. But there have been 19 classes that have had 20 expected WS or more since 2002 and the track record of the model in those cases is pretty good:
Team Year Predict WS
75 Harvard 2016 57 TBD
70 Harvard 2011 40 55
68 Harvard 2009 35 43
71 Harvard 2012 34 20(TBD)
77 Penn 2003 29 56
92 Princeton 2003 27 9
79 Penn 2005 27 17
3 Brown 2004 26 31
18 Columbia 2004 24 32
85 Penn 2011 24 3
44 Cornell 2015 23 0(TBD)
49 Dartmouth 2005 23 15
82 Penn 2008 21 24
107 Yale 2003 21 6
109 Yale 2005 20 21
6 Brown 2007 20 15
16 Columbia 2002 20 8
23 Columbia 2009 20 29
61 Harvard 2002 20 19
While I'm all ears when it comes to the low predictive nature of ratings for an individual player, it's pretty clear that at the collective class level, there's a lot of predictive signal to the recruiting rankings.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Jakub Mijakowski
04-11-16 06:30 AM - Post#206013
In response to mrjames
And every member of your new class may turn out to be injured, but to suggest that Edowamsan, Egi, Chatfield and Myers weren't the top recruiting class by a mile is absolute nonsense Mike.
It is equally nonsensical to suggest that even in the absence of Chambers that Harvard didn't have the highest ranking kids from a recruiting standpoint on the court this year. And - it's a fact that those kids lost to teams playing much lower ranked players
when they came out of hs.
Your backcourt wasn't the best in the league this year yet McCarthuy and Miller were both considered higher ranked recruits than Lo and Mullins. And who had a frontcourt with recruiting rankings that rivaled Zeno, Egi, Okalie and Cummings? No one came close.
|
