The biggest difference between Ben McLemore and Xavier Henry? Perception


The general consensus I get from Kansas basketball fans is that Xavier Henry was a bust in his one-and-done year, while Ben McLemore was a success.

It's simply not true if you look only at the numbers.

Kansas guard Ben McLemore pulls up for a three over Temple guard Scootie Randall during the first half on Sunday, Jan. 6, 2013 at Allen Fieldhouse.

Kansas guard Ben McLemore pulls up for a three over Temple guard Scootie Randall during the first half on Sunday, Jan. 6, 2013 at Allen Fieldhouse. by Nick Krug

For the last few years, Ken Pomeroy has listed "player comparables" in his advanced stats on

The full explanation for the measure is on his site, but basically, a score of 900 or more means two players are "a great match."

McLemore and Henry's player comparable score is 917 — the highest mark for each player. Keep in mind that's comparing their statistics to every other Div. I freshman over the past eight years.

The similarity between the two is even more striking when looking at the advanced statistics. I've highlighted in red the categories where the two put up nearly the same stat line.

Photo illustration by Janella Williams/Journal-World.

Photo illustration by Janella Williams/Journal-World. by Jesse Newell

The two players took on the same offensive load (usage percentage) and hitched up the same amount of shots. Their rebounding numbers are nearly identical, as are their turnover percentages and three-point shooting percentages.

Basically, here are the four things that separate McLemore and Henry:

• Playing time: McLemore's per-game numbers look better because he was in a greater percentage of KU's minutes. One could easily argue that if McLemore was on the deeper 2009-10 team in Henry's place, his playing time might have been reduced as well.

• Free throws: Henry was a good free-throw shooter, but McLemore was an excellent one, which helped boost his offensive rating by a few points.

Two-point shooting: McLemore shot six percentage points better inside the arc, which again was enough to boost his offensive production up just a bit above Henry's.

Defense: Henry was the more disruptive defender, as his steal percentage was nearly double that of McLemore in his one season.

All things considered, McLemore is the better player. His enhanced offensive value over Henry makes up for his weaker steal numbers.

Still, it's close — and much closer than you'd expect based on the players' reputations.

So why is it that McLemore is widely considered a success while Henry isn't?

A few theories:

Expectations: McLemore committed to KU at an anonymous high-school all-star game near Chicago. Henry's original announcement that he was attending Memphis (before he reopened his recruitment) was live on ESPN.

Fair or not, the added media exposure of recruits usually boosts their expectations. Interestingly, Henry was ranked eighth in his class by, while McLemore was 17th, so the two actually were closer in that respect than KU fans might remember.

Henry's stock also was elevated a bit early in his senior year when, for a short time, he was the ranked the No. 1 player in his class by ESPNU.

• Likability: McLemore's backstory of succeeding over adversity and poverty has been documented in a few places, and it added to him being an easy player to cheer for. Henry, meanwhile, didn't initially report to KU in the summer before his freshman year, which didn't get him off to a good start with KU's fanbase. Xavier — a polite kid in interviews — also probably had his reputation hurt by association, as his father Carl many times came across as overbearing while his brother C.J. often looked disinterested and self-focused while putting up a high percentage of shots during his one season at KU.

Dunks: This is a big one. Though the two players' numbers were similar, they looked much different based on the eye test.

According to the KU media relations department's unofficial count, McLemore had 43 dunks in his one season.

Henry had only 17. And his weren't nearly as impressive.

McLemore was a more fun athlete to watch because of his leaping ability and creative slams. Even with those gifts, McLemore's offensive production was just barely above Henry's.

Kansas guard Ben McLemore finishes the game with a windmill dunk against San Jose State during the second half on Monday, Nov. 26, 2012 at Allen Fieldhouse.

Kansas guard Ben McLemore finishes the game with a windmill dunk against San Jose State during the second half on Monday, Nov. 26, 2012 at Allen Fieldhouse. by Nick Krug

The bottom line? McLemore and Henry both had productive seasons during their one-year playing careers in Lawrence.

Take out the emotions and perception, and the two were nearly identical college players ... even if there's little hope that they'll be remembered that way.

More from Jesse Newell

  • Did Perry Ellis exceed expectations in 2012-13?
  • Here's what KU's 2013 recruiting class would have looked like in previous years
  • Seen it? The nation's reaction to top recruit Andrew Wiggins choosing Kansas
  • Here's what type of player KU is getting in Hunter Mickelson
  • Ranking the top 10 dunks of 2012-13
  • Comments

    always_correct 9 years, 5 months ago

    This was an interesting article. Thanks for publishing it. I'm curious to see what the reception from this and other message boards will be once it makes its rounds.

    hawk316 9 years, 5 months ago

    Interesting, indeed and a very nice analysis. Great job, Jesse!

    I don't think X had quite the impact as BMac did because, as you pointed out, the team X was on was deeper. Your article certainly suggests, based on cold stats, that X does not get the respect and appreciation that he deserves.

    Jesse Johnson 9 years, 5 months ago

    One BIG factor that you left out Jesse. When comparing their stats, you only looked at the season as a whole.

    The big difference between the two players is that Henry played fantastic the first half of the season, then he slumped the entire second half (basically all of conference play and the tournament) leaving a bad taste in fans mouths. His fantastic non-conference play helped his overall stats.

    On the other hand, McLemore played better and better as the season continued with only minor, expected slumps here and there, leaving a pretty good taste in our mouths by the end.

    Jesse Johnson 9 years, 5 months ago

    UPDATE: So I decided to put my memory to the test and looked up Henry's game stats from that year. His slump actually occurred in the middle of the year, from late december to early February. He actually had a decent stretch after that before becoming a non-factor again in post-season play. A lot of his big number games did come against inferior opponents.

    I also looked up Selby. He played pretty well until he injured his foot. I was shocked to see that he didn't score in double figures the rest of the season! He was totally useless with that foot injury. Overall he averaged 7.9 ppg and 37.3 % FG (36.2 % 3pt). Even with his foot injury as an excuse I can't believe he thought he could go pro with those numbers.

    LAJayhawk 9 years, 5 months ago

    Since you used the words "non-factor... in post-season play" and this piece was about comparing the two players, I thought I'd toss out the numbers for both players first two games of the tourney (since that's all X played):

    Xavier: vs. Lehigh, 11 pts (5-7), 6 boards, 1 assist, 2 steals, 0 blocks, 3 TOs vs. UNI, 8 pts (3-6), 8 boards, 0 assists, 2 steals, 0 blocks, 1 TO

    BMac: vs. WKU, 11 pts (2-5), 6 boards, 2 assists, 0 steals, 1 block, 4 TOs vs. UNC, 2 pts (0-9), 5 boards, 2 assists, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 2 TOs

    I would actually argue that Xavier was more effective in his two tourney games than BMAC was in his first two. BMAC had a decent game against Michigan in scoring 20 points (on 15 shot attempts), but we have no idea what X would have done in a 3rd game. Also, BMac had slump periods throughout the season as well, his were more spread out with a couple games at a time here and there.

    The point is, that while I do think BMac was and is a better player, Jesse's point is still very accurate. They are WAY closer than almost everyone realizes.

    ArgyleJayhawks 9 years, 5 months ago

    I began reading this ready to poke holes all over your argument but it was too sound to do that. In my opinion, the key point is the public perception angle. The drama Henry brought turned people against him while McLemore really seemed to love being a Jayhawk.

    Virgil_Caine 9 years, 5 months ago

    Who says Xavier was a bust? Most freshmen aren't ready to make an impact right away. Xavier didn't play like a phenom necessarily, but he made very positive contributions to a really good team. I'm not certain he was ready to head to the NBA, but he went in the lottery, so what do I know? The problem is that when NBA scouts are interested in a kid, his college fanbase tends to place absurdly unrealistic expectations on him. I certainly don't regret our year with him, and I'll bet if Coach Self had the choice, he'd take him again.

    Jim Erickson 9 years, 5 months ago

    Absolutely... That team had Collins and Aldrich to dominate. We needed a one year solution at Small Forward and Henry DEFINITELY became that. I'll never fault a freshman for being a "bust" when they average those kind of numbers!

    That all being said... He was not ready for the NBA.

    Kurt Eskilson 9 years, 5 months ago

    Hey, Virgil! You served on the Danville train.

    Ryan Woods 9 years, 5 months ago

    I would have prefered a home vs home comparison as well. We all know he was almost non-existant in away games.

    ParisHawk 9 years, 5 months ago

    Good point, which helps explain the difference in perception...

    Jesse Johnson 9 years, 5 months ago

    I would love to see a comparison of non-conf vs. non-conf and conf vs conf. Henry played great in non-conf, boosting his season stats, but then basically took the rest of the year off as soon as conference started.

    ParisHawk 9 years, 5 months ago

    This article serves justice.

    I'm glad it underlines Xavier's steal percentage, since I have often pointed out that he led the team in steals his season.

    Coach Self's problem is he wants players to buy into his system but he also wants the most talented players to go beyond the system to greatness: go do what it takes to win it all. His "greatest" players were not the OADs, but the Chalmers and Collins. His most talented players were Rushes, Xaviers and McLemores who mostly stayed within the system even when it wasn't quite enough.

    Could Wiggins finally be the uber-talented alpha dog who can play great both within and outside the system? That would be something...

    woodscolt 9 years, 5 months ago

    I think you can slice and dice the numbers any way you want but Ben Mclemore was a far superior player and that will most certainly be proven out in the NBA. I think the stats comparison is probably more of a boost to Henry's case than a reflection on how good McLemore was. Mclemores attitude and devotion to being a team player had more to do with his stats being modest than how good he could have been. I like both of them and appreciate that Henry has returned to Lawrence on numerous occasions which helps solidify him as a member of Jayhawk nation given he was one and done. I think fans should be proud of both and pitting them against each other shouldn't happen very often.

    Sam Constance 9 years, 5 months ago

    Calling McLemore a "far superior player" is objectively false.

    Also, FWIW, I think the struggles Henry has had in the NBA can be traced to a single factor: he has struggled with his shot, with his shooting percentages way down from what they were here in his freshman year.

    If Ben struggles similarly with his shot, you will see him quickly relegated to a similar fate. I guarantee it.

    That being said, Ben does seem to have a more fluid and mechanically-sound shooting motion, so perhaps he won't run into those problems.

    John Boyle 9 years, 5 months ago

    Ask the opposing coaches which one was the far superior player. I can guarantee you that they would say McLemore. They had to change game plans because of him, not so much with Henry.

    Eric Schneider 9 years, 5 months ago

    Henry was a catch and shoot player who took advantage of playing on a team with 8 future NBA draft picks, including 5 Lottery picks. There were 3 on this years team. He put up big stats against one of the weaker non-conference slates under Self's regime. Not saying he was bad. But he just didn't possess the entire package that McLemore does. Henry was never going to be more than a solid pro. McLemore is widely considered the only POTENTIAL future all-star in this draft.

    Ted Hume 9 years, 5 months ago

    I think superior athlete, and thus a superior NBA prospect, would be more accurate and appropriate, though.

    dylans 9 years, 5 months ago

    Xavier disappeared in many games, Ben's presence was always felt.

    JayDocMD 9 years, 5 months ago

    Always felt? Not true. Ben disappeared in several important conference games. He scored 7 points at OkSt (3-12 FGA) and Iowa St (2-6 FGA) and 5 pts at home againt KSU (2-7 FGA.)

    His worst game, however, was in the NCAA tourney vs Carolina - he scored 2 points and was 0-9 from the field. It was so bad that Self benched him the second half.

    dylans 9 years, 5 months ago

    His defender could never sleep on him like Xs could. There are more ways to impact a game than scoring.

    Eric Schneider 9 years, 5 months ago

    5 points at home against KSU? Try 30. The 5 point game was in the Big XII tourney. Which was a romp. Henry was a catch and shoot player on offense who fed off Sheron's penetration. And his best games were against the weaker opponents. His 31 point game was against LaSalle. McLemore was forced into the role of number one option which he wasn't comfortable with. You can throw all the metrics you want at me. But I'll still rely on the eye test.

    JayDocMD 9 years, 5 months ago

    My post wasn't about Xavier vs BMac. Dylans used hyperbole and I called him out.

    Ben's "presence" was most certainly not felt every game. When he was on (which was most of the time) he was a force. But as I've pointed out, he had a few duds in conference/tourney play.

    Besides pointing out the KSU game was in KC and not Lawrence (certainly a pardonable offense), you have not refuted this.

    Justin Steele 9 years, 5 months ago

    This was a good argument, Ive noticed Xavier has been getting trashed on the boards lately with the success of BMAC and the signing of Andrew Wiggins. But Xavier was what people thought he would be a really good shooter and decent defender with decent athleticism he got drafted in the first round and plays sparingley in the NBA because he's not really got the athleticism needed to guard nba 2's and 3's thats why I think he's considered a bust I think he had a good run at KU and he couldnt control his father and brother without those two he wouldn't have such a negative stigma

    canuckhawk 9 years, 5 months ago

    Thank you Jesse. It is so interesting that the stats are so similar and following McLemore's decision to go pro most of the fans on this site are cheering him on and following Henry's announcement a significant portion were positive that he needed more time in college. Of course, we always love when guys return and none of us really know when someone is ready for the NBA, but the difference in fan attitude toward relatively similar fr-year output is interesting.

    I think their team results may also play a factor.

    With Henry's team (err...Sheron & Cole's team), we had national championship expectations from the start. Look at that roster again and it will surprise you again that we didn't win it all. But Cinderella crashed the ball and we ended up on the wrong side of the one shining moment video. I still remember that day. That plays a part in Henry's legacy and that isn't fair.

    This year's team was all gravy. Still a tough loss in the end, but these guys were the unheralded overachievers. McLemore benefited from our relatively low (for KU) expectations of his team and by how much they exceeded them.

    dylans 9 years, 5 months ago

    I expected nothing less than a trip to the final four.

    Joe Joseph 9 years, 5 months ago

    That's interesting and surprising. I'd say definitely an issue of hype and expectations. McLemore's expectations were definitely tempered by him having to sit out a year and due to his prep ranking. If I'm not mistaken, McLemore's ranking fluctuated a bit and took a bit of a hit when he had to transfer high schools. While Xavier's ranking went down (slightly) in Rivals, I believe he stayed around #3 according to ESPN. His family members definitely didn't help either.

    There's also the fact that McLemore had several memorable performances that resulted in KU wins. How many 30-point games did McLemore have? Four? Five? What'd Henry have? One? In the preseason against an MIAA opponent? McLemore single handedly won KU four or five games this past season. I'm not sure Henry had even one such performance.

    Marcia Parsons 9 years, 5 months ago

    Are you sure of these figures? I know he had one 30-point game, the one where he broke Manning's freshman record, but I don't remember others. I'm not sure what you are basing "single handedly won KU four or five games this past season" on, but I think that's questionable. He put Iowa St into overtime for one, but I don't remember others when his scoring guaranteed victory. No doubt I'm just forgetting, but I'd like to hear more before I'm ready to agree with you.

    Eric Schneider 9 years, 5 months ago

    3 30 point games. The West Va game you mentioned, plus KSU and Iowa St.

    dobberhawk 9 years, 5 months ago

    I agree with VA that Xavier's NBA career has (so far) impacted the perception of his time at KU. I would also add one more aspect to the "Expectations" section of the article that impacts Xavier's perception - the performance of the team in the NCAA tournament. The drama of his coming to KU probably would have been more easily forgotten if the team didn't fall to Northern Iowa.

    The 2009-2010 team was the overall #1 seed for the NCAA tournament, and falling far short of expectations to another small school in the second round gave everyone on this team a grade of incomplete/mission unfulfilled - in particular the team's leaders. Cole and Sherron each played small, but key roles in 2008 and probably get a bit of a pass for 2010 as a result, so perhaps any feelings of failure for the team land disproportionately on Xavier. Just an idea, but I think the farther this team would have gone, the greater Jayhawk Nation's perception of Xavier's time here would have been.

    What a novel thought, eh? - winning cures everything. :-)

    Keith Kienzle 9 years, 5 months ago

    This is a very astute observation dobber. I think you're completely right. Although, I think there were many KU fans who thought this last year should have been ours, but we didn't have as high external expectations.

    BMac was the kid phenom and the pressure was on the seniors, and Elijah was clearly the scapegoat. BMac did not flop (offensively) in the game we lost, shooting an efficient 8-15 (4-8 for 3) to lead our scoring.

    Keith Kienzle 9 years, 5 months ago

    This is a very astute observation dobber. I think you're completely right. Although, I think there were many KU fans who thought this last year should have been ours, but we didn't have as high external expectations.

    BMac was the kid phenom and the pressure was on the seniors, and Elijah was clearly the scapegoat. BMac did not flop (offensively) in the game we lost, shooting an efficient 8-15 (4-8 for 3) to lead our scoring.

    Eric Schneider 9 years, 5 months ago

    Speaking of perception so many people overstate Cole's importance on that '08 team because of that UNC game.Take away that game and the A&M game and Cole was a non-factor on that team. Roderick Stewart averaged as many points and played more minutes. But everyone forgets because he got injured leading up to the Final Four.

    Andrew Horigan 9 years, 5 months ago

    Had McLemore played right away he would have only been at KU for one year instead of two and we might have appreciated him a bit less since he would have played in the shadow of Thomas Robinson. Although, with him playing we might have won the championship so who knows. Xavier, unfortunately, was on the one seed that lost to UNI, so his memory was spoiled a bit, along with his brother's attitude and father's arrogant statements. But I remember Xavier always playing with a big grin and having fun. A 3point contest between the two would be fun to watch.

    Virgil_Caine 9 years, 5 months ago

    Just to have some fun on a hot and slow afternoon at work, let's assume players were never allowed to leave early (I suppose we'd have to assume there are no limits on scholarships). Which KU team is the most stacked?

    I would have to say it's between the 2009 team and the 2012 team, and you could probably make a pretty good argument for the 2013 team since we would have had T-Rob and Xavier as seniors and Selby as a junior (I'm assuming he would have developed into a good collegiate player under Self and Hudy).

    The 2012 team was already good enough to win the league and get to the 'ship, but think about adding Xavier as a junior, Selby as a sophomore, and the Morris twins as seniors. I don't think Kentucky would have stood a chance, even though they still would have had John Wall and Boogie Cousins.

    '09 would have been absolutely ridiculous. You bring back the core of the championship team, minus RussRob, Sasha and Darnell, but you've got still got Sherron, and Cole made a huge leap before his sophomore year. You've also got Tyshawn, who was a solid freshman, and the Morris twins, who at that point would have only been good for some hard fouls. Brady's redshirt is off, and Tyrel is ready to play too. Whoa, that's a deeeep team!

    This is kind of a silly post, but it's sure fun to daydream about what those teams would have looked like!

    jhox 9 years, 5 months ago

    Fair comparison. I do believe McLemore has a bigger high side though. He's smoother and more athletic, and more of a natural player (that eye test thing you point out). If he ever gets more comfortable driving with his weak hand, he can be an NBA All Star. Henry also never looked completely comfortable with his weak side handle, though I'm guessing he probably put more time into trying to develop it (he worked with trainers and coaches while in high school to improve his game). Ben is definitely more of a natural, and has a greater chance of getting significantly better than X. But I do agree their freshman seasons compare favorably.

    patkindle 9 years, 5 months ago

    I always thought the henry family had enough drama for their on tv reality series they wore me out with their issues

    Phoggie_Thinking 9 years, 5 months ago

    Ben's mom in the beginning didn't want him to come to KU and nobody cared because we didn't know her. X's dad talked a lot and everybody cared because he was supposed to be "family." Still think X's dad made it a lot harder for his son than he needed to because of his actions.

    Geezer 9 years, 5 months ago

    The J. Brady hachet jod on Carl Henry really did some damage to everyone's impression of X. He always seemed like a great kid and has been back in Lawrence quite a few times. The UNI game left a bad taste in a lot of mouths for not only X. but Cole and Sherron as well. Good stuff Jesse.

    Michael Luby 9 years, 5 months ago

    Good post Jesse. Ive always thought perception is often blinded by the eyes. It is clear that Henry and Ben Mac were very similar, even if Ben was more athletic and a super stud! He will be one of my favorites for a long time.

    shufly 9 years, 5 months ago

    Don't agree with the conclusion. While both played at a high level, the difference isn't "bout the same". At that level reality is how each effected the over all results. Self claims Ben is the best he's coached, predraft judgement is that Ben is a lock for the NBA and potentially a future all pro. Fair judgement requires more depth than individual stats, it is a team sport.

    DCLawHawk 9 years, 5 months ago

    Fascinating that two guys from the same team a couple years apart would each be the most comparable to each other stats wise given all the possible combinations in Div I over the past 8 years. Nice find Jesse! Since Ben unquestionably played the 2 and Xavier the 3, this also adds more proof to the points being made on other threads that the guard roles (and even the SG/SF roles) tend to be interchangeable on HCBS's squads. All the more reason not to judge their contributions in isolation I suppose, though I would love to have seen how Ben and Xavier would have ranked in a "best 2/3 guys during Self's tenure" article before this article came out. Methinks Ben would have been 1 on many lists and Xavier would not have been 2 on any and perhaps not even 3 on any of them. Statistically speaking though, you have to say they were 1, 2 (or 2,3 or 3,4).

    I think this article proves decisively that Xavier Henry's freshman season has been undervalued by fans. That said, I believe there is another factor that contributes to the explanation for why this has happened: Josh Selby. I think because Xavier and Selby were both OAD's, it is hard for fans to separate the two seasons in their minds. To me, Xavier was not at all disappointing and Selby was (though he admittedly was dealt a tougher hand with suspension and injury). However, when I think about whether the OAD's under Self have been disappointing, I tend to think the answer is 'yes.' So I tend to think that Xavier wasn't as good as he was out of a kind of 'guilt by association' with other OAD's. Does that make sense to anyone else as a partial explanation?

    Robbk1066 9 years, 5 months ago

    NBA scouts who rate on potential have BMac going higher too. Enlightening to see the comparison, did not know it was that close. Perception is reality in this world though, if I was a GM I would take BMac over Henry every time. Not even close to me. When I was watching both of their one and done seasons I always wanted BMac in there, with Henry I did not care...

    Hawk8086 9 years, 5 months ago

    I always felt like quite a few fans thought that X was a disappointment. I never felt that way. I think as the article, and others, point out, it was the drama, etc. that lowered some fans' perception of how effective X was. The only thing that I was disappointed in was that I always felt he could have taken it to the basket more, but I still thought he was a very productive and successful freshman.

    Alan Dickey 9 years, 5 months ago

    Okay, the basic point of the article is good, but I think it is exaggerated a bit, in that BMac beats XHen in almost all categories, even if they are fairly close, and a 6%-pt difference in 2-pt. shooting is a pretty big deal.

    Also, and I can't believe nobody noticed this, but this is false: "Interestingly, Henry was ranked eighth in his class by, while McLemore was 17th, so the two actually were closer in that respect than KU fans might remember."

    BMac was ranked 34th by Rivals before coming to KU, not 17th!!!:

    How could anyone who really follows KU basketball for a living (I don't) not know that? It is significant that, despite BMac's RS season, Self is going to put a #34 recruit into the NBA high lottery after one year of college basketball. Who thinks he was ranked 17th? Was he ranked 17th at some point previously? I don't remember that, but that seems irrelevant even if it is true (and that is not what the article implied). When has an article talked about non-final recruit rankings unless it said it was a non-final ranking. BMac was rakned 34th, not 17th, by Rivals. .

    Jesse Newell 9 years, 5 months ago

    I posted each player's Rivals ranking from when they committed to KU. That's when fans — in my eyes — would be setting their expectations for players.

    The numbers above are directly from the stories in our archives.

    McLemore was 17:

    Henry was 8:

    Alan Dickey 9 years, 5 months ago

    So expectations don't evolve in the "months" before the season starts? They are "set"? It was actually 19 months, and BMac had a RS year in the interim. Imagine what Xavier would/could have done with a RS year. A few days before that archived story, BMac was NOT in the McDAA game. Xavier was never in doubt to be in that game. There was nowhere near as much hype about BMac's pedigry compared to Xavier's, which is the point. Xavier was supposed to be a super-elite recruit. Few, if any, thought of BMac that way. He was ranked lower than Selden this year (not bad, but not Henry) and, when the season began the year before he ever played was months away, he was ranked exactly the same as now is Frankamp is this year. I remember all the stories. The expectations were far different for Henry and McLemore. McLemore was thought as a Frankamp-type hopeful contributor. Henry was supposed to be a Rush/Chalmers/Wiggins-type stud. As far as expectations go, they were worlds apart. You can pretend otherwise, citing to the temporary #17 peak - still only about the same as S. Collins (#21) who scored 9.3 MPG is freshman year. But McDAA #8 Henry was seen as something different as an incoming freshman.

    And no one I have known talks about interrim HS rankings without at least saying so. Saying "McLemore was 17th" without any condition implies that was his final ranking. Falsely. That's like saying that Embiid is unranked this year (he was recently) without mentioning that his final ranking is (in that case stratospherically) higher.

    JayHawkFanToo 9 years, 5 months ago

    Chill. marine, chill. Jesse wrote a well thought story with numbers to back it up, and in the post above explained his criteria for the rankings he used. Whether you agree with it or not is not important, you are both entitled to your opinions and just because yours is different does not make it better than Jesse's.
    As far as hype, maybe a better comparison would be Henry's before his first game and McLemore's before his first official game, after sitting out one year. I would think, based on all the comments from Coach Self, that the expectations were much, much higher for McLemore than Henry before either played on game for KU.
    As far as rankings, they are fickle and depend on the publication and the most recent update. If you don't believe me, look at Embiid's most recent ranking, #6 on ESPN but only #25 on Rivals, or Brannen Green, he is #47 on ESPN but #29 on Rivals...go figure.
    I don't see anything in your post that invalidates Jesse's premise.
    IMHO, it is hard to argue with Jesse's reasoning and numbers, but then we all have different opinions and sometimes we have to politely agree to disagree, don't you think?

    Robert Rauktis 9 years, 5 months ago

    Isn't college ball, in the end a team game? And the expectations of that 2010 team were thrashed abruptly in the tournament. Xavier led nobody to the promised land and that's what the fans remember, not the spectacular dunks or digits on some stat sheet.

    And that's why the basketball season ends in March and not June. The rest is baseball cards of fantasy football.

    Joe Ross 9 years, 5 months ago

    I think we're missing something here. Not only were McLemore's numbers marginally better, but consensus seems to be that McLemore was no where near his full potential. Ben's room to grow appeared to have been much larger than Xavier's (my perspective only). If you want to circumscribe this discussion to what they did on the court, fine. I have no problem with Newell's analysis. But if both of their potential impacts at the next level, or even what each of them could have done had they stayed extra years at Kansas, I'd take Ben every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and I'd wager that the rate of rise of McLemore's numbers would have outpaced those of Henry's. Why is this the case? It's simple, really. Xavier had pro-type training before he even got to Kansas, which made him more ready, I believe, to play the college game. But even with this advantage, the untrained McLemore (comparatively speaking) posted better stats. In addition, there is the of mindset and athletic I.Q. Xavier received much of this from his father. McLemore's lacked that caliber of mentor, and his game was based on an impressive amount of talent. If you could project out what McLemore would have been had he had the same advantages, this wouldn't even be a discussion. To my mind, there is no comparison. Trust me, fellas. You're gonna WANT that COWBELL.

    Larry Smith 9 years, 5 months ago

    But this article isn't about projections at the next level, or about prjections of what could have been, it's about the year they spent at KU.

    JayHawkFanToo 9 years, 5 months ago

    Nice article Jesse. I believe once and for all lays to rest the notion that Henry's season was a bust; it was indeed a pretty decent season by any objective measurement.
    Also, McLemore has an edge in the comparison insofar as he had one full year of practice (and Hudy) with the team before his only season at KU, where Henry was a true freshman. This is actually a huge edge to McLemore which makes Henry's season as a true freshman look that much better. Would McLemore have had the same season he had (in his second year) if he had played in his first year at KU? The most likely answer is probably not.

    kugrad93 9 years, 5 months ago

    Keep in mind that the recruiting of the Henry brothers dates back at least 10 years to when Roy Williams was recruiting CJ while he was in high school. CJ opted to try pro baseball instead. The drama that was involved in CJ's transfer and Xavier's decicion seemed over the top considering the kids' parents were both KU alums. In the end, was all the time Williams and Self and their assistants put in to recruiting these two worth a second-round loss to UNI? Xavier scored eight points in 32 minutes in that game, and CJ did not play.

    Tony Bandle 9 years, 5 months ago

    KU's OAD Grades:

    1] Selby - Mediocre [C-].

    2] Henry - Decent [B-].

    3] McLemore - Very Good [A-].

    4] Wiggins - [Projected] Spectacular [A++]

    burquehawk 9 years, 5 months ago

    While the stats are pretty similar, they're a bit unfair. Xavier's team was much better offensively than last years squad. X had sherron who could (and did) drive to the basket at will. It had tyshawn, who could get to the basket as well. It had cole, who while not dominant offensively, had to be respected down low and at times was double teamed. It had the morrii, who at that point were solid offensively and could score down low or facing up. It had complementary shooters in morningstar and reed. Long story short, you had to account for all of those guys offensively. That often left Xavier in advantageous positions to score. That team scored 81.6 ppg. Now look at last years team. You had a bunch of guys who quite frankly were offensively challenged. Travis was an excellent outside shooter and transition finisher, but couldn't create his own shot. Withey scored on putbacks and was a good foul shooter for a big, but had no post moves and never commanded double teams. KY had no offensive game other than putbacks and hustle plays. Elijah was a mediocre point guard at best, playing out of position. Perry didn't really hit his offensive stride til the last few games. As much as i loved last years team, they were tough to watch offensively at times. The TCU game? For Ben to score as much and as efficiently as he did on that team when he was the primary focus of the opposition's defensive game plan was pretty incredible. I really doubt that Xavier was ever the one player that other team's coaches gameplanned against. None of this is evident though if you just look at stats alone.

    REHawk 9 years, 5 months ago

    Perception, statistics, reality, whatever...; I am pleased that each of these fine players and good kids ended up on Jayhawk rosters. Wish the NBA rules were different, so that we might have seen each of them play at least two seasons of Div. 1 ball. I think it would have benefitted them greatly in personal development. The lure of guaranteed millions is, understandably, a deciding factor in the OAD decisions. Quick premature departure exceedingly poignant and a downer for players, coaches, fans. I remember X's tears at time of departure, and appreciate his lingering attachment and occasional returns to KU. In assuming mentorship of these super talented highly sought after recruits, Bill Self takes on a major responsibility, the complexities of which tend to justify his uber-ridiculous salary. If or when any of them falls short of meeting expectations, the feeling is broadcast far and wide that Jayhawk Basketball might not be the best site for OAD play. The fact that Andrew Wiggins has chosen to wear a Jayhawk uniform will make for popular draw in top recruits showing up at Late Night.

    Commenting has been disabled for this item.