Frank Kaminsky is pretty good at the basketball. Most of us already knew that. His footwoork under the basket, his ability to shoot from distance, and his ability to be clutch have helped make other people realize that over the course of a full season. Doing so in a Final Four game against previously unbeaten Kentucky has won the respect of those who hadn’t previously known just how skilled he is.
The spotlight provided by Saturday’s game was everything Kaminsky could have wanted. Many more casual fans were able to see him in full for the first time. They likely came away with the same thought as the rest of us: Kaminsky does some things really well and he’s a tremendous college basketball player.
Now that the game is over, though, and there are many hours until Monday night’s championship game against Duke, other people are going to bail in the attempt to creatively discuss him. They will instead seek a far more lazy analytical approach: Is he better than Jahlil Okafor? What kind of NBA player is he? He’s “too much of this” or “too little of that” and everything else in-between.
The question of he and Okafor is fair. If Bo Ryan decides he wants Kaminsky to man-up Duke’s freshman with no help, and Coach K decides to do the same the other way, that discussion could hold some merit. On a college basketball scale, it would be akin to likening two great actresses like Christina Ricci and Rachel Leigh Cook (You do you. I’ll do me, okay?)
My point here: Neither preference of player is wrong. They are both special in enough different areas that we would mostly wind up comparing things that are similar, but aren’t exactly the same. You know, the whole apples-versus-oranges thing…. except these eateries are nearly seven feet tall and well over 200 pounds.
*
The problem with discussions of college basketball stars at the Final Four is that they take a great championship event and try to dress it up in NBA clothing. The NBA discussion for a college basketball game is something I will never truly understand. Unfortunately, the Okafor part of this angle will be played when this scenario hits during Monday’s run of picture-box shows.
There will be two different types of Frank Kaminsky coverage on Monday (and a bit today).
1. People who followed college basketball all season will talk about his real abilities, actual flaws, and everything else they have noticed over his four-year career.
2. Folks who get paid lots to talk about the topical issues in sports will rely on what they know best: winging it with broad generalizations about a player they have seen under 10 times during the past four years (basically, the past two NCAA tournaments).
That second group is scary because it usually wields more power than the first one. I might turn to, say, Sam Vecenie of CBS for some college basketball news, info, and analysis because I follow the sport year-round and find him insightful and rather void of hyperbolic articles. Casual fans, however, don’t normally go to Sam’s author page for sports, so why go to him now? Instead they will turn to someone on ESPN or wherever, and find themselves listening to a person talking about Kaminsky in the only terms that seem to apply to non-college basketball fans: Is Kaminsky going to be a good pro?
It should really go without saying that it shouldn’t matter what kind of pro Kaminsky ends up — not for the national championship game at least. I do get how appealing it might be to discuss such a thing, given the size of the platform a person covering this game might find, but it adds nothing tangible to the discussion of the game itself.
Theoretically, Kaminsky could score a billion points and lead Wisconsin to Bo Ryan’s first national title. After that he could end up being the worst NBA player in the history of NBA players.
Again, theoretically, he could also turn the ball over 12 times, not score a point, and get lit up by Okafor for 35. Then, after that, he could go on to average 18 and 8 in the NBA.
There’s nearly zero correlation between how well he will do against Okafor — or whoever else he is matched against — and his future NBA standing. There might be takeaways for the game itself to help gauge his draft stock, or his potential as an NBA player, but those are NBA things, not college basketball things.
If you are reading this, chances are you already know better. For those who have stumbled upon this and didn’t come for my repertoire of bad comparisons, heed my warning:
Don’t fall for the trap of pro sports-focused national commentators trying to oversimplify a player they haven’t watched. Don’t be drawn into the false debate of college players being shoehorned into NBA terms when playing for a collegiate championship.
Mateen Cleaves wasn’t a good pro, but he won a title. Carmelo Anthony is a good pro and won a title. Juan Dixon was a solid but not spectacular pro and won a title. Tim Duncan is an all-time player, but never won a college basketball national title. Pro status doesn’t matter — not this weekend, and certainly not Monday night in Indianapolis.
Frank Kaminsky is a very, very good college basketball player. Don’t let people talk you out of that idea because of his draft stock, okay?
Let’s put it this way: The ESPN First Take crew or anyone else who lives in Pro Sports World can talk about NBA draft stock starting Wednesday. Monday night and Tuesday morning? Those who know better will offer level-headed appraisals of Kaminsky’s collegiate career in a context of collegiate competition. All of us who care about college sports should be interested in doing the same.
