MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: milwaukee ex-pat on May 31, 2016, 04:44:16 PM
-
Any of the Minnesota peeps on the board know if this guy is any good? Graduating so eligible immediately...
http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2016/05/31/forward-charles-buggs-to-leave-minnesota-program/
-
Offensive efficiency declined notably as his minutes increased. Rather mediocre rebounding percentages for a 6'9" guy. I'd be curious to hear Jay Bee's breakdown, but simply looking at his advanced adjusted stats, he seems pretty unimpressive.
-
Jay Bee will have a more technical assessment, but I've always thought of him as an athletic freak who never quite fulfilled his promise as a basketball player. Of course, one could also argue that he's had a dubious cast of characters to play with.
-
Mom summed it up quite well. Some random thoughts...
He's capable of putting together about 4 possessions in a row where he appears to be an athletic, 6'9" flying, dunking and three-point shooting superstar who can make an impact defensively. Don't believe it.
Just has never gotten the game. Lost much of the time. Supremely athletically gifted. That's where it ends.
Seemingly nice, friendly kid, and I hope he plays somewhere this coming year and does well.. a LM+ or MM might work well.
That said, if you're completely out of options... never say never. But, he's never been able to rebound like his size, and that's what's needed. He does have length and the ability** to defend multiple positions.. but holy smokes does he get lost on the court a lot. Think middle school.
...6'9", 230ish (was a stick coming in after a year at Hargrave)... from Texas, went to a year of prep where he mostly sat.. Montrezl Harrell was among teammates ahead of him there.. but, at Hargrave he got some looks... IIRC, Marquette was actually on Buggs waaaaaaay back in time.
Not a guy who needs the ball a lot... and in that respect would fit as I think we've got a lot of guys who can use up possessions on offense. But who are you going to get on any given night?
I will say this.. his last 4 games of the year he was solid.. his minutes increased due to the Threesome's porn that hit social media.
4/3 switchable. If he would have come here in the Buzz era, people would have lumped him in as a long, athletic guy who was not traditional.
Highlight reel dunks? Yep.
Strong rebounding? Nope.
Nice length with ability to block a few shots and create a few steals? Yus.
Understanding of team defense? Ugh...
...just don't know. Look, if it's down to him or leaving the scholarship open, I'd probably bring him aboard.
-
He can shoot it but doesn't fill our need with his inability to rebound or defend great down there
-
Mom summed it up quite well. Some random thoughts...
He's capable of putting together about 4 possessions in a row where he appears to be an athletic, 6'9" flying, dunking and three-point shooting superstar who can make an impact defensively. Don't believe it.
Just has never gotten the game. Lost much of the time. Supremely athletically gifted. That's where it ends.
Seemingly nice, friendly kid, and I hope he plays somewhere this coming year and does well.. a LM+ or MM might work well.
That said, if you're completely out of options... never say never. But, he's never been able to rebound like his size, and that's what's needed. He does have length and the ability** to defend multiple positions.. but holy smokes does he get lost on the court a lot. Think middle school.
...6'9", 230ish (was a stick coming in after a year at Hargrave)... from Texas, went to a year of prep where he mostly sat.. Montrezl Harrell was among teammates ahead of him there.. but, at Hargrave he got some looks... IIRC, Marquette was actually on Buggs waaaaaaay back in time.
Not a guy who needs the ball a lot... and in that respect would fit as I think we've got a lot of guys who can use up possessions on offense. But who are you going to get on any given night?
I will say this.. his last 4 games of the year he was solid.. his minutes increased due to the Threesome's porn that hit social media.
4/3 switchable. If he would have come here in the Buzz era, people would have lumped him in as a long, athletic guy who was not traditional.
Highlight reel dunks? Yep.
Strong rebounding? Nope.
Nice length with ability to block a few shots and create a few steals? Yus.
Understanding of team defense? Ugh...
...just don't know. Look, if it's down to him or leaving the scholarship open, I'd probably bring him aboard.
I would be willing to give him a chance based on his sheer athleticism and the fact that he played in the Big Ten. At the very least he can give us some minutes when Luke is in foul trouble.
I am sure there may be better options out there , but as of today none have surfaced.
-
I am reading the above descriptions and thinking he sounds a lot last our last Minnesota transfer that we just cut.
-
I am reading the above descriptions and thinking he sounds a lot last our last Minnesota transfer that we just cut.
Except he is taller .
-
He can shoot it but doesn't fill our need with his inability to rebound or defend great down there
He really can't shoot it. He can dunk it. He can occasionally get hot with open looks.
At the rim, yeah,... he can flush it. But, his FG%'s (2's especially) are misleading unless you consider his %Shots and circumstances.
-
He really can't shoot it. He can dunk it. He can occasionally get hot with open looks.
At the rim, yeah,... he can flush it. But, his FG%'s (2's especially) are misleading unless you consider his %Shots and circumstances.
I meant that in a sense that for a 4 guy, he can be counted on to actually step out. Really only made 3s when wide open. But you know, much like Gill the guy you didn't like me calling inefficienct????
He has the ability to "shoot it" all the same. Can't rebound or play basketball like Mr. Gill though.
-
I meant that in a sense that for a 4 guy, he can be counted on to actually step out. Really only made 3s when wide open. But you know, much like Gill the guy you didn't like me calling inefficienct????
He has the ability to "shoot it" all the same. Can't rebound or play basketball like Mr. Gill though.
If by "can be counted on to actually step out" you meant, "he was 7 of 36 for 19.4% from deep in conference play as a 4th year junior", then, yes.
-
What he said. ^
-
I would be willing to give him a chance based on his sheer athleticism and the fact that he played in the Big Ten. At the very least he can give us some minutes when Luke is in foul trouble.
I am sure there may be better options out there , but as of today none have surfaced.
Is Kostas a better option?
-
If by "can be counted on to actually step out" you meant, "he was 7 of 36 for 19.4% from deep in conference play as a 4th year junior", then, yes.
Cherry pick again ehh???
Pick one side or the other. Pretty simple stuff.
If a guy goes 2/5 in anything. The other guy who also goes 2/5 is just as good or bad.
It's mind blowing I know, but essential.
-
If a guy goes 2/5 in anything. The other guy who also goes 2/5 is just as good or bad.
Really? So if Traci Carter posts the same ugly turnover rate he had as a freshman during his senior year.. it's just as bad? He literally IS THE SAME GUY. Not even the other guy.
All numbers are created equal?
I cherish stats, but know they must be understood to a rather detailed level.
I don't think Buggs' performance as a frequent starter in the Big Ten during his most recent year is cherry picking. I didn't even bring up the fact against Top 50 KenPom adjusted teams (8 games), he was 2/17 for 11.8% from deep and had an ORtg of 54.2, complete with zero offensive rebounds or assists, but did have a ~30 turnover rate.
-
Seemingly nice, friendly kid, and I hope he plays somewhere this coming year and does well.. a LM+ or MM might work well.
Sounds like a perfect match 8-)
-
Really? So if Traci Carter posts the same ugly turnover rate he had as a freshman during his senior year.. it's just as bad? He literally IS THE SAME GUY. Not even the other guy.
All numbers are created equal?
I cherish stats, but know they must be understood to a rather detailed level.
I don't think Buggs' performance as a frequent starter in the Big Ten during his most recent year is cherry picking. I didn't even bring up the fact against Top 50 KenPom adjusted teams (8 games), he was 2/17 for 11.8% from deep and had an ORtg of 54.2, complete with zero offensive rebounds or assists, but did have a ~30 turnover rate.
What does a Traci Carter vs Traci Carter TO rate against himself have to do with anything? Lmao.
-
Really? So if Traci Carter posts the same ugly turnover rate he had as a freshman during his senior year.. it's just as bad? He literally IS THE SAME GUY. Not even the other guy.
All numbers are created equal?
I cherish stats, but know they must be understood to a rather detailed level.
I don't think Buggs' performance as a frequent starter in the Big Ten during his most recent year is cherry picking. I didn't even bring up the fact against Top 50 KenPom adjusted teams (8 games), he was 2/17 for 11.8% from deep and had an ORtg of 54.2, complete with zero offensive rebounds or assists, but did have a ~30 turnover rate.
All we want him for is 10 minutes of hard working effort. I think we can motivate him to give us that.
-
What does a Traci Carter vs Traci Carter TO rate against himself have to do with anything? Lmao.
If a guy goes 2/5 in anything. The other guy who also goes 2/5 is just as good or bad.
If a guy goes 2/5 in anything, the other guy who goes 2/5 is the same, right?
So, if Traci Carter one year does the same a few years later, it's the same, right?
-
If a guy goes 2/5 in anything, the other guy who goes 2/5 is the same, right?
So, if Traci Carter one year does the same a few years later, it's the same, right?
How is Traci the other guy? Lol.
But yes, if I shoot 2 for 5 from 3. And you shoot 2 for 5 from 3.
It's either we both suck at shooting 3s, we are both bad, or we are both average.
There is no picking and choosing on a broad situation.
Get it?
I said No to Gill, No to Buggs. But by the terms laid out by yourself and others if Gill is deemed to be "able" to shoot. So would Buggs.
You can't fish for arguments if you can't keep your criteria straight.
Now purely as Basektball players I hope Gill is at least a little better than Buggs who sucks. Wanted neither though, and looks like we will have neither.
Got it? I'm really a badger fanl?
-
How is Traci the other guy? Lol.
But yes, if I shoot 2 for 5 from 3. And you shoot 2 for 5 from 3.
It's either we both suck at shooting 3s, we are both bad, or we are both average.
There is no picking and choosing on a broad situation.
Get it?
No, don't get it at all. There IS picking and choosing. It's called analysis and without it, stats are far less worthwhile.
When Buggs has an incredible FG% from dunks and layups, on a low %Shots rate.. that's a lot different than another guy shooting differently with a higher %Shots rate, even if the shots attempted and made are the same.
-
No, don't get it at all. There IS picking and choosing. It's called analysis and without it, stats are far less worthwhile.
When Buggs has an incredible FG% from dunks and layups, on a low %Shots rate.. that's a lot different than another guy shooting differently with a higher %Shots rate, even if the shots attempted and made are the same.
So that just means Buggs is better at knowing who he is as a shooter.
Just because you take more of a shot doesn't mean you are better at it.
You could be, but it ain't guranteed.
-
So that just means Buggs is better at knowing who he is as a shooter.
Just because you take more of a shot doesn't mean you are better at it.
You could be, but it ain't guranteed.
My initial reply was re: 3-point shooting, not his obliging dunks when available.
His 3-point shooting in conference play and against good competition is a great indicator of how good he is at it. Guranteed (sic).
-
Not going to begin parsing all the comments, but thanks for the input, Jay Bee. Sounds like about what I'd expect.
-
My initial reply was re: 3-point shooting, not his obliging dunks when available.
His 3-point shooting in conference play and against good competition is a great indicator of how good he is at it. Guranteed (sic).
32 doesn't get it and no amount of explaining will change that - but thanks as always for the information.
-
Not going to begin parsing all the comments, but thanks for the input, Jay Bee. Sounds like about what I'd expect.
Ditto. Great stuff. Minnesota sure can pick 'em.
-
32 doesn't get it and no amount of explaining will change that - but thanks as always for the information.
Dont get what? I said no on Buggs 3 years ago when he was a gopher.
-
Per local sports guy, Buggs never realized his potential.
Speculating he will go play for Tubby who recruited him.
-
To sum up, Buggs is a rich man's Trend Blackledge?
-
All we want him for is 10 minutes of hard working effort. I think we can motivate him to give us that.
did i miss a coaching change?
-
Thanks for all the input Jay Bee. Knowing nothing about him I must say that I like the fact he's a one year guy who could fill in as necessary. Right now we've got a pretty wide gulf between Sacar and Marotta. I suppose it all depends on other potential players in the pipeline. I will add that I'm not particularly keen on banking this for December transfers.
I'm also not particularly interested in the Wally comparison. Old news.
-
Would rather get a kid like Devine Eke
-
Would rather get a kid like Devine Eke
Agreed. But the kid would have to sit out a year which doesn't help our immediate need for a pf.
-
No, don't get it at all. There IS picking and choosing. It's called analysis and without it, stats are far less worthwhile.
When Buggs has an incredible FG% from dunks and layups, on a low %Shots rate.. that's a lot different than another guy shooting differently with a higher %Shots rate, even if the shots attempted and made are the same.
I always wondered what Dominic James' field goal percentage would of been, if you removed his dunks. Has nothing to do with this, but arguing dunks and field goal percentage brought James to mind.
-
Agreed. But the kid would have to sit out a year which doesn't help our immediate need for a pf.
Personally, I'm more worried about our bigs in 17-18 than next season.
-
If this kid married a Playboy model, she would be Buggs' Bunny.
-
If this kid married a Playboy model, she would be Buggs' Bunny.
Pay the man, Shirley!
-
Agreed. But the kid would have to sit out a year which doesn't help our immediate need for a pf.
Except in practice.
-
Except in practice.
Probably could help us beat KState and help the tourney resume, yes?
-
Personally, I'm more worried about our bigs in 17-18 than next season.
I like the blitz wojo is making on PF's for 17-18. I imagine we see some good payoff there. Just offered a top 35 PF yesterday or teh day before IIRC.
-
I like the blitz wojo is making on PF's for 17-18. I imagine we see some good payoff there. Just offered a top 35 PF yesterday or teh day before IIRC.
Who was that?
-
Who was that?
Jordan Tucker
https://twitter.com/AdamFinkelstein/status/738092048646086657