Kolek planning to go pro
LOL. It really is funny that you truly believe this.
And you Sir are merely a low life bomb thrower. And speaking of intelligence/dumbness, exactly what are your qualifications, education level, and major accomplishments?.....Crickets, I suspect.
Buzz's offensive statistics were the mirror opposite of his defensive stats, and they separated further the longer he was here. Paint touches, prevent paint touches. Get fouled, don't foul. Take a two, make them take threes. Low turnovers, force turnovers.But coaches adjusted over time to him and the talent he recruited matched his philosophy for better or worse. MU's three point shooting (rate and shooting %) declined over time, while the opponents' increased. MU's two point field goal stats similarly increased while the two defensive stats got better as MU protected the paint. Free throw rates were high on offense and low on defense. Same with turnovers. End of the day, Buzz's <over> obsession with paint touches was his strength and weakness (see Henry's previous CS article). But his real weakness was his inability/unwillingness to adapt to his talent and game planing over time. His over reliance on paint touches came at the loss of perspective on spacing.The Midgets was perhaps the best coaching job I have seen, while last year's job was perhaps the biggest misuse of natural resources (usage), really starting out of the gate, and made worse by transfer and injuries.These individual stats will be very different under the new coach mainly because of style of play. Duane will be a star, Juan will not be a PF trapped in a 2 guard's body, and Burton will be unleashed. Carlino will be the floor leader missing last year. The end record may be the same or slightly better, but the use of the resources and style of play will match the talent. But, the one thing that has to happen, that didn't last season, is this team really needs to bond together, of which, I am leery.
Well at the end of the day, Buzz played a highly inefficient role player more minutes than any other guy on the team. And he played his one solid major player last season 12 minutes per game. That's just bizarre to me...and a testament to his poor coaching decision last season.I won't re-hash any further on this either...but...I can assure you...Derrick was not the best option last year. When you are a freshman and know Buzz will yank you for virtually anything he may not like...it mindf*cks the way you play..shoot too soon..bench..have a turnover forcing the action...bench...yet the veteran in front of you can basically do nothing and play max minutes. Playing to not screw up, is not playing to win. So you are Dawson and you come in the game...and can see that the guy in front of you basically doesn't have to do ANYTHING other than not turn the ball over...and he gets max minutes...perhaps you start to think the same way...maybe I shouldn't try to shoot, force the action, or risk making a mistake..as the quick hook awaits. The freshman basically had to be perfect for Buzz to play them any kind of extended run...which was sad..and not the way a player should be coached.
I got a 36 on my SAT and have a perfect 100 IQ
Brutal.
As a basic, basic logical construct, if this quote, by you, is true: "one guy didn't have any type of relevant sample size nor statistical relevance" then the above bolded quote cannot be known. You can KNOW Derrick wasn't good. You cannot KNOW anyone was better merely d/t there not being enough relevant sample size or statistical relevance.
I won't re-hash any further on this either
...but...I can assure you...Derrick was not the best option last year. When you are a freshman and know Buzz will yank you for virtually anything he may not like...it mindf*cks the way you play..shoot too soon..bench..have a turnover forcing the action...bench...yet the veteran in front of you can basically do nothing and play max minutes. Playing to not screw up, is not playing to win. So you are Dawson and you come in the game...and can see that the guy in front of you basically doesn't have to do ANYTHING other than not turn the ball over...and he gets max minutes...perhaps you start to think the same way...maybe I shouldn't try to shoot, force the action, or risk making a mistake..as the quick hook awaits. The freshman basically had to be perfect for Buzz to play them any kind of extended run...which was sad..and not the way a player should be coached.
I'm sorry, but I can tell you that John Dawson is a better basketball player, with a much higher ceiling than Derrick Wilson just from watching the two play. I don't care if Dawson's stats offered in this are contrary to my point, because all stats are not created equally, or given the same environment to be attained. What I know is a guy who consistently gets 30+ minutes a game and compiles the stats of an inefficient role player..is greatly underproducing what his minute allocation suggests. I also know a guy who averages 10 minutes a game, and frequently those 10 minutes were comprised of 3 different 3 minute stints of action, of which it was possible the player could play with as many as 10 different guys in those 3 minutes - those stats aren't worth a lick - yet even given all of that disruption, and lack of ability to get into any kind of rhythm...These stats are reality:81% FT shooter28% 3 point shooterMust be guarded everywhere on the floor2nd best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating43% FT shooter7% 3 point shooterOnly needs to be guarded within 2 feet of the basket, otherwise no threat to sag off of him 5 feet everywhere else on the court.Best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
Yes...I agree...as a logical construct...your point is correct
Yet I know that logic dosen't always apply to sports. I'm sorry, but I can tell you that John Dawson is a better basketball player, with a much higher ceiling than Derrick Wilson just from watching the two play. I don't care if Dawson's stats offered in this are contrary to my point, because all stats are not created equally, or given the same environment to be attained. What I know is a guy who consistently gets 30+ minutes a game and compiles the stats of an inefficient role player..is greatly underproducing what his minute allocation suggests. I also know a guy who averages 10 minutes a game, and frequently those 10 minutes were comprised of 3 different 3 minute stints of action, of which it was possible the player could play with as many as 10 different guys in those 3 minutes - those stats aren't worth a lick - yet even given all of that disruption, and lack of ability to get into any kind of rhythm...These stats are reality:81% FT shooter28% 3 point shooterMust be guarded everywhere on the floor2nd best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating43% FT shooter7% 3 point shooterOnly needs to be guarded within 2 feet of the basket, otherwise no threat to sag off of him 5 feet everywhere else on the court.Best points per 100 possessions against defensive rating.
But coaches adjusted over time to him and the talent he recruited matched his philosophy for better or worse. MU's three point shooting (rate and shooting %) declined over time, while the opponents' increased. MU's two point field goal stats similarly increased while the two defensive stats got better as MU protected the paint. Free throw rates were high on offense and low on defense. Same with turnovers. But his real weakness was his inability/unwillingness to adapt to his talent and game planing over time. His over reliance on paint touches came at the loss of perspective on spacing.The Midgets was perhaps the best coaching job I have seen, while last year's job was perhaps the biggest misuse of natural resources (usage), really starting out of the gate, and made worse by transfer and injuries.But, the one thing that has to happen, that didn't last season, is this team really needs to bond together, of which, I am leery.
2) Overall efficiency... remember with the change in application of foul calls we saw a significant increase in efficiency not seen in years. Two seasons ago (and for a number of years prior) the 100 would make sense.. (100.4 two years ago... bounced around 100-102 for a number of seasons going back before that)... but, avg'd ppp jumped to around 104.3. A 4% increase in efficiency is meaningful... perhaps enough to move your classifications of 'solid' vs. 'inefficient', etc.. Anyway, more of a point that I have had to make to myself repeatedly -- 2013-14 was a 'different game' than 2012-13 when considering advanced statistics between years.
The Midgets was perhaps the best coaching job I have seen, while last year's job was perhaps the biggest misuse of natural resources (usage), really starting out of the gate, and made worse by transfer and injuries.These individual stats will be very different under the new coach mainly because of style of play. Duane will be a star, Juan will not be a PF trapped in a 2 guard's body, and Burton will be unleashed. Carlino will be the floor leader missing last year. The end record may be the same or slightly better, but the use of the resources and style of play will match the talent. But, the one thing that has to happen, that didn't last season, is this team really needs to bond together, of which, I am leery.
After getting a chance to look at this further, I remember some post (maybe on CS, maybe written by you or bamamarquettefan) where each star ranking out of high school was analyzed by how they improved efficiency or win score by year (ex. frosh to soph, soph to junior, junior to senior). If you can find it, you could apply that same analysis here, then maybe do a base case, best case, worst case scenario based on 1 standard deviation above or below each player's mean expected output this year. After writing that out it sounds like a lot of work, but would definitely be an interesting read. I'll try to find the article.
Ners...don't do it man. Just don't do it. If I see this same argument go on again for a few pages, I'm gonna' click the ban button. If you'd care to comment on Sugar's original post, feel free.p.s. - same goes for anyone responding to Ners about Derrick. In this thread or any future ones.
Ners...don't do it man. Just don't do it. If I see this same argument go on again for a few pages, I'm gonna' click the ban button. If you'd care to comment on Sugar's original post, feel free.p.s. - same goes for anyone responding to provoking Ners about Derrick. In this thread or any future ones.
Actually Henry's number prove exactly what I was saying about last year all along...That Derrick was a substandard point guard, but he was the best of bad options. As you can see, Dawson wasn't very good either.
Bama did a version where he looked at improvement by recruit rankings. There's a similar analysis done by Hoya Prospectus based on where a player starts at the usage/efficiency range and how much they improved. That was my caveat #1
Once a player demonstrates himself to be a role player, it's unlikely he'll ever be a go-to guy and, therefore, a superstar. It's not quite a law in college basketball, but players who are not very involved in the offense tend to stay that way. Any major changes in a player's usage are usually the result of filling the hole left by a departing possession eater.
No worries Rocky - just want to point out that once again I didn't start the "debate" again in this thread ...wasn't going to comment on Sugar's offering...but yet again others feel compelled to re-hash and provoke with their opinion on John/Derrick. I do appreciate you realizing it takes two sides to debate/argue, and certainly Sultan, Tower, TAMU and Lenny have been the perpetuators of the debate and are just as much to blame for the discussion continuing as am I. I appreciate you recognizing this, and placing them under the same ban warning.
I'm digging through some work on various websites and will start posting pieces as I sort through them. First, here is one of the original articles about effective usage, from none other than Ken Pomeroy in 2007http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9Focus on the heavy blue lines, which represent the 25th percentile and 75th percentile. To clarify, a player with a usage of 20 in Year 1 has a 50% chance of finishing with a usage between 18 and 22.There is a key passage in the article (emphasis mine) There are three key points here. First, for MU, there are two possession eaters to replace. They are Gardner (26%) and Jamil (23%). Second, a new coach changes everything. Third, I would argue that it is more likely for a dramatic change for the freshmen (JJJ/Dawson) instead of the juniors (Juan/Wilson).Using Pomeroy's table, what does that give us for #mubb?Here are the min, 25th percentile, 75th percentile, and max predictions on usage for each returning player. The most likely view is somewhere between the 25th and 75th percentage. Burton projects as a usage range somewhere between 26% and 30%, so a dramatic increase in usage is unlikely. JJJ projects as a usage range between 15 and 18% (which are both role player levels), but he is a candidate for greater usage increase based on the new coach.Here is the same approach but I've used words instead of numbers.Of course, none of this gets to potential changes in efficiency, which we will look at later.