Big East preview

[bma725]

MU would be better off not highlighting HoopScoop given their reputation.  Maybe they should look into the fact that they routinely rank players without seeing them, have incorrect information regarding where a player is attending or mix up players with similar names, having players with both completely incorrect years and schools for a player,  and even ranked and evaluated a person that didn't exist. 

Further, the ranking system that they use to give MU the #1 class is charitably a complete mess.  Take a look at the totals and you'll find that the numbers just don't work, there are more players than spots.  The 1-5 group should have 5, actually has 6.  The 6-10 group again should have 5, also has 6.  The 11-40 grouping which should have only 30 players actually has 51.  The 41-70 group, which should again be 30 guys, has 45.  The 71-100 group, again should be 30, has 61.  That means his "Composite Top 100" actually has 169 players in it.  Clark Francis has stated emphatically in the past that he does not do ties in those rankings, well then how the he** do you end up with a Top 100 that has 169 players?  And it's not like this is the first time it's happened, he's done it over and over again.

Anyway, while the HSC ranking may match up with the RSCI ranking for the high school players, you'll notice that it doesn't work that way for the JUCO players.  The ranking in the HSC is wildly different than what the other services gave them, the case of the MU players glaringly so.  Ousmane Barro wasn't ranked by any other service, but the HSC had him in the Top 40.  Lott, Kinsella and Jackson never made it higher than 3 stars on any other service, but they had them in the Top 40.   

For the same grouping as the guys we have coming in HoopScoop had 12 players coming out of JUCO.  Right off the bat, you can throw out Daniel Payne since HoopScoop and their awesome fact checking staff never bothered to look into the announcement that he wasn't going to Arkansas as of late April when they included him in their rankings in July.  Then again, if you look at some of the other information in there, incorrect facts shouldn't be a surprise at all.

Mario Little(Kansas)...bench player, 4.7 PPG and 3.2 RPG
Tyrone Appleton(Kansas)...bench player, missed some games due to injury, less than 1 point, assist and rebound per game.
Bobby Maze(Tenn)...starter, averaged 8.2 PPG and 3.2 APG
Juan Patillo(OU)...bench player, suspended then dismissed from OU. 5.9 PPG 3.4 RPG
Orlando Allen(OU)...bench player, 1.8 PPG and .9 RPG
Donte Smith(USC)...bench player, saw limited time and got 2.3 PPG and .9 APG
Devron Bostic(Minn)...bench player, 4 PPG and 1.5 RPG
Paul Carter(Minn)...bench player, 5.3 PPG and 4.5 RPG
Tay Waller(Auburn)...starter, 12.1 PPG and 1.8RPG
Tiki Mayben(Binghamton)...starter, 11.5 PPG and 4.7 APG
Eric Tramiel(North Texas)...starter, 12 PPG and 6.6 RPG

So out of 11 supposed Top 40 players, only 3 were able to average in double figures and two did it at schools that are low majors.  Only one other player(Maze) was a major contributor at the high major level.  4 of the players(Little, Appleton, Allen and Smith) were outright busts, and the rest were serviceable at best.

And sadly, it's not like he just messed up that year.  When I was doing the CS post, I put together research for another post looking at how his rankings of JUCO players compared to the HS/Prep players in the same group.  It wasn't pretty.  Almost universally, the JUCO players were overvalued.  Many did not belong in a Top 300, let alone a top 100, and he had them in the Top 40. 

[kmwtrucks]

I would agree that for the most part JUCO's do not have a big impact on programs.  One thing I did see is that Juco All-Americans (they have 50 between all the teams) that make the team as freshman tend to be very productive compared to guys that make it as SOPH's.  Of the 50 about 10 or so are Freshman.  Fulce, Butler, Dwight and DJO all made the team in their first year of JUCO. Go back and look at the guys that made the teams as freshman.  My guess is all but Fulce of that group are going to AVG about 10pts per game.

[RawdogDX]

So 84, since you feel so confident about our talent level, does that mean you will be calling for buzz's head if we finish 10-12th?

[Marquette84]

MU would be better off not highlighting HoopScoop given their reputation.  Maybe they should look into the fact that they routinely rank players without seeing them, have incorrect information regarding where a player is attending or mix up players with similar names, having players with both completely incorrect years and schools for a player,  and even ranked and evaluated a person that didn't exist. 

Further, the ranking system that they use to give MU the #1 class is charitably a complete mess.  Take a look at the totals and you'll find that the numbers just don't work, there are more players than spots.  The 1-5 group should have 5, actually has 6.  The 6-10 group again should have 5, also has 6.  The 11-40 grouping which should have only 30 players actually has 51.  The 41-70 group, which should again be 30 guys, has 45.  The 71-100 group, again should be 30, has 61.  That means his "Composite Top 100" actually has 169 players in it.  Clark Francis has stated emphatically in the past that he does not do ties in those rankings, well then how the he** do you end up with a Top 100 that has 169 players?  And it's not like this is the first time it's happened, he's done it over and over again.

Anyway, while the HSC ranking may match up with the RSCI ranking for the high school players, you'll notice that it doesn't work that way for the JUCO players.  The ranking in the HSC is wildly different than what the other services gave them, the case of the MU players glaringly so.  Ousmane Barro wasn't ranked by any other service, but the HSC had him in the Top 40.  Lott, Kinsella and Jackson never made it higher than 3 stars on any other service, but they had them in the Top 40.   

For the same grouping as the guys we have coming in HoopScoop had 12 players coming out of JUCO.  Right off the bat, you can throw out Daniel Payne since HoopScoop and their awesome fact checking staff never bothered to look into the announcement that he wasn't going to Arkansas as of late April when they included him in their rankings in July.  Then again, if you look at some of the other information in there, incorrect facts shouldn't be a surprise at all.

Mario Little(Kansas)...bench player, 4.7 PPG and 3.2 RPG
Tyrone Appleton(Kansas)...bench player, missed some games due to injury, less than 1 point, assist and rebound per game.
Bobby Maze(Tenn)...starter, averaged 8.2 PPG and 3.2 APG
Juan Patillo(OU)...bench player, suspended then dismissed from OU. 5.9 PPG 3.4 RPG
Orlando Allen(OU)...bench player, 1.8 PPG and .9 RPG
Donte Smith(USC)...bench player, saw limited time and got 2.3 PPG and .9 APG
Devron Bostic(Minn)...bench player, 4 PPG and 1.5 RPG
Paul Carter(Minn)...bench player, 5.3 PPG and 4.5 RPG
Tay Waller(Auburn)...starter, 12.1 PPG and 1.8RPG
Tiki Mayben(Binghamton)...starter, 11.5 PPG and 4.7 APG
Eric Tramiel(North Texas)...starter, 12 PPG and 6.6 RPG

So out of 11 supposed Top 40 players, only 3 were able to average in double figures and two did it at schools that are low majors.  Only one other player(Maze) was a major contributor at the high major level.  4 of the players(Little, Appleton, Allen and Smith) were outright busts, and the rest were serviceable at best.

And sadly, it's not like he just messed up that year.  When I was doing the CS post, I put together research for another post looking at how his rankings of JUCO players compared to the HS/Prep players in the same group.  It wasn't pretty.  Almost universally, the JUCO players were overvalued.  Many did not belong in a Top 300, let alone a top 100, and he had them in the Top 40. 

 

What you have done here is list the stats of the 11-40th ranked JUCOs from Hoop Scoop without any context, and simply declared them to be largely busts and non-contributors.

Shouldn't we look at the RSCI consensus top 40 for a proper comparison, to see if there are more consistent scorers, contributors, starters, etc. among HS players?

In fact, if we do make that comparison against the RSCI players ranked 11 thorugh 40, we find that there isn't a whole lot of difference in performance--certainly not enough to conclude that the juco players are "universally" overvalued.

From your analysis, 3 of 11 HoopScoop JUCO Players ranked 11-40 scored in double digits (27%)
But only 9 of 40 RSCI players scored in double digits (22.5%).

So what that data suggests is that the chances that a JUCO will turn into a productive player his first year is actually better than the chance that a top 40 RSCI player will be productive. 

The only thing you can argue is that the HS players will have 3 more years to attempt to become productive and find a way into the starting lineup, while the JUCO players largely only have one more year. 

But the conclusion that they are, as a group, not as strong isn't supported by the facts.  I think the data shows that you are overvaluing a traditional HS player compared to a JUCO. Which means that DJO and Buycks have a greater chance of becoming a double-digit scorer this year than the true freshmen.

My guess is that the biggest determinant of whether or not a player--RSCI or JUCO--makes double digits or becomes a contributor is necessity. 

Here's the RSCI top 40:

#40:  Anthony Jones Baylor 2.4 ppg, 1.3 rpg
#39:  Tony Mitchell Alabama DNP
#38:  Wesley Witherspoon 4.0 ppg 2.2 rpg
#37:  Ty Walker Wake Forest 0.9 ppg, 1.1 rpg
#36:  Darius Miller Kentucky 5.3 ppg 3.1 rpg
#35:  Kenny Kadji Florida 4.4 ppg, 2.7 rpg
#34:  DeAndre Liggins, Kentucky 4.2 ppg, 2.8 apg
#33:  Sylven Landesberg, Virginia 16.6 ppg, 2.8 apg
#32:  Yancy Gates, Cincy, 10.6 ppg, 6.1 rpg
#31:  Mike Rosario, Rutgers, 16.2 ppg, 3.5 rpg
#30:  Devin Ebanks 10.5 ppg, 7.8 rpg
#29:  Drew Gordon UCLA 3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg
#28:  Jeff Withey, Arizona, DNP
#27:  Rishanti Harris DNP
#26:  Eloy Vargas:  0.6 ppg. 0.7 rpg
#25:  J'mison Morgan UCLA 2.3 ppg, 1.0 rpg
#24:  Howland Thompkins Georgea, 12.6ppg 7.4 rpg
#23:  Michael Dunigan Oregon 8.4 ppg, 4.6 rpg
#22:  Iman Shumpert Georgia Tech 10.6 ppg, 3.9 rpg
#21:  DeQuan Jones 2.7 ppg, 1.7 rpg
#20:  Malcolm Lee UCLA 3.2 ppg, 1.5 rpg
#19:  Luke Babbit 16.9 ppg, 7.4 rpg
#18:  Tyler Zeller UNC 3.1 ppg, 2.0 rpg
#17:  JaMychal Green Alabama 10.3 ppg 7.6 rpg
#16:  Kemba Walker UConn 8.9 ppg, 3.5 rpg
#15:  Elliott Williams Duke 4.2 ppg, 2.3 rpg
#14:  Chris Singleton Florida State 8.1 ppg, 4.9 rpg
#13:  Willie Warren, OU: 14.6 ppg, 3.1 apg
#12:  William Buford Ohio State 11.3 ppg, 3.7 rpg
#11:  Scotty Hopson Tennessee 9.2 ppg, 2.7 rpg

[bma725]

Comparing the 11-40 in the RSCI to the 11-40 in the HSC ranking isn't an apples to apples comparison.  Not a single one of the rankings used to calculate the RSCI is a combined ranking of HS and JUCO players, so there's no way to guarantee that the rankings given for those players would stay the same were they to combine them.  In fact HoopScoop's Top 100 in that particular year doesn't include prep players, which is one of the reasons(among many) that they were dropped from the RSCI for 2009 and beyond.

The only possible valid comparison would be comparing the JUCO players and HS/Prep players in the HSC in the same grouping since that is the only place where they are supposedly graded on the same criteria.  But since Francis can't even get the numbers right and includes 36 HS and Prep players in that range when there are only spots for 18 of them, every percentage will be thrown off.  Further, because he has 48 total players listed in a slot that should only have 30, there's no way of knowing which ones he actually meant to include in that grouping and which ones he didn't, making any comparison of production at that level speculative at best.

BTW, your numbers, and thus every point you make after it are incorrect.  There are 30 spots between 11-40, not 40.  So your HS percentages are too low.  Further, you did a nice job fudging the percentages to make your point, it's very Murff-esque.  You choose not to include Daniel Payne, a JUCO that didn't qualify which means they only had 11 players.  But Rashanti Harris and Tony Mitchell didn't qualify for the high schoolers, and Withey didn't play because he transferred before the season, so they only had 27.  When you compare them using the same criteria you get:

HS:  9 of 27 for 33%
JUCO:  3 of 11: 27%

or

HS: 9 of 30 for 30%
JUCO:  3 of 12 for 25%

Either way, the HS success rate is better.

[Lennys Tap]

 

What you have done here is list the stats of the 11-40th ranked JUCOs from Hoop Scoop without any context, and simply declared them to be largely busts and non-contributors.

Shouldn't we look at the RSCI consensus top 40 for a proper comparison, to see if there are more consistent scorers, contributors, starters, etc. among HS players?

In fact, if we do make that comparison against the RSCI players ranked 11 thorugh 40, we find that there isn't a whole lot of difference in performance--certainly not enough to conclude that the juco players are "universally" overvalued.

From your analysis, 3 of 11 HoopScoop JUCO Players ranked 11-40 scored in double digits (27%)
But only 9 of 40 RSCI players scored in double digits (22.5%).

So what that data suggests is that the chances that a JUCO will turn into a productive player his first year is actually better than the chance that a top 40 RSCI player will be productive. 

The only thing you can argue is that the HS players will have 3 more years to attempt to become productive and find a way into the starting lineup, while the JUCO players largely only have one more year. 

But the conclusion that they are, as a group, not as strong isn't supported by the facts.  I think the data shows that you are overvaluing a traditional HS player compared to a JUCO. Which means that DJO and Buycks have a greater chance of becoming a double-digit scorer this year than the true freshmen.

My guess is that the biggest determinant of whether or not a player--RSCI or JUCO--makes double digits or becomes a contributor is necessity. 

Here's the RSCI top 40:

#40:  Anthony Jones Baylor 2.4 ppg, 1.3 rpg
#39:  Tony Mitchell Alabama DNP
#38:  Wesley Witherspoon 4.0 ppg 2.2 rpg
#37:  Ty Walker Wake Forest 0.9 ppg, 1.1 rpg
#36:  Darius Miller Kentucky 5.3 ppg 3.1 rpg
#35:  Kenny Kadji Florida 4.4 ppg, 2.7 rpg
#34:  DeAndre Liggins, Kentucky 4.2 ppg, 2.8 apg
#33:  Sylven Landesberg, Virginia 16.6 ppg, 2.8 apg
#32:  Yancy Gates, Cincy, 10.6 ppg, 6.1 rpg
#31:  Mike Rosario, Rutgers, 16.2 ppg, 3.5 rpg
#30:  Devin Ebanks 10.5 ppg, 7.8 rpg
#29:  Drew Gordon UCLA 3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg
#28:  Jeff Withey, Arizona, DNP
#27:  Rishanti Harris DNP
#26:  Eloy Vargas:  0.6 ppg. 0.7 rpg
#25:  J'mison Morgan UCLA 2.3 ppg, 1.0 rpg
#24:  Howland Thompkins Georgea, 12.6ppg 7.4 rpg
#23:  Michael Dunigan Oregon 8.4 ppg, 4.6 rpg
#22:  Iman Shumpert Georgia Tech 10.6 ppg, 3.9 rpg
#21:  DeQuan Jones 2.7 ppg, 1.7 rpg
#20:  Malcolm Lee UCLA 3.2 ppg, 1.5 rpg
#19:  Luke Babbit 16.9 ppg, 7.4 rpg
#18:  Tyler Zeller UNC 3.1 ppg, 2.0 rpg
#17:  JaMychal Green Alabama 10.3 ppg 7.6 rpg
#16:  Kemba Walker UConn 8.9 ppg, 3.5 rpg
#15:  Elliott Williams Duke 4.2 ppg, 2.3 rpg
#14:  Chris Singleton Florida State 8.1 ppg, 4.9 rpg
#13:  Willie Warren, OU: 14.6 ppg, 3.1 apg
#12:  William Buford Ohio State 11.3 ppg, 3.7 rpg
#11:  Scotty Hopson Tennessee 9.2 ppg, 2.7 rpg

It's hilarious that you accuse BMA of not providing any context for his statistical analysis but evidently with a straight face say that the data actually suggests JCs are more likely to contribute than RCSI 11-40 freshmen. As in the past, you revert to apples to oranges,arbitrary comparisons that are non-sensical. To suggest that a guy who scores 12 ppg for Binghamton is somehow a "contributor" but that a 9 ppg scorer for Tennessee isn't is absurd even by your standards.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I am now officially ignoring my first poster. What a tiresome boob.

[Skatastrophy]

boob.

Best part of this thread so far.

[GGGG]

Perhaps you should let the MU basketball office know that they shouldn't ask us to set expectations based on HoopScoop.  Currently, they highlight HoopScoop in the summer prospectus:

"MU’s seven newcomers (five freshmen, one junior and one sophomore) are
ranked third by HoopScoopOnline.com and Hoopmasters.com, 14th by
ESPNU.com, 16th by Rivals.com and 17th by Scout.com. "

http://www.gomarquette.com/photos/schools/marq/sports/m-baskbl/auto_pdf/0910-prospectus.pdf


Obviously MU has more faith in Hoopscoop than you do.  

They aren't touting HoopScoop's rankings because they have researched them thoroughly and believe them to be accurate.  They are touting them because it sounds good in a press release and they know that 99% of the general public doesn't know the difference.

[Marquette84]

Comparing the 11-40 in the RSCI to the 11-40 in the HSC ranking isn't an apples to apples comparison.  Not a single one of the rankings used to calculate the RSCI is a combined ranking of HS and JUCO players, so there's no way to guarantee that the rankings given for those players would stay the same were they to combine them.  In fact HoopScoop's Top 100 in that particular year doesn't include prep players, which is one of the reasons(among many) that they were dropped from the RSCI for 2009 and beyond.

The only possible valid comparison would be comparing the JUCO players and HS/Prep players in the HSC in the same grouping since that is the only place where they are supposedly graded on the same criteria.  But since Francis can't even get the numbers right and includes 36 HS and Prep players in that range when there are only spots for 18 of them, every percentage will be thrown off.  Further, because he has 48 total players listed in a slot that should only have 30, there's no way of knowing which ones he actually meant to include in that grouping and which ones he didn't, making any comparison of production at that level speculative at best.

BTW, your numbers, and thus every point you make after it are incorrect.  There are 30 spots between 11-40, not 40.  So your HS percentages are too low.  Further, you did a nice job fudging the percentages to make your point, it's very Murff-esque.  You choose not to include Daniel Payne, a JUCO that didn't qualify which means they only had 11 players.  But Rashanti Harris and Tony Mitchell didn't qualify for the high schoolers, and Withey didn't play because he transferred before the season, so they only had 27.  When you compare them using the same criteria you get:

HS:  9 of 27 for 33%
JUCO:  3 of 11: 27%

or

HS: 9 of 30 for 30%
JUCO:  3 of 12 for 25%

Either way, the HS success rate is better.

First, you are absolutely correct on my error of 30 versus 40 and I stand corrected.  It was certainly not intention, as even the corrected numbers support my case.

On 11 versus 12, your post claimed there were 11 Jucos in Hoop Scoop's top 40--i just used your number as the denominator.  I note elsewhere you said 12.  But I'll accept 12 instead of 11 as well if you want, as well as 27 versus 30. 

Either way, the bottom line is that there just isn't the significant difference  that you initially claimed.

A JUCO that Francis ranks between 11 and 40 performs similarly to a player 11 to 40 in the RSCI.

The only possible valid comparison would be comparing the JUCO players and HS/Prep players in the HSC in the same grouping since that is the only place where they are supposedly graded on the same criteria

But that wouldn't help convince you that HSC rankings are no better or worse than RSCI for a given rank. 

You already trust RSCI--I want to compare HSC against a source you trust.

You listed the 11 (or 12) JUCOs that HoopScoop said were good enough to be ranked between 11 and 40.  I compared those players to the 27 (or 30) players that the RCSI said were good enough to be ranked between 11 and 40.

I don't see the difference in performance you implied. 

[Marquette84]

It's hilarious that you accuse BMA of not providing any context for his statistical analysis but evidently with a straight face say that the data actually suggests JCs are more likely to contribute than RCSI 11-40 freshmen. As in the past, you revert to apples to oranges,arbitrary comparisons that are non-sensical. To suggest that a guy who scores 12 ppg for Binghamton is somehow a "contributor" but that a 9 ppg scorer for Tennessee isn't is absurd even by your standards.

Hey, it was BMA who set the standard of 10 ppg--and his list included Tennesse's Maze.  So don't look at me as if I'm the only one guilty here.

I'm happy to include Hopson--and Maze--into the comparison.  Simply means 4 of 11 jucos (and 10 of 27 RSCI players) contributed to their teams.

BTW, Tiki Mayben--the Binghamton player--was good enough to originally sign out of HS with Syracuse.  

[bma725]

But that wouldn't help convince you that HSC rankings are no better or worse than RSCI for a given rank. 

You already trust RSCI--I want to compare HSC against a source you trust.

You listed the 11 (or 12) JUCOs that HoopScoop said were good enough to be ranked between 11 and 40.  I compared those players to the 27 (or 30) players that the RCSI said were good enough to be ranked between 11 and 40.

I don't see the difference in performance you implied. 

When you're comparing different sources, you're comparing guys that evaluate players in a different way and look for different things.  Some of the guys are looking at who is going to make the biggest impact as a freshman, some are looking at who is the most pro ready, some are looking at who has the best chance to be a great college player, some are factoring in things like academics etc.  So even though the ranking itself is coming from a composite score, it's not really an apples to apples comparison when you try to compare players from the RSCI to any of the individual rankings, whether it's the HSC or any other ranking.

The only way to really compare the JUCO players to the similarly ranked HS players is to compare them within the individual services, that way at least you get a ranking or evaluation based upon the same perspective.

[Marquette84]

When you're comparing different sources, you're comparing guys that evaluate players in a different way and look for different things.  Some of the guys are looking at who is going to make the biggest impact as a freshman, some are looking at who is the most pro ready, some are looking at who has the best chance to be a great college player, some are factoring in things like academics etc. 

On one hand, you claim that these services aren't comparable.  On the other hand, you suggest that HoopScoop ratings are not as accurate or reputable or believable others.  Doesn't that imply a comparison of some sort?

So even though the ranking itself is coming from a composite score, it's not really an apples to apples comparison when you try to compare players from the RSCI to any of the individual rankings, whether it's the HSC or any other ranking.

I'm not trying to compare them directly.

I'm trying to use a couple of other objective points of comparison--specifically the RSCI (which is an average of multiple ratings) coupled with the performance of similarly ranked players at the next level--to show that there is no basis to declare that Hoop Scoop is any more or less accurate than any other service.

I don't care that they use different methodologies.   

The only way to really compare the JUCO players to the similarly ranked HS players is to compare them within the individual services, that way at least you get a ranking or evaluation based upon the same perspective.

I think comparing how those players perform the following year at the next level is a valid comparison as well. 


 

[GOMU1104]

Ivan Renko


Thats one reason why Clark Francis is one of the least respected "guru's" out there.

[Marquette84]

Ivan Renko


Thats one reason why Clark Francis is one of the least respected "guru's" out there.

Yeah, I know the story.  Great way to dodge the question.

How do you explain that there isn't much difference in performance between the real guys he claims are ranked 11-40 and the guys RSCI ranks 11-40?

The answer:  you can't.  That's why so many trying to shift the subject.

Look at how this has progressed.

BMA starts out by posting a list of players Hoopscoop says are ranked 11-40, points out their scoring average, and says "see, only 3 of 11 are scoring in double figures.  His rankings must be screwed up.  We can't count on DJO or Buycks.  They aren't going to be as good as you think"

I counter by digging up the data for the RSCI players ranked 11-40, and point out that a similar percentage are scoring in double figures, so Hoop Scoop is at least as accurate as RSCI.

That SHOULD have been the end of the story.  I though the response would have been "Wow, interesting stats, I guess I didn't realize that Hoopscoop and the RSCI 11-40 ranked players had such similar performance.  I just assumed the RSCI would have been much better."

Instead, we get all these attempts to shift the debate.  Let's talk about methodology, lets talk about Ivan Renko, lets talk about how unfair it is to compare jucos to freshmen.

No.  Let's talk about actual PERFORMANCE.  I don't care about methodology.  I don't care about what happened 18 years ago.  I care about this year, and whether the expectations set by the glowing reports of the talent of Buycks and DJO are fair. 

BMA is telling me that no, I cannot believe those reports on Buycks and DJO because they were made by HoopScoop.    Well I'm sorry, but I actually looked at the data, not my own preconceived notion, and I don't see that we should discount his rankings.

The season will be here soon enough, and I will reslish the huge "I told you so" when DJO and Buycks are averaging 10 ppg.

[Lennys Tap]

Yeah, I know the story.  Great way to dodge the question.

How do you explain that there isn't much difference in performance between the real guys he claims are ranked 11-40 and the guys RSCI ranks 11-40?

The answer:  you can't.  That's why so many trying to shift the subject.

Look at how this has progressed.

BMA starts out by posting a list of players Hoopscoop says are ranked 11-40, points out their scoring average, and says "see, only 3 of 11 are scoring in double figures.  His rankings must be screwed up.  We can't count on DJO or Buycks.  They aren't going to be as good as you think"

I counter by digging up the data for the RSCI players ranked 11-40, and point out that a similar percentage are scoring in double figures, so Hoop Scoop is at least as accurate as RSCI.

That SHOULD have been the end of the story.  I though the response would have been "Wow, interesting stats, I guess I didn't realize that Hoopscoop and the RSCI 11-40 ranked players had such similar performance.  I just assumed the RSCI would have been much better."

Instead, we get all these attempts to shift the debate.  Let's talk about methodology, lets talk about Ivan Renko, lets talk about how unfair it is to compare jucos to freshmen.

No.  Let's talk about actual PERFORMANCE.  I don't care about methodology.  I don't care about what happened 18 years ago.  I care about this year, and whether the expectations set by the glowing reports of the talent of Buycks and DJO are fair. 

BMA is telling me that no, I cannot believe those reports on Buycks and DJO because they were made by HoopScoop.    Well I'm sorry, but I actually looked at the data, not my own preconceived notion, and I don't see that we should discount his rankings.

The season will be here soon enough, and I will reslish the huge "I told you so" when DJO and Buycks are averaging 10 ppg.

Assuming that Buycks and DJO get 25 mpg I fully expect them to get their 10 ppg. People who get minutes generally put up numbers.  My point was that all the true freshman went to REAL D1 schools where minutes are difficult to come by. I'd throw out stats put up at schools like Bighamton and N Texas leaving your jucos 1 for 9 or 11%.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What is a real D1 school?  You either are DI or you aren't.  Wasn't there a kid on one of the cupcakes we played last year that put like 25 on us?  Some of those kids can play ball.

[Lennys Tap]

What is a real D1 school?  You either are DI or you aren't.  Wasn't there a kid on one of the cupcakes we played last year that put like 25 on us?  Some of those kids can play ball.

You can nitpick all you want but my point remains that it's a hell of a lot easier to get minutes (and therefore numbers) at Bighamton or North Texas than it is at UCLA (3), Alabama (2), Kentucky (2),Baylor, Wake Forest, Florida, Virginia, Cincy, Rutgers, W Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, Oregon, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, UConn, Duke, Florida St, Oklahoma, Ohio St or Tennessee. I don't see how even you or 84 can dispute this, though you guys never cease to amaze me.

[Marquette84]

You can nitpick all you want but my point remains that it's a hell of a lot easier to get minutes (and therefore numbers) at Bighamton or North Texas than it is at UCLA (3), Alabama (2), Kentucky (2),Baylor, Wake Forest, Florida, Virginia, Cincy, Rutgers, W Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, Oregon, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, UConn, Duke, Florida St, Oklahoma, Ohio St or Tennessee. I don't see how even you or 84 can dispute this, though you guys never cease to amaze me.

On the other hand, its a lot tougher for a PG to get assists at a place like Binghamton when you're not passing to guys named Wes Matthews, Jerel McNeal and Lazar Hayward.  Or get points when you're not surrounded by three other players who draw the other team's defensive attention.

Meanwhile, its fun to watch you shift your opinion back and forth like a tennis match.  A month or so ago you were all about what a great recruiter Buzz Williams was.  Now you're saying that two of his key recruits could only contribute at schools like Binghamton or North Texas.  Well which is it? Great recruiter, or a guy who brings in low-major talent?

One way or another, at the end of this season, you'll be wrong about one of these two things:

• DJO and Buycks will be significant contributors, and you were wrong to artificially lower expectations
• DJO and Buycks won't be significant contributors, meaning you were wrong about Buzz's
  recruiting, and he missed the boat on these two.

Buzz's recruiting challenge was to get some players who could step in right away. Buycks and DJO were brought in because MU needed help immediately. 

If we were willing to settle for a rebuilding year, then Buzz should have simply brought in two additional freshmen, since apparently everybody around here thinks that JUCOs aren't capable of playing at a high major level.

So the pointed question to you, Lenny, is this:  Do you think DJO and Buycks are the real deal or not?   

If yes, why aren't you setting expectations accordingly--especially given your praise of Buzz's coaching. 

If not, why aren't you more criticial of Buzz's recruiting, brining in Jucos who you don't think can get the job done.






 

[ChicosBailBonds]

You can nitpick all you want but my point remains that it's a hell of a lot easier to get minutes (and therefore numbers) at Bighamton or North Texas than it is at UCLA (3), Alabama (2), Kentucky (2),Baylor, Wake Forest, Florida, Virginia, Cincy, Rutgers, W Virginia, Arizona, Georgia, Oregon, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, UConn, Duke, Florida St, Oklahoma, Ohio St or Tennessee. I don't see how even you or 84 can dispute this, though you guys never cease to amaze me.

Even me?  What is that supposed to mean?  Please explain how I amaze you often....this should be good.

[Lennys Tap]

On the other hand, its a lot tougher for a PG to get assists at a place like Binghamton when you're not passing to guys named Wes Matthews, Jerel McNeal and Lazar Hayward.  Or get points when you're not surrounded by three other players who draw the other team's defensive attention.

Meanwhile, its fun to watch you shift your opinion back and forth like a tennis match.  A month or so ago you were all about what a great recruiter Buzz Williams was.  Now you're saying that two of his key recruits could only contribute at schools like Binghamton or North Texas.  Well which is it? Great recruiter, or a guy who brings in low-major talent?

One way or another, at the end of this season, you'll be wrong about one of these two things:

• DJO and Buycks will be significant contributors, and you were wrong to artificially lower expectations
• DJO and Buycks won't be significant contributors, meaning you were wrong about Buzz's
  recruiting, and he missed the boat on these two.

Buzz's recruiting challenge was to get some players who could step in right away. Buycks and DJO were brought in because MU needed help immediately. 

If we were willing to settle for a rebuilding year, then Buzz should have simply brought in two additional freshmen, since apparently everybody around here thinks that JUCOs aren't capable of playing at a high major level.

So the pointed question to you, Lenny, is this:  Do you think DJO and Buycks are the real deal or not?   

If yes, why aren't you setting expectations accordingly--especially given your praise of Buzz's coaching. 

If not, why aren't you more criticial of Buzz's recruiting, brining in Jucos who you don't think can get the job done.






 

I almost don't know where to begin. Your first argument is evidently that it's harder to get points or assists at Bighamton than it is at MU. This is sophmoric and intellectually dishonest. The guy who averaged 11.5 ppg playing for Bighamton last year would not have played the minutes necessary to put up those numbers at MU and you know it.

Your next bit of bs has you accusing me of going back and forth on Buzz's ability as a recruiter "like a tennis match". Again, nothing could be further from the truth. My position is (and ALWAYS HAS BEEN) that I think Buzz is a better recruiter than TC. I say this because his initial class is much better than Crean's average  one. You evidently agree, saying Buzz has brought in the #1 class in the country. I think this is overstating it a tad, but I guess you've changed your tune.

As far as Buycks and DJO are concerned I suspect they will be fine. I never criticized them or suggested they wouldn't be fine. I merely pointed out how ridiculous it was to suggest that the jcs in Coleman's 11-40 rankings have performed as well as the true freshmen because 2 of the 3 you use to make your point played LOW D1 basketball.

As for next year,I think we'll be better than the "experts" predict, but I thoroughly reject your asinine assumption that for Buzz to be Crean's equal or better we need to finish 6th or better in the conference.

Hope this clears things up as I am weary of your misrepresentations.

[Lennys Tap]

Even me?  What is that supposed to mean?  Please explain how I amaze you often....this should be good.

What it means is that often you will ignore the meat of a post and start an argument on the margains over what amounts to a throwaway line. You also do this frequently to effectively "change the subject" when the discussion is not going well for you. Hope this clears things up for you.

[Marquette84]

I almost don't know where to begin. Your first argument is evidently that it's harder to get points or assists at Bighamton than it is at MU. This is sophmoric and intellectually dishonest.

Yes, I absolutely, 100% believe its tougher to get assists at Binghamton.  The stats back this up: (12.1/game at BU versus 15.0/game for MU). 

Let me ask you this--would Dominic James improve on his MU assist totals if he played for Binghamton?

If that were true, it means you believe that Binghamton has better finishers than Hayward, McNeal, and Matthews. I find THAT to be asinine.

Your next bit of bs has you accusing me of going back and forth on Buzz's ability as a recruiter "like a tennis match". Again, nothing could be further from the truth. My position is (and ALWAYS HAS BEEN) that I think Buzz is a better recruiter than TC. I say this because his initial class is much better than Crean's average one.

Buzz's initial class of Fulce, Butler, McMorrow and Otule is probably below Crean's average. 

Maybe you're talking about his 2nd class as being better.  In your words, they are "much better" . . . until of course, it comes time to set expectations.

Then, because we haven't actually seen those recruits, we have to lower our expectations. 

Tennis, anyone?

BTW, how do you know Buzz's "initial class" is "much better" if you haven't seen them? 

As for next year,I think we'll be better than the "experts" predict, but I thoroughly reject your asinine assumption that for Buzz to be Crean's equal or better we need to finish 6th or better in the conference.

I guess you and I have very different opinions of what "equal" or "better" means.

Crean finished in a tie for 4th, a tie for 5th and another tie for 5th in three Big East seasons, and made the NCAA tourney each year.   

I don't think its "asinine" to suggest that we hold off anointing Buzz as being "equal" or "better" until he actually delivers the goods.

As I've consistently said, the jury is still out on Buzz.  I'm not going to consider him a better coach and recruiter until the team he puts on the court surpasses what Crean delivered. 

Apparently, what you want to do is argue that Buzz is a better coach and recruiter without the messy obligations of having to actually perform at a similar level to Crean. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

What it means is that often you will ignore the meat of a post and start an argument on the margains over what amounts to a throwaway line. You also do this frequently to effectively "change the subject" when the discussion is not going well for you. Hope this clears things up for you.

No, it doesn't clear it up for me, but I appreciate the effort to explain it to me.  Much appreciated. 

[Lennys Tap]

Yes, I absolutely, 100% believe its tougher to get assists at Binghamton.  The stats back this up: (12.1/game at BU versus 15.0/game for MU). 

Let me ask you this--would Dominic James improve on his MU assist totals if he played for Binghamton?

If that were true, it means you believe that Binghamton has better finishers than Hayward, McNeal, and Matthews. I find THAT to be asinine.



Buzz's initial class of Fulce, Butler, McMorrow and Otule is probably below Crean's average. 

Maybe you're talking about his 2nd class as being better.  In your words, they are "much better" . . . until of course, it comes time to set expectations.

Then, because we haven't actually seen those recruits, we have to lower our expectations. 

Tennis, anyone?

BTW, how do you know Buzz's "initial class" is "much better" if you haven't seen them? 



I guess you and I have very different opinions of what "equal" or "better" means.

Crean finished in a tie for 4th, a tie for 5th and another tie for 5th in three Big East seasons, and made the NCAA tourney each year.   

I don't think its "asinine" to suggest that we hold off anointing Buzz as being "equal" or "better" until he actually delivers the goods.

As I've consistently said, the jury is still out on Buzz.  I'm not going to consider him a better coach and recruiter until the team he puts on the court surpasses what Crean delivered. 

Apparently, what you want to do is argue that Buzz is a better coach and recruiter without the messy obligations of having to actually perform at a similar level to Crean. 

1. Any players stats improve when the competition (both internal and external) is diminished. So yes, DJ (or Lazar or Jerel or any high D1 player) would see his numbers improve while playing with and against much weaker players. Anyone who doesn't understand this very elementary concept is either stubborn or clueless (or both).

2.Fulce and O'Tule were in Crean's last class not Buzz's first. After TC left and Taylor and N. Williams reneged, Buzz was forced to scramble and signed Butler and McMorrow. Liam was unfortunately injured so will never be able to evaluate him. Butler is head and shoulders above the dregs TC historically brought to MU in the late signing period. Remember Niv, Christian, etc.? Advantage Buzz in both Class 1 and 2.

3.You have put forth the proposition that somehow 2005-6 = 2009-10. You then draw conclusions based on this flawed and false premise. Garbage in garbage out.