MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: al3xis on July 26, 2009, 09:04:46 AM
-
cuttingdownnets.wordpress.com (http://cuttingdownnets.wordpress.com)
-
based on the first sentence of this guys review he must not be familiar with the antics of one, Bob Huggins, to aasume truck Bryant or Mazzula will miss one single game in which they are needed or at all is awfully naive. With all the felonies that were commited at Cincinnatti with nary a suspension that caused anyone to miss any games, i think we all know the eventual resolution of this farce.
-
I think Georgetown is overrated and Cincy is underrated.
-
Even if he is correct about where mu finishes, i now officially hate him for saying it.
petty, but warranted.
-
Even if he is correct about where mu finishes, i now officially hate him for saying it.
petty, but warranted.
As Buzz has said a couple of times, MU realistically should be ranked 16th based on the returnees. This team will do better than 16th; but, its going to be a roller coaster ride. People should not have unrealistic expectations for this team. Comparing it to the Amigos frosh season is silly since these are different players and coaches in a BE that has changed. Can't wait until October to see how this all plays out.
-
As Buzz has said a couple of times, MU realistically should be ranked 16th based on the returnees. This team will do better than 16th; but, its going to be a roller coaster ride. People should not have unrealistic expectations for this team. Comparing it to the Amigos frosh season is silly since these are different players and coaches in a BE that has changed. Can't wait until October to see how this all plays out.
Based on the "number of returnees" logic, MSOE is going to be a challenge. ::)
Comparisons to the Amigo's frosh season are completely appropriate--this year's backcourt newcomers are coming in with similar accolades, but are more experienced. .
All three amigos were true freshmen. In this year's backcourt, only Cadougan is a frosh--DJO comes in with one year of college ball under his belt, Buycks has two years.
I get that a lot of people like to set expectations low--but a 12th place finish is as unrealistic as expecting a championship. We brought in experienced JUCO players so that we don't have a dropoff into the dregs of the league. This team absolutely should not finish below 8th place, and with a relatively easy draw on the mirror games, one could make the case that we should be competitive for 5th or 6th. There is far too much talent to expect that we'll be battling with DePaul, Rutgers, USF and St. Johns locked in a battle for 12th through 16th.
-
Couldn't agree more with 84 (hey that rhymes). People tend to be on two ends of the spectrum on this: either they are half-glass-empty and all we have back are Lazar and Butler and will suck, or expecting the new guys will come in and gel immediately like 05-06. Right now predictions are just meaningless. I think comparisons to Wes, Jerel and Dom are unwarranted but may turn out to be true. But to write off people who think we can be in the top half of the league as dreamers is just plain pessimistic. I just like the type of class Buzz has assembled and am excited to see these guys in MU uniforms.
-
If we finish 12th, that would be disappointing. Could happen, but I think we break the top 10...I should hope.
-
Based on the "number of returnees" logic, MSOE is going to be a challenge. ::)
Comparisons to the Amigo's frosh season are completely appropriate--this year's backcourt newcomers are coming in with similar accolades, but are more experienced. .
All three amigos were true freshmen. In this year's backcourt, only Cadougan is a frosh--DJO comes in with one year of college ball under his belt, Buycks has two years.
I get that a lot of people like to set expectations low--but a 12th place finish is as unrealistic as expecting a championship. We brought in experienced JUCO players so that we don't have a dropoff into the dregs of the league. This team absolutely should not finish below 8th place, and with a relatively easy draw on the mirror games, one could make the case that we should be competitive for 5th or 6th. There is far too much talent to expect that we'll be battling with DePaul, Rutgers, USF and St. Johns locked in a battle for 12th through 16th.
I get the point but have you seen each of our recruits? I understand, they're highly ranked. Rankings are fine, but there is no way to know for sure that these recruits are the real deal until they've actually played at Marquette. Even if they are very talented, who knows how well they will play as a TEAM. And I get that DJO and Buycks have more experience than high school, but you can't compare JUCO to the Big East.
Do I THINK we will be in the top half of the league? I actually do. But to say "This team absolutely should not finish below 8th place" I personally think is ridiculous. We have 2 proven players in Lazar and Butler, and even Butler is not truly proven. He was playing out of position and was a 6th man, not a go to guy. Other than that we have SEVEN newcomers. Not to mention a SECOND YEAR head coach. I THINK and HOPE that this team will take somewhere above 8th place, but I don't think it is anywhere near a given. Let's wait to see if these recruits really are THAT good.
Just for comparison's sake, the team that just graduated had 3 seniors who had started since day 1 on the team, who made up one of the best backcourts in the nation, took 6th in the league last year. I don't think it'd be that big of a shock to fall more than 2 spots in the league after losing 4 of 5 starters, including the 3 best players.
-
Remember Jimmi Butler is the only Buzz recruit so far to log any minutes and think how high we are on him. Now we have more initially heralded recruits than Jimmi. Hence if Buzz eye for talent is consistent we could have a kick butt team.
-
Uconn was a final four team this year with Thabeat. When Thabeat was a freshmen along with several other highly rated newcomers they did not make the NIT after entering the Big East undefeated. They played a bunch of nobody's in non-conference and got hammered in the Big East. I expect the same thing to happen to MU. There are very few JC players that have a high impact their first year in Division 1. It took Butler a half of season to become effective. Cadougan missing the summer sessions is going to hurt his start. Based on Rosiak's latest report it sounds like neither Otule or Roseboro are the answer at center. My guess is that Hayward, Butler, Maymon, Buycks and DJO are the starters at the start, with Cadougan eventually starting at point.
-
Based on the "number of returnees" logic, MSOE is going to be a challenge. ::)
Comparisons to the Amigo's frosh season are completely appropriate--this year's backcourt newcomers are coming in with similar accolades, but are more experienced. .
All three amigos were true freshmen. In this year's backcourt, only Cadougan is a frosh--DJO comes in with one year of college ball under his belt, Buycks has two years.
I get that a lot of people like to set expectations low--but a 12th place finish is as unrealistic as expecting a championship. We brought in experienced JUCO players so that we don't have a dropoff into the dregs of the league. This team absolutely should not finish below 8th place, and with a relatively easy draw on the mirror games, one could make the case that we should be competitive for 5th or 6th. There is far too much talent to expect that we'll be battling with DePaul, Rutgers, USF and St. Johns locked in a battle for 12th through 16th.
The comparisons are silly 84. We have one guy who has ever started a Div I game and another who played off the bench in his second semester. Other than that, the amigos were ighly touted as opposed to the incoming group which has come about in different ways to MU. You are beginging to sound like Murff ( if thats possible).
-
I still keep thinking this is 1991, which makes this pretty realistic.
In retrospect, I ranked that incoming class as our third best class of all-time, and think this class could be up there as well.
However, that year we were replacing All-American Tony Smith, this year we lost All-American Jerel McNeal.
We brought back two contributors that year and this:
1) One great contributor and our top rebounder in Trevor Powell, just as we bring back Lazar Hayward.
2) Our second decent contributor in Mark Anglavar, just as we have Jimmy Butler this year (albeit completely different players in a 3-point shooter and a great offensive rebounder).
The new guys were fantastic with Key scoring immediately, Curry pounding the glass and McIlvaine and Logterman showing some of their future potential.
However, the record in 1991 was 11-18. I'm just not sure a team built on one great returnee (Lazar), one very good one (Butler) and a ton of potential is going to be competitive this year. I'm not saying this to downplay our chances next year - I hope we do much better than that, I am saying it because I hope we don't boo the players next year if they falter like they were booed in 1991.
The records the next three years were 16-13, 20-8 and NCAA bid, and 24-9 and conference champion and Sweet 16 the fourth year (1994). Let's keep it in perspective. Hope we do great next year, but if we don't, I will still be thrilled with the potential for what we are building.
-
The comparisons are silly 84. We have one guy who has ever started a Div I game and another who played off the bench in his second semester. Other than that, the amigos were ighly touted as opposed to the incoming group which has come about in different ways to MU. You are beginging to sound like Murff ( if thats possible).
Here's how I see things:
Behind: WVU, Villanova, Louisville, UConn
About the same level as: Cincinnati, Georgetown, Seton Hall
Ahead of: DePaul, USF, Providence, Rutgers, St. Johns, Syracuse, Pitt, ND
I think one can make a reasonable argument for us to be expected to finish ahead of the 8 teams I see as behind us.
- Notre Dame lost 4 of their top 6, including 3 starters. Hayward and Harangody are probably about equal in overall talent. Jackson might be slightly better than Butler. Our recruits are better than theirs. We play them head to head at home.
- Pitt lost just as much starting experience as we did, their one returning starter isn't even close to being comparable to Hayward, and our incoming class is much higher rated. Every argument you can make for MU not being experience applies equally to Pitt. AND we play them head-to-head at home.
- Syracuse lost their three best players, and even though Rautins and Jackson split a starting role, I don't put either of them ahead of Jimmy Butler, even though Butler didn't start. I think one has to give the edge to Hayward over Onuaku. NBA draft projections do. So Syracuse will largely be going with untested players in the backcourt--except their newcomers aren't as highly rated as ours.
- St. Johns returns everyone from a 6-12 team. Oh, and they get Anthony Mason Jr. back, who anchored a 5-13 team the season before.
- Rutgers returns most of the starters from what was a pretty lousy team. I'll be charitable and suggest that Rosario and Hayward are roughly equal. Butler is as good as anyone else on their roster. Our recruits are significantly higher rated. I expect we should beat them head to head at home.
- Providence and USF lost as much as we did. And the replacements aren't rated as highly.
- DePaul lost their best player, but does return 4 starters from their 0-18 team. I guess that's good for something.
So that's eight teams right there where there is a more-than-reasonable case to be made that we should be expected to finish ahead of.
Cincy, Georgetown, and Seton Hall return more than we do, but all have question marks. These are the type of team that we SHOULD be competitive with.
If you want to make the case that we should be behind ND or Pitt or Syracuse, you'll have to do it on something other than MU's lack of experience--because these teams all have as much to replace as we do.
-
Syracuse has MO transfer Wesley Johnson coming in. He is very good. Losing Devendorf may be addition by subtraction. Also Mookie Jones is back off injury redshirt. SU also is significantly better inside than MU. G-Town simply underperformed last year. JTIII will have them back. ND brings in Scott Martin and Ben Hansborough to go with Tory Jackson and Harangody. The Irish will be better (and might even play some defense). Cincy and Seton Hall bring in some serious talent to go along with now experienced returnees of note. Rutgers has a rising star in Rosario and a slimmed down Echenique and they now have a point guard. MU had tons of trouble with USF even with the Amigos. Providence is in the same boat as MU albeit with far less incoming talent than MU. DePaul is, well, DePaul (but they do have experience and Tucker was not always on the same page).
I'm excited about MU's future under Buzz; but, this season just seems like it could be difficult. MU could play very well and still be 8-10 or 7-11. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
-
Syracuse has MO transfer Wesley Johnson coming in. He is very good. Losing Devendorf may be addition by subtraction. Also Mookie Jones is back off injury redshirt. SU also is significantly better inside than MU. G-Town simply underperformed last year. JTIII will have them back. ND brings in Scott Martin and Ben Hansborough to go with Tory Jackson and Harangody. The Irish will be better (and might even play some defense). Cincy and Seton Hall bring in some serious talent to go along with now experienced returnees of note. Rutgers has a rising star in Rosario and a slimmed down Echenique and they now have a point guard. MU had tons of trouble with USF even with the Amigos. Providence is in the same boat as MU albeit with far less incoming talent than MU. DePaul is, well, DePaul (but they do have experience and Tucker was not always on the same page).
I'm excited about MU's future under Buzz; but, this season just seems like it could be difficult. MU could play very well and still be 8-10 or 7-11. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
You hit the nail on the head, Nuke...
Syracuse is going to be very talented this year. Notre Dame is reloading with legitimate talent. G-Town has Monroe back (he would have likely been a lottery pick this year in the draft) and he has some talented players around him with a great coach. People tend to assume Rutgers and Seton Hall are crap, but they have some very solid players on their rosters and they're going to surprise a lot of teams. Pitt will be down, but don't forget that their recruiting classes are consistently better than ours on an annual basis and therefore the players on their bench that will be relied on to contribute this year aren't going to be scrubs by any stretch of the imagination. Cincy is on the rise...
The fact is, while we'd all like to think that our boys are going to compete at a very high level, let's face it, the chips are stacked HEAVILY against us. Personally I'd be extremely pleased with an 8th place finish in the conference. Even though everyone has deemed this coming season to be a down year in the Big East, Joe Lunardi still projects 8 or 9 teams to make the tourney...this a very talented league and we are a very young, raw, unproven team...so I'm going to hope for the best but expect mediocrity...
(I hope my expectations are terribly wrong)
-
Its hard to have expectations for this team. What will be will be. Same was true of the first BE season. The Amigos came on strong along with Novak and the role players did just that. That team had Novak, Chapman, Grimm, Barro, as returnees along with redhsirt transfer Fitzgerald to help the Amigos in their frosh season with the same head coach in place. The cupboard is not as full this time around. Will be an exciting season. I certainly do not expect mediocrity; but, I am realistic in understanding that the team could play well but still have a record well under .500 This is a rebuilding season for Buzz and Company.
-
- Syracuse lost their three best players, and even though Rautins and Jackson split a starting role, I don't put either of them ahead of Jimmy Butler, even though Butler didn't start. I think one has to give the edge to Hayward over Onuaku. NBA draft projections do. So Syracuse will largely be going with untested players in the backcourt--except their newcomers aren't as highly rated as ours.
Their second best player last year was sitting on the bench as a transfer, Wesley Johnson. He'll be eligible this year. They also get Mookie Jones and Scoop Jardine back from injury.
-
Their will not be one publication or expert that will pick us ahead of ND.
Obviously anything can happen but they return more then we do with Harangody and Jackson + role players who should improve in Nash and Peoples.
Martin and Hansborough are proven players at the D 1 level.
We have lots of potential in our squad but for anyone to be able to try and predict what this team will do is silly because nobody can have any reasonable idea.
-
Their will not be one publication or expert that will pick us ahead of ND.
I agree. The thing that bugs me is that the same statement held true regarding the expert opinions last year. I could never understand why ND received so much preseason hype last year.
-
Their will not be one publication or expert that will pick us ahead of ND.
Obviously anything can happen but they return more then we do with Harangody and Jackson + role players who should improve in Nash and Peoples.
Martin and Hansborough are proven players at the D 1 level.
We have lots of potential in our squad but for anyone to be able to try and predict what this team will do is silly because nobody can have any reasonable idea.
I don't think its unreasonable to expect that a #1 recruiting class with two solid returnees should be expected to be a top-half team in our league.
Apparently, I am not supposed assume that our guys are capable of living up to their reputation until they actually prove it.
I am supposed assume that any other team's new recruits have improved dramatically from their last stop (e.g. Wesley Johnson, who led Iowa State to 11th place in the B12 before transferring).
I am supposed to believe that players added to everyone else's roster will gel as a team instantly, while it will take our players at least a full season to become comfortable playing with one another.
I am supposed to assume that other team's players coming off injury will not only come back without missing a beat, but demonstrate substantial improvement (Mookie Jones & Scoop Jardine).
Apparently, I am supposed to accept that our newcomers are incapable of performing well until they have a year in the system--that it is unfair to expect that our top 100 frosh or top 10 Jucos will have initial year contributions of players like DeJuan Blair, Devin Ebanks, Yancy Gates, Kemba Walker, Samardo Samuels, Sam Young, Terrance Jennings,Luke Harangody, Oniuku, Rosario, and yes, even McNeal, James and Matthews.
I'm sorry, but I can't understand the logic of someone saying that "well, Ben Hansborogh and Mookie Jones are much better than Dwight Buycks and Darius Johnson-Odom THIS year, but just wait until NEXT year after our guys have a year under their belts." What is going to happen? Will Buycks and Johnson-Odom magically become more talented while all development by Hansborogh and Jones stops?
The only exception I'll grant is for a guy who is not physically mature--Mbao, Roseboro, perhaps Erik Williams. A juco transfer who can't be 100% by the time conference season starts is probably not going to get there next year either.
If Jeronne Maymon can't hold his own against a middle-of-the-pack team now, how is he going to be good enough down the road to lead us to a championship? If we expect that he's going to lead us to be like Pitt as he gets better, shouldn't he be capable of delivering what Blair or Young did when THEY were frosh?
-
One service believes MU has the #1 recruiting class, and it's the least respected of all the services. The ranking is based on their ranking of JUCO players, which history has shown is marginally accurate at best. They give the same ranking to Dwight Buycks and DJO that they gave to Marcus Jackson, Ousmane Barro, Mike Kinsella and Jamil Lott. You need to look at the other services to get a more accurate reading. Scout has MU at #18. ESPN has MU at #14. Rivals has MU at #17. Good, but not #1, not even close.
To continue to refer the class as the #1 recruiting class is purposeful misinformation and you know it.
-
One service believes MU has the #1 recruiting class, and it's the least respected of all the services. The ranking is based on their ranking of JUCO players, which history has shown is marginally accurate at best. They give the same ranking to Dwight Buycks and DJO that they gave to Marcus Jackson, Ousmane Barro, Mike Kinsella and Jamil Lott. You need to look at the other services to get a more accurate reading. Scout has MU at #18. ESPN has MU at #14. Rivals has MU at #17. Good, but not #1, not even close.
To continue to refer the class as the #1 recruiting class is purposeful misinformation and you know it.
completely agree.
-
One service believes MU has the #1 recruiting class, and it's the least respected of all the services. The ranking is based on their ranking of JUCO players, which history has shown is marginally accurate at best. They give the same ranking to Dwight Buycks and DJO that they gave to Marcus Jackson, Ousmane Barro, Mike Kinsella and Jamil Lott. You need to look at the other services to get a more accurate reading. Scout has MU at #18. ESPN has MU at #14. Rivals has MU at #17. Good, but not #1, not even close.
To continue to refer the class as the #1 recruiting class is purposeful misinformation and you know it.
"Purposeful misinformation" that would result in unreasonable expectations for MU and Buzz this year. Hmmm...kinda sounds like the work of someone with an "agenda", no?
-
One service believes MU has the #1 recruiting class, and it's the least respected of all the services. The ranking is based on their ranking of JUCO players, which history has shown is marginally accurate at best. They give the same ranking to Dwight Buycks and DJO that they gave to Marcus Jackson, Ousmane Barro, Mike Kinsella and Jamil Lott. You need to look at the other services to get a more accurate reading. Scout has MU at #18. ESPN has MU at #14. Rivals has MU at #17. Good, but not #1, not even close.
To continue to refer the class as the #1 recruiting class is purposeful misinformation and you know it.
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
(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.
Second, I seem to recall someone comparing rankings recently, and when I look at where HoopScoop ranks players (HSC in your tables below), they seem to be right in line with the composite RSCI:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5GvDUFklt88/ShNTdvLNdvI/AAAAAAAAACc/Sw3TH9Zm_mc/s400/2000s.JPG)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5GvDUFklt88/ShNREc-lXpI/AAAAAAAAACM/8jvXRt1jRe4/s1600/0708.JPG)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5GvDUFklt88/ShNSLZPIZjI/AAAAAAAAACU/HpO2ZcNjUTA/s400/2009.JPG)
And even admit the guys you mention above were skewed by injuries--to Jackson his junior year, to Kinsella every year he was at MU. And you didn't even mention that Lott's junior year he missed extensive time because of mono.
So is Hoop Scoop "marginally accurate" becuase they failed to predict nagging injuries. Kinsella had a good year at JUCO. NOw that he's healthy he's having success in Europe. I fail to see that we should indict their judgement because they didn't predict multiple years of injuires. I think if Kinsella had been healthy, he may well have matched the performance of 2004's #37 Greg Steimsma or #43 Shasha Kuan.
http://www.eurobasket.com/player.asp?Cntry=ROM&PlayerID=91143 (http://www.eurobasket.com/player.asp?Cntry=ROM&PlayerID=91143)
Finally let's look at recent performance by Hoop Scoop on Butler. They ranked him 41-70. Let's compare Butler to some other guys across that range:
#41 Tony Woods (tied for best in the 41-70 range):
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=41040
#41 Jerime Anderson (tied for best in the 41-70 range):
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=41012
#55 Xavier Gibson (middle of range):
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/gamelog?playerId=40971
#70 Renaldo Woolridge (top of range):
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=41340
I think Hoop Scoop if anything underestimated Jimmy Butler.
Your implication that they always overestimate JUCO players is purposeful misinformation as well. You glossed over the impact of injuries, and ignored more contemporary examples like Jimmy Butler.
All that having been said, I still don't understand how a group that can't come within four places of the Amigos as freshmen will somehow magically become significantly better at some indeterminate future point.
In other words--if we don't start out better than SU or ND or Pitt THIS year, how will we wind up better next year after Hayward has graduated, but SU still has Jones and Oniaku and Jardine, ND still has Hansborough and Pitt still has their newcomers? Won't those guys get better as well?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
I am now officially ignoring my first poster. What a tiresome boob.
-
boob.
Best part of this thread so far.
-
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
(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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ivan Renko
Thats one reason why Clark Francis is one of the least respected "guru's" out there.
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Fine--you think BU had better finishers than MU. I think Jerel, Wes and Lazar were FAR more capable of finishing than anyone on BU's squad. Lets just agree to disagree on this, end of story.
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.
So do we get to count Erik Williams a Crean recruit as well? ::)
I think you're forgetting that Buzz recruited these players as an MU assistant. It wasn't as if all of a sudden he "forced to scramble" He was already out recruiting on MU's dime to find players to attend MU. The only thing that changed was that his business card said "head" instead of "assistant".
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.
So now you're no longer comparing to Crean's "average" class, you're singling out "the dregs TC historically brought to MU in the late signing period." Nice.
Why don't you focus on the core rotation both coaches have recruited?
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.
I've offered you to tell me exactly how this comparison is flawed--but you give me generalities like 'these are different teams with different players'. Funny, the "different teams/players" argument wasn't a factor when it comes time for you to declare Buzz a better recruiter or coach.
Let me remind you how closely the two teams match up in terms of position and experience:
Starters:
- Novak (sr) vs. Hayward (sr)
- Chapman (sr) vs. Butler (jr)
- McNeal (fr) vs. DJO (soph)
- James (fr) vs. Buycks (jr) and Cadougan (fr)
- Matthews (fr) vs. Erik Williams (fr)
Bench:- Amoroso (so)/Burke(fr) vs. Maymon (fr)
- Barro (so) vs. Otule (so)
- Lott (Jr. Juco transfer) vs. Fulce (Jr. Juco transfer)
- Fitzgerald (soph transfer) vs. Roseboro (fr)
- Kinsella (so Juco Transfer) vs. Mbao (fr)
- Grimm (sr) vs. Cubillan (sr)
I'm not sure why you keep saying these teams aren't comparable. I think position by position, it provides the opportunity for an almost perfect comparison.
Actually, I know exactly why you claim the comparison is flawed. You know in your heart of hearts that its highly unlikely that 2010 will match the 2006 performance. But you don't want to offer even begrudging credit to Crean for recruiting and coaching that 2006 team.
As I've consistently said, the jury is still out on Buzz. I'm not making a decision based on my personal feelings toward either coach--I'm going to use the on-court performance. If Buzz surpasses Crean's accomplishments, i'll be the first one to give him credit.
I don't think Buzz has proven anything yet--this year will be a good test.
-
Fine--you think BU had better finishers than MU. I think Jerel, Wes and Lazar were FAR more capable of finishing than anyone on BU's squad. Lets just agree to disagree on this, end of story.
So do we get to count Erik Williams a Crean recruit as well? ::)
I think you're forgetting that Buzz recruited these players as an MU assistant. It wasn't as if all of a sudden he "forced to scramble" He was already out recruiting on MU's dime to find players to attend MU. The only thing that changed was that his business card said "head" instead of "assistant".
So now you're no longer comparing to Crean's "average" class, you're singling out "the dregs TC historically brought to MU in the late signing period." Nice.
Why don't you focus on the core rotation both coaches have recruited?
I've offered you to tell me exactly how this comparison is flawed--but you give me generalities like 'these are different teams with different players'. Funny, the "different teams/players" argument wasn't a factor when it comes time for you to declare Buzz a better recruiter or coach.
Let me remind you how closely the two teams match up in terms of position and experience:
Starters:
- Novak (sr) vs. Hayward (sr)
- Chapman (sr) vs. Butler (jr)
- McNeal (fr) vs. DJO (soph)
- James (fr) vs. Buycks (jr) and Cadougan (fr)
- Matthews (fr) vs. Erik Williams (fr)
Bench:- Amoroso (so)/Burke(fr) vs. Maymon (fr)
- Barro (so) vs. Otule (so)
- Lott (Jr. Juco transfer) vs. Fulce (Jr. Juco transfer)
- Fitzgerald (soph transfer) vs. Roseboro (fr)
- Kinsella (so Juco Transfer) vs. Mbao (fr)
- Grimm (sr) vs. Cubillan (sr)
I'm not sure why you keep saying these teams aren't comparable. I think position by position, it provides the opportunity for an almost perfect comparison.
Actually, I know exactly why you claim the comparison is flawed. You know in your heart of hearts that its highly unlikely that 2010 will match the 2006 performance. But you don't want to offer even begrudging credit to Crean for recruiting and coaching that 2006 team.
As I've consistently said, the jury is still out on Buzz. I'm not making a decision based on my personal feelings toward either coach--I'm going to use the on-court performance. If Buzz surpasses Crean's accomplishments, i'll be the first one to give him credit.
I don't think Buzz has proven anything yet--this year will be a good test.
You are certainly entitled to any whacky theories you choose. You are not, however, entitled to distort my words and their meanings. I made the simple statement that the easier the competition (both internally and externally) the better a player's numbers (statistics) would be. In other words, a good player on a good HIGH D1 team would become a DOMINANT player on a LOW D1 team.
Last year, for example, Jonathon Jones (Oakland) and Brock Young (East Carolina) were nos. 1 and 2 in assists per game in D1, easily outdistancing, among others, Ty Lawson of North Carolina. I think we can agree that Lawson played with the very "best finishers" in college basketball at UNC. Ergo, his numbers would dip (based on your theory) if he was forced to play with Jones or Young's teamates, widening the statistical gap between them. I think that even you will agree that this is unlikely since Lawson isa much better player than Jones or Young. What would happen is that Lawson, being head and shoulders above both his teamates and opponents, would dominate at an Oakland or East Carolina. The same holds true for DJ at a place like Bighamton.
I'm waiting for your acknowledgement regarding your distortions of my position. When received I'll respond to the rest of your post.
-
Hey guys,
Isn't there already a 2006 vs 2010 thread?
Can't we merge this pissing match in with the other one?
I'm not sure starting/redirecting a new thread is really helping either of your cases.
EDIT: For the record, my statement in this thread has nothing to do with Lenny, but rather just do to the time I read the thread and had time to respond.
I'm not taking sides. I just think this debate could be contained in 1 thread.
-
Hey guys,
Isn't there already a 2006 vs 2010 thread?
Can't we merge this pissing match in with the other one?
I'm not sure starting/redirecting a new thread is really helping either of your cases.
The "2006 vs 2010 thread" as you call it has indeed been talked to death. Since 2005-6 represented TC best coaching performance in a 10 year career 84 wants it to be the gold standard in evaluating TC vs Buzz. The majority of the board sees through the ruse and is on record to that effect. My last post, though, has nothing to do with 84 or anyone else painting a biased (pro or con) assessment of the Crean era. It's about posters intentionally misrepresenting other's statements.
84's post (including his ongoing 2006-10 rant which has become his holy grail) was up for almost 24 hours before I responded to the part that was most egregiously dishonest personally towards me - a part, by the way, that had nothing to do with 2006 vs 2010. Yet you waited until after my reply to offer your 2 cents/lecture. Wonder why that is?
-
I think what Lenny is trying to say 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."
;)
-
You are certainly entitled to any whacky theories you choose. You are not, however, entitled to distort my words and their meanings. I made the simple statement that the easier the competition (both internally and externally) the better a player's numbers (statistics) would be. In other words, a good player on a good HIGH D1 team would become a DOMINANT player on a LOW D1 team.
Last year, for example, Jonathon Jones (Oakland) and Brock Young (East Carolina) were nos. 1 and 2 in assists per game in D1, easily outdistancing, among others, Ty Lawson of North Carolina. I think we can agree that Lawson played with the very "best finishers" in college basketball at UNC. Ergo, his numbers would dip (based on your theory) if he was forced to play with Jones or Young's teamates, widening the statistical gap between them. I think that even you will agree that this is unlikely since Lawson isa much better player than Jones or Young. What would happen is that Lawson, being head and shoulders above both his teamates and opponents, would dominate at an Oakland or East Carolina. The same holds true for DJ at a place like Bighamton.
I'm waiting for your acknowledgement regarding your distortions of my position. When received I'll respond to the rest of your post.
Let me make this absolutely clear for you:
I remain convinced that if you put Tiki Mayben on MU's team, he would have more assists than he had at Binghamton. Likewise, I am convinced that if James played for Binghamon, his assists levels would fall. Both of these are a direct reflection of the relative quality of the finishers of the two teams.
I believe that Lawson's assist numbers would drop if he went to Oakland or East Carolina-- for much the same reason.
I am confident making that statement about Mayben because he had a reputation as an outstanding passer in HS, was good enough to be ranked #43 on RSCI out of HS, was signed by Jim Boeheim to play at Syracuse (but didn't make the academic cut).
I haven't looked at Young or Jones so I'm not going to comment on them.
Is that clear enough for you?
Now, I've stated this very clearly on several occasions, and all you seem to be able to do is reply with insults. If you want to disagree, then just say you disagree.
Finally, your willingness to pepper your posts with terms like "clueless", "sophomoric", "intellectually dishonest", "whacky," or any of the other loaded words you use leaves me unsympathetic to your hurt feelings over any self-perceived "distortion" of your view.
-
84's post (including his ongoing 2006-10 rant which has become his holy grail) was up for almost 24 hours before I responded to the part that was most egregiously dishonest personally towards me - a part, by the way, that had nothing to do with 2006 vs 2010. Yet you waited until after my reply to offer your 2 cents/lecture. Wonder why that is?
Good grief, Lenny.
The fact that I posted after one of your posts has nothing to with you. Please don't read anything into that.
Mods, can you can move my original post up in the chain to go after one of MU84's posts so it doesn't seem like I'm taking sides? I think both people in this argument are equally annoying.
-
Good grief, Lenny.
The fact that I posted after one of your posts has nothing to with you. Please don't read anything into that.
Mods, can you can move my original post up in the chain to go after one of MU84's posts so it doesn't seem like I'm taking sides? I think both people in this argument are equally annoying.
Fine--you want me--here I am.
In fact, I'll take your shot and hit it right back:
You've made two posts in this thread--both of which were complaints about the direction the discussion has taken. I thought this was a Marquette basketball board--not a "Complain About the Direction Threads may take" board.
You yourself haven't offered any opinion, agreement, disagreement, added facts, considered response, or other significant contribution, other than to state that you "don't want to take sides" or find these discussions "annoying."
Has anything I or anyone else said prevented you from participating?
If you want to participate in the discussion--then participate. If you want to go in a different direction, post some opinions. Agree. Disagree. Whatever.
I may disagree with Lenny, but this type of post is more annoying because its cloaked in a holier-than-thou tone of self-appointed guardian of what we should and should not talk about.
BTW, if you don't like the direction the thread has taken in the comparision of 06 versus 10, then go after Nukem--he was the one who first inserted it into the discussion in the fifth post of the thread:
"People should not have unrealistic expectations for this team. Comparing it to the Amigos frosh season is silly since these are different players and coaches in a BE that has changed. "
I responded by saying that the comparison is absolutely appropriate--and things took off from there.
Since that post, every post I've made has been to respond to a shot taken at me by someone else--including yours.
Now, aren't you glad you insisted that your post should have been under one of mine? ;D
-
Fine--you want me--here I am.
In fact, I'll take your shot and hit it right back:
You've made two posts in this thread--both of which were complaints about the direction the discussion has taken. I thought this was a Marquette basketball board--not a "Complain About the Direction Threads may take" board.
You yourself haven't offered any opinion, agreement, disagreement, added facts, considered response, or other significant contribution, other than to state that you "don't want to take sides" or find these discussions "annoying."
Has anything I or anyone else said prevented you from participating?
If you want to participate in the discussion--then participate. If you want to go in a different direction, post some opinions. Agree. Disagree. Whatever.
I may disagree with Lenny, but this type of post is more annoying because its cloaked in a holier-than-thou tone of self-appointed guardian of what we should and should not talk about.
BTW, if you don't like the direction the thread has taken in the comparision of 06 versus 10, then go after Nukem--he was the one who first inserted it into the discussion in the fifth post of the thread:
"People should not have unrealistic expectations for this team. Comparing it to the Amigos frosh season is silly since these are different players and coaches in a BE that has changed. "
I responded by saying that the comparison is absolutely appropriate--and things took off from there.
Since that post, every post I've made has been to respond to a shot taken at me by someone else--including yours.
Now, aren't you glad you insisted that your post should have been under one of mine? ;D
Yikes.
I just thought we could combine threads (seen as there was already one on this very topic), I didn't mean for this to turn into such an issue.
This thread started about the Big East preview, and degenerated into something between you an Lenny.
I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't openly admit that this has happened to me before, so I assure you that I'm holier-than-nobody.
I'm out.
Back to your regularly scheduled debating.
-
Fine--you want me--here I am.
In fact, I'll take your shot and hit it right back:
You've made two posts in this thread--both of which were complaints about the direction the discussion has taken. I thought this was a Marquette basketball board--not a "Complain About the Direction Threads may take" board.
You yourself haven't offered any opinion, agreement, disagreement, added facts, considered response, or other significant contribution, other than to state that you "don't want to take sides" or find these discussions "annoying."
Has anything I or anyone else said prevented you from participating?
If you want to participate in the discussion--then participate. If you want to go in a different direction, post some opinions. Agree. Disagree. Whatever.
I may disagree with Lenny, but this type of post is more annoying because its cloaked in a holier-than-thou tone of self-appointed guardian of what we should and should not talk about.
BTW, if you don't like the direction the thread has taken in the comparision of 06 versus 10, then go after Nukem--he was the one who first inserted it into the discussion in the fifth post of the thread:
"People should not have unrealistic expectations for this team. Comparing it to the Amigos frosh season is silly since these are different players and coaches in a BE that has changed. "
I responded by saying that the comparison is absolutely appropriate--and things took off from there.
Since that post, every post I've made has been to respond to a shot taken at me by someone else--including yours.
Now, aren't you glad you insisted that your post should have been under one of mine? ;D
I'm 100% with you on this. 2002 reminds me of the guy in the old Miller Lite "less filling/tastes better" commercials who "feels very strongly both ways". Being annoyed by people just because they actually express real opinions on a message board is annoying to me.
-
I think what Lenny is trying to say 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."
;)
Touche.
-
Let me make this absolutely clear for you:
I remain convinced that if you put Tiki Mayben on MU's team, he would have more assists than he had at Binghamton. Likewise, I am convinced that if James played for Binghamon, his assists levels would fall. Both of these are a direct reflection of the relative quality of the finishers of the two teams.
I believe that Lawson's assist numbers would drop if he went to Oakland or East Carolina-- for much the same reason.
I am confident making that statement about Mayben because he had a reputation as an outstanding passer in HS, was good enough to be ranked #43 on RSCI out of HS, was signed by Jim Boeheim to play at Syracuse (but didn't make the academic cut).
I haven't looked at Young or Jones so I'm not going to comment on them.
Is that clear enough for you?
Now, I've stated this very clearly on several occasions, and all you seem to be able to do is reply with insults. If you want to disagree, then just say you disagree.
Finally, your willingness to pepper your posts with terms like "clueless", "sophomoric", "intellectually dishonest", "whacky," or any of the other loaded words you use leaves me unsympathetic to your hurt feelings over any self-perceived "distortion" of your view.
I apologize and I really disagree. I honestly didn't think you really believed that as a player moved down the ladder to play with and against weaker competition his numbers would suffer. Can we therefore assume that your stance would be that, say, Michael Jordan would have been nearly invisible in the NBDL? Or that a starter on the 8th grade team would see his numbers dip if he moved down to the 7th grade team? This goes counter to everything I've seen and experienced in 50+ years of playing and watching sports. I'd be interested in actual examples of this proving true if you can provide them.
-
I'm 100% with you on this. 2002 reminds me of the guy in the old Miller Lite "less filling/tastes better" commercials who "feels very strongly both ways". Being annoyed by people just because they actually express real opinions on a message board is annoying to me.
Dude,
Notice I didn't say you couldn't have your opinions. I just suggested that you guys keep it in the applicable thread.
And yes, I'm well aware that you don't think I have strong enough opinions. I apologize that you find it so off-putting.
-
I apologize and I really disagree. I honestly didn't think you really believed that as a player moved down the ladder to play with and against weaker competition his numbers would suffer. Can we therefore assume that your stance would be that, say, Michael Jordan would have been nearly invisible in the NBDL? Or that a starter on the 8th grade team would see his numbers dip if he moved down to the 7th grade team? This goes counter to everything I've seen and experienced in 50+ years of playing and watching sports. I'd be interested in actual examples of this proving true if you can provide them.
Why don't we just go all the way and put Jordan on that 7th grade team.
In that case I still say yes, I think his assist numbers would go down. I cannot see how his 7th grade teammate would finish shots as well as, say, Scottie Pippen. And since you need your receiver to make the basket to get credit for an assist, I would say that at the 7th grade level, chances for assists will be few and far between.
I'll grant you, however, that his scoring would probably go up. ;)
-
Agenda alert for 84 once again.
Let's compare Lombardi's Packers to Belicheats Patriots.
Different times, schedules, rules, injuries, timing of schedules and on and on to make a black and white comparison. Can you look at it? I guess. But to expect this class to do as well as that class is absurd and reeks of someone who has an ax to grind. You really are one different cat with your obsession 84.
-
Agenda alert for 84 once again.
Let's compare Lombardi's Packers to Belicheats Patriots.
Different times, schedules, rules, injuries, timing of schedules and on and on to make a black and white comparison. Can you look at it? I guess. But to expect this class to do as well as that class is absurd and reeks of someone who has an ax to grind. You really are one different cat with your obsession 84.
And we could say the same thing about you Silky. It's a good thing no on one Lombardi's Packers ever cheated or violated NFL rules, too...cough...cough.
-
Agenda alert for 84 once again.
Let's compare Lombardi's Packers to Belicheats Patriots.
Different times, schedules, rules, injuries, timing of schedules and on and on to make a black and white comparison. Can you look at it? I guess. But to expect this class to do as well as that class is absurd and reeks of someone who has an ax to grind. You really are one different cat with your obsession 84.
This is hyperbole to the extreme. Wouldn't you say that a comparison between two different NFL franchises that are separated by 50 years is a little bit less accurate than one between two NCAA teams separated by 4 years?
It doesn't matter if you think it's an apples to apples comparison or not. Certainly everyone should be able to admit that both seasons had some big pre-season similarities:
1) big roster turnover, with 1 major contributor and a few role players returning
2) 3 starting positions open for new players from day 1
3) low expectations, or at best uncertain but hopeful
There are certainly differences as well. But to say that they are in no way comparable is disingenuous. Expecting the same results for 2010 as 2006 is unfair as well because the 2006 team achieved about as much as they possibly could have. I know I am hoping for this team to similarly maximize their talents and achieve similar results, but I'm certainly not expecting it.
-
Agenda alert for 84 once again.
Let's compare Lombardi's Packers to Belicheats Patriots.
I think if you had read Lenny's previous post, you'd understand the comparison.
Different times, schedules, rules, injuries, timing of schedules and on and on to make a black and white comparison.
Really?
Then I guess you cannot reasonably conclude that Al McGuire was a better coach than Bob Dukiet. After all, you say that "different times, schedules, rules, injuries, timing of schedules and on and on" make a black-and-white comparison impossible.
I have no problem calling Al a better coach, even though they coached different players in different eras.
But to expect this class to do as well as that class is absurd and reeks of someone who has an ax to grind. You really are one different cat with your obsession 84.
I have *not* said this year should do as well as 2006. I am being criticized for stating an expectation (.500/8th place) that is already well behind where the 2006 team finished (10-6/4th place).
Apparently, I have not lowered expectations sufficiently to satisfy those who think that I have an "agenda" or an "ax to grind."
The irony is that the same people who chide me for setting expectations too high will turn around and argue that Buzz has already proven to be a better coach and better recruiter--even though they themselves admit that the team is unlikely to equal or surpass the performance of Crean-recruited and -coached teams over the past several years.
-
The important thing in all of this bantering is,
whose dad can beat up whose?