Take a look.
http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1088254
Great news for Jimmy and MU.
Any chance this could help Lazar's draft stock? I realize its a stretch...
Quote from: GOMU85 on May 27, 2010, 07:48:59 AM
Take a look.
http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1088254
Not bad for a guy that some here argue has the talent of a 300+ ranked HS senior. :)
Quote from: crosscheck on May 27, 2010, 09:03:20 AM
Great news for Jimmy and MU.
Any chance this could help Lazar's draft stock? I realize its a stretch...
Seriously?
Quote from: crosscheck on May 27, 2010, 09:03:20 AM
Great news for Jimmy and MU.
Any chance this could help Lazar's draft stock? I realize its a stretch...
I don't think the NBA GMs are running to the Rivals Top Seniors list to gain insights on this year's class.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on May 27, 2010, 09:46:38 AM
I don't think the NBA GMs are running to the Rivals Top Seniors list to gain insights on this year's class.
Aw, shucks.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 27, 2010, 09:20:57 AM
Not bad for a guy that some here argue has the talent of a 300+ ranked HS senior. :)
Actually it was Scout, Rivals, Hoop Scoop and every other scouting service that rated him 300+ out of high school - not me. And when he looked lost early in his career at MU, some posters -not me - were even less kind, calling him a wasted scholarship. Hard work and great coaching have since seen him develop into an outstanding player. Kudos to Jimmy and the staff.
With our decorated returning roster, anything less than a Big East championship would be a huge underachievement by Buzz.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 27, 2010, 10:32:43 AM
With our decorated returning roster, anything less than a Big East championship would be a huge underachievement by Buzz.
PRN I assume you're one of the people that thinks the use of teal is unnecessary?
It's OK, PR. I caught the implied teal. ;)
Man is it aggrevating to see Cothron and Harris on the impact freshmen list when I wanted them in an MU uni so bad...would have put this team into contention right off the bat. Hopefully we have a diamond in the rough in Gardners addition to the frontcourt.
God, it seems so distant long ago, but remember when our lineup could have been....
PG: Dominic James
SG: Jerel Mcneal
SF: Wesley Matthews
PF: Jimmy Butler
C: Lazar Hayward
On paper that looks like the scariest team in the country.
Huh?
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on May 27, 2010, 12:27:03 PM
God, it seems so distant long ago, but remember when our lineup could have been....
PG: Dominic James
SG: Jerel Mcneal
SF: Wesley Matthews
PF: Jimmy Butler
C: Lazar Hayward
On paper that looks like the scariest team in the country.
Could have been? T'was after Jimmy started coming on in games.
Great company for Jimmy. Hope he can meet/exceed these expectations.
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on May 27, 2010, 12:27:03 PM
God, it seems so distant long ago, but remember when our lineup could have been....
PG: Dominic James
SG: Jerel Mcneal
SF: Wesley Matthews
PF: Jimmy Butler
C: Lazar Hayward
On paper that looks like the scariest team in the country.
I don't get it.... ?-( ?-( ?-(
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 27, 2010, 10:27:38 AM
Actually it was Scout, Rivals, Hoop Scoop and every other scouting service that rated him 300+ out of high school - not me.
But you dug up their data and quoted them to
support of your case! You agreed with them!
Here's what *I* said about Butler's 2010 season compared to the others in 2004:
"Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend." And here's how *you* replied in your attempt to dispute my claim:
Butler wasn''t in the top 300. And later, you reiterated it:
I think it's pretty safe to say that a high school senior rated #50 is more TALENTED than a high school senior rated #300.Now, if we had been making a comparison of, say, Scott Merritt in 2000 to Jimmy Butler in 2007, your point is vaild. Because those gurus you quoted made those statements in 2007 for Butler and 2000 for Merritt.
But I was comparing Scott Merritt in
2004 to Jimmy Butler in
2010. I don't think the 2000 and 2007 HS ratings accurately reflected the respective player's talents two to four years out of HS.
You apparently did.
And this article sure seems to validate which of us was right.
Quote from: mosarsour on May 27, 2010, 02:27:44 PM
I don't get it.... ?-( ?-( ?-(
i dont know where i was goin with this either, lets just pretend i didn't write it.
Nothing Lenny said was factually incorrect. Butler was not highly recruited coming out of high school. Merritt was highly recruited coming out of high school. One player exceeded his ranking by leaps and bounds, one player did not.
Lenny was arguing apples to apples--comparing what players were ranked coming out of high school. The same scouts who do this for a living and have a whole heck of a lot more makes than misses.
Meanwhile, you're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, DJO, Butler, Buycks, and Fulce made some sort of all-american in JUCO. Would Merritt, Diener, Novak, Chapman, Mason...etc been all-americans in JUCO? We'll never know, that's why its a huge jump to say Butler is more "talented" than Merritt. And this isn't mentioning that MU lost 2 of its best recruits due to injury and ego before conference play even started.
Overall, I agree with Lenny that last year's team had less God given talent as compared to the 2004 team. One team exceeded expectations, one team fell short of expectations.
To get back on topic, congratulations to Jimmy. He has come a long way from the first part of his sophomore year when he often seemed tentative on the court in deference to the 3 seniors. I really think he'll make another leap this summer, continue to be much more aggressive, and have a huge year this year.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 27, 2010, 05:18:12 PM
But you dug up their data and quoted them to support of your case! You agreed with them!
Here's what *I* said about Butler's 2010 season compared to the others in 2004:
"Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend."
And here's how *you* replied in your attempt to dispute my claim:
Butler wasn''t in the top 300.
And later, you reiterated it:
I think it's pretty safe to say that a high school senior rated #50 is more TALENTED than a high school senior rated #300.
Now, if we had been making a comparison of, say, Scott Merritt in 2000 to Jimmy Butler in 2007, your point is vaild. Because those gurus you quoted made those statements in 2007 for Butler and 2000 for Merritt.
But I was comparing Scott Merritt in 2004 to Jimmy Butler in 2010. I don't think the 2000 and 2007 HS ratings accurately reflected the respective player's talents two to four years out of HS.
You apparently did.
And this article sure seems to validate which of us was right.
So you agree that Merritt was WAY better in 2000 than Butler was in 2007. And your point is that after 1 year of jc and 1 year of Buzz's coaching Butler was better than Merritt was after spending 3 years under Crean's wing. But I never said that where your talent put you coming out of high school couldn't be mitigated by hard work and a coach who can develop and utilize talent. Thanks for helping to illustrate my point concerning the importance of good coaching.
I'll take Jimmy Butler over Scott Merrit anyday
Quote from: GOMU85 on May 27, 2010, 06:58:28 PM
I'll take Jimmy Butler over Scott Merrit anyday
AGREED.
Soft Mer...I mean, Scott...was brutally average.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 27, 2010, 06:38:56 PM
Nothing Lenny said was factually incorrect. Butler was not highly recruited coming out of high school. Merritt was highly recruited coming out of high school. One player exceeded his ranking by leaps and bounds, one player did not.
Of course it wasn't factually incorrect. It was just out of context and intentionally misleading.
Lenny pretended that Butler never developed after he left high school and was still that 300+ ranked player in 2010.
Its obvious that he wasn't the same player he was in HS, so his HS rank was completely irrelevant to the discussion (even if it was factually correct).
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 27, 2010, 06:38:56 PM
Lenny was arguing apples to apples--comparing what players were ranked coming out of high school. The same scouts who do this for a living and have a whole heck of a lot more makes than misses.
No.
Lenny was trying to change the playing field.
He didn't want to compare 2004 to 2010. He wanted to compare which players had developed further since HS.
Its perfectly valid to compare Merritt in 2004 to Butler in 2010. Statsheet makes is extremely easy to do so:
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=scott-merritt&i=1&p1=jimmy-butler (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=scott-merritt&i=1&p1=jimmy-butler)
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 27, 2010, 06:38:56 PM
Meanwhile, you're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, DJO, Butler, Buycks, and Fulce made some sort of all-american in JUCO. Would Merritt, Diener, Novak, Chapman, Mason...etc been all-americans in JUCO? We'll never know, that's why its a huge jump to say Butler is more "talented" than Merritt.
I'm comparing two ACTUAL teams and ACTUAL performances. Can't be any more apples to apples than that.
Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 27, 2010, 06:38:56 PM
And this isn't mentioning that MU lost 2 of its best recruits due to injury and ego before conference play even started.
First, how do you know those were the best recruits? You just said you can't compare HS top 100 to Juco rankings. But now you claim those HS players were better than the Jucos?
But more importantly, so what? Those players weren't a part of my comparison, were they? Did I say that Buzz had more talent because he had Maymon and Cadougan? No. I compared the actual teams.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 27, 2010, 06:45:41 PM
But I never said that where your talent put you coming out of high school couldn't be mitigated by hard work and a coach who can develop and utilize talent.
In other words, due to hard work, maturity, and coaching, by 2010 Butler was arguably more talented than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend were in 2004.
You can't have it both ways on this. You can't give credit to Buzz for making Butler better than Merrit, and at the same time say that Crean had more talent in 2004 because he had Merritt.
x
Your in the top 10 on a senior list, that is pretty good for Jimmy!!
84, why was the 2004 team so untalented (in your eyes)? That was Crean's 5th year and it came on the heels of 2 straight very strong seasons. Same question with the 2005 team. MU lost only lost one player early due to leaving for the pros. Why didn't Crean recruit/develop players better during those seasons so that there would be more talent (in your eyes)? Why did the 2006 recruiting class have to save a sinking ship?
The very reliable and dependable professional recruiting services thought the 2004 squad had more natural talent than the 2010 team. Numerous coaches also mentioned last year how well the team played despite a lack of talent. That team played well due to great coaching, just as the 2006 team did. I'm sure Buzz will have a team that underperforms its talent, just as the 2004 and 2005 teams did.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 27, 2010, 11:30:21 PM
Of course it wasn't factually incorrect. It was just out of context and intentionally misleading.
Lenny pretended that Butler never developed after he left high school and was still that 300+ ranked player in 2010.
Its obvious that he wasn't the same player he was in HS, so his HS rank was completely irrelevant to the discussion (even if it was factually correct).
No.
Lenny was trying to change the playing field.
He didn't want to compare 2004 to 2010. He wanted to compare which players had developed further since HS.
Its perfectly valid to compare Merritt in 2004 to Butler in 2010. Statsheet makes is extremely easy to do so:
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=scott-merritt&i=1&p1=jimmy-butler (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=scott-merritt&i=1&p1=jimmy-butler)
I'm comparing two ACTUAL teams and ACTUAL performances. Can't be any more apples to apples than that.
Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
First, how do you know those were the best recruits? You just said you can't compare HS top 100 to Juco rankings. But now you claim those HS players were better than the Jucos?
But more importantly, so what? Those players weren't a part of my comparison, were they? Did I say that Buzz had more talent because he had Maymon and Cadougan? No. I compared the actual teams.
In other words, due to hard work, maturity, and coaching, by 2010 Butler was arguably more talented than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend were in 2004.
You can't have it both ways on this. You can't give credit to Buzz for making Butler better than Merrit, and at the same time say that Crean had more talent in 2004 because he had Merritt.
First of all, I do not take things out of context - your the the one who consistantly pulls a sentence or two out of a multi-paragraph thread.
The major weakness in your arguement is confusing talent and performance. David Cubillan performed better his senior year at MU than Dameon Mason did his senior year at LSU. Yet nobody in his right mind would ever suggest that Cubillan was the more talented player. Because we performed better than UCONN last year does it means we were the more talented team? Even Jim Calhoun wouldn't suggest that. The same holds true when comparing last year's team with the 2004 team.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 28, 2010, 01:18:38 PM
First of all, I do not take things out of context - your the the one who consistantly pulls a sentence or two out of a multi-paragraph thread.
You're attempting to use a HS rating from three years ago as a proxy for the current talent level of a college junior.
I would call that taking something out out of context.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 28, 2010, 01:18:38 PM
The major weakness in your arguement is confusing talent and performance. David Cubillan performed better his senior year at MU than Dameon Mason did his senior year at LSU. Yet nobody in his right mind would ever suggest that Cubillan was the more talented player.
That's because Dameon Mason only played 7 games his senior year due to a serious illness. Another out-of-context comparison--seems to be par for the course for you.
Meanwhile, I think a very solid case can be made that Butler by 2010 turned out to be a much more talented player than either Merritt, Chapman or Townsend were in 2004. Not just on a performance basis--but on a talent basis.
Maybe you never saw Merritt Chapman or Townsend in person. But take it from me--and anybody else who has actually all those players--nobody in their right mind would say that Butler now is LESS talented that those 2004 players.
For whatever reason, Butler didn't show that talent in HS. Maybe he didn't have good HS coaching. Maybe he didn't apply himself. Maybe he hadn't yet reached physical maturity. Maybe he hadn't practiced enough.
I don't know what the reason was (nor do you)--and frankly, I don't care.
The bottom line is that NOW he is clearly more talented, and that was obviously true to anyone who saw him play..
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 28, 2010, 04:23:44 PM
You're attempting to use a HS rating from three years ago as a proxy for the current talent level of a college junior.
I would call that taking something out out of context.
That's because Dameon Mason only played 7 games his senior year due to a serious illness. Another out-of-context comparison--seems to be par for the course for you.
Meanwhile, I think a very solid case can be made that Butler by 2010 turned out to be a much more talented player than either Merritt, Chapman or Townsend were in 2004. Not just on a performance basis--but on a talent basis.
Maybe you never saw Merritt Chapman or Townsend in person. But take it from me--and anybody else who has actually all those players--nobody in their right mind would say that Butler now is LESS talented that those 2004 players.
For whatever reason, Butler didn't show that talent in HS. Maybe he didn't have good HS coaching. Maybe he didn't apply himself. Maybe he hadn't yet reached physical maturity. Maybe he hadn't practiced enough.
I don't know what the reason was (nor do you)--and frankly, I don't care.
The bottom line is that NOW he is clearly more talented, and that was obviously true to anyone who saw him play..
There you go again, pulling a couple of sentences "out of context" in some respects and totally misrepresenting what I said in others. When did I EVER compare Jimmy Butler to Todd Townsend or Joe Chapman. Answer? Never. I compared starters to starters and backups (Marcus Jackson, Chapman and Townsend) to 2010 backups (Fulce, Buycks and ?). That what I do - compare apples to apples. I know that's a foreign concept to you but learning it can make your arguements more cogent and persuasive.
This is really a simple disageement. You think that because the 2010 team performed better on the court it necessarily means they were more talented. You further think that not agreeing with this point of view is an attempt at "having it both ways".
I think teams with less talent outperform their more talented counterparts relatively frequently and that hard work, player development and good coaching can often help a team overcome the talent gap. Two obvious examples I use are MU 2010 vs MU 2004 and MU 2010 vs UCONN 2010. I could give you hundreds of other equally clearcut cases of less talented teams outperforming their more gifted couterparts but since you think it's not possible (i.e. "having it both ways") I won't waste my time trying to convince you.
Northern Iowa was clearly more talented than Kansas in 2010.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 28, 2010, 05:11:33 PM
There you go again, pulling a couple of sentences "out of context" in some respects and totally misrepresenting what I said in others. When did I EVER compare Jimmy Butler to Todd Townsend or Joe Chapman. Answer? Never. I compared starters to starters and backups (Marcus Jackson, Chapman and Townsend) to 2010 backups (Fulce, Buycks and ?). That what I do - compare apples to apples. I know that's a foreign concept to you but learning it can make your arguements more cogent and persuasive.
This is really a simple disageement. You think that because the 2010 team performed better on the court it necessarily means they were more talented. You further think that not agreeing with this point of view is an attempt at "having it both ways".
I think teams with less talent outperform their more talented counterparts relatively frequently and that hard work, player development and good coaching can often help a team overcome the talent gap. Two obvious examples I use are MU 2010 vs MU 2004 and MU 2010 vs UCONN 2010. I could give you hundreds of other equally clearcut cases of less talented teams outperforming their more gifted couterparts but since you think it's not possible (i.e. "having it both ways") I won't waste my time trying to convince you.
Let's make this easy.
I'll repost the four supporting points for my view--you just tell me which ones you agree with and which you disagree with.
- Anyone as good as Hayward on Crean's 2004 team? Nope. Best was Novak (a sophomore to be) and Diener (a junior-to-be). Both were good--but neither had the combination of shooting touch, athleticism, speed and most importantly the experience of Hayward.
- Buzz's best outside shooter turned out to be Acker--the same Acker (and not Novak) who holds the MU senior-season record for 3 point shooting. And I think he probably handled the ball (and possibly even defended) better than Novak as a soph. I don't know if I'd take Acker over Novak now that Novak is fully developed--but Acker's performance as a 5th year senior is arguably superior to Novak's sophomore season.
- I think by any reasonable argument, DJO came in this year with the same reputation for shooting that Diener had (without Diener's reputation for lack of speed, athleticism or explosiveness). Diener saw the floor better than DJO--but I think if you compare DJO's soph season with Diener's junior year, you'd have to say they're pretty damn close--possibly a slight edge, but certainly not a huge advantage to Diener.
- Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend.
If you disagree on any point, can you please explain why you feel that way without resorting to irrelevancies like the 2010 UConn team, LSU, or 3-year old HS ratings.
And just to show you I'm open to rethinking my positions, I can accept that I probably overstated the Novak/Acker comparision.
If you think, for example, I got the first point wrong--that there was nobody on the 2004 that approached Hayward--then explain why you feel that way.
Here's the next exercise. I'll rank all players from both team's primary rotations in one ranking. This includes 8 players who appeared in all 31 games in 2004, and the 6 players who appeared in all 34 games in 2010, plus Buycks who appeared in 32 of the 34 games.
So here's how I would rank the talent levels of those 15 players based on what I saw. I grouped the players into three groups of five to show where I think there is a clear division of talent.
1. Hayward
2. Butler
3T. Diener
3T. DJO
5. Novak
6. Acker
7 Sanders
8. Mason
9T. Merritt
9T Buycks
11. Cubillan
12. Fulce
13. Chapman
14. Townsend
15. Marcus Jackson
Now, you're free to move some players up and some down--but please explain what you saw that caused you to think that way.
Finally, I will tell you flat out that I think Dwayne Wade was the most talented player on the 2003 team--even though he was not the highest rated coming out of HS. If you can accept that observation, please explain why you won't accept that Jimmy Butler was the 2nd most talented on the court in 2010, even though he wasn't the highest rated.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 28, 2010, 07:31:05 PM
Let's make this easy.
I'll repost the four supporting points for my view--you just tell me which ones you agree with and which you disagree with.
- Anyone as good as Hayward on Crean's 2004 team? Nope. Best was Novak (a sophomore to be) and Diener (a junior-to-be). Both were good--but neither had the combination of shooting touch, athleticism, speed and most importantly the experience of Hayward.
- Buzz's best outside shooter turned out to be Acker--the same Acker (and not Novak) who holds the MU senior-season record for 3 point shooting. And I think he probably handled the ball (and possibly even defended) better than Novak as a soph. I don't know if I'd take Acker over Novak now that Novak is fully developed--but Acker's performance as a 5th year senior is arguably superior to Novak's sophomore season.
- I think by any reasonable argument, DJO came in this year with the same reputation for shooting that Diener had (without Diener's reputation for lack of speed, athleticism or explosiveness). Diener saw the floor better than DJO--but I think if you compare DJO's soph season with Diener's junior year, you'd have to say they're pretty damn close--possibly a slight edge, but certainly not a huge advantage to Diener.
- Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend.
If you disagree on any point, can you please explain why you feel that way without resorting to irrelevancies like the 2010 UConn team, LSU, or 3-year old HS ratings.
And just to show you I'm open to rethinking my positions, I can accept that I probably overstated the Novak/Acker comparision.
If you think, for example, I got the first point wrong--that there was nobody on the 2004 that approached Hayward--then explain why you feel that way.
Here's the next exercise. I'll rank all players from both team's primary rotations in one ranking. This includes 8 players who appeared in all 31 games in 2004, and the 6 players who appeared in all 34 games in 2010, plus Buycks who appeared in 32 of the 34 games.
So here's how I would rank the talent levels of those 15 players based on what I saw. I grouped the players into three groups of five to show where I think there is a clear division of talent.
1. Hayward
2. Butler
3T. Diener
3T. DJO
5. Novak
6. Acker
7 Sanders
8. Mason
9T. Merritt
9T Buycks
11. Cubillan
12. Fulce
13. Chapman
14. Townsend
15. Marcus Jackson
Now, you're free to move some players up and some down--but please explain what you saw that caused you to think that way.
Finally, I will tell you flat out that I think Dwayne Wade was the most talented player on the 2003 team--even though he was not the highest rated coming out of HS. If you can accept that observation, please explain why you won't accept that Jimmy Butler was the 2nd most talented on the court in 2010, even though he wasn't the highest rated.
1. Yes. Travis Diener (see #3 for the reason)
2. You're saying AFTER THE FACT that Acker was arguably better last season than Novack was as a sophmore. Maybe that's so. Kudos to Mo, but his "perfomance" doesn't change the fact that his "talent" isn't close to Novack's. The coaching staff that designed schemes to maximize Acker's skills (ballhandling and shooting when left alone) and cover for his weaknesses (poor defense, inability to finish, lack of size/strength).
3.You're saying that fair expectation for DJO (an unrated HS guy and a one year jc player)would be similar to those for a third year former HS All American who was the second best player on a final four team the previous year. I say not.
4. Butler was the 4th (Chicos would argue 5th) offensive option on a team that reached the final 32. Merritt was the 4th offensive option on a team that went to the final 4. Advantage: Merritt.
My Rankings - going into the 2004 and 2010 seasons:
1.(T) Diener
(T) Hayward
3.Novak
4.Merritt (see above)
5.Butler
6.Mason (HS AA)
7.DJO (JC AA)
8.Townsend (final 4 starter)
9.Sanders
10.(T)Acker (Never a starter at high major except for injuries)
(T)Chapman
(T)Buycks (JC AA)
13.M Jackson (JC AA)
14 (T)Cubillan (career backup coming off two brutal years)
(T)Fulce (injuries)
Finally, I agree that Wade was the most talented player on the 2003 team even though he wasn't the highest rated. As I said in previous posts, the scouts are not infallible. My point was that it would be hard for me to fathom they could be as spectacularly wrong as you think they were regarding both the 2004 and 2010 teams. If you honestly believe that both the 2004 and 2010 teams performed at their talent levels you are probably in a minority of one. When it comes to that it's usually a good time to give the data a second look.
[/list]
Pretty sure DJO was all-state as a high school senior in North Carolina. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but calling him unrated might be a bit of a slight.
Great for Jimmy, but he is the only Big East senior on the list of 10.
Can that be?
Seems unlikely.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 28, 2010, 09:35:47 PM
If you honestly believe that both the 2004 and 2010 teams performed at their talent levels you are probably in a minority of one. When it comes to that it's usually a good time to give the data a second look.
[/list]
I've come to the conclusion that I honestly don't think you are capable of separating projections from reality.
Every one of your justifications is based on some arbitrary projection--not a direct head to head comparison. Every one of them.
For example, let's take your view on Todd Townsend. Your justification is that he started on a a Final Four team. Well so did Bill Neary. That doesn't mean he has more talent than any player who didn't.
When I look at Townsend compared to the others, here's what I see:
Townsend (1.8 ppg, 34% FG%, 1.7 rpg and an offensive rating of 86.4)
Sanders (6.4 ppg, 56.4 FG%, 4.6 rpg, 112.8 offensive rating)
Acker (8.7 ppg, 44.3 FG%/49.5 3FG%, 1.8 rpg, 118.4 offensive rating)
Fulce: (3.5 ppg, 50% FG%, 3.1 rpg 112.3 offensive rating)
Cubillan: (6.8 ppg, 45.8 FG%/41.2 3FG%, 1.8 rpg, 120.2 offensive rating)
When I say Acker, Fulce and Cuby showed more talent in 2010 than Townsend showed in 2004, I base it on hard solid facts.
Another example, you cite prior years' injuries to Cubillan and Fulce. How is that relevant? Do you honestly think that Fulce was a less talented player even though he delivered more simply because he was injured the year before? How does that even factor?
Another Example--you put Merrit above Butler. Here's how I see it:
Merritt (28 mpg, 11.2 ppg, 45% fg%, 33.3 3FG%, 7.1 rpg, offensive rating of 94.2)
Butler (34.3 mpg, 14.7 ppg, 53 FG%, 50.0 3FG%, 6.4 rpg, offensive rating of 131.5)
As I see it, not only did Butler show more talent, but it really wasn't even that close. His offensive rating of 131.5 was #6 in the NCAA.
Whats your basis? Merritt was the 4th option on the final four team!! Of Course he was 4th!!! Todd Townsend (1.8 ppg, 34% FG%) was 5th.
The only thing I can conclude is you cannot separate projections from reality.
What you want to argue is that because everyone EXPECTED the 2004 team to be good, they actually did had that talent. Because everyone EXPECTED the 2010 team to be bad, they couldn't have had talent.
There is a reason why they actually play the games.
I thought this thread was about Jimmy Butler's recognition. Can you two start a new thread for you discussions or maybe just start an email relationship?
Quote from: APieperFan3 on May 27, 2010, 08:36:36 PM
AGREED.
Soft Mer...I mean, Scott...was brutally average.
He's tearing it up in Sushi Land. He may have hit stride.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 29, 2010, 11:06:37 AM
I've come to the conclusion that I honestly don't think you are capable of separating projections from reality.
Every one of your justifications is based on some arbitrary projection--not a direct head to head comparison. Every one of them.
For example, let's take your view on Todd Townsend. Your justification is that he started on a a Final Four team. Well so did Bill Neary. That doesn't mean he has more talent than any player who didn't.
When I look at Townsend compared to the others, here's what I see:
Townsend (1.8 ppg, 34% FG%, 1.7 rpg and an offensive rating of 86.4)
Sanders (6.4 ppg, 56.4 FG%, 4.6 rpg, 112.8 offensive rating)
Acker (8.7 ppg, 44.3 FG%/49.5 3FG%, 1.8 rpg, 118.4 offensive rating)
Fulce: (3.5 ppg, 50% FG%, 3.1 rpg 112.3 offensive rating)
Cubillan: (6.8 ppg, 45.8 FG%/41.2 3FG%, 1.8 rpg, 120.2 offensive rating)
When I say Acker, Fulce and Cuby showed more talent in 2010 than Townsend showed in 2004, I base it on hard solid facts.
Another example, you cite prior years' injuries to Cubillan and Fulce. How is that relevant? Do you honestly think that Fulce was a less talented player even though he delivered more simply because he was injured the year before? How does that even factor?
Another Example--you put Merrit above Butler. Here's how I see it:
Merritt (28 mpg, 11.2 ppg, 45% fg%, 33.3 3FG%, 7.1 rpg, offensive rating of 94.2)
Butler (34.3 mpg, 14.7 ppg, 53 FG%, 50.0 3FG%, 6.4 rpg, offensive rating of 131.5)
As I see it, not only did Butler show more talent, but it really wasn't even that close. His offensive rating of 131.5 was #6 in the NCAA.
Whats your basis? Merritt was the 4th option on the final four team!! Of Course he was 4th!!! Todd Townsend (1.8 ppg, 34% FG%) was 5th.
The only thing I can conclude is you cannot separate projections from reality.
What you want to argue is that because everyone EXPECTED the 2004 team to be good, they actually did had that talent. Because everyone EXPECTED the 2010 team to be bad, they couldn't have had talent.
There is a reason why they actually play the games.
OMG. In your world the most talented team ALWAYS has a better year, since all one has to do is look at stats AFTER the seaon to judge a player's talent. A team is incapable of under or over performing because their talent is only defined after the fact. Oh, and a coach's ability to develop talent or use it properly (see William's use of Mathews, Acker, Cubillan,etc) is, I guess, also irrelevant. In your world, Mo Acker was maybe the "least talented" 3point shooter in all of college basketball in 2009 and the "most talented" one in 2010. Cubillan had not even low major talent in 2008 and 2009, but more than adequate high major talent in 2010. Do you have any clue how insane that sounds to anyone who follows the game? Are you actually saying that MU had much more talent than UCONN last year because our player's stats were better? OMG.
[/list]
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 29, 2010, 04:18:35 PM
OMG. In your world the most talented team ALWAYS has a better year, since all one has to do is look at stats AFTER the seaon to judge a player's talent. A team is incapable of under or over performing because their talent is only defined after the fact.
Yep, you've almost nailed it.
I don't think a player who plays injured (Cubillan in 08 & 09, Diener in 05) or was a head case (think Amo or Maymon or most of the 2010 Uconn team) reflects their true talent.
Otherwise, if they were healthy and of sound mind, then their actual play is a better reflection of their current talent than some arbitrary judgement made before the year began (especially if that judgement is three years old).
For example, before the season, it would be fair to debate whether or not Acker had the talent to hit 50% on three point shots--after the season, there SHOULD be no debate. In my eyes, he clearly DID have the talent to do so--otherwise he could not have accomplished it. You seem to be arguing that he didn't actually have 3 point shooting talent--despite the fact that he shot 50%--because he didn't in previous seasons.
Your argument made sense at the start of the season--but now that you know what happened, you should be open to changing your mind. You can make all the projections you want--what really counts for me is the actual game-time performance.
Before the season, one can make a guess at the talent level.
After the season one can make a fact-supported assessment.
You choose to to put 100% faith in the pre-season projections
I choose to give more credence to the post-season reality.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 28, 2010, 01:12:42 PM
84, why was the 2004 team so untalented (in your eyes)? That was Crean's 5th year and it came on the heels of 2 straight very strong seasons. Same question with the 2005 team. MU lost only lost one player early due to leaving for the pros. Why didn't Crean recruit/develop players better during those seasons so that there would be more talent (in your eyes)? Why did the 2006 recruiting class have to save a sinking ship?
Sorry--didn't mean to ignore your question above.
I don't think the 2004 team was untalented--i just think the 2010 team had more talent overall.
First factors is maturity: In 2010 the rotation consisted of 3 seniors, 3 juniors and 1 sophomore. In 2004 the rotation had had 2 seniors, 3 juniors, 2 sophomores and 1 freshman. Even top 100 freshman sometimes struggle--witness the participation of Erik Williams this year. He was higher rated out of HS than any of our primary rotation players, yet he couldn't crack the rotation. Yet many still have high hopes for him.
Second is a reluctance to fairly credit JUCOs for their talent. We had 4 JUCO all-Americans, and to hear people talk about it, those players weren't comparable to top 100 freshman. I think they are, and the performance of DJO, Buycks & Butler prove it.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 30, 2010, 11:57:42 AM
Yep, you've almost nailed it.
I don't think a player who plays injured (Cubillan in 08 & 09, Diener in 05) or was a head case (think Amo or Maymon or most of the 2010 Uconn team) reflects their true talent.
Otherwise, if they were healthy and of sound mind, then their actual play is a better reflection of their current talent than some arbitrary judgement made before the year began (especially if that judgement is three years old).
For example, before the season, it would be fair to debate whether or not Acker had the talent to hit 50% on three point shots--after the season, there SHOULD be no debate. In my eyes, he clearly DID have the talent to do so--otherwise he could not have accomplished it. You seem to be arguing that he didn't actually have 3 point shooting talent--despite the fact that he shot 50%--because he didn't in previous seasons.
Your argument made sense at the start of the season--but now that you know what happened, you should be open to changing your mind. You can make all the projections you want--what really counts for me is the actual game-time performance.
Before the season, one can make a guess at the talent level.
After the season one can make a fact-supported assessment.
You choose to to put 100% faith in the pre-season projections
I choose to give more credence to the post-season reality.
So we can therefore conclude that all that nonsense you were spewing about the 2010 team (about whom we KNEW NOTHING in your view) having similar expectations as the 2006 team (whose talent was a matter of historical record) was total BS. Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 30, 2010, 01:38:15 PM
So we can therefore conclude that all that nonsense you were spewing about the 2010 team (about whom we KNEW NOTHING in your view) having similar expectations as the 2006 team (whose talent was a matter of historical record) was total BS. Thanks for clearing that up.
Wrong.
We're all entitled to make
projections at the start of the season. For example, you and I both did that for 2010. And we know how that turned out: my projection was right, yours was wrong.
But when the
actual results differ from
pre season projections, rational people conclude that it was their projections that were wrong.
But you cling to those pre-season projections
even though you know they were wrong! The only BS here is your continued use of knowingly incorrect pre-season projections.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 31, 2010, 10:04:44 AM
Wrong.
We're all entitled to make projections at the start of the season. For example, you and I both did that for 2010. And we know how that turned out: my projection was right, yours was wrong.
But when the actual results differ from pre season projections, rational people conclude that it was their projections that were wrong.
But you cling to those pre-season projections even though you know they were wrong!
The only BS here is your continued use of knowingly incorrect pre-season projections.
Wrong.
I didn't make any projections last year so I don't know how mine could be "wrong". I'm not in that business. I merely pointed out that your projections (expectations) were much higher than anyone who gets paid to coach or cover basketball. I was, and remain, suspicious of your motives. And they were made BEFORE three pivotal players were lost for the season. Some here call you prescient, but I don't recall your prognostications had us relying on Acker or Cubillan starting and having big years.
But it's all a moot point anyway since your new stance is that expectations are meaningless, talent can only be judged in retrospect and that the team with the best record automatically is the more talented. Some on this board actually had high expectations for that 2004 team that returned 3 starters and several key reserves from a final 4 team and added a top 50 high school player and a JUCO All American. Who knew that they just wouldn't have the physical ability to compete with a team that had a 5'8" Mid American conference refugee and a 5'11" way down the bench career back up playing almost 70 minutes a game between them? Nobody, that's who.
Last year's team was often physically outmanned at all 5 positions. Announcers and opposing coaches alike made us the poster child of overachievers. But you know better. It was all due to our talent. Too bad you're not an NBA general manager, maybe Cuby and Mo would get drafted next month. Big East upper echelon talent like that certainly deserves a shot.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 30, 2010, 11:57:42 AM
Yep, you've almost nailed it.
I don't think a player who plays injured (Cubillan in 08 & 09, Diener in 05) or was a head case (think Amo or Maymon or most of the 2010 Uconn team) reflects their true talent.
Otherwise, if they were healthy and of sound mind, then their actual play is a better reflection of their current talent than some arbitrary judgement made before the year began (especially if that judgement is three years old).
For example, before the season, it would be fair to debate whether or not Acker had the talent to hit 50% on three point shots--after the season, there SHOULD be no debate. In my eyes, he clearly DID have the talent to do so--otherwise he could not have accomplished it. You seem to be arguing that he didn't actually have 3 point shooting talent--despite the fact that he shot 50%--because he didn't in previous seasons.
Your argument made sense at the start of the season--but now that you know what happened, you should be open to changing your mind. You can make all the projections you want--what really counts for me is the actual game-time performance.
Before the season, one can make a guess at the talent level.
After the season one can make a fact-supported assessment.
You choose to to put 100% faith in the pre-season projections
I choose to give more credence to the post-season reality.
I could have swore that North Carolina had a really talented team last year. Little did I know that they were only the 67th most talented team in the nation. Boy, a lot of people sure missed the boat by putting all those guys on all-star teams in high-school. It's clear they didn't underperform because there really isn't such a thing. Your record is clearly indicative of how much talent you have, irregardless of how good/bad you may have been coached and a variety of other factors such as cohesiveness, matchups, luck...etc.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
Wrong.
I didn't make any projections last year so I don't know how mine could be "wrong". I'm not in that business. I merely pointed out that your projections (expectations) were much higher than anyone who gets paid to coach or cover basketball. I was, and remain, suspicious of your motives. And they were made BEFORE three pivotal players were lost for the season. Some here call you prescient, but I don't recall your prognostications had us relying on Acker or Cubillan starting and having big years.
But it's all a moot point anyway since your new stance is that expectations are meaningless, talent can only be judged in retrospect and that the team with the best record automatically is the more talented. Some on this board actually had high expectations for that 2004 team that returned 3 starters and several key reserves from a final 4 team and added a top 50 high school player and a JUCO All American. Who knew that they just wouldn't have the physical ability to compete with a team that had a 5'8" Mid American conference refugee and a 5'11" way down the bench career back up playing almost 70 minutes a game between them? Nobody, that's who.
Last year's team was often physically outmanned at all 5 positions. Announcers and opposing coaches alike made us the poster child of overachievers. But you know better. It was all due to our talent. Too bad you're not an NBA general manager, maybe Cuby and Mo would get drafted next month. Big East upper echelon talent like that certainly deserves a shot.
Why even bother?
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 31, 2010, 12:29:41 PM
I could have swore that North Carolina had a really talented team last year. Little did I know that they were only the 67th most talented team in the nation. Boy, a lot of people sure missed the boat by putting all those guys on all-star teams in high-school. It's clear they didn't underperform because there really isn't such a thing. Your record is clearly indicative of how much talent you have, irregardless of how good/bad you may have been coached and a variety of other factors such as cohesiveness, matchups, luck...etc.
I haven't followed North Carolina closely enough to know whether their players lacked maturity, suffered from injuries to key players, were assessed incorrectly out of HS, or were head cases. My guess is that there were some combination of all four.
I do follow Marquette closely enough, and can assure you that there was more talent on the 2010 team than on the 2004 team.
BTW, I'm not sure where you get the idea I think teams cannot underperform. Teams certainly can underperform--and the most likely reason is they lacked the talent people originally thought they had.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
Wrong
I didn't make any projections last year so I don't know how mine could be "wrong".
You argued against me pretty vehemently when I said the team should do well. That's making a projection, whether you call it that or not.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
I'm not in that business. I merely pointed out that your projections (expectations) were much higher than anyone who gets paid to coach or cover basketball. I was, and remain, suspicious of your motives. And they were made BEFORE three pivotal players were lost for the season. Some here call you prescient, but I don't recall your prognostications had us relying on Acker or Cubillan starting and having big years.
As if your motives are above suspicion!
I probably looked more closely at MU and its competition than anyone who had to cover 345 D1 teams did. The extent of most analysis was "The amigos are gone so it will be hard to fill their shoes".
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
But it's all a moot point anyway since your new stance is that expectations are meaningless,
Well, no, I never said that. Maybe you misunderstood:
Expectations are meaningless once we know the reality.
For example, I can say that I expected that Lloyd Moore will be one of the greatest player to ever play for Marquette based on his HS rank. But once I saw him play, it would be a misrepresentation to say that Moore actually was one of the most talented players ever to play for Marquette. The projections were meaningless. We know how Moore turned out.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
talent can only be judged in retrospect and that the team with the best record automatically is the more talented.
Nope. Didn't say this either. Another misunderstanding on your part: I said there were other factors--like injuries, head cases, maturity that have to be taken into account.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
Some on this board actually had high expectations for that 2004 team that returned 3 starters and several key reserves from a final 4 team and added a top 50 high school player and a JUCO All American.
Well, that would be a real trick, since this board didn't come into being until 2005!
Nonetheless, it may surprise you to know that I had high expectations for 2004 as well.
The difference between you and me is that you still believe those players were really as talented as their projections, while I updated my opinion after I saw them their play.
Hell, you probably still believe Lloyd Moore was one of the MU's all time greats as well based on his HS rank.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
Who knew that they just wouldn't have the physical ability to compete with a team that had a 5'8" Mid American conference refugee and a 5'11" way down the bench career back up playing almost 70 minutes a game between them? Nobody, that's who.
Of course nobody knew in advance.
The key is what do we know NOW.
The 2010 players had more talent than anyone expected, which explains why they exceeded those expectations.
Who knew that Acker had 49.5% three point shooting talent? We could project it based on how he played against 5 elite eight teams at the end of 2009, but did we KNOW it? Not until he proved it.
Who knew that Butler was the #6 offensive talent in all of NCAA? We could project it based on his #4 rank from the 2009 season--in late season play he stepped up and demonstrated solid play. After the season, we KNOW he had that talent.
Who knew that DJO would be the #3 all time single season 3 point shooter? We could projected it based on how other 1st Team JUCO all-AMerican's have played in D1, but after the season, we KNEW it.
Who knew that Hayward would wind up #2 all time in scoring? We didn't know what might happen with injuries, if he got a big head, or didn't work hard over the summer. But after the season we KNEW he worked hard, improved his shooting & strength, wasn't injured, and did wind up the #2 scorer.
Before the season, we didn't know any of those things. After the season, we DO know.
Sort of like how we didn't know Lloyd Moore wasn't as good as advertised.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
Last year's team was often physically outmanned at all 5 positions. Announcers and opposing coaches alike made us the poster child of overachievers. But you know better. It was all due to our talent.
I hardly think we were out-manned at all five positions. We may have been undersized, but unless Manute Bol or Chuck Nevitt are your idea of the greatest players of all time, we were not outmanned.
And our success was by definition due to our talent. College basketball is 90% recruiting. Mike Deane and Bob Dukiet showed you cannot win with substandard talent. Maybe you'll win a game or two at the margins based on a coaching decision. But you don't win without talent.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 31, 2010, 01:22:03 PM
Why even bother?
+1 - Aint nobody going to change 84s illusionary mind. What is being overlooked is that 84 continues to point out how talented DJO and Jimmy Butler are, yet fails to recognize that the previous coach in season 5 at the helm, following a Final Four year team, had recruited less talent to campus, than has an unheard of 2nd year, career assistant. Furthermore, if Buzz had brought in players of the caliber of Mike Kinsella and Trend Blackledge, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.
Quote from: Ners on May 31, 2010, 04:25:35 PM
+1 - Aint nobody going to change 84s illusionary mind. What is being overlooked is that 84 continues to point out how talented DJO and Jimmy Butler are, yet fails to recognize that the previous coach in season 5 at the helm, following a Final Four year team, had recruited less talent to campus, than has an unheard of 2nd year, career assistant.
This is amazing.
On one side, I've got Lenny criticizing me because I put for the argument that 2010 had more talent than 2004.
I now have Ners criticizing me for "failing to recognize" that 2010 had more talent than 2004.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Ners, but I most certainly HAVE recognized that 2010 had more talent than 2004--that is EXACTLY my point.
Which means that you and I share the exact same opinion.
Quote from: Ners on May 31, 2010, 04:25:35 PM
+1 - Aint nobody going to change 84s illusionary mind. What is being overlooked is that 84 continues to point out how talented DJO and Jimmy Butler are, yet fails to recognize that the previous coach in season 5 at the helm, following a Final Four year team, had recruited less talent to campus, than has an unheard of 2nd year, career assistant. Furthermore, if Buzz had brought in players of the caliber of Mike Kinsella and Trend Blackledge, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.
Uhm, hasn't 84 been saying for, I don't know, half a year now that this 2010 team was more talented than the 2004 team?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 31, 2010, 05:45:24 PM
Uhm, hasn't 84 been saying for, I don't know, half a year now that this 2010 team was more talented than the 2004 team?
To the best of my knowledge he's only been saying it for a couple of days. But how long he's been saying has no effect on its substance. It would have been silly six months ago and it's still silly now.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 31, 2010, 01:22:03 PM
Why even bother?
Rican, you're absolutely right. You start out answering one of 84's preposterous statements and pretty soon he's gone you off on so many tangents (Lloyd Moore, Manute Bol, Chuck Nevitt, etc.,etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum) and contradictions you don't know which ridiculous statement to address next. On a positive note, I do admire his tenacity.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 09:32:53 PM
To the best of my knowledge he's only been saying it for a couple of days. But how long he's been saying has no effect on its substance. It would have been silly six months ago and it's still silly now.
Why? Based on actual results, not on projections by talent scouts that see a kid play 2 or 3 times total, he was right. That's the danger of relying on prognostications on what a player will be like.
Look at what those experts had for Dwyane Wade. One rating had him top 50, three others not even top 200.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 31, 2010, 10:11:12 PM
Rican, you're absolutely right. You start out answering one of 84's preposterous statements and pretty soon he's gone you off on so many tangents (Lloyd Moore, Manute Bol, Chuck Nevitt, etc.,etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum) and contradictions you don't know which ridiculous statement to address next. On a positive note, I do admire his tenacity.
Just curious--what do you have to say to Ners, given that he agrees with me that 2010 was more talented.
Do you find his statement ridiculous as well?
And I'm waiting for him to call you out for failing to realize that.
The reason why I bring up the examples I cited was to show your faulty logic.
You claimed that we were under-talented because of our size. The examples of Chuck Nevitt and Manute Bol were meant to show that size and talent aren't related.
I brought up Lloyd Moore because you still insist that HS rankings have more validity than actual play. He's an example of a guy who's actual play didn't measure up to HS rank. You are still maintaining that Scott Merritt is more talented than Jimmy Butler because of a HS rank comparision--ignoring everything that happened since they left High School.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 01, 2010, 06:44:18 AM
Just curious--what do you have to say to Ners, given that he agrees with me that 2010 was more talented.
Do you find his statement ridiculous as well?
And I'm waiting for him to call you out for failing to realize that.
Actually, where did I write that 2010 team was more talented than 2004? I got roasted on another thread for arguing Wade was the catalyst for the Final Four team, and that I discounted the importance/talent of Novak, Diener, Merritt, et al. All of those Top 100 recruits returned in 2004 and we went to the NIT - we underperformed. You are arguing that DJO and Butler are more/as talented as Diener/Merritt....at the end of their MU careers it may turn out that way...my original point was that you were focusing on two of Buzz's recruits, yet have offered up no defense or reason as to why our 2004 team could be so "talent challenged," (at least in your words compared to the 2010 team..which I disagree with) when that was TC's 5th year at the helm? How could we be in a situation with such a marginally talented team at that point...the year after the same team (without DWade and RJack) was in the Final Four?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 31, 2010, 10:57:13 PM
Why? Based on actual results, not on projections by talent scouts that see a kid play 2 or 3 times total, he was right. That's the danger of relying on prognostications on what a player will be like.
Look at what those experts had for Dwyane Wade. One rating had him top 50, three others not even top 200.
I'm on record several times as saying scouts make mistakes. Jimmy Butler was one, though he wasn't exactly a stud immediately upon arrival. In fact he looked so lost initially that some on this board were calling him a wasted scholarship.
I know you are a staunch believer that college bball is a guard's game. I happen to agree with you. Our point and 2 last year were Mo Acker and David Cubillan. Both were recruited to be back ups. Neither had done anything in their college careers to dispel that assessment. In addition, both were undersized. From a pure talent standpoint I would rate them significantly below average starters for a high major program. A lot of factors resulted in them outperforming their "talent" last year, among them hard work, experience, and a system that accentuated their strengths (ball handling and open 3 point shooting) and minimized their weaknesses (inability to finish, no mid range game, lack of size, strength and therefore lack of defensive ability).
You said yourself that if Buzz Williams could get last year's team to 9-9 in the Big East and/or make the NCAA he should be coach of the year. You reiterated those sentiments midway through the season. Have you changed your mind and do you now take the 84 position that their is no such thing as over or under achieving and that a team's final record is automatically equivalent to it's talent? That MU had the 5th or 6th most talent in the Big East and UCONN had the 11th or 12th most?
No one argues that Duke and Butler weren't deserving of playing for the national championship last year, but you could combine their rosters and not have the talent of 2010 Kentucky. You'll be watching KU's players prove it over the next 10 years in the NBA. I know you and every poster on this board can cite numerous instances in sport of superior talent falling. Until 84 informed us that by definition it can't happen, that is.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
I'm on record several times as saying scouts make mistakes. Jimmy Butler was one, though he wasn't exactly a stud immediately upon arrival. In fact he looked so lost initially that some on this board were calling him a wasted scholarship.
This is a stretch on the "wasted scholarship" claim. The board history is available--I looked it up. You've used "wasted scholarship" more times in this thread alone than it was ever used to describe Butler.
The discussion you reference was one person who thought Fulce showed more than Butler at the Midnight Madness scrimmage--and he never used the term "wasted scholarship"--that came after the fact. http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=13490.msg121255#msg121255
(http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=13490.msg121255#msg121255)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
I know you are a staunch believer that college bball is a guard's game. I happen to agree with you. Our point and 2 last year were Mo Acker and David Cubillan. Both were recruited to be back ups. Neither had done anything in their college careers to dispel that assessment.
I disagree. I think the way Acker played last eight games of the 2009 season (five of them against Elite Eight teams) showed that he performed well enough to dispel the assessment that he couldn't play the point for MU adequately.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
In addition, both were undersized. From a pure talent standpoint I would rate them significantly below average starters for a high major program.
Henry was undersized. Hutch was undersized. DJ was undersized. I simply don't buy into the argument that undersized means overmatched.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
A lot of factors resulted in them outperforming their "talent" last year, among them hard work, experience, and a system that accentuated their strengths (ball handling and open 3 point shooting) and minimized their weaknesses (inability to finish, no mid range game, lack of size, strength and therefore lack of defensive ability).
Nobody can "outperform" their talent. If they can't hit 3 point shots, they won't make them--no matter what type of system is put in place. If they can't handle the ball well enough or see the court well enough to have a 2:1 assist to TO ratio, they won't, no matter how much a coach tries to minimize the weaknesses. If they can't judge where the ball is going or time their jump, they can't rebound.
The best a coach can do is not suppress those talents.
But he can't create what isn't there in the first place.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
You said yourself that if Buzz Williams could get last year's team to 9-9 in the Big East and/or make the NCAA he should be coach of the year. You reiterated those sentiments midway through the season. Have you changed your mind and do you now take the 84 position that their is no such thing as over or under achieving and that a team's final record is automatically equivalent to it's talent? That MU had the 5th or 6th most talent in the Big East and UCONN had the 11th or 12th most?
I didn't make the "coach of the year" statement--it was made in response to me by those who thought a 9-9 minimum was setting expectations too high.
The summary of the conversation went like this:
Me: 9-9 should be the floor for this year's team
Others: If Buzz goes 9-9 he deserves to be coach of the year.
As for Uconn, I'll repeat for you: there are several other factors--maturity, head cases, injuries--that affect outcomes. "Automatically" is your choice of words, not mine.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
No one argues that Duke and Butler weren't deserving of playing for the national championship last year, but you could combine their rosters and not have the talent of 2010 Kentucky. You'll be watching KU's players prove it over the next 10 years in the NBA. I know you and every poster on this board can cite numerous instances in sport of superior talent falling. Until 84 informed us that by definition it can't happen, that is.
I would never make such a comparison based on one game.
----------
I think the capstone for this argument is that it becomes very difficult to filter every opinion through your prism of "How Does This Make Buzz Look Good In Comparison to Crean".
You so wanted to hype Buzz's coaching in 2010 that you had to trash his recruiting.
Think about it: You argue that 2004--arguably Crean's least talented team--had more talent than Buzz's team in 2010. What does that say about Buzz's recruiting?
If you truly believe that nobody expected DJO, Buycks or Butler to perform as well as they did, then you have to admit that Buzz simply lucked into those players--just like the way you argue that Crean lucked into Wade.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 01, 2010, 06:44:18 AM
Just curious--what do you have to say to Ners, given that he agrees with me that 2010 was more talented.
Do you find his statement ridiculous as well?
And I'm waiting for him to call you out for failing to realize that.
The reason why I bring up the examples I cited was to show your faulty logic.
You claimed that we were under-talented because of our size. The examples of Chuck Nevitt and Manute Bol were meant to show that size and talent aren't related.
I brought up Lloyd Moore because you still insist that HS rankings have more validity than actual play. He's an example of a guy who's actual play didn't measure up to HS rank. You are still maintaining that Scott Merritt is more talented than Jimmy Butler because of a HS rank comparision--ignoring everything that happened since they left High School.
1.Where does Ners say that the 2010 team was more talented? Hard for me to call something "ridiculous" that he never said. (Though I know that's a favorite tack of your's - see#2)
2.I never said we were "under-talented because of our size". I pointed out that we were undersized IN ADDITION to being under-talented. Please read what I actually write not what you want to argue with. But since you bring up Nevitt and Bol and how bad they were - my guess is we could have found a spot in the rotation last year for either guy since they managed to collect 19 years worth of NBA paychecks between them.
3.I'm not insisting "that HS rankings have more validity than actual play". I do insist insist that a team with higher rated players out of high school (in some cases hundreds of spots higher) at each rotation spot AND signicantly greater success as ACTUAL high major players (Diener, Merritt, Novack, Townsend, Chapman vs Hayward, Butler, Acker and Cubillan) indicates a talent gap favoring the 2004 team.
The funniest part of this whole topic is how ferociously you argue contradictory positions in an effort to advance your pro TC, anti Buzz agenda. Before last season started you went on record saying it was totally fair and proper to hold the 2010 team to the same standards as the 2006 team before 2010 had even played a game. Anything short of that would be a failure - ironically your opinion was based to a great extent on what scouts said about players you had never seen. Now you're saying it's totally unfair to hold a team to any standards - there is no such thing as failure. Your record = your talent. Oh, and by the way,those scouts whose evaluations I used to saddle the 2010 team with high expectations really aren't worth anything. Bottom line: If MU does as well as the experts figured even BEFORE Cadougan, Otule and Maymon were lost, Buzz is a failure. And if MU, AFTER Cadougan, Otule and Maymon were lost exceeds even your expectations? No big deal, they just had the outstanding talent that TC was missing the year after the final 4. But what's a few contradictions in a story that fits your preferred narrative so nicely?
That's awesome for Jimmy
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 02:16:26 PM
1.Where does Ners say that the 2010 team was more talented? Hard for me to call something "ridiculous" that he never said.
The funniest part of this whole topic is how ferociously you argue contradictory positions in an effort to advance your pro TC, anti Buzz agenda. Before last season started you went on record saying it was totally fair and proper to hold the 2010 team to the same standards as the 2006 team before 2010 had even played a game. Anything short of that would be a failure - ironically your opinion was based to a great extent on what scouts said about players you had never seen. Now you're saying it's totally unfair to hold a team to any standards - there is no such thing as failure. Your record = your talent. Oh, and by the way,those scouts whose evaluations I used to saddle the 2010 team with high expectations really aren't worth anything. Bottom line: If MU does as well as the experts figured even BEFORE Cadougan, Otule and Maymon were lost, Buzz is a failure. And if MU, AFTER Cadougan, Otule and Maymon were lost exceeds even your expectations? No big deal, they just had the outstanding talent that TC was missing the year after the final 4. But what's a few contradictions in a story that fits your preferred narrative so nicely?
+1 to all of this. Never said 2010 team was more talented than 2004. Always have contended that 2004 team underperformed. Was crucified just a week ago for minimizing the talent of Diener, Novak, Merritt, by saying DWade was the catalyst and primary reason we went to the Final Four. Never said those Top 100 recruits weren't great players or talented..but as Chicos supplied they were victim to a tough C-USA, games lost due to injury by Diener (whcihc didn't happen his junior year). Now we've got 84 arguing that these same players weren't that talented as compared to Buzz's recruits of DJO, Buycks, Jimmy butler.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 01, 2010, 02:01:51 PM
This is a stretch on the "wasted scholarship" claim. The board history is available--I looked it up. You've used "wasted scholarship" more times in this thread alone than it was ever used to describe Butler.
The discussion you reference was one person who thought Fulce showed more than Butler at the Midnight Madness scrimmage--and he never used the term "wasted scholarship"--that came after the fact. http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=13490.msg121255#msg121255
(http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=13490.msg121255#msg121255)
I disagree. I think the way Acker played last eight games of the 2009 season (five of them against Elite Eight teams) showed that he performed well enough to dispel the assessment that he couldn't play the point for MU adequately.
Henry was undersized. Hutch was undersized. DJ was undersized. I simply don't buy into the argument that undersized means overmatched.
Nobody can "outperform" their talent. If they can't hit 3 point shots, they won't make them--no matter what type of system is put in place. If they can't handle the ball well enough or see the court well enough to have a 2:1 assist to TO ratio, they won't, no matter how much a coach tries to minimize the weaknesses. If they can't judge where the ball is going or time their jump, they can't rebound.
The best a coach can do is not suppress those talents.
But he can't create what isn't there in the first place.
I didn't make the "coach of the year" statement--it was made in response to me by those who thought a 9-9 minimum was setting expectations too high.
The summary of the conversation went like this:
Me: 9-9 should be the floor for this year's team
Others: If Buzz goes 9-9 he deserves to be coach of the year.
As for Uconn, I'll repeat for you: there are several other factors--maturity, head cases, injuries--that affect outcomes. "Automatically" is your choice of words, not mine.
I would never make such a comparison based on one game.
----------
I think the capstone for this argument is that it becomes very difficult to filter every opinion through your prism of "How Does This Make Buzz Look Good In Comparison to Crean".
You so wanted to hype Buzz's coaching in 2010 that you had to trash his recruiting.
Think about it: You argue that 2004--arguably Crean's least talented team--had more talent than Buzz's team in 2010. What does that say about Buzz's recruiting?
If you truly believe that nobody expected DJO, Buycks or Butler to perform as well as they did, then you have to admit that Buzz simply lucked into those players--just like the way you argue that Crean lucked into Wade.
Why are you taking my response to one of Chico's posts and replying as if it was in response to one of yours? He's the 9-9, coach of the year guy I'm talking to -not you. You've been perilously close before but are you now totally unhinged? Oh, and please stop with your outright lies. Where have I EVER trashed Buzz's recruiting? I'll answer for you - nowhere.
The over-achievers under Buzz were actually Crean recruits - Mo and Cuby.
This is a really interesting thread about Jimmy Butler..... ::)
As to Butler-- this is nice to see. I was a fan back in McGuire days when he advocated a star system...the seniors were the promoted stars. This rating is a nice nod to program's quality and profile. I doubt if he were buried here on Univ of Houston roster that he'd get the same profile/recognition. Seems the MU program quality/BE status contributes to his getting noticed---good for us, thanks Buzz, and recent teams
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 02:33:13 PM
Where have I EVER trashed Buzz's recruiting? I'll answer for you - nowhere.
You're wrong. I'll give you the answer: This thread.
You made multiple posts where you argue quite vehemently that Buzz's 2010 class is less talented than Crean's class of 2004.
And we all know that 2004 is Crean's least talented team.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 01, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
You're wrong. I'll give you the answer: This thread.
You made multiple posts where you argue quite vehemently that Buzz's 2010 class is less talented than Crean's class of 2004.
And we all know that 2004 is Crean's least talented team.
LOL
Well played
And yes, this is a nice honor for Jimmy Butler.
Quote from: Ners on June 01, 2010, 09:20:59 AM
Actually, where did I write that 2010 team was more talented than 2004?
Right here:
Quote from: Ners on May 31, 2010, 04:25:35 PM
What is being overlooked is that 84 continues to point out how talented DJO and Jimmy Butler are, yet fails to recognize that the previous coach in season 5 at the helm, following a Final Four year team, had recruited less talent to campus, than has an unheard of 2nd year, career assistant.
As I said above, not only do I not "fail to realize" this observation--it formed the central thesis of my post.
I'll take a shot at this since I didn't do so above . . .
Quote from: Ners on May 31, 2010, 04:25:35 PM
Furthermore, if Buzz had brought in players of the caliber of Mike Kinsella and Trend Blackledge, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.
You must mean that if he had players like Kinsella and Blackledge instead of Mbao and Roseboro, it would be obvious to even Lenny that 2010 had more talent.
Quote from: Ners on May 31, 2010, 04:25:35 PM
You are arguing that DJO and Butler are more/as talented as Diener/Merritt....at the end of their MU careers it may turn out that way...my original point was that you were focusing on two of Buzz's recruits, yet have offered up no defense or reason as to why our 2004 team could be so "talent challenged," (at least in your words compared to the 2010 team..which I disagree with) when that was TC's 5th year at the helm? How could we be in a situation with such a marginally talented team at that point...
I gave you four bullet-pointed reasons in this thread. Go back and look them up if you want the details.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 31, 2010, 05:26:48 PM
This is amazing.
On one side, I've got Lenny criticizing me because I put for the argument that 2010 had more talent than 2004.
I now have Ners criticizing me for "failing to recognize" that 2010 had more talent than 2004.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Ners, but I most certainly HAVE recognized that 2010 had more talent than 2004--that is EXACTLY my point.
Which means that you and I share the exact same opinion.
No. You and I never share the exact same opinion. I've said that you failed to recognize that after 5 seasons on the job, by YOUR estimation, Tom Crean had recruited less talent to MU, than had Buzz Williams in just his 2nd year on the job..with the additions of Jimmy Butler and DJO and throw in Buycks for good measure. None of these guys were Top 100 guys in High School, yet you argue that Diener, Merritt, and Novak (all Top 100 guys)team of 2004 wasn't as talented...That said, I haven't seen where you've bullet pointed 4 reasons why Tom Crean had so little "talent" at MU his 5th year. I personally think he had good talent in 2004, but couldn't coach it or motivate it properly to get it to the NCAA, and the 2004 team underperformed significantly..while the 2010 team overachieved significantly by every objective and rational person's opinion (which excludes your opinion as clearly you cannot get past your love of Tom Crean to see it for what it was.)
The 2010 team overachieved, no question, at least based on projections. The reality is, the talent was better than the prognosticators thought. That's typically how teams overachieve, because the talent rises, people have career years, the competition is down, a combination of them all.
As for 2004, can you explain (NERS and Lenny) why you think they underachieved? With losing Wade and Jackson, Merritt's surgery, a brutal conference (most NCAA berths by a non BCS conference in NCAA history) how they underachieved? I keep waiting for that answer but haven't seen it yet, at least not a coherent one.
Were they expected to finish first that year in CUSA or something? They underachieved based on what criteria exactly? I'm simply asking, not trying to piss in anyone's cheerios, just asking what criteria you are using....and please don't say some recruiting analysts who sees players play 2 or 3 times a year. I'm talking TEAM underachievement, by whom, etc.
Much appreciated.
Quote from: Ners on June 01, 2010, 08:02:14 PM
No. You and I never share the exact same opinion. I've said that you failed to recognize that after 5 seasons on the job, by YOUR estimation, Tom Crean had recruited less talent to MU, than had Buzz Williams in just his 2nd year on the job..with the additions of Jimmy Butler and DJO and throw in Buycks for good measure.
You're not making any sense.
Help me understand where you're coming from. Which side of the argument do you agree with:
A) Buzz recruited better talent than Crean's worst team (my point).
B) Buzz recruited worse talent than Crean's worst team (Lenny's point).
Now, Lenny's agenda is such that he thinks that if sandbags the quality of Buzz's recruits, he can talk up Buzz's coaching ability.
Until I point out the obvious--Buzz recruited most of the 2010 team. So when Lenny argues that we were talent-limited in 2010, it reflects poorly on Buzz the recruiter.
You're sounding like you want to sandbag the 2010 team as well. You claimed "none of these guys were top 100 in High School" but omitted that they were JUCO All-Americans before they arrived at Marquette.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 01, 2010, 08:15:09 PM
The 2010 team overachieved, no question, at least based on projections. The reality is, the talent was better than the prognosticators thought. That's typically how teams overachieve, because the talent rises, people have career years, the competition is down, a combination of them all.
As for 2004, can you explain (NERS and Lenny) why you think they underachieved? With losing Wade and Jackson, Merritt's surgery, a brutal conference (most NCAA berths by a non BCS conference in NCAA history) how they underachieved? I keep waiting for that answer but haven't seen it yet, at least not a coherent one.
Were they expected to finish first that year in CUSA or something? They underachieved based on what criteria exactly? I'm simply asking, not trying to piss in anyone's cheerios, just asking what criteria you are using....and please don't say some recruiting analysts who sees players play 2 or 3 times a year. I'm talking TEAM underachievement, by whom, etc.
Much appreciated.
MU was top 25 (AP - I've learned my lesson about using the coaches poll ;) Cincy and Louisville were also in the lower third of the top 25 and Memphis was just out of it. So it's fair to say we were expected to finish between 1st and 4th. Of the top 10 in minutes played we returned 8. Dameon Mason (top 50 and starter as a frosh) and Juco AA Marcus Jackson were the key newcomers.
With the loss of Wade and RJax there were a lot of numbers that needed to be replaced (though not as many as in 2010). The simple fact is that nobody other than Diener really stepped up. Merritt put up similar numbers to go with a poorer shooting % and more than double the turnovers. Novak basically doubled his minutes and his scoring/rebounds (a push) but his overall shooting% fell from 50.6 to 40.7 and his 3pt% fell from 51.5 to 43.0. Townsend actually dropped from 5.3 pts and 2.6 rbs to 1.8 and 0.9 as his shooting % fell on 2's (44.1 to 34.6) and 3's (37.5 to 22.3).
I won't bore you with any more numbers but again basically Diener elevated his game and the rest of the team didn't. When that many players level off or regress it's a guarantee for disappointment. I certainly fault the players first but the leader bears some responsibility. I think TC was an overall above average coach at MU, but 2004 was one of two I'd rate sub par.
Thanks for your civil request even if you end up disagreeing with everything I say.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 01, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
You're wrong. I'll give you the answer: This thread.
You made multiple posts where you argue quite vehemently that Buzz's 2010 class is less talented than Crean's class of 2004.
And we all know that 2004 is Crean's least talented team.
No. You're wrong. Buzz had 1 recruiting class and 1 late signing period on last year's team. So that's what, maybe 1.25 classes. It produced Butler, Buycks and DJO along with injured Otule and Cadougan, plus potential stud E Williams.
Crean's 2.75 classes left us one stud and two pint sized career back ups. But calling last year's team Buzz's class is typical of your style. Everything from distortions to outright lies. Thanks for staying consistent.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 09:40:55 PM
MU was top 25 (AP - I've learned my lesson about using the coaches poll ;) Cincy and Louisville were also in the lower third of the top 25 and Memphis was just out of it. So it's fair to say we were expected to finish between 1st and 4th. Of the top 10 in minutes played we returned 8. Dameon Mason (top 50 and starter as a frosh) and Juco AA Marcus Jackson were the key newcomers.
With the loss of Wade and RJax there were a lot of numbers that needed to be replaced (though not as many as in 2010). The simple fact is that nobody other than Diener really stepped up. Merritt put up similar numbers to go with a poorer shooting % and more than double the turnovers. Novak basically doubled his minutes and his scoring/rebounds (a push) but his overall shooting% fell from 50.6 to 40.7 and his 3pt% fell from 51.5 to 43.0. Townsend actually dropped from 5.3 pts and 2.6 rbs to 1.8 and 0.9 as his shooting % fell on 2's (44.1 to 34.6) and 3's (37.5 to 22.3).
I won't bore you with any more numbers but again basically Diener elevated his game and the rest of the team didn't. When that many players level off or regress it's a guarantee for disappointment. I certainly fault the players first but the leader bears some responsibility. I think TC was an overall above average coach at MU, but 2004 was one of two I'd rate sub par.
Thanks for your civil request even if you end up disagreeing with everything I say.
OK, fair enough, but I do have a follow-up. Aren't pre-season polls also just projections based on nothing truly concrete? They're just projections, they don't factor in injuries, etc. And the writers are often lazy and simply look at where teams finished the previous year and slot them in the next.
If not, how does one explain this year's preseason top 25? I mean, if they missed that badly on these teams, why would we give them any credence to their preseason predictions? They seem pretty horrible at it, don't you agree? ;)
Do you think getting 60% correct is good?
AP Preseason Picks 2009-10 Season (actual finish in top 25)#3 Texas (actual - no top 25 finish)
#6 North Carolina (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#12 UCONN (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#13 California (actual - one of last teams to make NCAA - no top 25)
#15 Michigan (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#17 Oklahoma (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#18 Mississippi State (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#21 Dayton (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#23 Illinois (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#25 Minnesota (actual - one of last teams to make NCAA - no top 25)
So the AP missed on 40% of their predictions preseason. That's pretty bad, why again are we using them as experts to determine if a team is going to be good at such an abysmal rate? Why shouldn't we basing it on actual performance, which is what I think MU84 is saying (you can join me in that crowd as well).
Seems prognostications are great, but when you have a national group like writers who only see one particular team play so many times a year, they are largely going on last year's performance. Rosiak is a voter, he sees MU play every game, but how often does he see the other 342 teams play? What does he use to decide his preseason top 25? I'll bet dollars to donuts it's how last year's team finished. I'll also bet that his top 25 picks are a lot better 2 months into the season with ACTUAL playing rather than guess work in October prior to a season starting.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 01, 2010, 10:41:56 PM
OK, fair enough, but I do have a follow-up. Aren't pre-season polls also just projections based on nothing truly concrete? They're just projections, they don't factor in injuries, etc. And the writers are often lazy and simply look at where teams finished the previous year and slot them in the next.
If not, how does one explain this year's preseason top 25? I mean, if they missed that badly on these teams, why would we give them any credence to their preseason predictions? They seem pretty horrible at it, don't you agree? ;)
Do you think getting 60% correct is good?
AP Preseason Picks 2009-10 Season (actual finish in top 25)
#3 Texas (actual - no top 25 finish)
#6 North Carolina (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#12 UCONN (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#13 California (actual - one of last teams to make NCAA - no top 25)
#15 Michigan (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#17 Oklahoma (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#18 Mississippi State (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#21 Dayton (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#23 Illinois (actual - no NCAA tournament - no top 25)
#25 Minnesota (actual - one of last teams to make NCAA - no top 25)
So the AP missed on 40% of their predictions preseason. That's pretty bad, why again are we using them as experts to determine if a team is going to be good at such an abysmal rate? Why shouldn't we basing it on actual performance, which is what I think MU84 is saying (you can join me in that crowd as well).
Seems prognostications are great, but when you have a national group like writers who only see one particular team play so many times a year, they are largely going on last year's performance. Rosiak is a voter, he sees MU play every game, but how often does he see the other 342 teams play? What does he use to decide his preseason top 25? I'll bet dollars to donuts it's how last year's team finished. I'll also bet that his top 25 picks are a lot better 2 months into the season with ACTUAL playing rather than guess work in October prior to a season starting.
The preseason polls are projections (hence the prefix pre), but to say they're based on nothing concrete is inaccurate. They're based on past performance (concrete data on returning players and newcomers) predicting the future - which is necessarily an inexact science. Injuries, defections and changes in attitude can't be predited. Nor can anything other than normal variance and progression for individual players. When you have players whose performance doesn't match reasonable expectations (see MU in 2004 or Texas, UCONN, etc from last year) teams surprise to the downside. Conversely, when a team has players who exceed reasonable expectations (MU 2010 with Acker and Cubillan) teams surprise to the upside. 84 believes that Mo and David were elite talents held back by TC before being "unleashed" by Buzz. I think it's more likely that they gave a big effort and had their strengths accentuated and weaknesses mitigated by the system devised by Buzz.
I'm certainly not arguing that preseaon polls are more accurate than post season ones. Outcomes are easier to "predict" when one knows the final score. But try to tell people that follow N. Carolina, UCONN, Michigan, etc that they had NIT talent this year and that their teams performed to their capabilities since record = talent. 84 will find no more agreement with those fans than he finds here.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 01, 2010, 09:59:12 PM
No. You're wrong. Buzz had 1 recruiting class and 1 late signing period on last year's team. So that's what, maybe 1.25 classes. It produced Butler, Buycks and DJO along with injured Otule and Cadougan, plus potential stud E Williams.
Sorry, but you are the one distorting the truth here.
The truth:
Buzz recruited 10 players on the 2010 roster.
Crean recruited 3 players on the 2010 roster.
Your distortion of using use "recruiting classes" is a last gasp attempt to mask the underlying fact: Most of the players on the 2010 team were Buzz's responsibility. So what if Buzz "only" had 1.25 recruiting classes--he brought in most of the players.
And what you really mean by making excuses for Buzz by claiming that he "only" had 1.25 recruiting classes? Are you suggesting that Buzz wasn't capable of recruiting quality players until the incoming class for 2011? That he got lucky with Butler and Buycks and DJO? That his recruiting in 2009 and 2010 were total busts?
You've clearly backed yourself into a corner on this one.
You argued quite vehemently that you think that 2010 had LESS overall talent than 2004.
But that's before I reminded you that Buzz (not Crean) recruited most of the players on the 2010 team.
Hence you invent this bogus "1.25 recruiting classes" argument.
Yet 10 players are 10 players, regardless of whether they are all in one class or spread out over four classes. Its completely bogus to say that Buzz couldn't recruit quality because he only had 1.25 classes to do so.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 02, 2010, 09:45:01 AM
I'm certainly not arguing that preseaon polls are more accurate than post season ones. Outcomes are easier to "predict" when one knows the final score. But try to tell people that follow N. Carolina, UCONN, Michigan, etc that they had NIT talent this year and that their teams performed to their capabilities since record = talent. 84 will find no more agreement with those fans than he finds here.
I think most UNC fans that would agree that their NIT appearance this year was more due to a lack of talent than poor coaching.
But I don't know--maybe most of their fans think that Roy is a terrible coach, only won the national championship because he got lucky, and failing to make the NCAA with super-studs like Tyler Zellar, John Henson and the Ware brothers on the roster have exposed his poor coaching.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 02, 2010, 09:57:06 AM
Sorry, but you are the one distorting the truth here.
The truth:
Buzz recruited 10 players on the 2010 roster.
Crean recruited 3 players on the 2010 roster.
Your distortion of using use "recruiting classes" is a last gasp attempt to mask the underlying fact: Most of the players on the 2010 team were Buzz's responsibility. So what if Buzz "only" had 1.25 recruiting classes--he brought in most of the players.
And what you really mean by making excuses for Buzz by claiming that he "only" had 1.25 recruiting classes? Are you suggesting that Buzz wasn't capable of recruiting quality players until the incoming class for 2011? That he got lucky with Butler and Buycks and DJO? That his recruiting in 2009 and 2010 were total busts?
You've clearly backed yourself into a corner on this one.
You argued quite vehemently that you think that 2010 had LESS overall talent than 2004.
But that's before I reminded you that Buzz (not Crean) recruited most of the players on the 2010 team.
Hence you invent this bogus "1.25 recruiting classes" argument.
Yet 10 players are 10 players, regardless of whether they are all in one class or spread out over four classes. Its completely bogus to say that Buzz couldn't recruit quality because he only had 1.25 classes to do so.
Again, in 1+ year I think Buzz has done a remarkable job of recruiting but it's not fair to say he should have recruited 4 years of talent in that time. By the way, how did that 1+ year work out for your boy at IU?(where last tear's team was TOTALLY his). As a fair man I think it's too early classify it as a complete train wreck and a collossal failure. You obviously think Crean (who actually had a slight head start on Buzz) has had ample time to make IU an elite program again. Don't you think you're being a tad harsh on him?
Jimmy Butler
Jimmy Butler
Jimmy Butler
Just wanted to make sure his name got mentioned on this page of the thread. ;)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 02, 2010, 11:42:40 AM
Again, in 1+ year I think Buzz has done a remarkable job of recruiting but it's not fair to say he should have recruited 4 years of talent in that time.
Its this simple: Buzz had 10 scholarships to fill. He filled them.
Either he filled them with players that are collectively better than the 2004 team (my view).
Or he filled them with players that are collectively not as good as the 2004 team (your view).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 02, 2010, 09:45:01 AM
The preseason polls are projections (hence the prefix pre), but to say they're based on nothing concrete is inaccurate. They're based on past performance (concrete data on returning players and newcomers) predicting the future - which is necessarily an inexact science. Injuries, defections and changes in attitude can't be predited. Nor can anything other than normal variance and progression for individual players. When you have players whose performance doesn't match reasonable expectations (see MU in 2004 or Texas, UCONN, etc from last year) teams surprise to the downside. Conversely, when a team has players who exceed reasonable expectations (MU 2010 with Acker and Cubillan) teams surprise to the upside. 84 believes that Mo and David were elite talents held back by TC before being "unleashed" by Buzz. I think it's more likely that they gave a big effort and had their strengths accentuated and weaknesses mitigated by the system devised by Buzz.
I'm certainly not arguing that preseaon polls are more accurate than post season ones. Outcomes are easier to "predict" when one knows the final score. But try to tell people that follow N. Carolina, UCONN, Michigan, etc that they had NIT talent this year and that their teams performed to their capabilities since record = talent. 84 will find no more agreement with those fans than he finds here.
I think we agree to a large extent. Because they are preseason, they are subject to a lot of missing information, but certainly there is some information for them to make their prognostications. So perhaps saying "nothing concrete" on my part was overstated. I guess where we differ is how much weight to put into preseason predictions. They're a nice gauge, fun for the fans, but in my opinion are largely based on the prior year's team and don't reflect the realities that occur in season like injuries, level of competition, the schedule changes from one year to the next, etc.
In essence, I don't believe a team overachieved or underachieved based on preseason polls. This is why in 2004, I don't think we should have been the #23 team in the nation in preseason just as Michigan shouldn't have been the #15 team this year, or any other example given by me last night.
In my opinion, working with sports writers over the years, understanding how the polling works, it's just not a sound way to judge a team. It's impossible for writers to know all 347 teams, or even know the top 75 that they would seriously look at to judge where they should be this year based on last. I think the proof is in the pudding when we see that they only got 60% right this year...an F.
Just my opinion.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2010, 01:24:27 PM
In essence, I don't believe a team overachieved or underachieved based on preseason polls.
What do you think overachieving or underachieving should be based on?
The overall preseason rankings might be a bit sketchy, but what about the individual preseason conference rankings done by coaches and writers? Surely there is some substance in those picks as everybody is familiar with the teams and knows what each team returns.
If you can't base if off those as a starting point (and take other factors such as injuries, luck..etc into account), then what is the basis for a team to over or underachieve? Or do you foolishly believe (like 84) that there is no such thing?
Quote from: jmayer1 on June 02, 2010, 01:33:40 PM
What do you think overachieving or underachieving should be based on?
The overall preseason rankings might be a bit sketchy, but what about the individual preseason conference rankings done by coaches and writers? Surely there is some substance in those picks as everybody is familiar with the teams and knows what each team returns.
If you can't base if off those as a starting point (and take other factors such as injuries, luck..etc into account), then what is the basis for a team to over or underachieve? Or do you foolishly believe (like 84) that there is no such thing?
Here is where I sit with this. It is easier to ascertain how a NFL or NBA or NHL or even MLB team is going to do each year via offseason moves, injuries, retirements, etc, core talent largely stays in tact. The biggest reason is that there are only about 30 clubs in each sport.
Where I think one of the mistakes that has been made is to extrapolate that thinking to college basketball, where there are almost 350 teams, schedules are wildly different from year to year, roster turnover is the name of the game (including your most talented players) due to graduation. Simply put, predicting college basketball or college football in the offseason is IMMENSELY more difficult than other sports. Sure, people can say X player was rated #63 in the class so he's going to step right in and take over for the senior that just graduated, but that's nowhere near a science or even a highly educated guess because there is no track record for recruits other than random player rankings (many of which also don't pan out nearly to the extent that the recruiting gurus say they will).
So if people want to put a team's achievement in the hands of writers trying to figure out what 350 teams will do, trying to guess what a player that played well his Senior of high school is going to do his freshman year of college, trying to compare last year's schedule to this year's schedule, trying to compare the strength of all the other teams on that schedule, then that's fine. For me, I don't buy into that as the source for determination of achieving or underachieving. It's no more a guess than what we do on Crackedsidewalks when we take our lucky stab in the dark at how we will do. It's a guess, with some rationale applied to it, but with massive amounts of caveats because so much data is missing. The true analysis of achievement is done, in my mind, after the season is done based on what they did....not based on where some writer picked them to finish.
I've shown plenty of examples to show why counting on recruiting experts or poll voters is exposed with huge holes. And just by definition, in my mind you evaluate a team on ACTUAL performance in ACTUAL games against ACTUAL competition, not by saying "they finished 8th in the conference but were picked 6th". Seems way to naive and simplistic approach.
By the way, did you see the AP writers football preseason top 25? We already know how badly they miss on hoops, for football they should do a much better job. Even there, these "experts" miss badly.
Notre Dame top 25 preseason again....didn't happen in the final rankings
Oklahoma....major injuries...didn't finish in the top 25....did they underachieve or were those injuries the REALITY of what caused their downfall? I'd argue the latter
California....preseason top 25, not at the end
Georgia....preseason top 25, but not at the end
North Carolina...same thing
Kansas...same thing
Oklahoma State...same thing
USC preseason #4, supposed to contend for national title...barely makes top 25 and goes to Emerald Bowl
Why did they miss on Wisconsin, Central Michigan, Pittsburgh, etc in the preseason?
And on and on. The reality is, the preseason polls are based on some realities, some "science" in evaluation based on who's coming back, etc, but it's also loaded with gaping holes which is why they (the writers) miss so badly on the preseason vs the final rankings. It's not the writers fault that they can't predict an injury, but the realities are those things happen. Just like they happen in college hoops, and if that means a team underachieves, well that's for you to decide I guess.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2010, 03:48:41 PM
I've shown plenty of examples to show why counting on recruiting experts or poll voters is exposed with huge holes. And just by definition, in my mind you evaluate a team on ACTUAL performance in ACTUAL games against ACTUAL competition, not by saying "they finished 8th in the conference but were picked 6th". Seems way to naive and simplistic approach.
So, do you think teams cannot under or overachieve in college sports because there is no way to accurately predict what a team will do due to a multitude of variables? They just achieve whatever they achieve and that's that? It's fine if you do, I just want to be clear.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 02, 2010, 12:31:23 PM
Its this simple: Buzz had 10 scholarships to fill. He filled them.
Either he filled them with players that are collectively better than the 2004 team (my view).
Or he filled them with players that are collectively not as good as the 2004 team (your view).
84 - Out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Indiana basketball - would you rather have Buzz Williams or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?
Quote from: jmayer1 on June 02, 2010, 04:20:09 PM
So, do you think teams cannot under or overachieve in college sports because there is no way to accurately predict what a team will do due to a multitude of variables? They just achieve whatever they achieve and that's that? It's fine if you do, I just want to be clear.
LOL. Not what I said at all. You can use whatever criteria you want, but in my opinion using preseason rankings, which have shown to be very poor in predicting actual outcomes, is not proper or extremely flawed at best. If you want to use that as your measuring stick, knock your socks off. I'd prefer to watch the team, evaluate at the end of the season how they did, who they played, who was injured (you know...REAL DATA ;D ) and determine if they actually did better or worse then they should based on what the team was comprised of.
If you want to use a measuring stick of pretend, of prognostications done by writers with a yearly poor track record, that doesn't factor in the realities of injuries, schedules, etc....by all means.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2010, 03:48:41 PM
Here is where I sit with this. It is easier to ascertain how a NFL or NBA or NHL or even MLB team is going to do each year via offseason moves, injuries, retirements, etc, core talent largely stays in tact. The biggest reason is that there are only about 30 clubs in each sport.
Where I think one of the mistakes that has been made is to extrapolate that thinking to college basketball, where there are almost 350 teams, schedules are wildly different from year to year, roster turnover is the name of the game (including your most talented players) due to graduation. Simply put, predicting college basketball or college football in the offseason is IMMENSELY more difficult than other sports. Sure, people can say X player was rated #63 in the class so he's going to step right in and take over for the senior that just graduated, but that's nowhere near a science or even a highly educated guess because there is no track record for recruits other than random player rankings (many of which also don't pan out nearly to the extent that the recruiting gurus say they will).
So if people want to put a team's achievement in the hands of writers trying to figure out what 350 teams will do, trying to guess what a player that played well his Senior of high school is going to do his freshman year of college, trying to compare last year's schedule to this year's schedule, trying to compare the strength of all the other teams on that schedule, then that's fine. For me, I don't buy into that as the source for determination of achieving or underachieving. It's no more a guess than what we do on Crackedsidewalks when we take our lucky stab in the dark at how we will do. It's a guess, with some rationale applied to it, but with massive amounts of caveats because so much data is missing. The true analysis of achievement is done, in my mind, after the season is done based on what they did....not based on where some writer picked them to finish.
I've shown plenty of examples to show why counting on recruiting experts or poll voters is exposed with huge holes. And just by definition, in my mind you evaluate a team on ACTUAL performance in ACTUAL games against ACTUAL competition, not by saying "they finished 8th in the conference but were picked 6th". Seems way to naive and simplistic approach.
By the way, did you see the AP writers football preseason top 25? We already know how badly they miss on hoops, for football they should do a much better job. Even there, these "experts" miss badly.
Notre Dame top 25 preseason again....didn't happen in the final rankings
Oklahoma....major injuries...didn't finish in the top 25....did they underachieve or were those injuries the REALITY of what caused their downfall? I'd argue the latter
California....preseason top 25, not at the end
Georgia....preseason top 25, but not at the end
North Carolina...same thing
Kansas...same thing
Oklahoma State...same thing
USC preseason #4, supposed to contend for national title...barely makes top 25 and goes to Emerald Bowl
Why did they miss on Wisconsin, Central Michigan, Pittsburgh, etc in the preseason?
And on and on. The reality is, the preseason polls are based on some realities, some "science" in evaluation based on who's coming back, etc, but it's also loaded with gaping holes which is why they (the writers) miss so badly on the preseason vs the final rankings. It's not the writers fault that they can't predict an injury, but the realities are those things happen. Just like they happen in college hoops, and if that means a team underachieves, well that's for you to decide I guess.
College basketball harder to project than any of the major pro sports? Agree. Easier to judge a team after the season than before it? True for all of life's endeavors.
I still say that it's fair to conclude that a team projected in the 18-30 range by all the preseason publications, writers and coaches that loses nobody to injury and finishes in the 50-70 range underachieves big time in comparison to a team picked 65-85 that loses 3 players from their rotation and still goes on to be a 6 seed in the NCAAs.
In 2004, the team lost Wade and Jackson and fell from the final four to the NIT. In 2010, the team lost James, McNeal, Matthews, Burke, Cadougan, Otule and Maymon and went from a 6 seed in the NCAA tourney to - (drum roll) - a 6 seed in the NCAA tourney. If both those teams achieved to their talent then those who say DWade was virtually a one man team are grossly understating their case.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2010, 04:44:21 PM
LOL. Not what I said at all. You can use whatever criteria you want, but in my opinion using preseason rankings, which have shown to be very poor in predicting actual outcomes, is not proper or extremely flawed at best. If you want to use that as your measuring stick, knock your socks off.
Not sure what the LOL was for. I asked you the same question before and didn't get a straight answer.
I believe what the coaches and writers of a league think, as well as the general consensus of the team's fans, prior to the year are a good
starting point to base expectations off of. Obviously things change and there are a ton of other factors that should be considered when evaluating how a team fared after the season.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2010, 04:44:21 PM
I'd prefer to watch the team, evaluate at the end of the season how they did, who they played, who was injured (you know...REAL DATA ;D ) and determine if they actually did better or worse then they should based on what the team was comprised of.
If you want to use a measuring stick of pretend, of prognostications done by writers with a yearly poor track record, that doesn't factor in the realities of injuries, schedules, etc....by all means.
The big problem with saying this is that then you aren't really setting any expectations prior to the season and thus have no starting basis to say if you think they under or overachieved. How do you know if they did better or worse than they should? It's all hindsight, because the results are right there in front of you. It's illogical to look at the results and say a team did or did not meet expectations, when you didn't set any in the first place.
Going into 2004, I would have said the team should make the NCAA. That would have been my starting point. After the season, I would have said they underachieved in my eyes due to x, y, and z. Or I could have said they didn't really underachieve, I just set my expectations too high given the prior year success and x, y, z.
Similarly, last year going into the season not many people (myself included) had MU pegged for a 5th place finish and another NCAA tournement appearance. I could either say they overachieved, despite losing 2 highly rated recruits in Junior and Maymon, as Acker and Cubby really stepped up, Butler continued his progression, and DJO had one of the best first years on campus in recent memory. Or I could have said that my expectations were too low, given how Acker & Butler played at the end of 09, Cubillan finally being healthy again, and DJO/Buycks showing a lot of potential in JUCO.
However, if you have no expectations to start with (even if they are just in your own head like most people's) I don't see how you can decide after the fact whether the team should have been better. Not sure if you see my point or not.
Quote from: Ners on June 02, 2010, 04:21:22 PM
84 - Out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Indiana basketball - would you rather have Buzz Williams or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?
Not 84, but asking me after 9 years and I can see how the two compare.
Just as if you were to ask that same question a number of years ago after the Final Four season under Crean and said, "out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Tennessee basketball - would you rather have Kevin O'Neill or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?"
Timing is everything and when you ask the question in the tenure of the coach is equally relevant. Would UNC fans today answer the same way about Roy Williams as they would have last year? Would UCLA fans today answer the same way 2 years ago about Ben Howland after their 3rd straight Final Four?
Quote from: Ners on June 02, 2010, 04:21:22 PM
84 - Out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Indiana basketball - would you rather have Buzz Williams or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?
If everyone in Marquette Nation past and presnt answered your question honestly the only two votes for TC would be from Tom and Joannie Crean.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2010, 05:50:22 PM
Not 84, but asking me after 9 years and I can see how the two compare.
Just as if you were to ask that same question a number of years ago after the Final Four season under Crean and said, "out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Tennessee basketball - would you rather have Kevin O'Neill or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?"
Timing is everything and when you ask the question in the tenure of the coach is equally relevant. Would UNC fans today answer the same way about Roy Williams as they would have last year? Would UCLA fans today answer the same way 2 years ago about Ben Howland after their 3rd straight Final Four?
Would you tend to agree that the sledding gets easier the longer a coach is successful and stays at 1 school? In other words do established coaches 7-10+ years of tenure have an easier go of things - recruiting primarily - than those trying to establish themselves? The truth is that in this day and age most schools aren't going to retain a coach for 7-10 years if he hasn't been successful...and that success should help build that coaches program, correct? To me, early success on the job is a good indicator of future success - unless complacency or ego rear their ugly head....which I hope never happens to Buzz. His character seems such that this won't happen, but we never know with public figures (as you've said before.).
Quote from: Ners on June 02, 2010, 07:18:12 PM
Would you tend to agree that the sledding gets easier the longer a coach is successful and stays at 1 school? In other words do established coaches 7-10+ years of tenure have an easier go of things - recruiting primarily - than those trying to establish themselves? The truth is that in this day and age most schools aren't going to retain a coach for 7-10 years if he hasn't been successful...and that success should help build that coaches program, correct? To me, early success on the job is a good indicator of future success - unless complacency or ego rear their ugly head....which I hope never happens to Buzz. His character seems such that this won't happen, but we never know with public figures (as you've said before.).
In the old days, I would say absolutely. In the new world, not so sure. When you see Arizona, UCLA, UCONN, North Carolina, etc, etc not making the NCAA Tournament, despite being coached by highly successful coaches, that somewhat proves my point.
Kids leave earlier than they used to. Parity has spread out talent across to other teams like never before (the elite teams often have only 7 or 8 solid players and no bench).
I guess what I'm saying is that early success doesn't mean sustained success, and I give you UCLA, Arizona, North Carolina, UCONN, etc as just the latest examples of many. Or, you can look at Steve Lavin. Or you can look at Pat Kennedy. Etc, etc.
Look at Crean...average first two years, very good next two years, average next two years, very good next 3+ years (let's face it, if he didn't leave he would have taken the amigos to the NCAAs as well).
This is why I won't evaluate coaches until after 5 years, because things change and change frequently.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2010, 07:26:07 PM
In the old days, I would say absolutely. In the new world, not so sure. When you see Arizona, UCLA, UCONN, North Carolina, etc, etc not making the NCAA Tournament, despite being coached by highly successful coaches, that somewhat proves my point.
Kids leave earlier than they used to. Parity has spread out talent across to other teams like never before (the elite teams often have only 7 or 8 solid players and no bench).
I guess what I'm saying is that early success doesn't mean sustained success, and I give you UCLA, Arizona, North Carolina, UCONN, etc as just the latest examples of many. Or, you can look at Steve Lavin. Or you can look at Pat Kennedy. Etc, etc.
Look at Crean...average first two years, very good next two years, average next two years, very good next 3+ years (let's face it, if he didn't leave he would have taken the amigos to the NCAAs as well).
This is why I won't evaluate coaches until after 5 years, because things change and change frequently.
I'd tend to agree with some of your analysis, but it definitely is an anomaly or almost a fluke when UNC, UCLA, UCONN and Arizona don't make the tourney. That said, due to one and dones, or other early departures it has leveled the playing field a little bit for the rest of the field, or non blue-chip programs. One other thought - is there anything really that great about Lawrence, KS or Chapel Hill, or Bloomington, or Lexington..to where these schools/cities are such a draw that, that explains their success over time? Or does a program become a blue chip program due to the legacy of an amazing coach with a long run at the school: Wooden, Lute Olson, Dean Smith, Bobby Knight, Larry Brown (tho I think he was short run at Kansas), Adolph Rupp, Boheim, Calhoun, Bill Self, etc.? Even Al McGuire put MU on the map nationally with recruits..and after he left we still got some top tier talent based on school name alone..and Al's legacy. The longer one of these blue chip schools goes without a premier coach..the less the school becomes blue chip..in my opinion...which I believe TC is dealing with at IU currently.
Funny? I'm figuring Crean thought it would be easier at Indiana than MU. Guess he was wrong for the first time ever.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 02, 2010, 09:12:13 PM
Funny? I'm figuring Crean thought it would be easier at Indiana than MU. Guess he was wrong for the first time ever.
Maybe, but we'll have to see if that holds true 5 or 10 years from now. Depends on so many factors.