For those who doubt what he does, watch that overtime a few times. Seriously, Junior is STOG, but Trent did things in OT that were essential to the victory.
That block was picture-perfect. Coming down with the ball himself was very impressive. Not to mention some clutch free throws. Otule and Jamil also contributed more than most will realize. CO played excellent defense and was again smart on offense while Jamil was immense on the boards despite not putting in as many points as we'd like.
I was going to post the same thing. He came up very big in the second half on some key possessions.
I thought this game was lost. The turnover by Jamil Wilson late in the game...ugh, but they hung in there. Big plays by Lockett tonight. Good win.
Trent looked pretty good at the end.
Get Steve Taylor and Mayo going too we may have something here.
Quote from: Stone Cold on January 01, 2013, 09:46:02 PM
Trent looked pretty good at the end.
Get Steve Taylor and Mayo going too we may have something here.
Agreed. I thought Steve T. had some high quality minutes. I was a bit aggravated he wasn't in down the stretch.
Steve was huge, absolutely huge. When Wilson and Anderson both picked up 2 early in the first half, I was shaking my head in disbelief. Taylor came in and played very well on both ends. I don't expect him to keep getting double-digit minutes, but I'm glad he is there as another option up front.
Quote from: AZWarrior on January 01, 2013, 09:48:07 PM
Agreed. I thought Steve T. had some high quality minutes. I was a bit aggravated he wasn't in down the stretch.
I definitely was aggravated as well. Thought we could have had a better lineup mix it will be interesting to see how much pt Buzz gives Steve going forward.
Kid looked real good, also Otule had some real solid moments.
Taylor was pulled after he gave up a pretty bad weak side offensive rebound and put back. I love the way he plays on the offensive end, but he still has some work to do on the other end. He'll get there.
Taylor was very good tonight and came in when the others had foul trouble. Remember one bad defensive move under the boards.
Played 12 minutes, had 9 points, 3 rebounds and one steal.
Very productive for those minutes played.
Didn't notice that. My thinking was we were going through a pretty long drought at the end of regulation, was hoping Steve could help with O production at the end .
Junior bailed us tonight man. We were pretty brutal on O at the end of reg and our backcourt got taken to school by UCONN's for a good portion of the game.
I'll take it and build on it though!
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 01, 2013, 09:51:38 PM
Taylor was pulled after he gave up a pretty bad weak side offensive rebound and put back. I love the way he plays on the offensive end, but he still has some work to do on the other end. He'll get there.
Well heck. Pull him out, point out the error of his ways. And then sub him back in! The offensive mix was better when he was in. I really liked his basket from the high post.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 01, 2013, 09:44:46 PM
That block was picture-perfect. Coming down with the ball himself was very impressive. Not to mention some clutch free throws. Otule and Jamil also contributed more than most will realize. CO played excellent defense and was again smart on offense while Jamil was immense on the boards despite not putting in as many points as we'd like.
Excellent post, brew.
I think Lockett had his best game as a Warrior. Made several huge plays down the stretch. Otule was a big factor when he was in the game.
I was watching the game with a friend and at one point, I said that Jamil was having a nice game. My buddy said, "He is? He hasn't even scored." I said, "Yeah, but he's finally doing the little things."
I liked Taylor's contributions, too. Sometimes the box score doesn't illustrate everything.
Lockett couldn't buy a bucket, but I don't think there was one that I would say was a bad look. Of course he buries a three when there's an offensive foul under the basket. I'm still a big Lockett fan. He does a lot of little things and I still believe his offense will come around.
I was so happy to see Steve Taylor be effective at the free throw line against the zone. That area is wide open and usually the best spot to break the zone, and we don't use it. I feel like we always busted zones that way in the past. I am really excited for his future.
Quote from: AZWarrior on January 01, 2013, 10:00:08 PM
Well heck. Pull him out, point out the error of his ways. And then sub him back in!
Someday when you get to be the coach, you can make that decision. But they went to primarily a defensive line up in overtime...and it worked. Both Jamil and Trent were big in OT.
Trent looked solid today. Much more aggressive.
CLANG, can't shoot.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 01, 2013, 10:06:31 PM
Someday when you get to be the coach, you can make that decision. But they went to primarily a defensive line up in overtime...and it worked. Both Jamil and Trent were big in OT.
Why yes, we won going away.
This is a fan board. I'll continue to express my opinions, thank you.
And I expect you'll do the same.
Quote from: Blueprint on January 01, 2013, 10:11:09 PM
CLANG, can't shoot.
No question that would have been the story if MU lost, but they didn't. Both Lockett and MU had to do a lot of things right to overcome that kind of a shooting night. Autry said after the game these guys are not bad shooters and you know he has to be right. They simply cannot be that bad. Lockett had some wide open looks. Autry also said they weren't forcing 3's and I agree with him. The vast majority were good looks. Sometimes it just gets in your head. I think a lot of teams lose this game because of the poor shooting. MU didn't. That's the bottom line. Lockett's game was a good reflection of the team overall.
Quote from: karavotsos on January 01, 2013, 10:22:02 PM
No question that would have been the story if MU lost, but they didn't. Both Lockett and MU had to do a lot of things right to overcome that kind of a shooting night. Autry said after the game these guys are not bad shooters and you know he has to be right. They simply cannot be that bad. Lockett had some wide open looks. Autry also said they weren't forcing 3's and I agree with him. The vast majority were good looks. Sometimes it just gets in your head. I think a lot of teams lose this game because of the poor shooting. MU didn't. That's the bottom line. Lockett's game was a good reflection of the team overall.
There was a stretch after MU went up 10 that Vander and Junior took 3 pointers pretty early in the shot clock. I thought those weren't very good shots.
Junior's three when we were up 10 was especially ugly.
Quote from: Blueprint on January 01, 2013, 10:11:09 PM
CLANG, can't shoot.
BUT did D up and get a HUGE rebound, shots will fall eventually (I hope!)....give him some kudos tonight
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 01, 2013, 10:23:47 PM
There was a stretch after MU went up 10 that Vander and Junior took 3 pointers pretty early in the shot clock. I thought those weren't very good shots.
I agree, I was mad at those as well.
I would say that those weren't very "smart shots", but they were still open/good looks that those guys can/should make, so Autry's point is still valid.
I think the offense has been producing some pretty good looks (both inside and out), but they just haven't gone in. I don't know if that is bad luck, or just bad shooters.
Could Lockett serve a Dennis Rodman type role for MU? I am not an expert, but does he have any shot for the pros if he specializes in rebounding? Or is he too small for his position?
Quote from: Norm on January 01, 2013, 10:32:25 PM
Could Lockett serve a Dennis Rodman type role for MU? I am not an expert, but does he have any shot for the pros if he specializes in rebounding? Or is he too small for his position?
Yeah too small. At 6'5", he would have to be a 2 in the NBA...and he isn't quick enough for that.
Norm, you have about as much chance at an NBA career as Lockett does.
Doesn't mean he still can't be an impact player for us this year, though.
He really had some good looks today at the hoop, and missed them all. What a bad shooting team! But playing hard keep them in the game and a lucky 3 from Junior helped them win.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 01, 2013, 10:23:47 PM
There was a stretch after MU went up 10 that Vander and Junior took 3 pointers pretty early in the shot clock. I thought those weren't very good shots.
I'd err on the side of taking the early good shot rather than going into a shell, especially seeing how quickly a 10 point lead can go away and with past experience -- especially 2 yrs ago some games (Louisville comes to mind). If Vander or Junior hits one of those, it could end the game. I'd think Junior's would probably be considered one of the bad ones, though. Lockett's were open good looks, and I guess I was thinking of his more and overall. I even thought Jamil had a couple he could have taken that he passed up. MU just missed a lot of open looks throughout.
Quote from: MU82 on January 01, 2013, 10:42:25 PM
Norm, you have about as much chance at an NBA career as Lockett does.
Doesn't mean he still can't be an impact player for us this year, though.
Yeah, that's what I thought, but just wasn't sure about prospects for "specialists" in the pros.
Trent shows his flashes, he just has to play more consistent.
Quote from: karavotsos on January 01, 2013, 10:45:29 PM
I'd err on the side of taking the early good shot rather than going into a shell, especially seeing how quickly a 10 point lead can go away and with past experience -- especially 2 yrs ago some games (Louisville comes to mind). If Vander or Junior hits one of those, it could end the game. I'd think Junior's would probably be considered one of the bad ones, though. Lockett's were open good looks, and I guess I was thinking of his more and overall. I even thought Jamil had a couple he could have taken that he passed up. MU just missed a lot of open looks throughout.
While I do understand that philosophy, I do think that they had been making hay by attacking the basket. And by taking early shots instead of continuing to pound away at the inside, you also become too passive.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 01, 2013, 10:23:47 PM
There was a stretch after MU went up 10 that Vander and Junior took 3 pointers pretty early in the shot clock. I thought those weren't very good shots.
+1
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 01, 2013, 10:57:20 PM
While I do understand that philosophy, I do think that they had been making hay by attacking the basket. And by taking early shots instead of continuing to pound away at the inside, you also become too passive.
was about to say this as well. (or something that was supposed to mean that but didn't sound as good.)
Quote from: weareMU13 on January 01, 2013, 10:52:48 PM
Trent shows his flashes, he just has to play more consistent.
He just needs to put the ball in the basket. Can imagine what everyone would be saying about him and Wilson and others if Jr's shot had bounced out.
I'd like to have heard the mean one. I think MU is fairly judicious in taking 3's. Didn't say they were all good. Also, don't think that shooting early in the shot clock- if its a good shot-is bad up 10, especially for this team. The shot clock problems at the end were in the other direction.
Kevin Ollie got his team to buckle down and play good d. When you're in the half court and the other team is playing tough d, passing up open shots can lead to no shot, or a worse shot, rather than a better shot. Don't want MU to select shots as if they are a 0% 3-point shooting team or a down-tempo low possession, burn clock team.
Quote from: karavotsos on January 01, 2013, 11:13:21 PM
I'd like to have heard the mean one. I think MU is fairly judicious in taking 3's. Didn't say they were all good. Also, don't think that shooting early in the shot clock- if its a good shot-is bad up 10, especially for this team. The shot clock problems at the end were in the other direction.
You work hard attacking the basket and getting good buckets to build a 10 point lead. Why, instead of continuing to work the offense that has been successful, would you throw up some quick, shitty threes? Especially considering you're 0-11 so far in the game. The lead was cut in half in those two lazy possessions.
I'm ok with Cadougan's 3 now as well if its what I remember. I think it was a ball screen and his guy got screened while the big man played the driving lane. He had an open shot. I remember being surprised at him taking it because he doesn't take a lot of 3's, but unless you're Rajon Rondo that's the right play. I'd rather have a guy take a shot confident he's going to make it than the paralysis that occurred in the half-court at the end of the game.
Not all good shots go in. I really don't know what made those shots crappy. If they were crappy because they were 3's, then the answer is don't shoot 3's. That's not an answer. If the answer is they were crappy because they were early in the shot clock, then you're stuck in half court offense, which no one wants to be all the time. If the shots were crappy shots because they didn't go in, then I guess you're right.
Locket played like crap the whole game. His half court and transition D were complete disasters. He was owned by the guys he was guarding on from UCONN. Watch more than the overtime and look at this game as a whole.
Quote from: downtown85 on January 02, 2013, 06:15:48 AM
Locket played like crap the whole game. His half court and transition D were complete disasters. He was owned by the guys he was guarding on from UCONN. Watch more than the overtime and look at this game as a whole.
yeah...i expected this thread to be pretty harsh on him. he did a few good things at the end of the game that i would certainly expect from someone who has as much D1 experience as him, but for the vast majority of the game i thought he was awful. maybe i had too high of expectations, but i didn't expect to see such basic mistakes. he cost mu more points on simple things like turning his back to his man or the ball, letting the player guarding him leak out for easy transition hoops, etc.
seems like a nice kid, smart, hard working, but i wouldn't expect to see the careless mistakes he made from someone i just described as smart and hard working. i'd also be less concerned with him shooting 0-7 if he had shown more consistency in the past for mu.
Quote from: downtown85 on January 02, 2013, 06:15:48 AM
Locket played like crap the whole game. His half court and transition D were complete disasters. He was owned by the guys he was guarding on from UCONN. Watch more than the overtime and look at this game as a whole.
I disagree partially. Transition D was a problem, but I think you are blaming him too much for some of the breakdowns in the halfcourt defense. I think them playing zone for a good portion of the game was done because the entire half-court defense has been pretty poor against decent teams this year. Simply put, if the defense isn't causing turnovers, the opposition generally gets a good look. Lockett is only part of that problem, and there aren't ready alternatives that are any better IMO.
Other than shooting, Trent had a good game. The same can be said for most of the team.
In 34 minutes, Lockett had 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, no TOs, knocked down clutch FTs and had one of the biggest plays in OT. Despite that, fans (both on here and at the BC) rip him for anything and everything because his shots weren't falling. Honestly, the ignorance among MU fans is starting to get embarrassing.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 02, 2013, 08:43:44 AM
In 34 minutes, Lockett had 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, no TOs, knocked down clutch FTs and had one of the biggest plays in OT. Despite that, fans (both on here and at the BC) rip him for anything and everything because his shots weren't falling. Honestly, the ignorance among MU fans is starting to get embarrassing.
And because of their misplaced expectations. If Juan or Jake has that stat line, people here would go nuts.
Quote from: tower912 on January 02, 2013, 08:33:06 AM
Other than shooting, Trent had a good game. The same can be said for most of the team.
If last night was a good showing for the team, it's going to be a stressful ride to 8-10.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 02, 2013, 08:45:17 AM
And because of their misplaced expectations. If Juan or Jake has that stat line, people here would go nuts.
If Juan or Jake went 0-7 but had 1 block in overtime people would be going nuts? What are you talking about? Juan played 14 minutes to Lockett's 34 and had 1 more rebound and same amount of assists. It's not about expectations, it's about results. Lockett has not been delivering results, he's shooting 36% from the field this year. His defense has been pretty bad as well.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 02, 2013, 09:08:06 AM
If Juan or Jake went 0-7 but had 1 block in overtime people would be going nuts? What are you talking about? Juan played 14 minutes to Lockett's 34 and had 1 more rebound and same amount of assists. It's not about expectations, it's about results. Lockett has not been delivering results, he's shooting 36% from the field this year. His defense has been pretty bad as well.
Hey, if you would rather have Juan on the floor in OT, good for you. Lockett is playing better than he is. Sorry you can't see that.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 02, 2013, 09:08:06 AM
If Juan or Jake went 0-7 but had 1 block in overtime people would be going nuts? What are you talking about? Juan played 14 minutes to Lockett's 34 and had 1 more rebound and same amount of assists. It's not about expectations, it's about results. Lockett has not been delivering results, he's shooting 36% from the field this year. His defense has been pretty bad as well.
Jake Thomas is shooting 33% from the floor and 30% from 3 and fans are clamoring for
him to see the floor more.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 02, 2013, 09:14:39 AM
Jake Thomas is shooting 33% from the floor and 30% from 3 and fans are clamoring for
him to see the floor more.
Todd Mayo is worse than that, and everybody seems to love that guy.
/ducks
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 02, 2013, 09:14:39 AM
Jake Thomas is shooting 33% from the floor and 30% from 3 and fans are clamoring for
him to see the floor more.
I have not heard from one fan who's "clamoring for more Jake Thomas". You might need new seats.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 02, 2013, 09:12:53 AM
Hey, if you would rather have Juan on the floor in OT, good for you. Lockett is playing better than he is. Sorry you can't see that.
Oh that's convenient. I didn't say that, but nice aversion. Let me post again so you can read carefully.
If Juan or Jake went 0-7 but had 1 block in overtime people would be going nuts? What are you talking about? Juan played 14 minutes to Lockett's 34 and had 1 more rebound and same amount of assists. It's not about expectations, it's about results. Lockett has not been delivering results, he's shooting 36% from the field this year. His defense has been pretty bad as well.
I don't see threads about how great Juan is....Sorry you can't see that.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on January 02, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
If last night was a good showing for the team, it's going to be a stressful ride to 8-10.
I will say that if we play that hard every game, we will beat half the teams in the conference and at least give ourselves a chance against the better teams. Goes without saying we have to shoot better, but I actually was quite encouraged by the effort.
We outrebounded UConn by 10, only committed 9 turnovers after some horrific games in which our guys acted like the ball was covered in margarine, got 18 pts, 5 assts and only 1 TO from our PG and made most of our FTs down the stretch.
Those are all things that lead to success.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 02, 2013, 09:21:41 AM
Oh that's convenient. I didn't say that, but nice aversion. Let me post again so you can read carefully.
If Juan or Jake went 0-7 but had 1 block in overtime people would be going nuts? What are you talking about? Juan played 14 minutes to Lockett's 34 and had 1 more rebound and same amount of assists. It's not about expectations, it's about results. Lockett has not been delivering results, he's shooting 36% from the field this year. His defense has been pretty bad as well.
I don't see threads about how great Juan is....Sorry you can't see that.
Edit: Not going to argue with someone who simply wants to argue.
Quote from: MU82 on January 02, 2013, 09:21:47 AM
I will say that if we play that hard every game, we will beat half the teams in the conference and at least give ourselves a chance against the better teams. Goes without saying we have to shoot better, but I actually was quite encouraged by the effort.
We outrebounded UConn by 10, only committed 9 turnovers after some horrific games in which our guys acted like the ball was covered in margarine, got 18 pts, 5 assts and only 1 TO from our PG and made most of our FTs down the stretch.
Those are all things that lead to success.
Definitely encouraged by the effort. However, keeping things in perspective - UConn is not very good. Their front court is perhaps the worst it has been since we joined the BE. Their zone was strange to say the least as they dont have the tall, rangy athletes all over the court. Plus, this was a home game. Even if they were eligible, Im not sure UConn is a tournament team.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 02, 2013, 09:17:42 AM
I have not heard from one fan who's "clamoring for more Jake Thomas". You might need new seats.
You might need to read this board more.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 02, 2013, 09:21:41 AM
Juan played 14 minutes to Lockett's 34
This is the key stat not the others than everyone else is posting. Why would Lockett, who according to some played terrible defense, play 34 minutes, the second most on the team?
Yes Vander was in foul trouble but Mayo was not. Why would Mayo and Anderson not get substantially more minutes I wonder?
Quote from: honkytonk on January 02, 2013, 09:29:04 AM
Definitely encouraged by the effort. However, keeping things in perspective - UConn is not very good. Their front court is perhaps the worst it has been since we joined the BE. Their zone was strange to say the least as they dont have the tall, rangy athletes all over the court. Plus, this was a home game. Even if they were eligible, Im not sure UConn is a tournament team.
Fair enough, honky. I just want to see this "want-to" every game, and I'll take whatever results we get. (As if I have the option to not take the results I don't want!!)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 01, 2013, 09:42:28 PM
For those who doubt what he does, watch that overtime a few times. Seriously, Junior is STOG, but Trent did things in OT that were essential to the victory.
Many contributed too the victory and maybe this will get Trent going, but, 0-7 and 5 points in 34 minutes is not very exciting. OTOH, 4-5, 9 points, 3 rebs in 12 minutes for Taylor is damned exciting!!
Lockett's problem is that he makes his jumpers more difficult than they need to be. He fades away, or drifts sideways on shots too often...and misses. When his feet are set, the jumpers go in. Go back and watch the game last night; he's fading/drifting on every shot, even though most of them were wide open. What Buzz needs to do is show him tape of Jimmy Butler Soph and Junior year. Lockett's job should be to rebound, play defense, and score on putbacks and open jumpers. Heck, he even draws fouls at a pretty good rate, like Butler did. In general, he should not be putting the ball on the floor or taking contested shots, and he needs to play more like a 4 than a 2 from the 3 spot.
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 02, 2013, 09:36:34 AM
Many contributed too the victory and maybe this will get Trent going, but, 0-7 and 5 points in 34 minutes is not very exciting. OTOH, 4-5, 9 points, 3 rebs in 12 minutes for Taylor is damned exciting!!
It's exciting, but his effort on the defensive end is poor at times. I really, really like his upside though. Really has great touch on the offensive end.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 01, 2013, 09:51:38 PM
Taylor was pulled after he gave up a pretty bad weak side offensive rebound and put back. I love the way he plays on the offensive end, but he still has some work to do on the other end. He'll get there.
LOVE Taylor. He's going to be a great one at MU. Shades of Trend Blackledge's athleticism and quickness, mixed with Lazar-as-a-freshman. Just really like his qualities.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 02, 2013, 08:28:44 AM
I disagree partially. Transition D was a problem, but I think you are blaming him too much for some of the breakdowns in the halfcourt defense. I think them playing zone for a good portion of the game was done because the entire half-court defense has been pretty poor against decent teams this year. Simply put, if the defense isn't causing turnovers, the opposition generally gets a good look. Lockett is only part of that problem, and there aren't ready alternatives that are any better IMO.
I re-watched the game. I am more convinced than ever of my original comment. I think other teams are starting to run plays to exploit number 22. He is often out of position and he doesn't seem to know who he is supposed to be guarding. I am not offering solutions or trying to argue, I am just saying that the two good plays in overtime hardly made up for the stinkfest he had in regulation. I would really like him to be better and I hope he improves, I am just calling it like I saw it.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 02, 2013, 09:21:41 AM
Oh that's convenient. I didn't say that, but nice aversion. Let me post again so you can read carefully.
If Juan or Jake went 0-7 but had 1 block in overtime people would be going nuts? What are you talking about? Juan played 14 minutes to Lockett's 34 and had 1 more rebound and same amount of assists. It's not about expectations, it's about results. Lockett has not been delivering results, he's shooting 36% from the field this year. His defense has been pretty bad as well.
I don't see threads about how great Juan is....Sorry you can't see that.
Enough said...
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 02, 2013, 09:25:11 AM
Edit: Not going to argue with someone who simply wants to argue.
There really isn't an argument to be made...people wouldn't be clamoring if Juan or Jake Thomas went 0-7 from the field in 34 minutes, yet grabbed 5 rebounds and had 2 assists...while going 5 of 6 from the free throw line....in fact I'm sure you'd be beating the drum the loudest on how awful Jake Thomas was if he got 34 minutes and delivered the paltry stat line above.
Confidence is maybe the most undervalued aspect of a player. Here's hoping Steve, Trent and Juan found their's last night.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 02, 2013, 08:45:17 AM
If Juan or Jake has that stat line, people here would go nuts.
I thought Lockett came up big late last night. I'm hoping it's the beginning of a turnaround for him.
That said, your statement is just plain wrong. An 0-7, 5 pts, 5 rb, 2 asst, 1 stl, 1 blk, 0 to in 34 minutes stat line is not one that would cause ANYONE hear to go nuts about ANYONE on our team.
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on January 02, 2013, 09:53:54 AM
LOVE Taylor. He's going to be a great one at MU. Shades of Trend Blackledge's athleticism and quickness, mixed with Lazar-as-a-freshman. Just really like his qualities.
and, the kid seems hungry!
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 02, 2013, 08:43:44 AM
In 34 minutes, Lockett had 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, no TOs, knocked down clutch FTs and had one of the biggest plays in OT. Despite that, fans (both on here and at the BC) rip him for anything and everything because his shots weren't falling. Honestly, the ignorance among MU fans is starting to get embarrassing.
Based on your above post, are you sure you aren't one of the ignorant MU fans? When you are trying to champion a stat line of a starting guard who goes 0-7 from the field, but contributes 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal and 1 block in 34 minutes....that is a stretch to say the least, if not ignorant. Perhaps if Lockett just made 2 of his 7 shots from the field in regulation, we don't need his overtime "heroics."
Not trying to pile on the kid, but let's get real, he played a poor game up to Overtime...and has struggled mightily thus far. I give him credit for seemingly playing hard and giving max effort...but the results haven't been there yet. I don't think Trent is as bad of player as he's been thus far, and expect he will get better...just needs a few more shots to fall...and hopefully this OT performance will be his springboard...but lets not live in a fantasy land and try to argue that his performance prior to overtime last night was even decent. It was awful.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on January 02, 2013, 09:33:03 AM
This is the key stat not the others than everyone else is posting. Why would Lockett, who according to some played terrible defense, play 34 minutes, the second most on the team?
Yes Vander was in foul trouble but Mayo was not. Why would Mayo and Anderson not get substantially more minutes I wonder?
Juan had foul problems also.
It is fairly obvious after 13 games that MU really does not have a shooting small forward. Lockett and Anderson can not shot the 3, so I can see in some games that Mayo will get some
more minutes. In saying that Todd is not that good a shooter as well, so MU will have to live with what they have. They won a game with 2 threes out of 16, next game they better be
be closer to 8 out of 16 to beat Georgetown. MU will have to give that effort yesterday on the road, have to get the majority of the lose balls and hit the boards. Every game will be
a challenge. Good victory, have to beat another bubble team, UConn is just OK, no inside presence, but two solid guards. Put those guards on MU, you would have a really good team.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 02, 2013, 10:05:42 AM
Juan had foul problems also.
Not enough to limit him to 14 minutes. Sorry. And Mayo?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 02, 2013, 10:01:05 AM
0-7, 5 pts, 5 rb, 2 asst, 1 stl, 1 blk, 0 to in 34 minutes stat line is not one that would cause ANYONE hear to go nuts about ANYONE on our team.
You know, outside of knocking down a couple of open shots, that's a decent line.
If he can manage to knock down a few open looks per game and fill up the rest of the scoresheet, then I'll be satisfied.
If he can have similar numbers to Vander (last year), I think that would be pretty good.
With this said, MU needs to find some more defense (create turnovers) and offense (MAKE shots).
This team reminds me a little of the Cooby/Acker teams. Not in terms of style of play, but this team is going to have to win ugly in order to win. No more DJO and Jae to make everything look good. They are going to have to scrap, claw and dive to compete with the teams with more talent.
Quote from: Ners on January 02, 2013, 09:56:45 AM
Enough said...
There really isn't an argument to be made...people wouldn't be clamoring if Juan or Jake Thomas went 0-7 from the field in 34 minutes, yet grabbed 5 rebounds and had 2 assists...while going 5 of 6 from the free throw line....in fact I'm sure you'd be beating the drum the loudest on how awful Jake Thomas was if he got 34 minutes and delivered the paltry stat line above.
Well, we will never know that because Thomas will never get 34 minutes.
As I have said before with the whole Lockett issue, it's not as though I think he is some sort of world beater. The fact is that MU doesn't have many alternatives. Obviously the coaching staff saw something in his play that gave him those minutes, and in the end he played very well in overtime.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 02, 2013, 10:04:52 AM
Edit: Not going to argue a statement that has no validity
Fixed.
If you are arguing that your own statement had validity, who am I to disagree?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 02, 2013, 10:01:05 AM
I thought Lockett came up big late last night. I'm hoping it's the beginning of a turnaround for him.
That said, your statement is just plain wrong. An 0-7, 5 pts, 5 rb, 2 asst, 1 stl, 1 blk, 0 to in 34 minutes stat line is not one that would cause ANYONE hear to go nuts about ANYONE on our team.
Seriously, do I need to put something in teal that was obviously hyperbole? Christ people....
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 02, 2013, 08:43:44 AM
In 34 minutes, Lockett had 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, no TOs, knocked down clutch FTs and had one of the biggest plays in OT. Despite that, fans (both on here and at the BC) rip him for anything and everything because his shots weren't falling. Honestly, the ignorance among MU fans is starting to get embarrassing.
Lockett was GREAT in the OT. Hope it's the start of something big and we very well might not have won without him. I'm hoping that's the real guy, the guy we'll see in the future.
That said, if Junior doesn't make the miracle shot, we lose in regulation and Lockett's 29 minute, 0-7, 1-2, 3rb, 2asst, 1pt stat line would have made him (fairly) the #1 goat of our rotation players.
Quote from: Ners on January 02, 2013, 10:04:02 AM
Based on your above post, are you sure you aren't one of the ignorant MU fans? When you are trying to champion a stat line of a starting guard who goes 0-7 from the field, but contributes 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal and 1 block in 34 minutes....that is a stretch to say the least, if not ignorant. Perhaps if Lockett just made 2 of his 7 shots from the field in regulation, we don't need his overtime "heroics."
Not trying to pile on the kid, but let's get real, he played a poor game up to Overtime...and has struggled mightily thus far. I give him credit for seemingly playing hard and giving max effort...but the results haven't been there yet. I don't think Trent is as bad of player as he's been thus far, and expect he will get better...just needs a few more shots to fall...and hopefully this OT performance will be his springboard...but lets not live in a fantasy land and try to argue that his performance prior to overtime last night was even decent. It was awful.
Lockett has struggled with his shot thus far. He's not just a scorer. Unfortunately, far too many MU fans can only see points.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 02, 2013, 10:09:35 AM
This team reminds me a little of the Cooby/Acker teams. Not in terms of style of play, but this team is going to have to win ugly in order to win. No more DJO and Jae to make everything look good. They are going to have to scrap, claw and dive to compete with the teams with more talent.
I think this is a good comparison except I do think this team has a lot of talent. They are having difficulty hitting the outside shot right now, hopefully that will improve. If it doesn't they will have to play the games to fit the talents they do have, quickness, defense, post play, execution.
Quote from: BCHoopster on January 02, 2013, 10:05:59 AM
UConn is just OK, no inside presence, but two solid guards. Put those guards on MU, you would have a really good team.
Ooh ... that's a great idea.
As we discuss all the possibilities of the C7, can we propose to merge Marquette and UConn? For the rest of this season, anyway?!??!?!
Quote from: hairyworthen on January 02, 2013, 10:20:10 AM
I think this is a good comparison except I do think this team has a lot of talent. They are having difficulty hitting the outside shot right now, hopefully that will improve. If it doesn't they will have to play the games to fit the talents they do have, quickness, defense, post play, execution.
Agreed, and I don't know if it's just bad luck (missing some open looks) or just bad shooters (can't make open looks).
They are getting some good shots, but they have to cash in. If MU even shot OK from 3 last night, they win by at least a handful in regulation (maybe more).
Unfortunately, they were historically bad from 3pt. They almost wen the entire game without hitting 1, and the vast majority were open looks.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 02, 2013, 10:09:35 AM
You know, outside of knocking down a couple of open shots, that's a decent line.
I agree - IF he goes 3-7 instead of 0-7 it's a very decent stat line.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 02, 2013, 11:27:16 AM
I agree - IF he goes 3-7 instead of 0-7 it's a very decent stat line.
Yep, and that's the big IF right now for several guys.
The open looks are there. Are they missing because of bad luck/bad streak, or are they missing because they are bad shooters?
Jamil, Junior, Trent and Todd are all going to have to shoot better for MU to compete at a high level. Vander has been good enough so far, Juan and Derrick are energy guys, and Otule and DeDe have been as good as advertised.
Get a little more shooting and they could beat some good teams. Stay cold (like UWGB), and MU risks getting beaten like a drum (FL).
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 02, 2013, 10:17:45 AM
Lockett has struggled with his shot thus far. He's not just a scorer. Unfortunately, far too many MU fans can only see points.
Maybe not JUST a scorer, but that was his #1 contribution at ASU. That and rebounding are what he does best. If he doesn't score, how valuable is a good rebounding guard with a below average handle and below average quickness?
but can he hit a crossover/between the legs/step back fallaway three?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 02, 2013, 11:50:52 AM
Maybe not JUST a scorer, but that was his #1 contribution at ASU. That and rebounding are what he does best. If he doesn't score, how valuable is a good rebounding guard with a below average handle and below average quickness?
Well, that's Vander last year. He was quicker than Lockett, but still similar. Not much of a scoring threat, a good rebounder, defender, passer, good in the open floor.
Lockett has value, but if he's going to be a non-shooter, MU needs to find the points elsewhere... which is easier said than done on this team.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on January 02, 2013, 11:53:31 AM
but can he hit a crossover/between the legs/step back fallaway three?
Haaa...funny guy....it is nice to see a guard who has some shake/bake/and ability to create a shot, and stick it with a guy in his face...kind of like we saw all night with Boatright and Napier...other than Mayo, nobody on MU's team has that ability.
The Lockett transfer is like winning a grand prize at the fair and only afterwards realizing it was a $50. You would be a moron not to take it but for some reason your pissed because you expected so much more.
Quote from: Ners on January 02, 2013, 12:01:37 PM
Haaa...funny guy....it is nice to see a guard who has some shake/bake/and ability to create a shot, and stick it with a guy in his face...kind of like we saw all night with Boatright and Napier...other than Mayo, nobody on MU's team has that ability.
I completely agree with you, but I couldn't resist! Should have some more of that next year which will be fun to watch.
Lockett played a ton of minutes last night but only 11 the game before. Of course Vander had to leave last night's game at the 14 minute mark of the first half with two fouls; Jamil followed not too long after that. If memory serves, Vander did not leave the court in the second half or during the OT. But no doubt Trent was in during crunch time and played well down the stretch.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 02, 2013, 11:50:52 AM
Maybe not JUST a scorer, but that was his #1 contribution at ASU. That and rebounding are what he does best. If he doesn't score, how valuable is a good rebounding guard with a below average handle and below average quickness?
Last season, he was 2nd on the team in scoring, 1st in rebounding, 3rd in assists, 1st in steals, 4th in blocks and shot nearly 50% from the floor. Again, he does a whole lot more than just score.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on January 02, 2013, 11:54:10 AM
Well, that's Vander last year. He was quicker than Lockett, but still similar. Not much of a scoring threat, a good rebounder, defender, passer, good in the open floor.
Lockett has value, but if he's going to be a non-shooter, MU needs to find the points elsewhere... which is easier said than done on this team.
You're only looking at one side of the ball. In addition to being WAAAAY quicker/faster/better in the open court offensively than Lockett, last year's Vander was a much, much better player on the defensive end than anything I've seen from Trent.
If Lockett is, as you say, going to be a non shooter, he has very little value. Rather than being Vander, he'd be more like a slower, less athletic version of Juan Anderson.
But I haven't given up on him as a scorer - he has a history as one.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 02, 2013, 11:27:16 AM
I agree - IF he goes 3-7 instead of 0-7 it's a very decent stat line.
huge if, aina?
Is it at all possible that we set the bar a tad high, and now we are upset that he is failing to live up to our lofty expectations. We should probably remember that his Arizona St numbers came against the PAC 12, which according to the RPI was ranked 10th, 7th, 8th nationally. (As opposed to the BEAST which was ranked 2-1-2.)
I thought he did a lot yesterday to help us win. His shot looked good just off a bit, and he obviously doesn't lack the confidence to shoot (which many others seem to). The shots will start to fall for him, and then we can all move on to complaining about somebody else.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 02, 2013, 12:18:09 PM
Last season, he was 2nd on the team in scoring, 1st in rebounding, 3rd in assists, 1st in steals, 4th in blocks and shot nearly 50% from the floor. Again, he does a whole lot more than just score.
He did average 1.5 steals a game. I'll concede that's a plus. The rest (other than scoring/rebounding shooting which I've stated = most of his worth) amount to a 1:1.5 assist/turnover ratio (2 asst a game vs 3 tos) and .5 blocks a game amount to one negative number and one insignificant one.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 02, 2013, 10:17:45 AM
Lockett has struggled with his shot thus far. He's not just a scorer. Unfortunately, far too many MU fans can only see points.
i don't think you can make this comment when defending lockett's game last night. my issue with his points is minimal...i think some of the shots he's missing (he missed a lot of bunnies) will fall, and i think he'll improve on his current shooting percentage of 36%.
what bothers me is that on two occasions a senior missed outside shots and allowed his defender to leak out for easy transition points. or that two other times UCONN got layups because he completely lost his man in the half court while not even helping on the ball. and for people to compare him to juan is stupid. juan is a sophomore, with limited minutes as a freshman, who is playing the 4. the question buzz and staff have to ask themselves is would they be sitting in a better spot at the end of the year this year, and over the next two years, if they were giving lockett's minutes to someone like juan at the 3 (and thus more minutes for someone like steve at the 4). in my opinion, i haven't seen trent do enough to justify the minutes considering he's a senior. obviously buzz and company feel like he needs to be on the court, and they know far more than i do, but i'm playing monday morning quarterback. what buzz doesn't know is if his current loyalty to trent will pay off, and only time will tell, but i have to believe buzz is questioning the minutes and time he's giving to a one year senior at this point.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on January 02, 2013, 12:35:15 PM
That's why it's in caps.
Sorry. A huge if needs a bigger font, not just caps. Course, IF he had been 3-7 we wouldn't have had to go to overtime and IF he had gotten a couple more rebounds...but, what IF he had missed all his regulation times FT's? Wait....
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 02, 2013, 10:16:11 AM
Seriously, do I need to put something in teal that was obviously hyperbole? Christ people....
I don't think it's possible to over-use the teal.
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 02, 2013, 01:50:28 PM
Sorry. A huge if needs a bigger font, not just caps. Course, IF he had been 3-7 we wouldn't have had to go to overtime and IF he had gotten a couple more rebounds...but, what IF he had missed all his regulation times FT's? Wait....
Well, I'm the one who made the original comment.
I thought the shots he took were good ones, and he was able to get himself open inside the offensive set.
Now, 0-7 with 7 good shots isn't going to win you any games. But, he can compete at this level, and
IF a couple of shots rattle in, he'll be fine.
The fact that he's getting open is significant.
Lockett's approach on offense is not glamorous, but can be effective if a couple of shots fall for him.
Lockett had a +7 yesterday. The only player better was Davante with +8.
For comparison....
Jamil, +6
Taylor, +4
Juan, -6
And Roland Rating...
Trent, +8
Jamil, +6
Taylor, +2
Juan, -18
Quote from: avid1010 on January 02, 2013, 12:53:28 PM
i don't think you can make this comment when defending lockett's game last night. my issue with his points is minimal...i think some of the shots he's missing (he missed a lot of bunnies) will fall, and i think he'll improve on his current shooting percentage of 36%.
what bothers me is that on two occasions a senior missed outside shots and allowed his defender to leak out for easy transition points. or that two other times UCONN got layups because he completely lost his man in the half court while not even helping on the ball. and for people to compare him to juan is stupid. juan is a sophomore, with limited minutes as a freshman, who is playing the 4. the question buzz and staff have to ask themselves is would they be sitting in a better spot at the end of the year this year, and over the next two years, if they were giving lockett's minutes to someone like juan at the 3 (and thus more minutes for someone like steve at the 4). in my opinion, i haven't seen trent do enough to justify the minutes considering he's a senior. obviously buzz and company feel like he needs to be on the court, and they know far more than i do, but i'm playing monday morning quarterback. what buzz doesn't know is if his current loyalty to trent will pay off, and only time will tell, but i have to believe buzz is questioning the minutes and time he's giving to a one year senior at this point.
+1. you summed up my criticism exactly. I want to think he will come through and I trust Buzz that he is getting the right amount of minutes but jeez, last night he really stunk it up on the defensive end. Maybe I am being too critical as the Roland ratings say something different and I am only believing my lying eyes. :-)
To be fair, +/- and RR aren't the best way to determine a particular player's value.
Somebody with ESPN insider will have to get it to explain the methodology, but apparently ESPN has ranked Big East players Player Efficiency Rating (PER). The good news is that MU has 9 in the top 100. The bad news is most are in the lower half.
Gardner (3)
Taylor (33)
JWilson (50)
Cadougan (59)
Otule (76)
Blue (78)
Anderson (81)
Lockett (96)
DWilson (99)
Jake is conspicuous by his absence ::). Again, somebody with insider needs to explain their methodology.
I like the intangibles and basketball IQ I see from Lockett. It's still gonna take some more time for him to mesh with the team/system. We may not see what he's really made of until midway through the BEast season. His experience and poise can turn out to be a real assett come tournament time.
Quote from: tower912 on January 02, 2013, 04:18:35 PM
Somebody with ESPN insider will have to get it to explain the methodology, but apparently ESPN has ranked Big East players Player Efficiency Rating (PER). The good news is that MU has 9 in the top 100. The bad news is most are in the lower half.
Gardner (3)
Taylor (33)
JWilson (50)
Cadougan (59)
Otule (76)
Blue (78)
Anderson (81)
Lockett (96)
DWilson (99)
Jake is conspicuous by his absence ::). Again, somebody with insider needs to explain their methodology.
I can't seem to find the rankings you reference here, but here's the overall explanation of PER.
QuoteThe player efficiency rating (PER) is a rating of a player's per-minute productivity.
To generate PER, I created formulas -- outlined in tortuous detail in my book "Pro Basketball Forecast" -- that return a value for each of a player's accomplishments. That includes positive accomplishments such as field goals, free throws, 3-pointers, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals, and negative ones such as missed shots, turnovers and personal fouls.
Two important things to remember about PER are that it's per-minute and is pace-adjusted.
Because it's a per-minute measure, it allows us to compare, say, Steve Blake and Derek Fisher, even though there is a disparity in their minutes played.
I also adjust each player's rating for his team's pace, so that players on a slow-paced team like Detroit aren't penalized just because their team has fewer possessions than a fast-paced team such as Golden State.
Bear in mind that PER is not the final, once-and-for-all evaluation of a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for defensive specialists -- such as Quinton Ross and Jason Collins -- who don't get many blocks or steals.
What PER can do, however, is summarize a player's statistical accomplishments in a single number. That allows us to unify the disparate data on each player we try to track in our heads (e.g., Corey Maggette: free-throw machine, good rebounder, decent shooter, poor passer, etc.) so that we can move on to evaluating what might be missing from the stats.
I set the league average in PER to 15.00 every season.
Among players with at least 500 minutes in 2010-11, the highest rating was LeBron James' 27.34. The lowest was Stephen Graham's 4.41.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 02, 2013, 04:06:31 PM
To be fair, +/- and RR aren't the best way to determine a particular player's value.
I like overall +/- because you can see trends but you can't do it for 1-game. 1-game is waaaay to short of a sample and usually just shows he was placed on the court with the starters usually.
Quote from: MarsupialMadness on January 02, 2013, 04:26:34 PM
I like the intangibles and basketball IQ I see from Lockett. It's still gonna take some more time for him to mesh with the team/system. We may not see what he's really made of until midway through the BEast season. His experience and poise can turn out to be a real assett come tournament time.
I agree. I think he wins at least one game for us with a clutch play at the end or hitting crucial free throws, etc.
I agree with the on court ball smarts. I think that it will come in handy before the year is out.
Quote from: Goose on January 02, 2013, 05:17:11 PM
I agree with the on court ball smarts. I think that it will come in handy before the year is out.
Goose, we agreed on something! must be the new year!
Quote from: Goose on January 02, 2013, 05:17:11 PM
I agree with the on court ball smarts. I think that it will come in handy before the year is out.
i was hoping for this as well, but i haven't seen it play out during a full game yet. players that are playing smart don't lose their man multiple times in the half court, and they don't let the person they are guarding leak out for easy transition points. those are plays i have a hard time understanding when much less experienced players make them.
the question in my mind is how good does he have to be to make it worth the amount of playing time he's getting. if we end up not making the NCAA tourney, i think there is a fair argument that anderson should have gotten more minutes at the 3 spot this year, but maybe buzz plans to only use him at the 4 with the incoming recruits that we have??
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on January 02, 2013, 05:05:43 PM
I like overall +/- because you can see trends but you can't do it for 1-game. 1-game is waaaay to short of a sample and usually just shows he was placed on the court with the starters usually.
In case people were wondering about season average plus/minus:
Gardner +9.8 (ranks 39th in Big East)
Cadougan +7.3 (ranks 52nd)
J. Wilson +6.4 (ranks 58th)
Blue +6.4 (58th)
Lockett +5.8 (ranks 65th)
Anderson +3.3 (ranks 84th)
They are show Top100 in Big East on the site I went. Not sure Mayo qualifies by number of games yet.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on January 02, 2013, 05:05:43 PM
I like overall +/- because you can see trends but you can't do it for 1-game. 1-game is waaaay to short of a sample and usually just shows he was placed on the court with the starters usually.
Valid point. I also think we need to go a few games into the BE season to get a true picture.
Quote from: Goose on January 02, 2013, 05:17:11 PM
I agree with the on court ball smarts. I think that it will come in handy before the year is out.
Goose, agree too.
That's two of us that agree with you. Wooohoooo. Just gigging you. ;)
Lockett played his arse off yesterday. His offensive box score won't turn heads, but I guarantee his effort is respected by his teammates. Buzz and his staff know what they are doing. They see something, and play him for a reason. It will come together. Soon.
Was it last year....where DJO couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, then came alive in the BE season? Point is.....it's a long season.
He spent a lot of time diving for balls, plus the timely block, and clutch free throws. Well done.
Watched the overtime again last night. Lockett played great D and made clutch free throws. I was surprised he was out there, but I am glad he was.
Quote from: avid1010 on January 02, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
i was hoping for this as well, but i haven't seen it play out during a full game yet. players that are playing smart don't lose their man multiple times in the half court, and they don't let the person they are guarding leak out for easy transition points. those are plays i have a hard time understanding when much less experienced players make them.
the question in my mind is how good does he have to be to make it worth the amount of playing time he's getting. if we end up not making the NCAA tourney, i think there is a fair argument that anderson should have gotten more minutes at the 3 spot this year, but maybe buzz plans to only use him at the 4 with the incoming recruits that we have??
I've seen this point on here a couple times. It's not necessarily Lockett's responsibility to get back on defense, especially if he takes a shot. Typically, the PG is responsible for thwarting fast break opportunities. If the PG drives or is not out top, it's someone else's job to rotate over and get back. Lockett is an excellent rebounding guard so Buzz may prefer that he crash the boards offensively, which means he's not responsible if the guy he's guarding leaks out to try to get an easy 2. In other words, even if it's technically his man who scores in transition, he may not be his responsibility at that point.
If the man guarding Gardner breaks to the other end as soon as a shot goes up, it's not Ox's job to sprint after him to stop transition points. Someone in the backcourt has that responsibility.