Why is everyone so obsessed with the starting 5? The starting 5 had us leading the game early. My issue is with the closing 5. They may not have gotten help from the refs, but the guys on the floor at the end were the problem. Not making shots, not finding their shots, turning the ball over, just sloppy play. We had a lead in the closing minutes and gave it up. The problem isn't the first five on the floor, it's the final five.
Why start a game with a significantly offensively challenged lineup and start slowly every game? Even the announcers in tonight's game questioned why Mayo and Gardner don't start.
Agreed, Buzz knows much more than me, but to this more than casual fan, Buzz had stud type players starting with complementary players in years past, this year it seems as if stud factor is not there, so we should go with top five from the tip, with some variation for match-ups, just my humble opinion
Quote from: madtownwarrior on December 01, 2013, 11:20:33 PM
Why start a game with a significantly offensively challenged lineup and start slowly every game? Even the announcers in tonight's game questioned why Mayo and Gardner don't start.
Anyone questioning why Gardner doesn't start has never watched him try to win a tip. That's simply ignorant announcers who don't know our team. As for Mayo, I could see him starting but he still gets starting minutes. Is he magically going to put up more points because his 23 minutes start at the opening tip? That's silly.
Gardner shouldn't start because of the tip but literally first whistle he should be in.
Todd should get more than 23 minutes.
He did miss one of his last two fts today but was 3/4 and is one of the only good free throw shooters we have. When it gets to bonus time in either half...get todd on the floor.
Otule is just verging on bad these days. He can't handle to ball. He falls overas if hes 5'7 instead of 6'11.
Starters just don't have the punch. Derrick has been driving much more but he gets better opportunities with more scorers out there.
If bad Jamil shows up(4/5 games pretty much) we have nothing at the start.
Btw today all the starters didn't get us a lead. Todd was in for Juan early on...we went from 4-10 points quick. Todd went out...we went on a 9 minute bender of basically missed fts with the occaisional make, todd was back in and we started the late first half run.
We simply score the ball more with more threats.
Jake is shooting 37% from 3...hes shooting 30% overall. I think you can do the math.
All he can do is shoot 3s. To start the game as the only shooter(unless good Jamil drains a early jumper) teams are all over him. Insert Todd, Ox(not sick), JJJ, crap hopefully deonte in the future and all of a sudden we have more weapons who can also shoot...and Jake is freed up.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 02, 2013, 12:11:31 AM
Anyone questioning why Gardner doesn't start has never watched him try to win a tip. That's simply ignorant announcers who don't know our team. As for Mayo, I could see him starting but he still gets starting minutes. Is he magically going to put up more points because his 23 minutes start at the opening tip? That's silly.
Here we go with the lame opening tip refrain again. Please!
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 02, 2013, 12:11:31 AM
Anyone questioning why Gardner doesn't start has never watched him try to win a tip. That's simply ignorant announcers who don't know our team. As for Mayo, I could see him starting but he still gets starting minutes. Is he magically going to put up more points because his 23 minutes start at the opening tip? That's silly.
Yeah and that must explain why Jake and Anderson start--because maybe they are good at retrieving the opening tip.
Madtownwarrior has it right. Starting both Juan and Jake, in particular, doesn't make much sense.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 02, 2013, 07:12:18 AM
Here we go with the lame opening tip refrain again. Please!
This I agree with. Because of alternating possession, if you win the opening tip you have a 50/50 chance of getting one more possession than your opponent. If you figure with Otule we get the opening tip 50% more often than with Jamil Wilson jumping (80% vs 30% or something - which is generous) then you add in we are less likely to score with Otule on the floor than Gardner, the value of having Otule on the floor instead of Gardner for the opening tip is very close to nothing.
I think Buzz starts Otule because he likes Gardner coming off the bench and because of his defense first philosophy.
That one more possession will be negated by a turnover on a near future in bounds play.
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 02, 2013, 07:35:51 AM
This I agree with. Because of alternating possession, if you win the opening tip you have a 50/50 chance of getting one more possession than your opponent. If you figure with Otule we get the opening tip 50% more often than with Jamil Wilson jumping (80% vs 30% or something - which is generous) then you add in we are less likely to score with Otule on the floor than Gardner, the value of having Otule on the floor instead of Gardner for the opening tip is very close to nothing.
I think Buzz starts Otule because he likes Gardner coming off the bench and because of his defense first philosophy.
Marquette played in six games last season decided on the final possession. MU averaged a bit more than one point per possession. Getting a chance for an extra possession by having Big Chris win the opening tip is free money. That extra possession won MU the St. John, Davidson and Butler games at the end of the season, thank you very much.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on December 01, 2013, 11:20:33 PM
Why start a game with a significantly offensively challenged lineup and start slowly every game? Even the announcers in tonight's game questioned why Mayo and Gardner don't start.
Does Marquette start slowly every game?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 02, 2013, 08:20:58 AM
Marquette played in six games last season decided on the final possession. MU averaged a bit more than one point per possession. Getting a chance for an extra possession by having Big Chris win the opening tip is free money. That extra possession won MU the St. John, Davidson and Butler games at the end of the season, thank you very much.
Do you happen to have numbers on what % of the time the team that wins the opening tip maintains that extra posession by the end of the game?
Starting Otule sets a defensive tone... advantageous especially when the other team likes to slash & drive, but will force just about every team to alter their shots and/or positioning on rebounds. Look at the past couple years... very few teams have beaten MU in the paint.
On offense, starting Otule is like throwing a breaking ball for a strike on the first pitch. Chris is no slouch on offense, but he plays at a much different tempo... when you can drop one in for strike one, you alter the other guy's timing. And even when you know the fastball (Davante) is coming, it's hard to catch up to it after a steady dose of lollipops for the past 3-4 minutes. More times than not, this leads to either easy baskets for DG, fouls for the other team's bigs, or both.
Finally, every officiating crew calls the game differently, so there's always a learning curve early on -- the guys who are the most physical are usually the ones who pick up the ticky-tack fouls early; keeping DG on the bench at the start of the game prevents him from picking up early fouls.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on December 02, 2013, 08:52:16 AM
Do you happen to have numbers on what % of the time the team that wins the opening tip maintains that extra posession by the end of the game?
No...when I have some time I will try to find out if KPom or some one had. But, that depends on jump balls throughout, not on a starting line up.
I do know this, though, teams who don't win the opening tip get the extra possession 0% of the time. That is why I say "free money". Otule is going to play minutes any way, why not for the reasons stated here play him then?
That said, I do agree we need more offensive punch to start the game, some one who can create their own offense. That is only Deonte, Todd or JJJ right now.
you tell me, in games against quality teams (quality of ASU and SDSU remains to be seen yet).
OSU - 19 pts in first 20 mins
ASU - 18 pts in first 12 mins
SDSU – 17 pts in in first 15 mins
not exactly an offensive juggernaut....
Scoring averages of the starting lineup (all games)
J Wilson 10.5
C Otule 7.4
J Thomas 7.3
D Wilson 5.5
J Andersen 4.4
Not exactly scoring machines.... considering Jake ts using come much later in the game as well...
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 02, 2013, 08:46:53 AM
Does Marquette start slowly every game?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 02, 2013, 09:30:46 AM
No...when I have some time I will try to find out if KPom or some one had. But, that depends on jump balls throughout, not on a starting line up.
I do know this, though, teams who don't win the opening tip get the extra possession 0% of the time. That is why I say "free money". Otule is going to play minutes any way, why not for the reasons stated here play him then?
That said, I do agree we need more offensive punch to start the game, some one who can create their own offense. That is only Deonte, Todd or JJJ right now.
It'd be interesting math. Say the team that wins the tip keeps that extra possession x% of the time, factor in Otule wins y% of his tips, and then our best end-game line-up gets z ppp. Compare that to our ppp with Otule in there in the first couple possessions vs. what it's like with Davante in the lineup instead. Is that fraction of a point you get having Otule in there for the tip really worth it?
Quote from: Boone on December 02, 2013, 07:33:09 AM
Madtownwarrior has it right. Starting both Juan and Jake, in particular, doesn't make much sense.
Juan is our best offensive rebounder specifically and rebounder in general right now. He also plays the best help side and perimeter defense on the team.
Jake is a different story, but he is still a very solid defender, especially when MU goes zone.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 02, 2013, 08:20:58 AM
Marquette played in six games last season decided on the final possession. MU averaged a bit more than one point per possession. Getting a chance for an extra possession by having Big Chris win the opening tip is free money. That extra possession won MU the St. John, Davidson and Butler games at the end of the season, thank you very much.
Wrong. We lost the opening tip against St John's, we won the opening tip against Davidson but lost the opening possession on a Chris Otule turnover, and Butler had the last possession in the other game.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on December 02, 2013, 09:40:45 AM
It'd be interesting math. Say the team that wins the tip keeps that extra possession x% of the time, factor in Otule wins y% of his tips, and then our best end-game line-up gets z ppp. Compare that to our ppp with Otule in there in the first couple possessions vs. what it's like with Davante in the lineup instead. Is that fraction of a point you get having Otule in there for the tip really worth it?
Yes, because MU wouldn't win any (many) tips with Gardner in there jumping, so there would be no/little possibility of an extra possession. I believe MU has only lost one tip all year--ASU. So if that plays out over a 30 game season, that is a possibility of 26 extra possessions...or a bit north of 26 extra points in a season. If you play normal odds on jump balls of 50/50...that is 13 extra points. The difference of Gardner's offensive efficiency of 1.22 last year to Otule's of 1.10...or 0.12 points per possession cannot make that up in less than almost 10 extra possessions for DG.
Why get in ten possessions what you can get in one? Especially since the Ox gets gassed anyway and Chris will have to spell him?
Seems small, but enough for three extra wins in a season with so many one possession games. MU won the Big East and two NCAA games on a last possession. Huge.
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 02, 2013, 09:58:42 AM
Wrong. We lost the opening tip against St John's, we won the opening tip against Davidson but lost the opening possession on a Chris Otule turnover, and Butler had the last possession in the other game.
Fine, whatever, I am talking probabilities and strategy about an extra possession by having Otule jump center. You cannot get an extra possession by losing a tip. Plain and simple. Do you want a 0% chance at that extra possession or a 50% in a last possession game?
Btw, a last possession game is different than a last possession in this example. The potential extra possession can come before the last play.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 02, 2013, 10:22:29 AM
Btw, a last possession game is different than a last possession in this example. The potential extra possession can come before the last play.
What examples are there of the extra possession not being the last possession? If you ended up with more possessions in a game than the opponent, wouldn't that have to mean you have the ball at the end of the game?
EDIT: After I wrote this I'm starting to google about the mathematical definition of a possession in basketball... Are you referring to a possession as in Possessions = FGA - OffReb + TOV + (0.4 x FTA) ?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 02, 2013, 10:15:12 AM
Yes, because MU wouldn't win any (many) tips with Gardner in there jumping, so there would be no/little possibility of an extra possession. I believe MU has only lost one tip all year--ASU. So if that plays out over a 30 game season, that is a possibility of 26 extra possessions...or a bit north of 26 extra points in a season. If you play normal odds on jump balls of 50/50...that is 13 extra points. The difference of Gardner's offensive efficiency of 1.22 last year to Otule's of 1.10...or 0.22 points per possession cannot make that up in less than five extra possessions for DG.
Why get in five possessions what you can get in one? Especially since the Ox gets gassed anyway and Chris will have to spell him?
Seems small, but enough for three extra wins in a season with so many one possession games. MU won the Big East and two NCAA games on a last possession. Huge.
First off, I'm quite sure Jamil Wilson would jump, not Gardner. So, I'll guess 30% more often we'd win the tip, which is generous. In half the games, there would be no extra possession because there is a 50/50 odds of either team finishing the game with the ball. So you're already down to an extra possession in 15% (half of 30%) of the games, or 1 extra possession every 6 or 7 games, or roughly 5 possessions a season. Then you factor in their differences as offensive players with the extra possessions that Otule gets by starting, I'd say the whole thing is worth roughly nothing.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on December 02, 2013, 09:36:15 AM
Scoring averages of the starting lineup (all games)
J Wilson 10.5
C Otule 7.4
J Thomas 7.3
D Wilson 5.5
J Andersen 4.4
Not exactly scoring machines.... considering Jake ts using come much later in the game as well...
Yuk.
I'm actually in favor of starting some defensive guys... but these numbers look BAD. The problem is, I don't know where MU can turn.
Quote from: madtownwarrior on December 02, 2013, 09:36:15 AM
you tell me, in games against quality teams (quality of ASU and SDSU remains to be seen yet).
OSU - 19 pts in first 20 mins
ASU - 18 pts in first 12 mins
SDSU – 17 pts in in first 15 mins
not exactly an offensive juggernaut....
Scoring averages of the starting lineup (all games)
J Wilson 10.5
C Otule 7.4
J Thomas 7.3
D Wilson 5.5
J Andersen 4.4
Not exactly scoring machines.... considering Jake ts using come much later in the game as well...
OK, and how are the other teams scoring during the same time frame?
Quote from: g0lden3agle on December 02, 2013, 10:25:54 AM
What examples are there of the extra possession not being the last possession? If you ended up with more possessions in a game than the opponent, wouldn't that have to mean you have the ball at the end of the game?
EDIT: After I wrote this I'm starting to google about the mathematical definition of a possession in basketball... Are you referring to a possession as in Possessions = FGA - OffReb + TOV + (0.4 x FTA) ?
Basically yes...I am sorry I am confusing people with my theoretical. Let me try this again:
If MU wins a tip, depending how jump balls go throughout the game, at worst, MU would have the same number of possessions due to winning that tip as the other team. At best, it would have one more as there was an odd number of jump balls in the game.
When I say extra possession due to a jump ball...I mean an example like this: MU wins the tip and Xavier is awarded a jump ball in the first half. MU again starts the second half with the ball as the arrow is in their favor. There are no more jump balls. So, to me any way, that extra possession due to a jump ball, occurred in the start of the 2nd half.
Now MU may piss away that possession...but it is an "extra" one...so on average, one extra point in the game. That is why I say free money.
Sorry, still early for me. Making mistakes and being cloudy.
I get the idea of getting an extra possession by having Chris in there for the tip. But it seems like the big point that has been overlooked in the thread so far is that even if we gain an extra possession, if we have a less productive player on the floor for the possession, then is it even worth having?
The bigger consideration, in my eyes anyway, should be how the possible outcomes are affected by having a specific set of players on the floor. I haven't looked at this at all, but I would have to assume that Davante's +/- and turnover numbers look significantly better than Otule's.
So even though Chris is more likely to win the tip, I don't really know that that end up being an advantage given his lack of offensive production compared to Ox. I bet it's almost a complete wash if you look at it closely. Chris wins more tips, but has worse production. Davante wins (likely) no tips, but produces on offense.
Quote from: skianth16 on December 02, 2013, 11:33:27 AM
I get the idea of getting an extra possession by having Chris in there for the tip. But it seems like the big point that has been overlooked in the thread so far is that even if we gain an extra possession, if we have a less productive player on the floor for the possession, then is it even worth having?
The bigger consideration, in my eyes anyway, should be how the possible outcomes are affected by having a specific set of players on the floor. I haven't looked at this at all, but I would have to assume that Davante's +/- and turnover numbers look significantly better than Otule's.
So even though Chris is more likely to win the tip, I don't really know that that end up being an advantage given his lack of offensive production compared to Ox. I bet it's almost a complete wash if you look at it closely. Chris wins more tips, but has worse production. Davante wins (likely) no tips, but produces on offense.
Exactly. Using the excuse that a guy is starting because he "Usually" wins the tip is weak. So lame it boggles.
Wonder what the all time stat is on won loss % for opening tip winners. Probably no such record kept. Besides so many countless other things impact the outcome.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 02, 2013, 02:32:22 PM
Exactly. Using the excuse that a guy is starting because he "Usually" wins the tip is weak. So lame it boggles.
Wonder what the all time stat is on won loss % for opening tip winners. Probably no such record kept. Besides so many countless other things impact the outcome.
Listen, when Gardner can average more than 30 minutes, by all means play him for all 40. He is averaging 24 now. Playing Chris four minutes until the first TV time out has other benefits besides winning a tip...many of which were stated here. Both are a handful, eroding the other team's bigs with fouls and energy...while keeping DG out of early foul trouble when officials are looking to set the style of play. I would prefer they both start to be honest, along with Mayo. Ox is the offense and Chris is the defense.
Giving away a free possession is a side benefit and certainly not an "excuse". Why give away free money? The goal is to win every possession, including the tip. Chris is going to play, why not start him?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 02, 2013, 02:51:28 PM
Listen, when Gardner can average more than 30 minutes, by all means play him for all 40. He is averaging 24 now. Playing Chris four minutes until the first TV time out has other benefits besides winning a tip...many of which were stated here. Both are a handful, eroding the other team's bigs with fouls and energy...while keeping DG out of early foul trouble when officials are looking to set the style of play. I would prefer they both start to be honest, along with Mayo. Ox is the offense and Chris is the defense.
Giving away a free possession is a side benefit and certainly not an "excuse". Why give away free money? The goal is to win every possession, including the tip. Chris is going to play, why not start him?
As I stated a few times earlier in this thread, I don't believe that having Otule on the opening tip as opposed to Jamil Wilson (who would jump the tip if Gardner started over Otule) matters one bit in the grand scheme of things, but I agree with everything else. If they're going to play x and y minutes regardless of who starts, and if Buzz thinks Otule starting helps keep Gardner out of foul trouble and softens up the opponent a little, its OK with me.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 02, 2013, 02:51:28 PM
Listen, when Gardner can average more than 30 minutes, by all means play him for all 40. He is averaging 24 now. Playing Chris four minutes until the first TV time out has other benefits besides winning a tip...many of which were stated here. Both are a handful, eroding the other team's bigs with fouls and energy...while keeping DG out of early foul trouble when officials are looking to set the style of play. I would prefer they both start to be honest, along with Mayo. Ox is the offense and Chris is the defense.
Giving away a free possession is a side benefit and certainly not an "excuse". Why give away free money? The goal is to win every possession, including the tip. Chris is going to play, why not start him?
You haven't given away a free possession, because you have the alternate possession rule. Yeah Chris is going to play so start him. Gardner is going to play so why not start him. Burton is going to play. so why not start him. taylr is going to play so why not start him. Mayo is going to play so why not start him. I get that logic.
Quote from: mu03eng on December 02, 2013, 09:41:36 AM
Juan is our best offensive rebounder specifically and rebounder in general right now. He also plays the best help side and perimeter defense on the team.
Jake is a different story, but he is still a very solid defender, especially when MU goes zone.
Yep. Juan is averaging 5.0 rpg in just over 15 mpg. His shooting percentage is also one of the highest in the regular rotation - far higher than Jamil, Todd, Jake and a few others. Anyone who can't see why he starts isn't watching.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 02, 2013, 02:51:28 PM
Listen, when Gardner can average more than 30 minutes, by all means play him for all 40. He is averaging 24 now. Playing Chris four minutes until the first TV time out has other benefits besides winning a tip...many of which were stated here. Both are a handful, eroding the other team's bigs with fouls and energy...while keeping DG out of early foul trouble when officials are looking to set the style of play. I would prefer they both start to be honest, along with Mayo. Ox is the offense and Chris is the defense.
Giving away a free possession is a side benefit and certainly not an "excuse". Why give away free money? The goal is to win every possession, including the tip. Chris is going to play, why not start him?
Problem is(while Davante is in a funk himself) all Chris is doing while "eroding" the fouls is turning the ball over with a catach...they pick up a foul.
Seriously, the guy has little assets aside from the opening tip. He's always on his ass. Can't catch. Can't hold on to the ball. Probably the worst rebounder on the team at 6 freaking 11.
Again, perception doesn't quite meet with reality and people see what they want to see. This year, Chris has been drawing fouls at a higher rate than Davante Gardner, and while he may not convert free throws at the same rate, Gardner's inefficiency at the line means the disparity hasn't been as great (about 19%) as you might expect. Chris is committing too many fouls, but he is still by far a net positive in terms of fouls drawn versus committed. CO's turnover rate of 20.7% isn't all that bad, nearly as good as Mayo and better than DeWil. He has a higher FG% than Gardner and his overall offensive rating is above average. He's been better on the offensive glass than Gardner and while he doesn't get a ton of defensive rebounds, his role in rebounding is more to box out to allow the rest of the team to actually come away with the ball. And the only guy on the team with a lower usage rate is DeWil, so it's not like Otule is killing the offense by taking bad shots.
He's not a perfect player, obviously, but if we didn't have Gardner, Otule would still be a very capable high-major D1 center.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on December 02, 2013, 07:13:57 PM
Problem is(while Davante is in a funk himself) all Chris is doing while "eroding" the fouls is turning the ball over with a catach...they pick up a foul.
Seriously, the guy has little assets aside from the opening tip. He's always on his ass. Can't catch. Can't hold on to the ball. Probably the worst rebounder on the team at 6 freaking 11.
So essentially, what you are saying is that MU would be better off without Chris on the team.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 03, 2013, 02:10:55 PM
Again, perception doesn't quite meet with reality and people see what they want to see. This year, Chris has been drawing fouls at a higher rate than Davante Gardner, and while he may not convert free throws at the same rate, Gardner's inefficiency at the line means the disparity hasn't been as great (about 19%) as you might expect. Chris is committing too many fouls, but he is still by far a net positive in terms of fouls drawn versus committed. CO's turnover rate of 20.7% isn't all that bad, nearly as good as Mayo and better than DeWil. He has a higher FG% than Gardner and his overall offensive rating is above average. He's been better on the offensive glass than Gardner and while he doesn't get a ton of defensive rebounds, his role in rebounding is more to box out to allow the rest of the team to actually come away with the ball. And the only guy on the team with a lower usage rate is DeWil, so it's not like Otule is killing the offense by taking bad shots.
He's not a perfect player, obviously, but if we didn't have Gardner, Otule would still be a very capable high-major D1 center.
I'd love to know if there is one other Top 50 team who's starting point guard had the lowest usage rate on the team? Seems to me if one is used the least...they are useless.
Quote from: Ners on December 03, 2013, 03:30:46 PM
I'd love to know if there is one other Top 50 team who's starting point guard had the lowest usage rate on the team? Seems to me if one is used the least...they are useless.
So according to you, of guys that played at least 50% of the team's minutes, in...
- 2012-13: Trent Lockett was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2011-12: Junior Cadougan was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2010-11: Dwight Buycks was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2009-10: David Cubillan was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2008-09: Dominic James was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
.
Any other stupid comments you want to make, or is that it for today?
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/9cdfe96fa6c430bc8122ffb87a950d44/tumblr_mk31vklp5O1s9n4cro1_500.gif)
Quote from: Benny B on December 03, 2013, 03:12:53 PM
So essentially, what you are saying is that MU would be better off without Chris on the team.
Keep the role extremely reduced. Take the tip and come in every now and then to add a wrinkle.
If were already in the bonus, probably just keep him on the bench.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 03, 2013, 03:45:20 PM
So according to you, of guys that played at least 50% of the team's minutes, in...
- 2012-13: Trent Lockett was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2011-12: Junior Cadougan was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2010-11: Dwight Buycks was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2009-10: David Cubillan was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2008-09: Dominic James was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
.
Any other stupid comments you want to make, or is that it for today?
I have had one sh*tty day....until this post.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 03, 2013, 03:45:20 PM
So according to you, of guys that played at least 50% of the team's minutes, in...
- 2012-13: Trent Lockett was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2011-12: Junior Cadougan was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2010-11: Dwight Buycks was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2009-10: David Cubillan was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
- 2008-09: Dominic James was useless because he had the lowest usage rate.
.
Any other stupid comments you want to make, or is that it for today?
Nice try Brew - had to go to the 50% rate to try to make a case? Derrick is last on the whole team in usage rate - not just for those who played 50 percent of the teams minutes. So your comparison isn't valid. But of the players you cite - I wouldn't say Cadougan was very good as a junior. Lockett was a maddeningly frustrating player over the course of last year, as was Buycks at times. All of them and DJ even took their fair share of criticism on this board - but God forbid anyone call Derrick Wilson a poor high major point guard.
Quote from: Ners on December 03, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
Nice try Brew - had to go to the 50% rate to try to make a case? Derrick is last on the whole team in usage rate - not just for those who played 50 percent of the teams minutes. So your comparison isn't valid. But of the players you cite - I wouldn't say Cadougan was very good as a junior. Lockett was a maddeningly frustrating player over the course of last year, as was Buycks at times. All of them and DJ even took their fair share of criticism on this board - but God forbid anyone call Derrick Wilson a poor high major point guard.
You can call him below average. You can even make a case that he's "bad". I don't think anybody would rip you for that.
But, you can't say "useless", and you can't claim that Dawson is better.
Quote from: Ners on December 03, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
Nice try Brew - had to go to the 50% rate to try to make a case? Derrick is last on the whole team in usage rate - not just for those who played 50 percent of the teams minutes. So your comparison isn't valid. But of the players you cite - I wouldn't say Cadougan was very good as a junior. Lockett was a maddeningly frustrating player over the course of last year, as was Buycks at times. All of them and DJ even took their fair share of criticism on this board - but God forbid anyone call Derrick Wilson a poor high major point guard.
(http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/20549/butthurt.jpg#butthurt%20star%20war)
I wonder why Chris has stopped blocking shots? 4 in 8 games? Burton has that many in far fewer minutes....
Quote from: MuMark on December 03, 2013, 09:04:23 PM
I wonder why Chris has stopped blocking shots? 4 in 8 games? Burton has that many in far fewer minutes....
the arthritis has set in.
Quote from: Ners on December 03, 2013, 06:23:47 PM
Nice try Brew - had to go to the 50% rate to try to make a case? Derrick is last on the whole team in usage rate - not just for those who played 50 percent of the teams minutes. So your comparison isn't valid. But of the players you cite - I wouldn't say Cadougan was very good as a junior. Lockett was a maddeningly frustrating player over the course of last year, as was Buycks at times. All of them and DJ even took their fair share of criticism on this board - but God forbid anyone call Derrick Wilson a poor high major point guard.
Brew isn't the only one cherry picking stats. Derrick of the first 4 games played totally different than Derrick in the next 4 games. Enjoy being able to hang your hat on his usage rate for a couple more games until those first 4 become a smaller and smaller percentage of his stats for the year.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on December 03, 2013, 07:38:20 PM
You can call him below average. You can even make a case that he's "bad". I don't think anybody would rip you for that.
But, you can't say "useless", and you can't claim that Dawson is better.
Agree. Especially if he keeps his assist average at 5 or more per.
Quote from: Boone on December 02, 2013, 07:33:09 AM
Madtownwarrior has it right. Starting both Juan and Jake, in particular, doesn't make much sense.
Buzz has to reward performance in practice, effort, and maturity. If not, he sets a dangerous precedent for the younger and/or more talented players on the team. Coaching isn't as simple as rolling out the balls and letting the most talented players play.
Buzz's philosophy on this has worked in the past, and will continue to work in the future IMO. Even if we have somewhat of a down season this year, I think his approach and philosophy will set the program up for greater success in the future. The young guys are watching and they need to see that preparation, effort, and maturity are the keys to great success.
Quote from: MUSF on December 04, 2013, 01:22:25 PM
Buzz has to reward performance in practice, effort, and maturity. If not, he sets a dangerous precedent for the younger and/or more talented players on the team. Coaching isn't as simple as rolling out the balls and letting the most talented players play.
Buzz's philosophy on this has worked in the past, and will continue to work in the future IMO. Even if we have somewhat of a down season this year, I think his approach and philosophy will set the program up for greater success in the future. The young guys are watching and they need to see that preparation, effort, and maturity are the keys to great success.
+1
The guys who start have earned it. I think it also serves to be a message to the guys that don't start as to what they need to work on in order to earn the start themselves. Starting the guys who work hardest in practice tells those guys that get by on talent alone that hard work is needed on top of that. The talented guys are getting PT regardless. If they want their name in lights, they have to combine hard work with that talent to get there. I have no problem with that.