Watching them against Virginia tonight, a few things stuck out. First, despite the points they are putting up, this is not an offensive team as good as I'm used to seeing from Wisconsin. They can shoot but not much else. And when they can't get inside, whether through passing or driving, they don't get very good looks. Also, Kaminsky had some definite struggles from range. He takes too long to get his shot off on the perimeter and didn't seem to do much with a hand in his face. I'd love to see Juan get some run on him. Despite the size disparity, I think he'd struggle with Juan's quickness and length.
Virginia seemed to stay in man most of the game. They did a good job rotating and shutting down passing lanes inside, but I'd have loved to see some 1-3-1 zone. Wisky would probably shred a 2-3, but with a bit more perimeter extension and one guy to guard the paint, I think they might have a tough time getting going. They really don't have many people that can attack the paint unless they are in transition, and it took them awhile to figure out that they needed to get the ball inside to have success outside. This Badger team isn't as smart as their previous iterations. They suffer greatly from not having a guy who can bang inside like Berggren, Brusewitz, or Leuer, and none of their main guards really seem very savvy. That's not to say that they don't have positive attributes, but Gasser is mainly a defender, Brust and Jackson are almost exclusively perimeter players, and Koenig and Hayes simply aren't ready. That Koenig/Hayes combo could really give us fits in the years to come, however.
Dekker is the one guy that is most dangerous. He had an off night, but he's the only one that seemed to be able to get to the rack with any efficiency. Virginia was very physical with him, as was St. Louis, and that really seems to take him out of his element.
If Virginia had been making the bunnies, Wisky likely would have had a heavy first-half deficit to overcome. The Cavs also seemed to get a bit gunshy after they got a few shots blocked inside. We need to keep attacking the paint and as long as our shots fall, I like our chances. Virginia's mistake was to try to beat the Badgers at their own game, which will only work if you can make shots and aren't afraid to attack. Not the case for the Cavs, hence the home loss.
I like the idea that you mentioned to try Juan on Kaminsky....I really think it would pester him and make him get nervous with and without the ball...Also, on offense we need to feed it to Gardner early. If we could get Kaminsky in foul trouble that would force Hayes to play a lot more minutes. Then you play Oxtule and Wilson all together and perhaps sit in a 3-2 with Gardner and Otule down low.
I think what might be interesting is that UW is going to have a much shorter turnaround that we had. Three days to prep for MU, while we've had almost a week.
While I dont mind the idea of Juan on Frank. I just wonder who Chris or Gardner would guard in that situation? UW plays small on D and O. Soft on the inside but spread the floor for the open 3. You have to put your best defender on Dekker. Quite frankly(no pun intended) if Kaminsky gets a few put backs and inside scores you can live with that. You can not live with that and a bunch of 3s. Whomever guards him just needs to play solid but not spectacular D on the perimeter. Just get a hand in his face. In fact close out tight on the hole team and have CO waiting inside if they drive. Sans Dekker nobody on that team really puts any fear into you off the dribble.
Is now the time that Buzz changes his rotation? It is obvious MU needs guys in there who can create offense. His current line up plays to Wisconsin's strengths on defense. When your problem is offense, it makes no sense to not start your two leading scorers and most efficient players playing an exclusively man opponent.
Also, please end the JWilson experiment at back up PG. I like it occasionally but Jamil is holding it too long with east-west dribbling, and is being left with a non-toes to the baskets, flat shots.
Personally I think that we should use the same starting lineup besides throwing Mayo in and taking Juan out. We see how that group starts off the game and make adjustments on how to go forward.
Wilson on Jackson, Jake on Gasser, Todd on Brust, Wilson on Dekker, and Otule on Frank. Hopefully Burton or Jajuan will heat up and get 15-17 minutes.
Jake on gasser is a bad idea. I think gasser has a big game is jake covers him.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 04, 2013, 11:27:31 PM
Watching them against Virginia tonight, a few things stuck out. First, despite the points they are putting up, this is not an offensive team as good as I'm used to seeing from Wisconsin. They can shoot but not much else. And when they can't get inside, whether through passing or driving, they don't get very good looks. Also, Kaminsky had some definite struggles from range. He takes too long to get his shot off on the perimeter and didn't seem to do much with a hand in his face. I'd love to see Juan get some run on him. Despite the size disparity, I think he'd struggle with Juan's quickness and length.
Virginia seemed to stay in man most of the game. They did a good job rotating and shutting down passing lanes inside, but I'd have loved to see some 1-3-1 zone. Wisky would probably shred a 2-3, but with a bit more perimeter extension and one guy to guard the paint, I think they might have a tough time getting going. They really don't have many people that can attack the paint unless they are in transition, and it took them awhile to figure out that they needed to get the ball inside to have success outside. This Badger team isn't as smart as their previous iterations. They suffer greatly from not having a guy who can bang inside like Berggren, Brusewitz, or Leuer, and none of their main guards really seem very savvy. That's not to say that they don't have positive attributes, but Gasser is mainly a defender, Brust and Jackson are almost exclusively perimeter players, and Koenig and Hayes simply aren't ready. That Koenig/Hayes combo could really give us fits in the years to come, however.
Dekker is the one guy that is most dangerous. He had an off night, but he's the only one that seemed to be able to get to the rack with any efficiency. Virginia was very physical with him, as was St. Louis, and that really seems to take him out of his element.
If Virginia had been making the bunnies, Wisky likely would have had a heavy first-half deficit to overcome. The Cavs also seemed to get a bit gunshy after they got a few shots blocked inside. We need to keep attacking the paint and as long as our shots fall, I like our chances. Virginia's mistake was to try to beat the Badgers at their own game, which will only work if you can make shots and aren't afraid to attack. Not the case for the Cavs, hence the home loss.
Hardly surprising considering that they are coached by a Bennett.
Quote from: mubb34 on December 05, 2013, 08:09:48 AM
Personally I think that we should use the same starting lineup besides throwing Mayo in and taking Juan out. We see how that group starts off the game and make adjustments on how to go forward.
Wilson on Jackson, Jake on Gasser, Todd on Brust, Wilson on Dekker, and Otule on Frank. Hopefully Burton or Jajuan will heat up and get 15-17 minutes.
Juan should start and be put on Dekker. Jamil picks up too many early fouls. I would actually consider putting Jamil on Jackson because he cannot handle pressure. De. Wilson on Brust. Jake on Gasser.
Quote from: Mu2323 on December 05, 2013, 08:30:52 AM
Jake on gasser is a bad idea. I think gasser has a big game is jake covers him.
Agreed. Jakes strength is his help and team defense. Not his on ball D.
Quote from: CoachesCorner on December 05, 2013, 08:37:00 AM
Agreed. Jakes strength is his help and team defense. Not his on ball D.
And Gasser can kill an opponent when he's given any time to shoot.
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 05, 2013, 09:05:58 AM
And Gasser can kill an opponent when he's given any time to shoot.
The way Gasser is playing this year makes you wonder if Vander actually went to UW what if we had Gasser here?
I think Jake would be fine on Gasser. Gasser kills you with his efficiency. He doesn't shoot all that much. But when he does shoot it is usually because he is open due to defensive rotations. He's not going to put the ball on the floor all that often a la Brust or Dekker.
Watch the OSU game again and then expect that on Saturday.
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 05, 2013, 08:31:10 AM
Hardly surprising considering that they are coached by a Bennett.
Yeah, it wasn't surprising at all, but they were actually having some success when they tried to push the pace a bit early. The only problem was the shots weren't falling. Good looks, though.
Quote from: memorialspartans on December 05, 2013, 09:11:39 AM
The way Gasser is playing this year makes you wonder if Vander actually went to UW what if we had Gasser here?
Sweet 16, Sweet 16, Elite 8 & Big East champion. Vander gave us a ton, thus far more than Gasser has brought to Madison. And that's not even accounting for the major in-state recruiting shift that occured with his switch from UW to MU. His choice of MU paid off in more ways than just on the court. I'll always love him for that.
My thoughts on Wisconsin: Is this Bo's best coaching job so far?
Looking at Wisconsin preseason, I was thinking that this is the year that they don't make a top four Big Ten finish for the first time under Bo. Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan and Indiana all looking like they might have too much talent for Wisconsin to handle. They lost their entire starting front court with only top sub Dekker looking certain to be ready for the big time. They play an eight man rotation with two freshman and a junior who redshirted last year after he failed to make an impact in his first two years as their reserves.
Preseason they were ranked 20th AP and 21st by the coaches. They beat Florida at home. They started this week (week 5) ranked 8th and 9th with an 8-0 record, then yesterday they held a borderline top 25 team to 38 points to go to 9-0 on the road.
All five starters average in double figures giving them great offensive balance. They appear more than ready to cause havoc in the Big Ten.
So, is this a team just taking advantage in the early season of a fast start due to extra practice time from their preseason trip to Canada? Or is this an example of Bo combining pieces that anyone else would have trouble competing with in the Big Ten into a very formidable team?
Quote from: memorialspartans on December 05, 2013, 09:11:39 AM
The way Gasser is playing this year makes you wonder if Vander actually went to UW what if we had Gasser here?
Please tell me this isn't serious.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on December 05, 2013, 09:24:16 AM
Watch the OSU game again and then expect that on Saturday.
Wisconsin may win, but they aren't going to blow MU off the floor. Under Buzz, Marquette gets in trouble against athletic teams that start running and hitting their shots.
I think this might play out a lot like the 2010-11 game in the Bradley Center where MU lost 69-64. UW gets an early lead...MU scrapes back...only to fall short in the end. That team was very much like this one IMO...some good young talent not quite ready to step up, a leader yet to emerge, not quite ready for this stage.
And of course that team got to the S16 anyway.
Quote from: memorialspartans on December 05, 2013, 09:11:39 AM
The way Gasser is playing this year makes you wonder if Vander actually went to UW what if we had Gasser here?
Quote from: Jajuannaman on December 05, 2013, 09:37:32 AM
Sweet 16, Sweet 16, Elite 8 & Big East champion. Vander gave us a ton, thus far more than Gasser has brought to Madison. And that's not even accounting for the major in-state recruiting shift that occured with his switch from UW to MU. His choice of MU paid off in more ways than just on the court. I'll always love him for that.
A good question followed by a great answer.
But that's the question that was asked. The question is, had Vander stayed the course with UW, AND Gasser eventually ended up at MU, what would MU be like now?
Of course Buzz was not all that interested in Gasser anyways so it doesn't really matter...
This game should be a no brainer for us. We have better talent, according to all, and according to many on this board, we have the better coach. So with better talent and coaching, we should win. I am hoping for a thorough ass kicking of UW. They are 8th in the country and moving up. What better opportunity for us to seal our resume this year than kicking rodent ass on their home floor? I am all for seeing crying Ryan going ballistic. Not much scoring in this game. First to 48 wins.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 05, 2013, 09:49:49 AM
But that's the question that was asked. The question is, had Vander stayed the course with UW, AND Gasser eventually ended up at MU, what would MU be like now?
Of course Buzz was not all that interested in Gasser anyways so it doesn't really matter...
And the answer is... not as well off as we are now. Both in terms of the results on the court the last three years as well as the in-state recruiting pipelline.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on December 05, 2013, 09:55:22 AM
And the answer is... not as well off as we are now. Both in terms of the results on the court the last three years as well as the in-state recruiting pipelline.
Ah OK...I understand what you are saying.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 05, 2013, 09:50:48 AM
This game should be a no brainer for us. We have better talent, according to all, and according to many on this board, we have the better coach. So with better talent and coaching, we should win. I am hoping for a thorough ass kicking of UW. They are 8th in the country and moving up. What better opportunity for us to seal our resume this year than kicking rodent ass on their home floor? I am all for seeing crying Ryan going ballistic. Not much scoring in this game. First to 48 wins.
MU certainly wins the battle of getting players who were ranked higher coming out of HS. Buzz and Bo both have their systems and try to recruit to it. It would be hard not to admit that Bo has found great fits for his system in his current team, and that he has them playing very well within his system this year with outstanding results.
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 05, 2013, 09:58:50 AM
MU certainly wins the battle of getting players who were ranked higher coming out of HS. Buzz and Bo both have their systems and try to recruit to it. It would be hard not to admit that Bo has found great fits for his system in his current team, and that he has them playing very well within his system this year with outstanding results.
The highest rated player out of high school will be wearing red and white on Saturday. (Dekker) But other than than, yeah...
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 05, 2013, 09:58:50 AM
MU certainly wins the battle of getting players who were ranked higher coming out of HS. Buzz and Bo both have their systems and try to recruit to it. It would be hard not to admit that Bo has found great fits for his system in his current team, and that he has them playing very well within his system this year with outstanding results.
The "system" can only take you so far. That's why BOBO fails in the tournament on a regular basis. At the end of the day, you have to have both a good system and better athletes than the other team.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 05, 2013, 10:03:14 AM
The highest rated player out of high school will be wearing red and white on Saturday. (Dekker) But other than than, yeah...
Don't sleep on Koenig although he shouldn't have much of an impact Saturday. But strangely enough each year in this game, a player you don't expect to make a difference makes a huge difference. Who's it gonna be this year???
Quote from: hairyworthen on December 05, 2013, 10:11:59 AM
The "system" can only take you so far. That's why BOBO fails in the tournament on a regular basis. At the end of the day, you have to have both a good system and better athletes than the other team.
I think that better athletes can be overcome by a team that plays with better discipline or whose players have greater skill. Otherwise, Memphis would have had much more success in the NCAA tournament than they have under Pastner. Did Davidson almost beat us in the tournament because they had similar athletes to MU?
Quote from: Mu2323 on December 05, 2013, 08:30:52 AM
Jake on gasser is a bad idea. I think gasser has a big game is jake covers him.
As mentioned, I don't think that Gasser is that much of an offensive threat. He hits open shots, but I don't think he creates plays for himself...And who else would we throw him on? Jackson or Brust? No way...
Turn around time means nothin'. UW plays each opponent the exact same way. That's Bo's system and he doesn't change regardless of the personnel. Extremely successful at every level he's coached. In fact, I'd say Bo is legendary. Probably take this year's team out back to the woodshed and spank our heines.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on December 05, 2013, 09:37:32 AM
Sweet 16, Sweet 16, Elite 8 & Big East champion. Vander gave us a ton, thus far more than Gasser has brought to Madison. And that's not even accounting for the major in-state recruiting shift that occured with his switch from UW to MU. His choice of MU paid off in more ways than just on the court. I'll always love him for that.
Agreed Vander helped us a great deal. I don't agree however on the major in state recruiting shift. My Mad City friends claim he decommitted to UW due to grades. Koenig apparently didn't have a problem with UW and we weren't even in on Looney as they were. Guess we'll see about Stone, Ellenson, etc.
Quote from: mubb34 on December 05, 2013, 10:20:21 AM
As mentioned, I don't think that Gasser is that much of an offensive threat. He hits open shots, but I don't think he creates plays for himself...And who else would we throw him on? Jackson or Brust? No way...
If either Gasser or Brust gets hot from the 3 pt line, beating Wisconsin will be almost impossible. It's nearly impossible to keep up with that scoring against Wisconsin's defense.
Best way to beat Wisconsin is to quicken the pace while maintaining offensive efficiency. Their starters, particularly on the perimeter play heavy minutes and count on a slow pace. However, unless a team can get a ton of transition points, quickening the pace against Wisconsin's defense is very difficult without being forced into poor shots which lowers offensive efficiency which plays into Wisconsin's hands because then a team has to dig itself out of a hole against Wisconsin's defense.
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 05, 2013, 10:17:34 AM
I think that better athletes can be overcome by a team that plays with better discipline or whose players have greater skill. Otherwise, Memphis would have had much more success in the NCAA tournament than they have under Pastner. Did Davidson almost beat us in the tournament because they had similar athletes to MU?
I think you need both a good system and athletic players. Not sure Memphis had a good system and were disciplined. Using your same argument about Memphis, why hasn't UW won the National Championship? They may be the best system team in the country.
A team like Wisconsin or Davidson can occasionally hang with more athletic teams and beat them, but over the long haul better athletes will win out. That's why you rarely see the teams like Davidson advance much further after the upset round. Of course there are always exceptions.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 05, 2013, 09:50:48 AM
This game should be a no brainer for us. We have better talent, according to all, and according to many on this board, we have the better coach. So with better talent and coaching, we should win. I am hoping for a thorough ass kicking of UW. They are 8th in the country and moving up. What better opportunity for us to seal our resume this year than kicking rodent ass on their home floor? I am all for seeing crying Ryan going ballistic. Not much scoring in this game. First to 48 wins.
Why are you constantly an insufferable whiner?
Stay home on the shooters as much as you can. Dare Gasser and Brust to beat you off of the dribble. Let Jackson shoot. Attack offensively.
Quote from: tower912 on December 05, 2013, 10:47:39 AM
Stay home on the shooters as much as you can. Dare Gasser and Brust to beat you off of the dribble. Let Jackson shoot. Attack offensively.
All that, plus score more points than they do.
Quote from: memorialspartans on December 05, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Agreed Vander helped us a great deal. I don't agree however on the major in state recruiting shift. My Mad City friends claim he decommitted to UW due to grades. Koenig apparently didn't have a problem with UW and we weren't even in on Looney as they were. Guess we'll see about Stone, Ellenson, etc.
Your "Mad City friends" believe what they want to believe...they in no way shape or form have a complete picture.
Quote from: memorialspartans on December 05, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Agreed Vander helped us a great deal. I don't agree however on the major in state recruiting shift. My Mad City friends claim he decommitted to UW due to grades. Koenig apparently didn't have a problem with UW and we weren't even in on Looney as they were. Guess we'll see about Stone, Ellenson, etc.
I've got a bridge to sell you my friend.
Looney doesn't count, he went to UCLA.
They have Dekker & Koenig, with no one else in the pipeline
vs.
DWilson, Burton, Cohen, Noskowiak, and Flory
Trust me, the in-state tide has turned in our favor. Stone going to MU will cement it for years to come. Stone going to UW will bring things back to an equilibrium.
Quote from: memorialspartans on December 05, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Agreed Vander helped us a great deal. I don't agree however on the major in state recruiting shift. My Mad City friends claim he decommitted to UW due to grades. Koenig apparently didn't have a problem with UW and we weren't even in on Looney as they were. Guess we'll see about Stone, Ellenson, etc.
No! Bo cooled on him. Remember?
Based on my own empirical evidence MU is becoming more and more popular with kids in high school. Based on actual evidence, see Jajuannaman's post above.
My three keys to the UW game
1. Limit their looks from behind the arc (or hope UW misses). Wisconsin is #30 from behind the arc and #163 from inside. Conversely, MU is #19 defending inside and #173 defending the three. Their strength matches our weakness.
2. Offensive Rebounds. MU is #28 at getting offensive rebounds. UW is #28 at preventing offensive rebounds. If they do not win the turnover battle, Marquette has to win the OR% battle to win this game. On the plus side, MU will be the best offensive rebounding team UW has faced by far.
3. Protect the ball. UW is one of the worst teams in the nation at forcing turnovers. They cannot be given free possessions. Marquette has shown the ability to protect the ball well at times, but has been far too careless in several games. It's almost a given that MU will lose this matchup, but can they keep it close?
I think MU needs to win the eFG% and OR% matchups, or more likely, keep eFG% close and have a strong advantage on OR%.
We have great talent on this team. To win we need to make baskets and free throws. Sounds simple. But, we lose when we can't shoot from the field or line. We need senior leadership. Jamil are you listening?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 05, 2013, 11:20:03 AM
My three keys to the UW game
1. Limit their looks from behind the arc (or hope UW misses). Wisconsin is #30 from behind the arc and #163 from inside. Conversely, MU is #19 defending inside and #173 defending the three. Their strength matches our weakness.
2. Offensive Rebounds. MU is #28 at getting offensive rebounds. UW is #28 at preventing offensive rebounds. If they do not win the turnover battle, Marquette has to win the OR% battle to win this game. On the plus side, MU will be the best offensive rebounding team UW has faced by far.
3. Protect the ball. UW is one of the worst teams in the nation at forcing turnovers. They cannot be given free possessions. Marquette has shown the ability to protect the ball well at times, but has been far too careless in several games. It's almost a given that MU will lose this matchup, but can they keep it close?
I think MU needs to win the eFG% and OR% matchups, or more likely, keep eFG% close and have a strong advantage on OR%.
Yep. Chase them off the line, funnel them to the bigs, clean up the boards on both ends.
Oh, and also, "be more athletic than them. F*ck with them."
"Be more athletic than they are. F--k with them." -Buzz Williams
One thing that gives me a glimmer of hope for Saturday is the fact that our coaching staff has basically had a week of prep, whereas, Bo had to prep for UVA before us. Plus, we now have 9 games of film to analyze, whereas we had how many on ASU? tOSU?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 05, 2013, 11:20:03 AM
My three keys to the UW game
1. Limit their looks from behind the arc (or hope UW misses). Wisconsin is #30 from behind the arc and #163 from inside. Conversely, MU is #19 defending inside and #173 defending the three. Their strength matches our weakness.
2. Offensive Rebounds. MU is #28 at getting offensive rebounds. UW is #28 at preventing offensive rebounds. If they do not win the turnover battle, Marquette has to win the OR% battle to win this game. On the plus side, MU will be the best offensive rebounding team UW has faced by far.
3. Protect the ball. UW is one of the worst teams in the nation at forcing turnovers. They cannot be given free possessions. Marquette has shown the ability to protect the ball well at times, but has been far too careless in several games. It's almost a given that MU will lose this matchup, but can they keep it close?
I think MU needs to win the eFG% and OR% matchups, or more likely, keep eFG% close and have a strong advantage on OR%.
Any specific thoughts on fouls/free throws?
In previous years, that's been a huge factor for UW, especially at home.
I haven't see much of UW this year, so I don't know if the new rules has changed how they defend and/or score (especially at the Kohl Center).
My gut tell me that MU will have to defend well, AND draw fouls on UW players to win. It's a tall task... but I don't think MU shoots it well enough from the field right now. They are going to have to get a bunch at the line, and hopefully get some Badger players out of the game.
You'd be hard pressed to name a team with as many quality wins as Wisco has had thus far (St. John's, Florida, @ Green Bay, Saint Louis, West Virginia, @ Virginia). Very impressive and a tip of the hat to the Grinch and his coaching efforts.
An MU win will go a long way in turning the season (and collective attitudes/perspective of Team Scoop) around.
If we only mustered 35 points against OSU at home, is it fair to expect us to finish in the 26-29 point range for Saturday? No teal?
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 05, 2013, 10:32:26 AM
If either Gasser or Brust gets hot from the 3 pt line, beating Wisconsin will be almost impossible. It's nearly impossible to keep up with that scoring against Wisconsin's defense.
I don't think Wisconsin's defense is as suffocating this year as it has been in past years. I think they can be broken down off the dribble and Kaminsky isn't a great rim protector on the back side. Our strength is the dribble drive(other than Jake) and I think JJJ and Burton both have a chance to make an impact in that regard.
Quote from: Wade for President on December 05, 2013, 12:34:07 PM
You'd be hard pressed to name a team with as many quality wins as Wisco has had thus far (St. John's, Florida, @ Green Bay, Saint Louis, West Virginia, @ Virginia). Very impressive and a tip of the hat to the Grinch and his coaching efforts.
An MU win will go a long way in turning the season (and collective attitudes/perspective of Team Scoop) around.
If we only mustered 35 points against OSU at home, is it fair to expect us to finish in the 26-29 point range for Saturday? No teal?
tOSU is a better defensive team than Becky.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on December 05, 2013, 11:20:03 AM
My three keys to the UW game
1. Limit their looks from behind the arc (or hope UW misses). Wisconsin is #30 from behind the arc and #163 from inside. Conversely, MU is #19 defending inside and #173 defending the three. Their strength matches our weakness.
2. Offensive Rebounds. MU is #28 at getting offensive rebounds. UW is #28 at preventing offensive rebounds. If they do not win the turnover battle, Marquette has to win the OR% battle to win this game. On the plus side, MU will be the best offensive rebounding team UW has faced by far.
3. Protect the ball. UW is one of the worst teams in the nation at forcing turnovers. They cannot be given free possessions. Marquette has shown the ability to protect the ball well at times, but has been far too careless in several games. It's almost a given that MU will lose this matchup, but can they keep it close?
I think MU needs to win the eFG% and OR% matchups, or more likely, keep eFG% close and have a strong advantage on OR%.
1. I think Buzz typically takes the "hope they miss" approach to defending 3 point shooters. Even good teams will typically miss more than they make. The key to that approach is rebounding, especially against UW. They will use up the shot clock and make some three point shots. We can't give them second chances when they miss.
2. Agree with your assessment here. Statistically, MU is the better rebounding team. We need that to continue on Saturday to win.
3. Agree again. This is going to drive people nuts here, but Derrick Wilson is a big key to this game IMO. He is our best option for running the offense effectively and protecting the ball. If he is turning it over or putting us in bad offensive positions, we will be in trouble. I also don't think we can afford to put the ball in Jamil, Dawson, or Todd's hands at PG for long stretches if we want to protect the ball and maximize possessions.
Quote from: mu03eng on December 05, 2013, 12:37:29 PM
I don't think Wisconsin's defense is as suffocating this year as it has been in past years. I think they can be broken down off the dribble and Kaminsky isn't a great rim protector on the back side. Our strength is the dribble drive(other than Jake) and I think JJJ and Burton both have a chance to make an impact in that regard.
I don't think they've ever been that "suffocating" on D, and they are typically susceptible to penetration. That stated, they usually play good positional and help D to overcome their weaknesses. The real difficulty against Wisconsin is their ability to slow down the pace by using up the shot clock and making faster paced teams use up the shot clock to get good looks. It gets even more difficult if they start getting offensive boards and/or turnovers.
Another random thought.....Who gets helped/hurt more by the new/re-emphasized/magically made up contact rules?
Quote from: MUSF on December 05, 2013, 12:46:15 PM
I don't think they've ever been that "suffocating" on D, and they are typically susceptible to penetration. That stated, they usually play good positional and help D to overcome their weaknesses. The real difficulty against Wisconsin is their ability to slow down the pace by using up the shot clock and making faster paced teams use up the shot clock to get good looks. It gets even more difficult if they start getting offensive boards and/or turnovers.
I feel this year more than ever they are allowing teams to get to the hoop, could be wrong but just the impression I get. Seem very susceptible to side to side passing followed by penetration.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 05, 2013, 10:42:39 AM
Why are you constantly an insufferable whiner?
Oh the irony. I guess a self-righteous insufferable whiner would recognize a fellow traveler...Still yearning for creativity??
Quote from: mu03eng on December 05, 2013, 12:38:08 PM
tOSU is a better defensive team than Becky.
Matta's teams will always be better than Ryan's.
Quote from: mu03eng on December 05, 2013, 12:38:08 PM
tOSU is a better defensive team than Becky.
I won't disagree with your point, however my comments were directed more to the challenge that MU has to consistently put points on the board (scoring 35 points at home should never be acceptable, regardless of the opponent), as well as how effective Wisco is at slowing the game down to a snail's pace.
Over/Under for Saturday is currently set at 54. Place your bets.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 05, 2013, 10:42:39 AM
Why are you constantly an insufferable whiner?
Don't see what I said as whining, but sure as hell you are doing the whining!!!!!!!!! Once again, somebody inferring something not there.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 05, 2013, 01:42:28 PM
Don't see what I said as whining, but sure as hell you are doing the whining!!!!!!!!! Once again, somebody inferring something not there.
If multiple people think you are whining, regardless of your intent, perhaps you need to communicate your thoughts more effectively.
Quote from: keefe on December 05, 2013, 01:25:51 PM
Oh the irony. I guess a self-righteous insufferable whiner would recognize a fellow traveler...Still yearning for creativity??
You're right. By checking my recent post list you'd see that I am all about the whining. Selective memory in play today?
I think they will beat us. Hope I'm wrong. Those are my thoughts on Wisconsin-madison.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 05, 2013, 03:07:01 PM
I think they will beat us. Hope I'm wrong. Those are my thoughts on Wisconsin-madison.
Huge favorites.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 05, 2013, 01:49:00 PM
If multiple people think you are whining, regardless of your intent, perhaps you need to communicate your thoughts more effectively.
I always do. You and others extrapolate your inferences. Usually wrong, I might add. But hey, it is a message board where all of us , including Sultan and myself can shoot off their opinions on anything. Like the ones who opine that I do not like MU or Buzz or Otule. By the way that is my order of preference.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 05, 2013, 03:07:01 PM
I think they will beat us. Hope I'm wrong. Those are my thoughts on Wisconsin-madison.
I predict a MU victory. Hope I am correct.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 05, 2013, 03:30:53 PM
I always do. You and others extrapolate your inferences. Usually wrong, I might add. But hey, it is a message board where all of us , including Sultan and myself can shoot off their opinions on anything. Like the ones who opine that I do not like MU or Buzz or Otule. By the way that is my order of preference.
There are two components to effective communication; message sent and message received. If people aren't receiving your message correctly, maybe it's time to re-examine the quality of what you are sending.
On a completely unrelated note, have you met Chicos? ;)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 05, 2013, 03:26:17 PM
Huge favorites.
What's the line....I've been good going against the line the last week or so and picking the dog straight up, but I just don't feel it here.
Quote from: MUSF on December 05, 2013, 04:07:42 PM
There are two components to effective communication; message sent and message received. If people aren't receiving your message correctly, maybe it's time to re-examine the quality of what you are sending.
On a completely unrelated note, have you met Chicos? ;)
You do notice you are communicating with him, thus he is being effective. Effective communication does not mean it has to be everyone singing off the same song sheet. Sometimes getting people off the manifesto and discussing different viewpoints is every bit as effective, whether the receiver wants to respond or acknowledge it is another point.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 05, 2013, 04:25:01 PM
What's the line....I've been good going against the line the last week or so and picking the dog straight up, but I just don't feel it here.
9 points in Pomeroy...I cannot find Vegas yet.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 05, 2013, 04:29:46 PM
9 points in Pomeroy...I cannot find Vegas yet.
I think it will be a close game. The Badgers may pull it out but it is going to be close. I will be interested in the line for this one. If it is +7 or so for Marquette that will be interesting.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on December 05, 2013, 04:46:19 PM
I think it will be a close game. The Badgers may pull it out but it is going to be close. I will be interested in the line for this one. If it is +7 or so for Marquette that will be interesting.
I am guessing 5.5-6.5 for the spread.....Like you said, +7 or more may really make me think.
UW wins by 7. MU will hang around but that is a difficult place to win for a team like MU. Stars must align and a superlative performance by J Wilson and Gardner are our only chances to win.
I am negative by nature but I am starting to think IF we don't win here and don't finish in the top 3 of the NBE our tournament chances look grim. BTW I can use the first person when discussing this team as I am an alum.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on December 05, 2013, 10:50:42 AM
I've got a bridge to sell you my friend.
Looney doesn't count, he went to UCLA.
They have Dekker & Koenig, with no one else in the pipeline
vs.
DWilson, Burton, Cohen, Noskowiak, and Flory
Trust me, the in-state tide has turned in our favor. Stone going to MU will cement it for years to come. Stone going to UW will bring things back to an equilibrium.
Ellenson will be a big get, and from what I've seen Wisconsin is in the mix and at this point MU isn't very close. It looks like Wisconsin or Minnesota for Ellenson.
I'm thinking UW will be -9.
I think mu wins by 7. Not homerism just think we play one of our good games. So many of use are saying let's play small to match up. No screw that let Gardner go to work. They don't have anyone to match up with him. Out of all there players dekker is a great one but if j wilson bring his game he can hold him to 10.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 05, 2013, 04:27:16 PM
You do notice you are communicating with him, thus he is being effective. Effective communication does not mean it has to be everyone singing off the same song sheet. Sometimes getting people off the manifesto and discussing different viewpoints is every bit as effective, whether the receiver wants to respond or acknowledge it is another point.
He said he always communicates his thoughts effectively. I am simply pointing out that if most people extrapolate wrong inferences, as he claims, then he probably isn't communicating effectively. People interpreting the message incorrectly is different than rejecting the message. He clearly thinks that we are doing the former not the latter, as you suggest.
Quote from: MUSF on December 05, 2013, 12:46:15 PM
I don't think they've ever been that "suffocating" on D, and they are typically susceptible to penetration.
More girls need to take this "Badger" approach...need to be suffocating on the D and susceptible to penetration.
Madison by 7.
Gawd that's hard to say.
I'd take the under on 90 points, too. As much as I agree with an earlier post that the only way to win is for MU to run, lately buzz seems to attack "slow" with "slower".
Quote from: MUSF on December 05, 2013, 07:48:08 PM
He said he always communicates his thoughts effectively. I am simply pointing out that if most people extrapolate wrong inferences, as he claims, then he probably isn't communicating effectively. People interpreting the message incorrectly is different than rejecting the message. He clearly thinks that we are doing the former not the latter, as you suggest.
Man the BS flies here. I said "someone" and "You and others" and MUSF infers I said "most people". Thank you for making my point of people inferring what they want.
By the way, Sultan will always respond to my posts because he was called out by me for his rating of Otule, vs. Gardner which he denied and then had to retract and spin a different way. So after saying that, now will come the assault from Sultan, as predicted.
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 05, 2013, 06:33:20 PM
Ellenson will be a big get, and from what I've seen Wisconsin is in the mix and at this point MU isn't very close. It looks like Wisconsin or Minnesota for Ellenson.
Stone would certainly be a huge get and Ellenson would be as well.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 06, 2013, 11:52:48 AM
Man the BS flies here. I said "someone" and "You and others" and MUSF infers I said "most people". Thank you for making my point of people inferring what they want.
Selective reading....alive and well here. (yes, I'm guilty of it too)
A) Gasser has 9.5 win-shares in his 79 game career for a .154/40 average. Blue had 7.1 win-shares in his 106 game career for a .105/40 average. Blue's best win-share/40 min average for a season isn't as good as Gasser's worst. No one can argue with Marquette's success the past 3 years, but pretending that was a result of Blue's fantastic play and nothing else when comparing him with Gasser is just silly.
B) Citing Wilson, Noskowiak, Cohen, and Burton as reasons why Marquette is beating Wisconsin for in-state kids is curious considering none of those players had Wisconsin offers.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 12:44:45 PM
A) Gasser has 9.5 win-shares in his 79 game career for a .154/40 average. Blue had 7.1 win-shares in his 106 game career for a .105/40 average. Blue's best win-share/40 min average for a season isn't as good as Gasser's worst. No one can argue with Marquette's success the past 3 years, but pretending that was a result of Blue's fantastic play and nothing else when comparing him with Gasser is just silly.
B) Citing Wilson, Noskowiak, Cohen, and Burton as reasons why Marquette is beating Wisconsin for in-state kids is curious considering none of those players had Wisconsin offers.
Is that English?
Quote from: willie warrior on December 06, 2013, 11:52:48 AM
Man the BS flies here. I said "someone" and "You and others" and MUSF infers I said "most people". Thank you for making my point of people inferring what they want.
At no point does my post attribute the phrase "most people" to you. Selective inference indeed.
I was stating that most people infer the same things from your posts. Since those inferences aren't what you intended to imply, then the communication problem is more likely on your end.
Quote from: MUSF on December 06, 2013, 12:54:32 PM
At no point does my post attribute the phrase "most people" to you. Selective inference indeed.
I was stating that most people infer the same things from your posts. Since those inferences aren't what you intended to imply, then the communication problem is more likely on your end.
Or there is a herd mentality of inference going on, which is also a possibility. A conservative sees something on MSNBC, and regardless of what is said the inference is biased. A liberal sees something on Fox, and regardless of what is said the inference is biased. Its preordained.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 12:44:45 PM
A) Gasser has 9.5 win-shares in his 79 game career for a .154/40 average. Blue had 7.1 win-shares in his 106 game career for a .105/40 average. Blue's best win-share/40 min average for a season isn't as good as Gasser's worst. No one can argue with Marquette's success the past 3 years, but pretending that was a result of Blue's fantastic play and nothing else when comparing him with Gasser is just silly.
A lot of nice stats. Just to be clear: you are saying Marquette would have been better off with Gasser than Vander Blue? And the statistics bear this out correct?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 06, 2013, 01:00:31 PM
Or there is a herd mentality of inference going on, which is also a possibility. A conservative sees something on MSNBC, and regardless of what is said the inference is biased. A liberal sees something on Fox, and regardless of what is said the inference is biased. Its preordained.
Ok, so now you are changing your argument from selective reading back to biased inference. I'll bite...
Of course there's a herd mentality. We're all MU fans. If someone habitually posted negative things about Obama on an MSNBC message board while defending former pres Bush, their self-proclaimed liberal status would be questioned. Does this surprise you?
Look, I actually agree with you more often than not, but how and when you choose to defend Crean / poke Buzz provokes negative reactions. This shouldn't be surprising.
Pretty hard to justify picking us based on what we've seen so far. That said, I don't think Wisc is as good as their results and I think we are better than ours. I say UW wins a close one.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on December 06, 2013, 01:09:08 PM
A lot of nice stats. Just to be clear: you are saying Marquette would have been better off with Gasser than Vander Blue? And the statistics bear this out correct?
Yes, and I'll sit back and wait for your analysis on why win-shares is not an accurate measure of a player's value. Your argument should probably include a refutation of this list, just for the sake of completeness: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_yearly.html
Quote from: MUSF on December 06, 2013, 01:15:36 PM
Ok, so now you are changing your argument from selective reading back to biased inference. I'll bite...
Of course there's a herd mentality. We're all MU fans. If someone habitually posted negative things about Obama on an MSNBC message board while defending former pres Bush, their self-proclaimed liberal status would be questioned. Does this surprise you?
Look, I actually agree with you more often than not, but how and when you choose to defend Crean / poke Buzz provokes negative reactions. This shouldn't be surprising.
Not changing it at all. Both are possible and repeated here. There are people here that simply read things that are not there. Period. Secondly, there are others (sometimes the same people) that have a herd mentality and have made up their minds prior to one thing being written of what the "intent" of anything written will be....the actual content be damned. Both can happen.
Go through the last 50 threads started where someone posted a score of a team we played or were about to play. How often was the "passive aggressive troll" unholstered? It's high comedy. What's more high comedy is the defense of it....the leaps people make to justify the actions deserve their own forum.
What it says to me is that the herd mentality people are so close minded, so awash in the koolaid that things that go counter to their core candy drops and unicorn prism point of view automatically paints that other person in a specific light, especially if that person is stating factual information.
Back to the thread, UW by 8. Hoping MU pulls it off.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 01:21:13 PM
Yes, and I'll sit back and wait for your analysis on why win-shares is not an accurate measure of a player's value. Your argument should probably include a refutation of this list, just for the sake of completeness: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_yearly.html
I won't attempt to argue against the statistical analysis, but I do think your statistics don't fully capture the true value of a player in a college program.
I think Blue blows Gasser away when it comes to national attention and in state recruiting.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 01:21:13 PM
Yes, and I'll sit back and wait for your analysis on why win-shares is not an accurate measure of a player's value. Your argument should probably include a refutation of this list, just for the sake of completeness: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_yearly.html
How, pray tell does Gasser help us get to the Elite Eight last year injured? Or are you saying we would be better off having Gasser redshirt last year versus Blue hitting winning shots to win the Big East title and against Davidson?
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 12:44:45 PM
A) Gasser has 9.5 win-shares in his 79 game career for a .154/40 average. Blue had 7.1 win-shares in his 106 game career for a .105/40 average. Blue's best win-share/40 min average for a season isn't as good as Gasser's worst. No one can argue with Marquette's success the past 3 years, but pretending that was a result of Blue's fantastic play and nothing else when comparing him with Gasser is just silly.
B) Citing Wilson, Noskowiak, Cohen, and Burton as reasons why Marquette is beating Wisconsin for in-state kids is curious considering none of those players had Wisconsin offers.
Is there a website that does college win shares?
It's actually an interesting topic. Blue was okay his first 2 years (depending upon who you ask), and was obviously very good last year.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 01:21:13 PM
Yes, and I'll sit back and wait for your analysis on why win-shares is not an accurate measure of a player's value. Your argument should probably include a refutation of this list, just for the sake of completeness: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_yearly.html
I'll play...
What do win shares for the NBA have to do win shares for college players? Is there a verifiable link between the two groups? How do you account for the increased consistency of NBA players in comparison to NCAA players? In addition, how do Win Shares stack up against Wins Produced (which I regard as a more statistically valid measure)?
The error of prediction on win shares and team performance is greater than 10%. Do you think that counts as statistically valid?
Win shares are built upon defensive rankings. Defensive rankings are known to have errors. They don't account for off-ball defense or when a player misses a shot. Pomeroy doesn't even produce defensive rankings. Given the inconsistency in support for defensive rankings, does this invalidate the metric?
Wisconsin has been widely regarded as a flaw in tempo-free rankings. Specifically, there are some studies that highlight how slower tempo teams are over-rated both offensively and defensively. If Wisconsin is over-rated, would that make Gasser's stats over-rated as well?
How do you account for Gasser's relatively high win shares given his extremely limited usage of 13%? Isn't Gasser just a specialized role player?
====
Mostly I'm just being a jerk, but since you asked the question, there's your critique of Win Shares. FWIW, my honest assessment is that Blue was not a very good player his first two years. However, I do think Gasser is over-rated via the Win Share stat. He's a high-efficiency role player, so he shines. If Gasser had increased usage I doubt his efficiency would maintain.
As for the final point, this is all just bullsh*t arguing among fan bases.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 12:44:45 PM
A) Gasser has 9.5 win-shares in his 79 game career for a .154/40 average. Blue had 7.1 win-shares in his 106 game career for a .105/40 average. Blue's best win-share/40 min average for a season isn't as good as Gasser's worst. No one can argue with Marquette's success the past 3 years, but pretending that was a result of Blue's fantastic play and nothing else when comparing him with Gasser is just silly.
B) Citing Wilson, Noskowiak, Cohen, and Burton as reasons why Marquette is beating Wisconsin for in-state kids is curious considering none of those players had Wisconsin offers.
Word.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 12:44:45 PM
B) Citing Wilson, Noskowiak, Cohen, and Burton as reasons why Marquette is beating Wisconsin for in-state kids is curious considering none of those players had Wisconsin offers.
I'll give you Cohen, but Wilson and Burton made it pretty clear they weren't interested in UW. (Just like Dekker never got an offer from Marquette, but that's not because MU wouldn't have taken him...just that he wasn't interested.)
Noskowiak committed very early. I am sure UW would have offered him eventually.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 01:21:13 PM
Yes, and I'll sit back and wait for your analysis on why win-shares is not an accurate measure of a player's value. Your argument should probably include a refutation of this list, just for the sake of completeness: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_yearly.html
Here is a simple reason that it is invalid for determining a player's value on a national scale (as opposed to an individual team). You are trying to compare Blue's win-shares (for Marquette) to Gasser's win-shares (for UW) over a period of three years.
Since the win-shares are not only a reflection of an individuals talent, but also the overall talent of the rest of the team, it is fairly meaningless in terms of how a player (say Blue) would perform on a different team (say UW). Blue played for an MU team that had DJO/Buycks/Butler all future NBA players playing his positions his freshman year. It is unlikely that he would be a focal point of the offense and thus accumulate win-shares. He had DJO (sophomore year) playing the 2. And split time with Jamil Wilson at the 3. Again, hard to take time away from those guys...thus fewer win shares.
Gasser despite your claim to win-shares, would not have gotten off the bench for MU either of those years and thus would have accumulated 0 win-shares. At this point it should be obvious that the utility in using win-shares to compare the abilities of two players is flawed and should not be used in an argument.
Rather the utility of win-shares is for opposing teams prepping for an opponent. It is a reflection of the relative importance of an individual for their individual team. Shutdown their team leader in win-shares and you have a greater chance of beating said team. It has almost zero utility beyond that aspect.
As for flaws in the system itself, one of the aspects in the calculation is defensive win shares, where Gasser has received a lot of his win-shares (3.9 win shares). The problem with this calculation is that it ultimately brings into consideration the team performance, but assigns that value to the players. (marginal defense/marginal points per win). This can be grossly inaccurate in determining a players contribution on defense.
For example, Jimmy Butler was a phenomenal defender his senior year, but only received 1.5 win-shares. Gasser in 2011-2012 received 2.4 DWS. There is not a person on the planet that would rather have Gasser as a defender than Jimmy Butler. This alone invalidates DWS as a measure of defensive value.
Let's also look at another aspect of this. Because of flaws in the calculations (largely on the defensive side), some teams get disproportionately more total win-shares than other teams with comparative performances. Lets look at UW and MU over the 2010-2013 seasons. Total record for UW (74-31) for MU (75-31). Should have similar numbers of win shares...but they don't.
UW MU
Total win shares 2010-2011 27.4 vs. 24.6
2011-2012 30.2 vs. 27.0
2012-2013 27.5 vs. 22.9
Total 85.1 vs. 74.5
UW has 14% more total win-shares over the same period despite nearly identical records. Clearly the win-share statistics are flawed. I await your brilliant justification of why these statistics should bear so much meaning.
Quote from: forgetful on December 06, 2013, 02:56:17 PM
Here is a simple reason that it is invalid for determining a player's value on a national scale (as opposed to an individual team). You are trying to compare Blue's win-shares (for Marquette) to Gasser's win-shares (for UW) over a period of three years.
Since the win-shares are not only a reflection of an individuals talent, but also the overall talent of the rest of the team, it is fairly meaningless in terms of how a player (say Blue) would perform on a different team (say UW). Blue played for an MU team that had DJO/Buycks/Butler all future NBA players playing his positions his freshman year. It is unlikely that he would be a focal point of the offense and thus accumulate win-shares. He had DJO (sophomore year) playing the 2. And split time with Jamil Wilson at the 3. Again, hard to take time away from those guys...thus fewer win shares.
Gasser despite your claim to win-shares, would not have gotten off the bench for MU either of those years and thus would have accumulated 0 win-shares. At this point it should be obvious that the utility in using win-shares to compare the abilities of two players is flawed and should not be used in an argument.
Rather the utility of win-shares is for opposing teams prepping for an opponent. It is a reflection of the relative importance of an individual for their individual team. Shutdown their team leader in win-shares and you have a greater chance of beating said team. It has almost zero utility beyond that aspect.
As for flaws in the system itself, one of the aspects in the calculation is defensive win shares, where Gasser has received a lot of his win-shares (3.9 win shares). The problem with this calculation is that it ultimately brings into consideration the team performance, but assigns that value to the players. (marginal defense/marginal points per win). This can be grossly inaccurate in determining a players contribution on defense.
For example, Jimmy Butler was a phenomenal defender his senior year, but only received 1.5 win-shares. Gasser in 2011-2012 received 2.4 DWS. There is not a person on the planet that would rather have Gasser as a defender than Jimmy Butler. This alone invalidates DWS as a measure of defensive value.
Let's also look at another aspect of this. Because of flaws in the calculations (largely on the defensive side), some teams get disproportionately more total win-shares than other teams with comparative performances. Lets look at UW and MU over the 2010-2013 seasons. Total record for UW (74-31) for MU (75-31). Should have similar numbers of win shares...but they don't.
UW MU
Total win shares 2010-2011 27.4 vs. 24.6
2011-2012 30.2 vs. 27.0
2012-2013 27.5 vs. 22.9
Total 85.1 vs. 74.5
UW has 14% more total win-shares over the same period despite nearly identical records. Clearly the win-share statistics are flawed. I await your brilliant justification of why these statistics should bear so much meaning.
breadtree totally schooled by forgetful.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 12:44:45 PM
A) Gasser has 9.5 win-shares in his 79 game career for a .154/40 average. Blue had 7.1 win-shares in his 106 game career for a .105/40 average. Blue's best win-share/40 min average for a season isn't as good as Gasser's worst. No one can argue with Marquette's success the past 3 years, but pretending that was a result of Blue's fantastic play and nothing else when comparing him with Gasser is just silly.
B) Citing Wilson, Noskowiak, Cohen, and Burton as reasons why Marquette is beating Wisconsin for in-state kids is curious considering none of those players had Wisconsin offers.
B) Why offer kids that you have no chance on signing.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 12:44:45 PM
B) Citing Wilson, Noskowiak, Cohen, and Burton as reasons why Marquette is beating Wisconsin for in-state kids is curious considering none of those players had Wisconsin offers.
Wouldn't this work in the inverse as well? Those kids wanted no part of Wisconsin, so of course you aren't going to offer them. Just as MU wasn't going to get Butch or a few others because they had eyes only for Wisconsin.
Opening Vegas Line is UW -9.5 (team #550). No total posted yet:
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/las-vegas/2/
Quote from: VegasWarrior77 on December 06, 2013, 04:08:55 PM
Opening Vegas Line is UW -9.5 (team #550). No total posted yet:
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/las-vegas/2/
Wow. That is a LOT of points. Have to take Marquette and those 9.5 points to spare.
If you click on an individual team on the Vegas Insider Website (http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/las-vegas/2/) you can see all of that team's individual games YTD.
I find it interesting that on 11/26/13 Wisconsin hosted SLU and was only a 3 point favorite! Of course the Badgers only beat them by 6. Aren't we better than SLU?
Quote from: hairyworthen on December 05, 2013, 04:00:43 PM
I predict a MU victory. Hope I am correct.
I hope you are, too. But I fear your hopes will be dashed.
A) Saying Blue didn't get a lot of win-shares because he played on a loaded team only makes my original point: that it's silly to say that making 2 S16s and 1 E8 means that Vander Blue was clearly more valuable than Josh Gasser would have been.
B) Also, throw out Blue's freshman and sophomore years if you want. He still didn't have a season with a win-share/40 as high as any of Gasser's years. Also, you say that it's unlikely he'd be the focal point of the offense with all the NBA players on his freshman team, and yet he still managed to take more shots and have a higher usage rate than Gasser did.
C) Obviously I'm discounting the injury. Clearly you'd rather have Betty White on your team than a kid in street clothes.
D) Even if you normalize the win-shares for the team wins, Gasser still comes out ahead. If you take Blue's win-shares/40 and multiply it by 85.1/74.5 you get .1199, still well short of Gasser's .154.
D) Most of your issues seem to be with defensive win shares. Guess what? Blue averaged .048 offensive win-shares / 40 and Gasser averages .092.
E) Ultimately I think Blue seemed like a great player because he was a high usage player. I'll give him credit for improving his shooting significantly over the course of his career, but his true shooting and effective field goal percentages didn't rank in the top 500 in D1 last year. Obviously efficiency goes down as usage goes up, but your eyes trick you into thinking usage is better than efficiency and it doesn't work like that.
F) I will totally grant that win-shares isn't the absolute perfect measure of a college player. But I think it's pretty telling that the list of NBA win-shares leaders per season is basically a list of the best players in NBA history. And if that doesn't convince you here is the list of NCAA yearly leaders going backward: Trey Burke, Anthony Davis, Kemba Walker, Jon Scheyer, Stephen Curry, Kevin Love, Kevin Durant, Paul Millsap, Andrew Bogut, Emeka Okafor, Mike Sweetney, David West, Shane Battier, Marcus Fizer, Wally Szczerbiak, Antawn Jamison.
G) At the end of the day, this is not an answerable question, but I'm just saying there's a lot to suggest that Gasser is a better player than Blue was.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 05, 2013, 02:41:04 PM
You're right. By checking my recent post list you'd see that I am all about the whining. Selective memory in play today?
At the end of the day these fan-centric message boards are filled with more emotion than reason so there really is neither harm nor foul. In fact, whining is the raison d'être for the internet according to Al Gore.
Quote from: keefe on December 06, 2013, 04:47:46 PM
At the end of the day these fan-centric message boards are filled with more emotion than reason so there really is neither harm nor foul. In fact, whining is the raison d'être for the internet according to Al Gore.
Gore must've gotten tired of hearing you military guys whine on ARPANET so he thought he would open it up to everyone ;D
Quote from: VegasWarrior77 on December 06, 2013, 04:33:01 PM
If you click on an individual team on the Vegas Insider Website (http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/las-vegas/2/) you can see all of that team's individual games YTD.
I find it interesting that on 11/26/13 Wisconsin hosted SLU and was only a 3 point favorite! Of course the Badgers only beat them by 6. Aren't we better than SLU?
Wisconsin played SLU on a neutral court in Cancun. They didn't host them. SLU is returning 4 players from a team that was a 4 seed last year. Their only losses are to #8 Wisconsin by 5 to #10 Wichita State. They don't have any big wins but I would guess their resume is as good or better than Marquette's right now.
Quote from: brandx on December 06, 2013, 05:02:14 PM
Gore must've gotten tired of hearing you military guys whine on ARPANET so he thought he would open it up to everyone ;D
We didn't whine on ARPANET; we used it to surf porn. We waited for SIPRNET to whine about Al Gore's carbon footprint!
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 04:45:11 PM
F) I will totally grant that win-shares isn't the absolute perfect measure of a college player. But I think it's pretty telling that the list of NBA win-shares leaders per season is basically a list of the best players in NBA history. And if that doesn't convince you here is the list of NCAA yearly leaders going backward: Trey Burke, Anthony Davis, Kemba Walker, Jon Scheyer, Stephen Curry, Kevin Love, Kevin Durant, Paul Millsap, Andrew Bogut, Emeka Okafor, Mike Sweetney, David West, Shane Battier, Marcus Fizer, Wally Szczerbiak, Antawn Jamison.
I think at the top end, and with a large sample size, "win shares" is a pretty good stat (passes the eye and logic test). The NBA list is really good.
But, when you get into the middle of the pack, and the seasons are only 30 games long (college), it's hard to boil everything down to "win shares". A lot of variables come into play.
Quote from: jjfanec on December 06, 2013, 05:06:11 PM
Wisconsin played SLU on a neutral court in Cancun. They didn't host them. SLU is returning 4 players from a team that was a 4 seed last year. Their only losses are to #8 Wisconsin by 5 to #10 Wichita State. They don't have any big wins but I would guess their resume is as good or better than Marquette's right now.
Thanks jj. Forgot about the preseason tourney. Not totally tuned in to Bucky! The Shockers look awfully good again! Right now it looks like Villanova is playing the best of any NBE teams.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 04:45:11 PM
A) Saying Blue didn't get a lot of win-shares because he played on a loaded team only makes my original point: that it's silly to say that making 2 S16s and 1 E8 means that Vander Blue was clearly more valuable than Josh Gasser would have been.
B) Also, throw out Blue's freshman and sophomore years if you want. He still didn't have a season with a win-share/40 as high as any of Gasser's years. Also, you say that it's unlikely he'd be the focal point of the offense with all the NBA players on his freshman team, and yet he still managed to take more shots and have a higher usage rate than Gasser did.
C) Obviously I'm discounting the injury. Clearly you'd rather have Betty White on your team than a kid in street clothes.
D) Even if you normalize the win-shares for the team wins, Gasser still comes out ahead. If you take Blue's win-shares/40 and multiply it by 85.1/74.5 you get .1199, still well short of Gasser's .154.
D) Most of your issues seem to be with defensive win shares. Guess what? Blue averaged .048 offensive win-shares / 40 and Gasser averages .092.
E) Ultimately I think Blue seemed like a great player because he was a high usage player. I'll give him credit for improving his shooting significantly over the course of his career, but his true shooting and effective field goal percentages didn't rank in the top 500 in D1 last year. Obviously efficiency goes down as usage goes up, but your eyes trick you into thinking usage is better than efficiency and it doesn't work like that.
F) I will totally grant that win-shares isn't the absolute perfect measure of a college player. But I think it's pretty telling that the list of NBA win-shares leaders per season is basically a list of the best players in NBA history. And if that doesn't convince you here is the list of NCAA yearly leaders going backward: Trey Burke, Anthony Davis, Kemba Walker, Jon Scheyer, Stephen Curry, Kevin Love, Kevin Durant, Paul Millsap, Andrew Bogut, Emeka Okafor, Mike Sweetney, David West, Shane Battier, Marcus Fizer, Wally Szczerbiak, Antawn Jamison.
G) At the end of the day, this is not an answerable question, but I'm just saying there's a lot to suggest that Gasser is a better player than Blue was.
After your argument using win shares was destroyed, points A, B and D are pretty irrelevant. Point C is a given.
Point E. I agree to a point. He was clearly a high volume player and oftentimes wasn't very efficient. But I would rather have a high-impact player and sacrifice some efficiency than vice versa.
Point F. Of course. Those were players that were used a lot on winning teams. But that still doesn't address the problems with comparing two players using those stats as was spelled out for you.
Point G. There isn't anyone outside of a bitter Badger fan who believes Gasser to be a better player than Blue. Frankly, if that is the conclusion you get through your study, then I think the data you use for your study is extremely flawed.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 04:45:11 PM
G) At the end of the day, this is not an answerable question, but I'm just saying there's a lot to suggest that Gasser is a better player than Blue was.
At the end of the day, Blue hit end-of-the-day shots to give Marquette the Big East title and, just two weeks later, to keep alive Marquette's Elite Eight run.
At the end of the day, how many season-saving, end-of-the-day shots did Gasser -- excuse me,
The Great Josh Gasser -- hit?
I know he made that wing-and-a-prayer, luckier-than-hell bank shot to beat Michigan in a February game a few years ago, but otherwise? Was he carrying Wisconsin into the Elite Eight?
NCAA Tournament game-winning shots must be at least as viable a "stat" as win-shares are.
Now get the hell back to the UW board, Troll Boy, and wax poetic about the wonders of Brian Butch.
Quote from: MU82 on December 06, 2013, 07:07:28 PM
At the end of the day, Blue hit end-of-the-day shots to give Marquette the Big East title and, just two weeks later, to keep alive Marquette's Elite Eight run.
At the end of the day, how many season-saving, end-of-the-day shots did Gasser -- excuse me, The Great Josh Gasser -- hit?
I know he made that wing-and-a-prayer, luckier-than-hell bank shot to beat Michigan in a February game a few years ago, but otherwise? Was he carrying Wisconsin into the Elite Eight?
NCAA Tournament game-winning shots must be at least as viable a "stat" as win-shares are.
Now get the hell back to the UW board, Troll Boy, and wax poetic about the wonders of Brian Butch.
Luck....what luck? There's no luck in basketball
Quote from: MU82 on December 06, 2013, 07:07:28 PM
At the end of the day, Blue hit end-of-the-day shots to give Marquette the Big East title and, just two weeks later, to keep alive Marquette's Elite Eight run.
At the end of the day, how many season-saving, end-of-the-day shots did Gasser -- excuse me, The Great Josh Gasser -- hit?
I know he made that wing-and-a-prayer, luckier-than-hell bank shot to beat Michigan in a February game a few years ago, but otherwise? Was he carrying Wisconsin into the Elite Eight?
NCAA Tournament game-winning shots must be at least as viable a "stat" as win-shares are.
Now get the hell back to the UW board, Troll Boy, and wax poetic about the wonders of Brian Butch.
Robert Horry: better than Michael Jordan.
BTW, the definition of a troll is someone who posts purposefully inflammatory things simply to get a response. I'm not a troll, all I've done are post publicly available stats. I'm someone who dared to disturb the echo chamber.
As for the guy who said my points were irrelevant because a previous poster 'destroyed' win-shares, I'd point out that the arguments used to 'destroy' mine were directly refuted in my subsequent post. You can't just wish them away.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 07:30:13 PM
Robert Horry: better than Michael Jordan.
BTW, the definition of a troll is someone who posts purposefully inflammatory things simply to get a response. I'm not a troll, all I've done are post publicly available stats. I'm someone who dared to disturb the echo chamber.
As for the guy who said my points were irrelevant because a previous poster 'destroyed' win-shares, I'd point out that the arguments used to 'destroy' mine were directly refuted in my subsequent post. You can't just wish them away.
breadtree: win shares prove this
forgetful: win shares is a poor way to prove that for this reason
breadtree: it isn't poor because win shares say this.
See the problem with your logic?
On to more important matters - What's a Breadtree?
Is it a Josh Gasser fan club of some sort?
Quote from: Ners on December 06, 2013, 07:40:29 PM
On to more important matters - What's a Breadtree?
The breadfruit tree kept the Jack Tars of the RN scurvy-free for generations. Without Breadfruit Trees there is no Charles Laughton cast adrift by a fed up Clark Gable.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcScdOXrAWz7WB0IqLZUGV_Nlec-zVqdcrWg2Ex0icb91qmYHVFp)
(http://content7.flixster.com/photo/11/78/94/11789437_gal.jpg)
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 07:30:13 PM
Robert Horry: better than Michael Jordan.
BTW, the definition of a troll is someone who posts purposefully inflammatory things simply to get a response. I'm not a troll, all I've done are post publicly available stats. I'm someone who dared to disturb the echo chamber.
As for the guy who said my points were irrelevant because a previous poster 'destroyed' win-shares, I'd point out that the arguments used to 'destroy' mine were directly refuted in my subsequent post. You can't just wish them away.
Since a rational argument failed to indicate to you the problems with using win-shares to make the point you are trying to do (comparing ability of players from different teams). I thought using your lists (that you seem to really love) may help. If you look at the top 100 players according to win shares (for a single season) since 1998.
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/02/4448458/the-truths-behind-the-myth-of.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/02/4448458/the-truths-behind-the-myth-of.html)
You will observe several important names missing:
Luke Harongody
Evan Turner (Player of the yar)
TJ Ford (Naismith Player of the year)
John Wall (Player of the year runner up)
Adam Morrison
Dwyane Wade
Jameer Nelson (Player of the year)
Carmelo Anthony
Jason Williams (Player of the year)
That means 5 player of the year winners since 2000 don't make the top 100 list. In addition some of the best players period of the past 15 years (Wade and Anthony) aren't even in the top 100. Clearly the metric can fail at undervaluing players.
Instead of the list above...the following players did make the list.
Will Thomas (George Mason)
Matt Kingsley (Stephen F. Austin)
Jerome Jordan (Tulsa)
Randal Falker (Southern Illinois)
Spencer Nelson (Utah State)
Jody Lumpkin (College of Charleston)
Sitapha Savane (Navy)
Lee Cummard (BYU...ranked 34th best player since 1998)
So the metric can over-value players. Now its very likely that the players above (that did make the list) are some of the top 100 most important players to their team (value of win-shares), but it doesn't make them better than D. Wade and Carmelo.
The additional problem with win-shares is that it tends to have similar statistical abnormalities as Kenpom which historically overvalues UW (he's admitted this). Thus, UW players will also be over-rated, hence the Blue v. Gasser argument you are trying to make and the fact that Wilkinson makes the top 100 list since 1998.
Quote from: forgetful on December 06, 2013, 08:41:35 PM
Will Thomas (George Mason)
Matt Kingsley (Stephen F. Austin)
Jerome Jordan (Tulsa)
Randal Falker (Southern Illinois)
Spencer Nelson (Utah State)
Jody Lumpkin (College of Charleston)
Sitapha Savane (Navy)
Lee Cummard (BYU...ranked 34th best player since 1998)
Clearly these guys were better players than D.Wade and Melo. Breadtree found a cherry picked stat that says so, and memorialspartan agrees.
Quote from: forgetful on December 06, 2013, 08:41:35 PM
Since a rational argument failed to indicate to you the problems with using win-shares to make the point you are trying to do (comparing ability of players from different teams). I thought using your lists (that you seem to really love) may help. If you look at the top 100 players according to win shares (for a single season) since 1998.
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/02/4448458/the-truths-behind-the-myth-of.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/02/4448458/the-truths-behind-the-myth-of.html)
You will observe several important names missing:
Luke Harongody
Evan Turner (Player of the yar)
TJ Ford (Naismith Player of the year)
John Wall (Player of the year runner up)
Adam Morrison
Dwyane Wade
Jameer Nelson (Player of the year)
Carmelo Anthony
Jason Williams (Player of the year)
That means 5 player of the year winners since 2000 don't make the top 100 list. In addition some of the best players period of the past 15 years (Wade and Anthony) aren't even in the top 100. Clearly the metric can fail at undervaluing players.
Instead of the list above...the following players did make the list.
Will Thomas (George Mason)
Matt Kingsley (Stephen F. Austin)
Jerome Jordan (Tulsa)
Randal Falker (Southern Illinois)
Spencer Nelson (Utah State)
Jody Lumpkin (College of Charleston)
Sitapha Savane (Navy)
Lee Cummard (BYU...ranked 34th best player since 1998)
So the metric can over-value players. Now its very likely that the players above (that did make the list) are some of the top 100 most important players to their team (value of win-shares), but it doesn't make them better than D. Wade and Carmelo.
The additional problem with win-shares is that it tends to have similar statistical abnormalities as Kenpom which historically overvalues UW (he's admitted this). Thus, UW players will also be over-rated, hence the Blue v. Gasser argument you are trying to make and the fact that Wilkinson makes the top 100 list since 1998.
Nicely done!
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 07:30:13 PM
BTW, the definition of a troll is someone who posts purposefully inflammatory things simply to get a response. I'm not a troll, all I've done are post publicly available stats. I'm someone who dared to disturb the echo chamber.
That's unfortunate because if you were a troll, you'd be a pretty successful one. If you were really trying to come here and prove that Gasser is better than Blue, then you are getting your A$$ kicked.
Quote from: VegasWarrior77 on December 06, 2013, 06:21:59 PM
Thanks jj. Forgot about the preseason tourney. Not totally tuned in to Bucky! The Shockers look awfully good again! Right now it looks like Villanova is playing the best of any NBE teams.
Glad to help. I am a Badger fan and don't post on MU boards anymore but I thought it was safe to post this without looking being a troll.
What no one has done has provide any sort of alternative analysis on how Blue is better than Gasser, except, of course, 2 shots he hit and overall team success. You guys all act like I made up win-shares myself and then you cherry pick examples of where win-shares didn't tell the whole story. You're right, I wasn't able to find Carmelo Anthony's name in that story you linked about Chicago violence in the KC Star.
Of course, most of the false positives are all players at small schools, who probably put up really big numbers. And since both Vander Blue and Josh Gasser played at small schools those are totally relevant. Since people seem so impressed by lists of names, I'll add some more that made the top 100 list:
Elton Brand
Blake Griffin
Hasheem Thabeet
Shelden Williams
Nick Collison
Nick Fazekas
Kenyon Martin
David West (a 2nd time)
LaMarcus Aldridge
Nate Wolters
Carlos Boozer
Jimmer Fredette
Stromile Swift
Shelden Williams (a 2nd time)
Ike Diogu
Joakim Noah
Karl Landry
Jared Sullinger
Cole Aldrich
Norris Cole
Kenneth Faried
DeJuan Blair
I stopped after the top 50.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 10:23:52 PM
What no one has done has provide any sort of alternative analysis on how Blue is better than Gasser, except, of course,
Did Bo lift the cap of 4 African American players for this year's team? Looks like he's all the way up to 6...is that a new record for Bo? Any photoshopping we should be worried about?
(http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/wis/sports/m-baskbl/auto_bsi_wide/9503430.jpeg)
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 10:23:52 PM
What no one has done has provide any sort of alternative analysis on how Blue is better than Gasser, except, of course, 2 shots he hit and overall team success.
This is completely ridiculous at this point. There is absolutely nobody, that's not connected to UW (fan/player/coach/writer), that would say Gasser is a better basketball player than Vander Blue.
Quote from: breadtree on December 06, 2013, 10:23:52 PM
What no one has done has provide any sort of alternative analysis on how Blue is better than Gasser, except, of course, 2 shots he hit and overall team success.
Well, in their last head-to-head matchup in 2011, Blue was better than Gasser. Done.
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/uw_12_3_11
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
02 Blue, Vander........ g 4-14 1-1 0-1 3 5 8 2 9 1 3 1 0 33
21 Gasser, Josh........ g 1-5 1-2 4-4 1 1 2 4 7 3 2 0 0 37
If you'd like a second data point, in their first matchup, Blue was also better than Gasser. Double-Done.
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/uw_12_11_10
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
21 Gasser, Josh........ g 2-6 0-2 0-0 1 0 1 3 4 2 1 0 1 30
02 Blue, Vander........ g 2-4 0-1 3-4 0 3 3 2 7 1 0 0 1 29
So then lets look again at their cumulative numbers during the '11-12 season.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=josh-gasser&josh-gasser=2011-2012&p1=vander-blue&vander-blue=2011-2012
Gasser played a lot more minutes, and scored less. Gasser shot a higher percentage, but didn't get as many rebounds, assists, steals, or blocks. Blue did turn the ball over more, but fouled less. Per minute that year, Blue is way more effective, but slightly less efficient.
Has this thread has really degraded into who is better, Gasser or Blue?
http://youtu.be/OKQz5CO-1sI?t=21s
Do we really have an idiot troll trying to say Gasser is better than Blue? No honest Wisconsin fan would take Gasser over Blue at any point of their careers. Anyone saying otherwise is still just butthurt that Blue turned his back on UW to go to Marquette.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 06, 2013, 11:52:35 PM
Has this thread has really degraded into who is better, Gasser or Blue?
http://youtu.be/OKQz5CO-1sI?t=21s
Exactly. I feel like I'm going crazy. For about an hour I was thinking, "wait maybe Gasser is better, I'm going to start digging for evidence." Then I snapped out of it and realized that any person with two eyeballs and a basic understanding of basketball could determine that their is no possible way that Gasser is better than Blue.
Edit: You don't need two eyeballs. I'm sure CO figured out Blue is better.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 06, 2013, 11:05:47 PM
Did Bo lift the cap of 4 African American players for this year's team? Looks like he's all the way up to 6...is that a new record for Bo? Any photoshopping we should be worried about?
(http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/wis/sports/m-baskbl/auto_bsi_wide/9503430.jpeg)
With George Marshall leaving now, let's bring it down to 5....should make the fine folks in Madison a bit more comfortable.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 06, 2013, 11:49:19 PM
Well, in their last head-to-head matchup in 2011, Blue was better than Gasser. Done.
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/uw_12_3_11
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
02 Blue, Vander........ g 4-14 1-1 0-1 3 5 8 2 9 1 3 1 0 33
21 Gasser, Josh........ g 1-5 1-2 4-4 1 1 2 4 7 3 2 0 0 37
If you'd like a second data point, in their first matchup, Blue was also better than Gasser. Double-Done.
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/uw_12_11_10
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
21 Gasser, Josh........ g 2-6 0-2 0-0 1 0 1 3 4 2 1 0 1 30
02 Blue, Vander........ g 2-4 0-1 3-4 0 3 3 2 7 1 0 0 1 29
So then lets look again at their cumulative numbers during the '11-12 season.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=josh-gasser&josh-gasser=2011-2012&p1=vander-blue&vander-blue=2011-2012
Gasser played a lot more minutes, and scored less. Gasser shot a higher percentage, but didn't get as many rebounds, assists, steals, or blocks. Blue did turn the ball over more, but fouled less. Per minute that year, Blue is way more effective, but slightly less efficient.
Everybody needs to stop quoting facts and stats and urging people to actually recall what they saw as obvious.
The only fact or stat that matters is win-shares.
There. Troll Boy can go back to play with his friends now.