MUScoop

I was on the Creighton boards and they have a listing of all the BE team forums(really handy wish I saw it sooner) I didn't even know this BCB forum existed. Sure enough, I got an instant shoutout of there lol.

"Wow, you'd think we lost. They are really unhinged. I am convinced Badgermaniac and HaywardsHeroes are the same guy, equal amount of MU hate."

I don't think I was even in the top 50 of irrational posters yesterday lol questioning Ox sitting was the only remote negative I said. If that's unhinged I hope to lord they didn't see me after the Butler LOSS.

And I didn't even know there was a badgermaniac on this board...But I guess were 1 in the same!!

Fook the other boards.

So you're going to post there exclusively now and you're bringing Nevada, Chris Columbo, The Sultan of Silly and setyoutsightsnorth with you?

Quote from: PTM on February 23, 2014, 11:11:44 PM
So you're going to post there exclusively now and you're bringing Nevada, Chris Columbo, The Sultan of Silly and setyoutsightsnorth with you?

Nope I'm gona keep the party rolling here!!!

http://www.brewcityball.com/forums/showthread.php?6363-MU-Scoop

I don't visit there often and won't sign up because I don't want to give IWB a heart attack  ;).  His place, he should run it as such.

However, didn't realize how many folks there truly think there are Badger trolls on here.  Not what I have seen, anyway.

I was glad to see that board call out the 3 point defense at the end of the game.  Not much talk about it here on Scoop.  I will never understand why we don't foul in that situation, but Buzz doesn't like to.  Letting that guy take a wide open 3 was really something.   :o

Still prefer this site to the Scout site which I find to be incredibly boring, no discussion, and group think on steroids.  

For that I might get a phone call of reprimand...  LOL

Browsed over there a bit tonight and it looks pretty vanilla, no thanks.

Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 24, 2014, 12:11:05 AM
Browsed over there a bit tonight and it looks pretty vanilla, no thanks.

Same thought here.

Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 24, 2014, 12:11:05 AM
Browsed over there a bit tonight and it looks pretty vanilla, no thanks.

Yeah almost as bare as scout.

This board may get extreme following games at times but at least its interesting with lots of topics being brought up.

nm, damn video wont embed!

who cares about creighton. they will be irrelevant in 2 years after the loss of both Mcdermotts next year.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 24, 2014, 12:05:56 AM
http://www.brewcityball.com/forums/showthread.php?6363-MU-Scoop

I don't visit there often and won't sign up because I don't want to give IWB a heart attack  ;).  His place, he should run it as such.

However, didn't realize how many folks there truly think there are Badger trolls on here.  Not what I have seen, anyway.

I was glad to see that board call out the 3 point defense at the end of the game.  Not much talk about it here on Scoop.  I will never understand why we don't foul in that situation, but Buzz doesn't like to.  Letting that guy take a wide open 3 was really something.   :o

Still prefer this site to the Scout site which I find to be incredibly boring, no discussion, and group think on steroids.  

For that I might get a phone call of reprimand...  LOL

I agree, I was yelling at the TV for them to do it... and then discussed it with one of my friends after the game.

Oddly enough, Buzz didn't hear me from where I was sitting.

Didn't help that Steve Taylor let his arms drop by his side like he was protecting from the drive. 

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 24, 2014, 08:32:06 AM
I agree, I was yelling at the TV for them to do it... and then discussed it with one of my friends after the game.

Oddly enough, Buzz didn't hear me from where I was sitting.

On Saturday, Nova didn't foul up 3 against St. John's and it worked out. Memphis didn't foul up 3 on Temple and it worked out. Were Wright and Pastner still "wrong" for not fouling? Different coaches view that situation differently. Some feel that there are too many negative variables to fouling (off rebound, foul on their team after the miss, foul as player chucks up a 3, extends the game, etc) while others believe that the low odds of a team executing a make-then-miss on FTs and scoring are worth the foul. It can often depend on the team and the opponent. There's no clear-cut right or wrong. If your strategy works, it was right. If it doesn't, it was wrong.

My signature says all that needs to be said about the resident expert outside of IWB at BrewCity Ball.  Was funny reading their site, and seeing BrewCity77 still obsesses about me.

Much better to be a part of a forum here that has a lot of post activity, varying opinions, fanboys, trolls, and every thing in between - than a board that is largely pollyanna and cannot allot for any negative viewpoints toward ANYTHING related to MU hoops.

And just because someone won't or doesn't post anything negative about MU hoops makes them no less of a fan, or better fan than those who do raise issues with decisions/personnel/strategy etc.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 09:10:50 AM
My signature says all that needs to be said about the resident expert outside of IWB at BrewCity Ball.  Was funny reading their site, and seeing BrewCity77 still obsesses about me.

Much better to be a part of a forum here that has a lot of post activity, varying opinions, fanboys, trolls, and every thing in between - than a board that is largely pollyanna and cannot allot for any negative viewpoints toward ANYTHING related to MU hoops.

And just because someone won't or doesn't post anything negative about MU hoops makes them no less of a fan, or better fan than those who do raise issues with decisions/personnel/strategy etc.

Meh, I could honestly do without the trolls.

There have been some posters this year on scoop that have made me seriously question the value of a MU diploma.   

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2014, 09:09:13 AM
On Saturday, Nova didn't foul up 3 against St. John's and it worked out. Memphis didn't foul up 3 on Temple and it worked out. Were Wright and Pastner still "wrong" for not fouling? Different coaches view that situation differently. Some feel that there are too many negative variables to fouling (off rebound, foul on their team after the miss, foul as player chucks up a 3, extends the game, etc) while others believe that the low odds of a team executing a make-then-miss on FTs and scoring are worth the foul. It can often depend on the team and the opponent. There's no clear-cut right or wrong. If your strategy works, it was right. If it doesn't, it was wrong.

Many basketball analysts suggest the right play is to foul if there is less than 5 seconds left in the game...and the opposition has to bring the ball in full court.  You execute the foul at roughly the 2-2.5 second mark (or right before halfcourt) as player is unlikely to shoot the ball 2 seconds before buzzer (which eliminates potential risk of fouling a player when in the act of shooting.)

Many games have been tied hitting the 3 at buzzer like DePaul did.  Rarely do you see the 3 things that need to go right for the fouling strategy to burn you:  Guy makes first free throw, misses 2nd and team fails gather defensive board, and if they don't, the opponent not only getting rebound off FT, but then making the 2 point shot to tie.  Rarely recall seeing highlights of such a sequence of events taking place, compared to highlights showing exactly what happened to us against DePaul.

Quote from: tower912 on February 24, 2014, 09:15:14 AM
There have been some posters this year on scoop that have made me seriously question the value of a MU diploma.   

I'd agree with you, but, MU doesn't offer a diploma in Basketball 101 - if it did, I'd have some serious concerns too...given some of the perceptions and opinions shared as to what they feel ails this MU team.

Whether you foul or not, what I don't understand is why we have so many defenders inside the arc.  At that point in the game only a three pointer can hurt you.  I'd think you'd want all the defenders around the arc with hands up to push the shot out as far as possible.  Nobody ever does that.  I guess the fear of the quick layup and subsequent foul on the inbounds pass is the concern.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 09:16:11 AM
Many basketball analysts suggest the right play is to foul if there is less than 5 seconds left in the game...and the opposition has to bring the ball in full court.  You execute the foul at roughly the 2-2.5 second mark (or right before halfcourt) as player is unlikely to shoot the ball 2 seconds before buzzer (which eliminates potential risk of fouling a player when in the act of shooting.)

Many games have been tied hitting the 3 at buzzer like DePaul did.  Rarely do you see the 3 things that need to go right for the fouling strategy to burn you:  Guy makes first free throw, misses 2nd and team fails gather defensive board, and if they don't, the opponent not only getting rebound off FT, but then making the 2 point shot to tie.  Rarely recall seeing highlights of such a sequence of events taking place, compared to highlights showing exactly what happened to us against DePaul.

Since DePaul inbounded with 8 seconds left and Garrett pulled up from 30' with 5 seconds left, does that mean that Buzz did the right thing by not fouling? Not questioning you specifically. Just asking.

Quote from: tower912 on February 24, 2014, 09:15:14 AM
There have been some posters this year on scoop that have made me seriously question the value of a MU diploma.   

I thought the same thing for a while but then I realized that I know some very intelligent people who are very "sports stupid." In fact, I'd venture to guess that a vast majority of sports fans do not have very high sports IQs.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 09:16:11 AM
Many basketball analysts suggest the right play is to foul if there is less than 5 seconds left in the game...and the opposition has to bring the ball in full court.  You execute the foul at roughly the 2-2.5 second mark (or right before halfcourt) as player is unlikely to shoot the ball 2 seconds before buzzer (which eliminates potential risk of fouling a player when in the act of shooting.)

Many games have been tied hitting the 3 at buzzer like DePaul did.  Rarely do you see the 3 things that need to go right for the fouling strategy to burn you:  Guy makes first free throw, misses 2nd and team fails gather defensive board, and if they don't, the opponent not only getting rebound off FT, but then making the 2 point shot to tie.  Rarely recall seeing highlights of such a sequence of events taking place, compared to highlights showing exactly what happened to us against DePaul.

I'm not sure how this applies to Saturday.  I don't have the video queued up, but the clock stopped on the Garret 3 at 2.6 seconds.  Given that, I suspect the shot was taken at somewhere around 3.5-4.0 seconds, and halfcourt would likely be around 5 seconds.  Since fouling Garret at 2-2.5 seconds was not possible, are you suggesting we foul at 5+ seconds near halfcourt?   Seems to me too much clock left.

brewcity77 - Et tu, Brute?

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2014, 09:47:31 AM
Since DePaul inbounded with 8 seconds left and Garrett pulled up from 30' with 5 seconds left, does that mean that Buzz did the right thing by not fouling? Not questioning you specifically. Just asking.

Beat me to it.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 09:10:50 AM
My signature says all that needs to be said about the resident expert outside of IWB at BrewCity Ball.  Was funny reading their site, and seeing BrewCity77 still obsesses about me.

Much better to be a part of a forum here that has a lot of post activity, varying opinions, fanboys, trolls, and every thing in between - than a board that is largely pollyanna and cannot allot for any negative viewpoints toward ANYTHING related to MU hoops.

And just because someone won't or doesn't post anything negative about MU hoops makes them no less of a fan, or better fan than those who do raise issues with decisions/personnel/strategy etc.

So in the first part of this post you make fun of someone for having a different opinion then you.

Then in the second part you criticize others for not allowing other opinions?

The issue the "Pollyanna" posters have with the negative posting is not the content, it's the delivery. It's "we suck," "Jake wouldn't start for a D2 program," "Derrick is the worst PG in Marquette history." In most of the posts, there are no stats, no objective analysis, no reason. It's mostly just angry venting that turns into unnecessary bashing of 18 year old kids. Now, when pressed, the negativos will find stats to back up their opinions, but not without, and also after the bashing.

You, are a special case. You make intelligent, well reasoned arguments to back up your assertions. But you ruin it by posting it over and over and over and over and over...often in threads that don't have anything to do with the point you are trying to make. You also have been known to make things up like "Derrick has shown no improvement from last season."

Quote from: tower912 on February 24, 2014, 09:15:14 AM
There have been some posters this year on scoop that have made me seriously question the value of a MU diploma.   

How do you know they went to Marquette?

Fair point.   

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 24, 2014, 09:56:11 AM
So in the first part of this post you make fun of someone for having a different opinion then you.

Then in the second part you criticize others for not allowing other opinions?

The issue the "Pollyanna" posters have with the negative posting is not the content, it's the delivery. It's "we suck," "Jake wouldn't start for a D2 program," "Derrick is the worst PG in Marquette history." In most of the posts, there are no stats, no objective analysis, no reason. It's mostly just angry venting that turns into unnecessary bashing of 18 year old kids. Now, when pressed, the negativos will find stats to back up their opinions, but not without, and also after the bashing.

You, are a special case. You make intelligent, well reasoned arguments to back up your assertions. But you ruin it by posting it over and over and over and over and over...often in threads that don't have anything to do with the point you are trying to make. You also have been known to make things up like "Derrick has shown no improvement from last season."

I was thinking about writing something very similar this morning, thanks for posting this.  I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the negative crowd are fireball throwers that has honest debate as a secondary concern, if that.

I'm willing to bet 95% of the board believes the following facts:
-This season has been a disappointment
-The team has underachieved expectations
-This team struggles on the offensive end
-This team is inconsistent
-We have talented freshmen that have not gotten as much playing time as we would like (the reasons for this are wildly varied)
-This team has had some questionable coaching decisions
-This team has had some issues that were "uncontrollable" that have impacted the results
-This team has a very long shot at the NCAA tournament
-Buzz is having a down year but ultimately is still the coach for this university and team for the foreseeable future.
-Buzz is not above reproach for his decisions, but that doesn't mean every decision can/should be questioned

If the above are true for the vast majority we are arguing on the margins, which is fine but then we can drop the whole "you guys love Buzz and can't question anything he ever does".  Nothing frustrates me more than trying to take a nuanced stance which says yes there are issues but it's not armageddon and have that turned into you are Buzz's best friend.  All it does is stifle debate which is why I think at least at a sub-conscious level it's intentional.

Agree with most of what you say, 03, but I would change the word 'facts' to assertions or postulates. 

Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
I was thinking about writing something very similar this morning, thanks for posting this.  I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the negative crowd are fireball throwers that has honest debate as a secondary concern, if that.

I'm willing to bet 95% of the board believes the following facts:
-This season has been a disappointment
-The team has underachieved expectations
-This team struggles on the offensive end
-This team is inconsistent
-We have talented freshmen that have not gotten as much playing time as we would like (the reasons for this are wildly varied)
-This team has had some questionable coaching decisions
-This team has had some issues that were "uncontrollable" that have impacted the results
-This team has a very long shot at the NCAA tournament
-Buzz is having a down year but ultimately is still the coach for this university and team for the foreseeable future.
-Buzz is not above reproach for his decisions, but that doesn't mean every decision can/should be questioned

If the above are true for the vast majority we are arguing on the margins, which is fine but then we can drop the whole "you guys love Buzz and can't question anything he ever does".  Nothing frustrates me more than trying to take a nuanced stance which says yes there are issues but it's not armageddon and have that turned into you are Buzz's best friend.  All it does is stifle debate which is why I think at least at a sub-conscious level it's intentional.

Good post.  And to the matter of other forum's censorship, I do like that things are more open here.

That said the near personal attacks on kids (with the exception of something they do off the court, which is fair game) and fans who use words like "we" and "us" when they are really trust trolls is a shame.  Fortunately, both of these are rare.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 24, 2014, 09:56:11 AM
The issue the "Pollyanna" posters have with the negative posting is not the content, it's the delivery. It's "we suck," "Jake wouldn't start for a D2 program," "Derrick is the worst PG in Marquette history." In most of the posts, there are no stats, no objective analysis, no reason. It's mostly just angry venting that turns into unnecessary bashing of 18 year old kids. Now, when pressed, the negativos will find stats to back up their opinions, but not without, and also after the bashing.

You, are a special case. You make intelligent, well reasoned arguments to back up your assertions. But you ruin it by posting it over and over and over and over and over...often in threads that don't have anything to do with the point you are trying to make. You also have been known to make things up like "Derrick has shown no improvement from last season."

Well said.  Disagreement is great...as long as it's accompanied by rational discussions or exlanations for the various positions.  That's part of what makes this board more interesting than the other MU boards.  

What gets tiresome are the extreme statements regarding individual players who are busting their butts for MU ("X sucks" or "X is the worst ever")...that get repeated over and over again.

The other thing that bugs me are the categorical labels that get put on people with certain viewpoints.  For example, I have been labeled things like "anti-Dawson" or a "Derrick apologist" on this forum many times.  Neither could be further from the truth.  I am simply a lifelong "Marquette fan" who wants the team to represent Marquette with dignity and fight to win every game we play.  The fact that I usually agree with Buzz's lineup choices doesn't mean I "love Derrick" or "hate Dawson" - it simply means that I generally happen to agree with his approach to meeting these goals.

Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
I was thinking about writing something very similar this morning, thanks for posting this.  I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the negative crowd are fireball throwers that has honest debate as a secondary concern, if that.

I'm willing to bet 95% of the board believes the following facts:
-This season has been a disappointment
-The team has underachieved expectations
-This team struggles on the offensive end
-This team is inconsistent
-We have talented freshmen that have not gotten as much playing time as we would like (the reasons for this are wildly varied)
-This team has had some questionable coaching decisions
-This team has had some issues that were "uncontrollable" that have impacted the results
-This team has a very long shot at the NCAA tournament
-Buzz is having a down year but ultimately is still the coach for this university and team for the foreseeable future.
-Buzz is not above reproach for his decisions, but that doesn't mean every decision can/should be questioned

If the above are true for the vast majority we are arguing on the margins, which is fine but then we can drop the whole "you guys love Buzz and can't question anything he ever does".  Nothing frustrates me more than trying to take a nuanced stance which says yes there are issues but it's not armageddon and have that turned into you are Buzz's best friend.  All it does is stifle debate which is why I think at least at a sub-conscious level it's intentional.

Probably the post of the year.

Quote from: tower912 on February 24, 2014, 09:15:14 AM
There have been some posters this year on scoop that have made me seriously question the value of a MU diploma.   

\
Hmm, you're using this site as a bellweather regarding the value of your MU diploma? Ironic. 

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 24, 2014, 10:51:00 AM
Probably the post of the year.

Agree with most of what you have said above--one thing you left out--what about the guys that start the bomb throwing at anybody that does offer criticism of Buzz? I have not seen any evidence that anybody criticizes every decision as you mentioned in your last "fact". The "fact" still remains that some of his decisions can and should be criticized, such as: rotations, starters, some of his "statements"/beliefs that impact performance, and stubbornness on his part. Those should be able to be criticized without the knee jerk insults and slurs that come from a few people on this board who will not tolerate any criticism.

Buzz has done a good job as HC, but this year shows that he still has a lot to improve upon. Hopefully he will, and hopefully some of those that thinks the guy walks on water will be more tolerant of others comments without the smug attitude of how dare you say that.

Quote from: willie warrior on February 24, 2014, 11:09:10 AM
Agree with most of what you have said above--one thing you left out--what about the guys that start the bomb throwing at anybody that does offer criticism of Buzz? I have not seen any evidence that anybody criticizes every decision as you mentioned in your last "fact". The "fact" still remains that some of his decisions can and should be criticized, such as: rotations, starters, some of his "statements"/beliefs that impact performance, and stubbornness on his part. Those should be able to be criticized without the knee jerk insults and slurs that come from a few people on this board who will not tolerate any criticism.

Buzz has done a good job as HC, but this year shows that he still has a lot to improve upon. Hopefully he will, and hopefully some of those that thinks the guy walks on water will be more tolerant of others comments without the smug attitude of how dare you say that.

Willie, I generally refrain from responding to you, but since your post sums up neatly why I made my post in the first place I will respond.

Your post builds the straw man that there are posters that believe Buzz is beyond reproach and shout you down for questioning Buzz.  I would challenge you to find one poster that has done any such thing.  Your issue is not one of pro-Buzz factions attacking anti-Buzz factions but really of people attacking what you say, simply because YOU said it.  If you could find a way to more constructively present your arguments they would not be rejected immediately.  As an example

Quote from: willie warrior on February 24, 2014, 11:09:10 AM
The "fact" still remains that some of his decisions can and should be criticized, such as: rotations, starters, some of his "statements"/beliefs that impact performance, and stubbornness on his part. Those should be able to be criticized without the knee jerk insults and slurs that come from a few people on this board who will not tolerate any criticism.

Entirely reasonable until the bolded part where you invent a segment of the board population that simply doesn't exist

Example number 2

Quote from: willie warrior on February 24, 2014, 11:09:10 AM
Buzz has done a good job as HC, but this year shows that he still has a lot to improve upon. Hopefully he will, and hopefully some of those that thinks the guy walks on water will be more tolerant of others comments without the smug attitude of how dare you say that.

Extremely relevant and something I agree with, in fact I think we, as a board, should be debating....what can Buzz improve on.  But then you get to the bold part where you can't help but play the victim card of the very activity you engage in.  You create an absolute which frustrates the bejesus out of people especially me.  It's not necessary.

So, to build on the good part of your post, what is one thing you think Buzz could do to improve as a coach after this season?  Do you think that is something someone needs to tell him or something he can/has learned on his own?

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2014, 09:45:17 AM
Since DePaul inbounded with 8 seconds left and Garrett pulled up from 30' with 5 seconds left, does that mean that Buzz did the right thing by not fouling? Not questioning you specifically. Just asking.

I wasn't referencing MU's choice to not foul specifically, but instead stating the case for what most believe analysts believe to be the best strategy in that situation...as your post was referencing other games over the weekend where strategy wasn't employed.  Given the timeframe left in the game as you point out, MU followed the strategy I'd mentioned.  Was saying that we do see lots of games tied on 3 points shots when the strategy could have been applied in time appropriate situations....a lot more than seeing the 3 necessary things transpire in order for the other team to tie the ball game if fouled.

I didn't have an issue with us not fouling Saturday. 

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 24, 2014, 09:56:11 AM
So in the first part of this post you make fun of someone for having a different opinion then you.

Then in the second part you criticize others for not allowing other opinions?

The issue the "Pollyanna" posters have with the negative posting is not the content, it's the delivery. It's "we suck," "Jake wouldn't start for a D2 program," "Derrick is the worst PG in Marquette history." In most of the posts, there are no stats, no objective analysis, no reason. It's mostly just angry venting that turns into unnecessary bashing of 18 year old kids. Now, when pressed, the negativos will find stats to back up their opinions, but not without, and also after the bashing.

You, are a special case. You make intelligent, well reasoned arguments to back up your assertions. But you ruin it by posting it over and over and over and over and over...often in threads that don't have anything to do with the point you are trying to make. You also have been known to make things up like "Derrick has shown no improvement from last season."

Have no problem or real disagreement with anything your wrote here TAMU.  Though I don't recall saying Derrick hasn't improved over last season...but have made the point there hasn't been any appreciable improvement from the nonconference portion of the season to the conference season statistically speaking.  Derrick has played a little better at times of late than he did earlier in the year, but he also played a couple of decent games in non-con.  

I've never made broad statements about Derrick being the worst PG in MU history, nor that Jake should be at a D-2 school - in fact when Jake transferred here - I felt he'd get PT and be a viable player beyond typical walk on status...one of my usual adversaries here Sultan...thought it was ridiculous to think Jake would ever get any meaningful PT while at MU.  My position on Derrick has been consistent - I believe he's a very good backup PG at this level..but that is his ceiling...it has value to the team, is an important role...he's a high character kid...he has his positives...but I just can't make the reach and stretch some of you guys do to support his overall body of work in 31 minutes per game this season...

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 12:02:57 PM
I've never made broad statements about Derrick being the worst PG in MU history, nor that Jake should be at a D-2 school - in fact when Jake transferred here - I felt he'd get PT and be a viable player beyond typical walk on status...one of my usual adversaries here Sultan...thought it was ridiculous to think Jake would ever get any meaningful PT while at MU.  My position on Derrick has been consistent - I believe he's a very good backup PG at this level..but that is his ceiling...it has value to the team, is an important role...he's a high character kid...he has his positives...but I just can't make the reach and stretch some of you guys do to support his overall body of work in 31 minutes per game this season...

I don't think there's anyone on Scoop who would disagree with the bolded part above. The issue is that you hitched your wagon to John Dawson early and have since defended anything he does wrong, ignored his faults and overemphasized his strengths (often irrationally) while constantly downplaying Derrick's good games (often irrationally), ignoring the defensive end of the floor and refusing to accept the fact that, despite the Gtown game, Dawson simply isn't ready to take over and play big, significant minutes. You don't just do this sporadically either. You post the same info on thread after thread after thread, over and over and over and over. My question to you, Ners: What are you hoping to accomplish by doing that?

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2014, 12:40:00 PM
My question to you, Ners: What are you hoping to accomplish by doing that?

Everybody putting him on ignore probably

Regarding the debate about agreeing or disagreeing with Buzz, a few thoughts.

Anyone who thinks he's perfect or infallible is wrong.  And anyone who doesn't think he's a great coach who usually makes great basketball-related decisions is wrong.  I'd bet everyone here would agree with those statements...yet some posters' comments make me wonder.

The truth is that Buzz is an excellent young coach who has FAR exceeded most people's expectations since becoming HC at Marquette, and we owe him a great deal of deference and respect for what he has done.  But he is also a young coach, still learning, and it's fine to disagree with some of his decisions.

What I think that should mean is that it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable for Marquette fans to question a relatively small number or proportion of his decisions - individual play calls, strategies for a given game, etc.  But I think it goes to a whole new level when posters criticize playing time that is based on dozens of decisions every single game.  Buzz is a guy who isn't afraid to substitute for someone who makes a defensive mistake, or who doesn't follow his game plan.  And his history shows that he views EVERY deadball situation - before opening tips, fouls, deadball TOs, time outs - as an opportunity to make a decision about who should be on the court.  Heck, most positions ought to come with revolving doors.  So if we're seeing one guy get 30+ mpg while another gets about 10 mpg and people make the statement that the numbers should be reversed, they aren't just questioning one of Buzz's decisions - they're questioning hundreds and hundreds of decisions made over the course of the season...based on what he sees in practices, team meetings and games.  Based on what we've seen over the past 5+ seasons, I think he deserves more respect than that....

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 11:56:46 AM
instead stating the case for what most believe analysts believe to be the best strategy in that situation...

i heard majerus discuss it, and he stated he doesn't foul when up 3 because it's the only way you can lose the game.  they also had a statistician show it was essentially a 50/50 call.  you could definitely argue that fouling in certain situations and against certain teams could tilt those odds in your advantage, but the fact that rick said "no" has to at least make you pause.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 12:02:57 PM
Have no problem or real disagreement with anything your wrote here TAMU.  Though I don't recall saying Derrick hasn't improved over last season...but have made the point there hasn't been any appreciable improvement from the nonconference portion of the season to the conference season statistically speaking.  Derrick has played a little better at times of late than he did earlier in the year, but he also played a couple of decent games in non-con.  

I've never made broad statements about Derrick being the worst PG in MU history, nor that Jake should be at a D-2 school - in fact when Jake transferred here - I felt he'd get PT and be a viable player beyond typical walk on status...one of my usual adversaries here Sultan...thought it was ridiculous to think Jake would ever get any meaningful PT while at MU.  My position on Derrick has been consistent - I believe he's a very good backup PG at this level..but that is his ceiling...it has value to the team, is an important role...he's a high character kid...he has his positives...but I just can't make the reach and stretch some of you guys do to support his overall body of work in 31 minutes per game this season...

For me personally, I am not happy with the performance from the PG position. But, I do acknowledge that it is the best it is going to be this season. Right now, Derrick is the best option. I can accept that and, at the same time, be disappointed in it.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on February 24, 2014, 12:52:28 PM
Regarding the debate about agreeing or disagreeing with Buzz, a few thoughts.

Anyone who thinks he's perfect or infallible is wrong.  And anyone who doesn't think he's a great coach who usually makes great basketball-related decisions is wrong.  I'd bet everyone here would agree with those statements...yet some posters' comments make me wonder.

The truth is that Buzz is an excellent young coach who has FAR exceeded most people's expectations since becoming HC at Marquette, and we owe him a great deal of deference and respect for what he has done.  But he is also a young coach, still learning, and it's fine to disagree with some of his decisions.

What I think that should mean is that it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable for Marquette fans to question a relatively small number or proportion of his decisions - individual play calls, strategies for a given game, etc.  But I think it goes to a whole new level when posters criticize playing time that is based on dozens of decisions every single game.  Buzz is a guy who isn't afraid to substitute for someone who makes a defensive mistake, or who doesn't follow his game plan.  And his history shows that he views EVERY deadball situation - before opening tips, fouls, deadball TOs, time outs - as an opportunity to make a decision about who should be on the court.  Heck, most positions ought to come with revolving doors.  So if we're seeing one guy get 30+ mpg while another gets about 10 mpg and people make the statement that the numbers should be reversed, they aren't just questioning one of Buzz's decisions - they're questioning hundreds and hundreds of decisions made over the course of the season...based on what he sees in practices, team meetings and games.  Based on what we've seen over the past 5+ seasons, I think he deserves more respect than that....

Very well stated.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2014, 12:40:00 PM
I don't think there's anyone on Scoop who would disagree with the bolded part above. The issue is that you hitched your wagon to John Dawson early and have since defended anything he does wrong, ignored his faults and overemphasized his strengths (often irrationally) while constantly downplaying Derrick's good games (often irrationally), ignoring the defensive end of the floor and refusing to accept the fact that, despite the Gtown game, Dawson simply isn't ready to take over and play big, significant minutes. You don't just do this sporadically either. You post the same info on thread after thread after thread, over and over and over and over. My question to you, Ners: What are you hoping to accomplish by doing that?

Bolded is not true...I've pointed out Dawson's shortcomings..acknowledged he was awful against Seton Hall, that he wasn't good defensively against DePaul Saturday (yet Derrick also wasn't very good either against Garrett/DePaul's offensive execution).  I've said Dawson carried us to the winner's circle against GTown..he did basically win that game for us in OT.  Said he's a better 3 point shooter and FT shooter than Derrick and much better on offensive end...and by virtue of Dawson requiring to be guarded and the team not playing 4 on 5..that makes every other teammates job to execute offensively easier.  I've also voted Derrick SOTG..have noted he had a nice 3 game stretch of games against Hall, Butler and Xavier...these are all truths of what I've said/posted, etc.  

What I don't understand is how you and the others are so convinced Dawson isn't ready to take over and play significant minutes - because the ONE game he was given the opportunity - he sure didn't lay a brick.  Of course you can defer to Buzz and Buzz's judgement...but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility or never been before that a coach has been overly loyal, and too long loyal to a veteran player.  Will be interesting to see what happens against GTown - if Derrick gets 30+ and we lose at home...then what??

As for what I'm hoping to accomplish - nothing different than those of you who see it the other way - to engage in a debate, offer contrasting opinions, and fueling discussion...which in my view is why a message board exists, no?  Look how much more active this board is than Scout or BrewCity BB - it's because of the uncensored debate/viewpoints allowed..

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
What I don't understand is how you and the others are so convinced Dawson isn't ready to take over and play significant minutes - because the ONE game he was given the opportunity - he sure didn't lay a brick.  

I don't know if the stats will back me up, but I get the feeling against pressure Dawson will be very, very turnover prone.  I like the idea of him seeing minutes against Georgetown if they pay zone again.

I'll say this, if Dawson plays little or no minutes against Georgetown and we lose at home, your head might explode!

Quote from: CTWarrior on February 24, 2014, 01:30:42 PM
I don't know if the stats will back me up, but I get the feeling against pressure Dawson will be very, very turnover prone.  I like the idea of him seeing minutes against Georgetown if they pay zone again.

I'll say this, if Dawson plays little or no minutes against Georgetown and we lose at home, your head might explode!

No need to put the last sentence in teal CT!  It will explode.  ;D

As for JD playing against pressure...I believe he can handle it...he just had a really off game against Seton Hall right from the second he came in the game.  DePaul tried a few possessions of full court pressure and JD had no problems with it, and actually penetrated through it at one point to get a good look 3-2 type situation for the team.  MU as a whole has seen very little full court pressure this year..which has surprised me...I am not sure Derrick is very good against tenacious D either...when a guy gets up in his face in halfcourt...he usually doesn't attack the guy and usually gets rid of ball quickly...

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
What I don't understand is how you and the others are so convinced Dawson isn't ready to take over and play significant minutes - because the ONE game he was given the opportunity - he sure didn't lay a brick.  Of course you can defer to Buzz and Buzz's judgement...

There you have it. It may be difficult for some to understand but in addition to watching and understanding basketball, I also trust the opinion of a guy who has been coaching basketball for 25 years and sees these players on an every day basis over the opinion of a fan on a message board. Color me stupid if you will but that's how I feel about it. Sure, I may disagree with a specific decision from time to time but big picture, over the course of an entire season, I'm going to side with the professional.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
Will be interesting to see what happens against GTown - if Derrick gets 30+ and we lose at home...then what??

Then you write 500 posts pretending that the outcome of that game means that Dawson should have played 30 minutes all season long. What if Derrick plays all 40 minutes and MU wins by 20? What if Dawson plays 30 minutes and MU loses by 20? Truthfully though, it would mean nothing. It's a completely different game, at a different point in time, at a different location with a different gameplan.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
As for what I'm hoping to accomplish - nothing different than those of you who see it the other way - to engage in a debate, offer contrasting opinions, and fueling discussion.

Not buying it. Why do you consistently repeat the same info over and over and over and over regarding Derrick-Dawson even on threads unrelated to that topic? Simply to fuel discussion?

Lots to read on here right now lol.

But for now I'll just say I saw no problem in not fouling Garret at the end. As ners said, most thing it should happen at 5 secs or less. This was on the defense not challenging the shooter, not Buzz.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2014, 09:09:13 AM
On Saturday, Nova didn't foul up 3 against St. John's and it worked out. Memphis didn't foul up 3 on Temple and it worked out. Were Wright and Pastner still "wrong" for not fouling? Different coaches view that situation differently. Some feel that there are too many negative variables to fouling (off rebound, foul on their team after the miss, foul as player chucks up a 3, extends the game, etc) while others believe that the low odds of a team executing a make-then-miss on FTs and scoring are worth the foul. It can often depend on the team and the opponent. There's no clear-cut right or wrong. If your strategy works, it was right. If it doesn't, it was wrong.

Question I would have is whether Wright or Pastner still had guys challenging the shot.  We seemed to take the approach of not fouling AND giving them an open look at a 3.  Of course the danger of challenging the shot is fouling the shooter.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2014, 01:38:21 PM
There you have it. It may be difficult for some to understand but in addition to watching and understanding basketball, I also trust the opinion of a guy who has been coaching basketball for 25 years and sees these players on an every day basis over the opinion of a fan on a message board. Color me stupid if you will but that's how I feel about it. Sure, I may disagree with a specific decision from time to time but big picture, over the course of an entire season, I'm going to side with the professional.

Then you write 500 posts pretending that the outcome of that game means that Dawson should have played 30 minutes all season long. What if Derrick plays all 40 minutes and MU wins by 20? What if Dawson plays 30 minutes and MU loses by 20? Truthfully though, it would mean nothing. It's a completely different game, at a different point in time, at a different location with a different gameplan.

Not buying it. Why do you consistently repeat the same info over and over and over and over regarding Derrick-Dawson even on threads unrelated to that topic? Simply to fuel discussion?

Wow..you can't even engage in a reasonable debate on the reasonable post I made...and to suggest playing the same team at home because it is a different point in time 4 weeks later isn't a good comparison/benchmark??  Wow!  But, I promise I'll limit any such comments regardless of outcome either way to less than 500.

Question:  Do you feel there has ever been an instance in sports where a coach has stuck with a veteran player too long?

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 02:20:24 PM
Wow..you can't even engage in a reasonable debate on the reasonable post I made...and to suggest playing the same team at home because it is a different point in time 4 weeks later isn't a good comparison/benchmark??  Wow!  But, I promise I'll limit any such comments regardless of outcome either way to less than 500.

Dawson played 17 minutes at Xavier on 1/9 and MU lost by 7.
Dawson played 0 minutes against Xavier on 2/15 and MU won by 9.

Dawson played 0 minutes against DePaul on 1/4 and MU won by 10.
Dawson played 12 minutes against DePaul on 2/22 and MU won by 2 in OT.

Are those good benchmarks? Or were they different games, at different points in time, at different locations with different gameplans?

[quote from: mu03eng on Today at 10:14:15 AM]
I was thinking about writing something very similar this morning, thanks for posting this.  I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the negative crowd are fireball throwers that has honest debate as a secondary concern, if that.

I'm willing to bet 95% of the board believes the following facts:
-This season has been a disappointment
-The team has underachieved expectations
-This team struggles on the offensive end
-This team is inconsistent
-We have talented freshmen that have not gotten as much playing time as we would like (the reasons for this are wildly varied)
-This team has had some questionable coaching decisions
-This team has had some issues that were "uncontrollable" that have impacted the results
-This team has a very long shot at the NCAA tournament
-Buzz is having a down year but ultimately is still the coach for this university and team for the foreseeable future.
-Buzz is not above reproach for his decisions, but that doesn't mean every decision can/should be questioned

If the above are true for the vast majority we are arguing on the margins, which is fine but then we can drop the whole "you guys love Buzz and can't question anything he ever does".  Nothing frustrates me more than trying to take a nuanced stance which says yes there are issues but it's not armageddon and have that turned into you are Buzz's best friend.  All it does is stifle debate which is why I think at least at a sub-conscious level it's intentional.

Probably the post of the year. [/quote]

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 24, 2014, 10:51:00 AM
Probably the post of the year.

Co-sign.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2014, 02:46:49 PM
Dawson played 17 minutes at Xavier on 1/9 and MU lost by 7.
Dawson played 0 minutes against Xavier on 2/15 and MU won by 9.

Dawson played 0 minutes against DePaul on 1/4 and MU won by 10.
Dawson played 12 minutes against DePaul on 2/22 and MU won by 2 in OT.

Are those good benchmarks? Or were they different games, at different points in time, at different locations with different gameplans?

Still waiting for you to answer the question:

Do you ever feel there has been an instance in sports where a coach has stuck with the veteran player for too long?

And as for your benchmarks....you are 100% confident that Derrick is the best option for the team playing max minutes/starting at the PG position - you've said Dawson simply isn't ready.  My response:  There's only been 1 game where Dawson was given the 30 minutes Derrick has gotten in I believe 23 of our 27 games - and Dawson didn't lay a brick in that game and was squarely responsible for leading us to the winner's circle, in arguably our best win of the year - on the road at GTown.

Now you want to throw out comparisons based on Dawson playing 12 and 17 minutes??  Should we mention all of the games we've lost where Derrick has gotten 17+ minutes??  And in your example it is a contrast of the results in home versus away games?  Do you agree there is a real and definite homecourt advantage that most oddsmakers would put at +3 to 5 points depending on degree of homecourt advantage - i.e. Duke, Syracuse, Kansas, Kentucky, Lville, and Marquette historically?

So, we'll see what happens against Georgetown at home - I sure hope it is a win, regardless of how we get it...just think it is funny that already you are trying to make excuses in the event we were to lose the game at home to suggest that a comparison isn't relevant.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 04:19:31 PM
Still waiting for you to answer the question:

Do you ever feel there has been an instance in sports where a coach has stuck with the veteran player for too long?

And as for your benchmarks....you are 100% confident that Derrick is the best option for the team playing max minutes/starting at the PG position - you've said Dawson simply isn't ready.  My response:  There's only been 1 game where Dawson was given the 30 minutes Derrick has gotten in I believe 23 of our 27 games - and Dawson didn't lay a brick in that game and was squarely responsible for leading us to the winner's circle, in arguably our best win of the year - on the road at GTown.

Now you want to throw out comparisons based on Dawson playing 12 and 17 minutes??  Should we mention all of the games we've lost where Derrick has gotten 17+ minutes??  And in your example it is a contrast of the results in home versus away games?  Do you agree there is a real and definite homecourt advantage that most oddsmakers would put at +3 to 5 points depending on degree of homecourt advantage - i.e. Duke, Syracuse, Kansas, Kentucky, Lville, and Marquette historically?

So, we'll see what happens against Georgetown at home - I sure hope it is a win, regardless of how we get it...just think it is funny that already you are trying to make excuses in the event we were to lose the game at home to suggest that a comparison isn't relevant.

Ners, I'm amazed you have hamstrings left with all the backpedaling and spinning you do  :D

All joking aside, how minutes a game do you need Dawson to play and for how many games for it to be a "fair" evaluation of Dawson?  And I think we can re-hire some people because we clearly can practice less as we don't need it to evaluate players.  ;)

Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 04:35:02 PM
Ners, I'm amazed you have hamstrings left with all the backpedaling and spinning you do  :D

All joking aside, how minutes a game do you need Dawson to play and for how many games for it to be a "fair" evaluation of Dawson?  And I think we can re-hire some people because we clearly can practice less as we don't need it to evaluate players.  ;)

Nice summary post earlier mu03eng...on season...felt that was right on and well thought out. 

I really don't think I do much back peddling at all...been consistent throughout!  My point all along is that you cannot judge a player on 3 minute stints of action...Todd Mayo looks like a different player getting long stretches of run the last 5 games, even though his average minutes have only increased by roughly 4 minutes per game.  But my opposition wants to cast judgments based on these 3 minute segments, or a guy getting 10 minutes a game as "not showing" anything.

As for Dawson, I've always said I want 30 to benchmark...as that is what Derrick has averaged all year long, and that is what I feel it takes to get a feel for what a guy can do (no matter who he is - Steve Taylor, Burton, JJJ) ...as it lends itself to playing long segments of ball.  Know I caught hell when I made the point that in one game earlier this year Dawson played with 9 different guys in a matter of 3:30 seconds....that's just insane...nobody gets in any kind of flow that way.

I'm just glad Buzz has greatly reduced the crazy substitutions, though he started to revert back to it a little against DePaul...

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 04:51:03 PM
Nice summary post earlier mu03eng...on season...felt that was right on and well thought out. 

I really don't think I do much back peddling at all...been consistent throughout!  My point all along is that you cannot judge a player on 3 minute stints of action...Todd Mayo looks like a different player getting long stretches of run the last 5 games, even though his average minutes have only increased by roughly 4 minutes per game.  But my opposition wants to cast judgments based on these 3 minute segments, or a guy getting 10 minutes a game as "not showing" anything.

As for Dawson, I've always said I want 30 to benchmark...as that is what Derrick has averaged all year long, and that is what I feel it takes to get a feel for what a guy can do (no matter who he is - Steve Taylor, Burton, JJJ) ...as it lends itself to playing long segments of ball.  Know I caught hell when I made the point that in one game earlier this year Dawson played with 9 different guys in a matter of 3:30 seconds....that's just insane...nobody gets in any kind of flow that way.

I'm just glad Buzz has greatly reduced the crazy substitutions, though he started to revert back to it a little against DePaul...

I don't have an issue with the crazy substitutions (didn't watch the majority of the DePaul game so can't speak to that) but I think Buzz's pattern has at least been with reason.  The Providence game as an example was a pressure/fresh legs kind of game given their lack of depth, etc.

I guess this is where we'll disagree because I don't think a coach needs 30 minutes of game time to evaluate a player.  I have no reason to believe Buzz is a bad evaluator of talent or intentionally sitting talent, and so he has a much broader set of data than I do. 

As a spot check, the minutes I've seen from Dawson haven't left me with nothing that says he should be getting more minutes than he does.  I would like to see a few more minutes here and there to rest Derrick for late game defense purposes but not because I think Dawson is bringing a ton more.  He is definitely capable of playing well but also poorly. 

I feel like the 30 minutes you advocate for Dawson is so YOU can confirm he is or isn't good enough right now which says you don't trust Buzz....so what is it about Buzz and this scenario that you don't trust?

Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 05:46:52 PM
I don't have an issue with the crazy substitutions (didn't watch the majority of the DePaul game so can't speak to that) but I think Buzz's pattern has at least been with reason.  The Providence game as an example was a pressure/fresh legs kind of game given their lack of depth, etc.

I guess this is where we'll disagree because I don't think a coach needs 30 minutes of game time to evaluate a player.  I have no reason to believe Buzz is a bad evaluator of talent or intentionally sitting talent, and so he has a much broader set of data than I do. 

As a spot check, the minutes I've seen from Dawson haven't left me with nothing that says he should be getting more minutes than he does.  I would like to see a few more minutes here and there to rest Derrick for late game defense purposes but not because I think Dawson is bringing a ton more.  He is definitely capable of playing well but also poorly. 

I feel like the 30 minutes you advocate for Dawson is so YOU can confirm he is or isn't good enough right now which says you don't trust Buzz....so what is it about Buzz and this scenario that you don't trust?

I think you know that I am a HUGE Buzz fan, and have long been - and this year doesn't change that, even though I've found it extremely frustrating, and the first time in 6 years where I've really had ANY complaint with how he's handled things - which in and of itself I feel says a lot for how awesome Buzz has been!

As for what it is about Buzz and the PG minute allocation that I don't trust - it is no more complex than this:

Player       GP         MIN   PPG   RPG   APG   SPG   BPG   TPG   FG%   FT%   3P%
Derrick Wilson   27   30.3   5.6   3.7   4.1   1.3   0.0   1.5   .414   .472   .077

And...the picture I've uploaded in other posts that shows how much defenses collapse off Derrick on the perimeter...just makes it so hard to be effective offensively.  I've said..I'd like Derrick to launch 5, 3pt shots a game...as I feel he would make 20+% of the them...I don't think he's as bad of shooter as his 3 pt percentage indicates...and it would help in that teams would defend him more honestly, and help the other guys in turn.  So, perhaps Buzz has told Derrick to not shoot 3's...I don't know...but it seems if you are going to play the guy 30.3 minutes per game...he should be allowed to shoot 3's and should do so when being played with such a cushion.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 06:07:51 PM
I think you know that I am a HUGE Buzz fan, and have long been - and this year doesn't change that, even though I've found it extremely frustrating, and the first time in 6 years where I've really had ANY complaint with how he's handled things - which in and of itself I feel says a lot for how awesome Buzz has been!

As for what it is about Buzz and the PG minute allocation that I don't trust - it is no more complex than this:

Player       GP         MIN   PPG   RPG   APG   SPG   BPG   TPG   FG%   FT%   3P%
Derrick Wilson   27   30.3   5.6   3.7   4.1   1.3   0.0   1.5   .414   .472   .077

And...the picture I've uploaded in other posts that shows how much defenses collapse off Derrick on the perimeter...just makes it so hard to be effective offensively.  I've said..I'd like Derrick to launch 5, 3pt shots a game...as I feel he would make 20+% of the them...I don't think he's as bad of shooter as his 3 pt percentage indicates...and it would help in that teams would defend him more honestly, and help the other guys in turn.  So, perhaps Buzz has told Derrick to not shoot 3's...I don't know...but it seems if you are going to play the guy 30.3 minutes per game...he should be allowed to shoot 3's and should do so when being played with such a cushion.

Min   FG   FGA   % 3Pt FG 3Pt FGA  %     FT%   Def   Off   TRebs   Asst.   St.   BS   F   TO   TP 854  102  200   51   10   33   30.3        58.25   77   20   97      118   87      8     63   69    274 813   58   140   41.4  1      13    7.7   47.2   67     34    101   112      36      1    64    40     151

Blue is Derrick, Red is the full first year as starter for a point guard you've heard of....which would you rather have?

Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 06:34:02 PM

Min   FG   FGA   % 3Pt FG 3Pt FGA  %     FT%   Def   Off   TRebs   Asst.   St.   BS   F   TO   TP 854  102  200   51   10   33   30.3        58.25   77   20   97      118   87      8     63   69    274 813   58   140   41.4  1      13    7.7   47.2   67     34    101   112      36      1    64    40     151

Blue is Derrick, Red is the full first year as starter for a point guard you've heard of....which would you rather have?

Gotta be some kind of trick question, right?!  Please don't go try to tell me that the red* guy is somehow worse.   :D  

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 06:47:43 PM
Gotta be some kind of trick question, right?!  Please don't go try to tell me that the red* guy is somehow worse.   :D  

Depends on whether you value the ball or something.  Clearly the player in red is better(except turnovers and rebounds....which are important) but not that much better right?

Red; remember pace of play as well. The guy in red played faster.

His steal rate was absolutely elite and his turnover rate was "only" 23.7. Red guy's team was an elite defense as well and he had a DR% higher than DW's.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 04:19:31 PM
Still waiting for you to answer the question:

Do you ever feel there has been an instance in sports where a coach has stuck with the veteran player for too long?

And as for your benchmarks....you are 100% confident that Derrick is the best option for the team playing max minutes/starting at the PG position - you've said Dawson simply isn't ready.  My response:  There's only been 1 game where Dawson was given the 30 minutes Derrick has gotten in I believe 23 of our 27 games - and Dawson didn't lay a brick in that game and was squarely responsible for leading us to the winner's circle, in arguably our best win of the year - on the road at GTown.

Now you want to throw out comparisons based on Dawson playing 12 and 17 minutes??  Should we mention all of the games we've lost where Derrick has gotten 17+ minutes??  And in your example it is a contrast of the results in home versus away games?  Do you agree there is a real and definite homecourt advantage that most oddsmakers would put at +3 to 5 points depending on degree of homecourt advantage - i.e. Duke, Syracuse, Kansas, Kentucky, Lville, and Marquette historically?

So, we'll see what happens against Georgetown at home - I sure hope it is a win, regardless of how we get it...just think it is funny that already you are trying to make excuses in the event we were to lose the game at home to suggest that a comparison isn't relevant.

Sure there have been times when coaches have stuck with a guy too long...but there are significantly more times when sticking with the veteran was the right call because he was the better option.

Dawson was "squarely responsible" for MU winning at Gtown? Todd Mayo begs to differ...as do Jake, Davonte and ST Jr. Comments like that one along with your cowardly backpedal on the "different game" point that I made are why so many posters consider you such a clown.

Also, your "30 minutes benchmark" is asinine. Deonte has never played 30 minutes in a game. That makes me wonder if that kid has any offensive game. How many times does a guy need to play 30 minutes in order for you to get a feel for what the guy can do?

Todd Mayo has only played 30+ minutes 4 times in his MU career. I guess we haven't really seen enough of him to form an opinion. Coming into this season, DG had only played 30+ minutes 6 times. Despite that limited sample size, he was the BE 6th Man of the Year last year and opposing coaches selected him First-Team Big East in the preseason poll this year. He must have been REALLY good in those 6 games, huh? Chris Otule has only played 30+ minutes 3 times at MU. It's a shame that after nearly 6 years, you barely have a read on him.

And off goes Ners...
(http://jordankinley.com/gif/backpedal.gif)

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 24, 2014, 09:30:37 PM
Sure there have been times when coaches have stuck with a guy too long...but there are significantly more times when sticking with the veteran was the right call because he was the better option.

Dawson was "squarely responsible" for MU winning at Gtown? Todd Mayo begs to differ...as do Jake, Davonte and ST Jr. Comments like that one along with your cowardly backpedal on the "different game" point that I made are why so many posters consider you such a clown.

Also, your "30 minutes benchmark" is asinine. Deonte has never played 30 minutes in a game. That makes me wonder if that kid has any offensive game. How many times does a guy need to play 30 minutes in order for you to get a feel for what the guy can do?

Todd Mayo has only played 30+ minutes 4 times in his MU career. I guess we haven't really seen enough of him to form an opinion. Coming into this season, DG had only played 30+ minutes 6 times. Despite that limited sample size, he was the BE 6th Man of the Year last year and opposing coaches selected him First-Team Big East in the preseason poll this year. He must have been REALLY good in those 6 games, huh? Chris Otule has only played 30+ minutes 3 times at MU. It's a shame that after nearly 6 years, you barely have a read on him.

And off goes Ners...
(http://jordankinley.com/gif/backpedal.gif)

LOL - Clown.  Nice, resort to name calling...I'm quite confident in my track record with regard to projecting talent and ability early on in players careers/players in general.  We'll see how it plays out.  I am confident Dawson will prove me right - as has Davante Gardner (who I said as a freshman 3 games in would be as good if not better than Robert Jackson - which I was mocked repeatedly for.)  Have said Mayo had a ton of game his freshman year...and likely would be team's 2nd-3rd leading scorer this year and could replace Vander's production...and all he needed was more minutes, more run...and what happened the last 5 games??  Numbers better than Vander's last season.  Said DJ Newbill was going to be a really good player after watching him play early at Southern Miss his freshman year..and probably would be better than Vander...pretty sure you will see DJ Newbill get drafted into the NBA...said Jake Thomas would get legitimate minutes when he transferred to Marquette..mocked by some for that prediction as well.  Said as early as 3 games into the season, that team was going to struggle if Derrick kept getting 30+...seems to have held true. Said Buzz was the real deal, and best thing to happen to MU since Al, 2 months into his first season at MU.

Sorry I had to brag - usually don't do that unless totally provoked...but I know where your arguments come from - a place of knowing deep down inside the guy you've hitched your wagon to has been a major disappointment...and whatever stats you would try to build a case to support your guy...well...those stats just don't exist...

And there was no backpeddle on the whole asinine "different games" argument you tried to throw out regarding MU playing Georgetown 5 weeks later.  Bottom line is, it is just a reflection of your insecurity over Derrick.  To suggest it isn't an apples to apples comparison when the same damn guys are playing the game (other than of course if you flip the PG minutes to where Derrick gets 30 and Dawson 10)  and being coached by the same head coaches - and only difference is the game is being played on MU's home court which should push things 5 points in our favor to start...there is zero reason why MU should lose to GTown at home.  I mean we are coming off our best 5 game stretch of the season, and by your standards and beliefs, Derrick has played brilliantly these last 5 games, right?

And yea, my bad for saying Dawson was squarely responsible for getting us a W at GTown.  Scoring our first 5 points of OT, and finishing with 7 of our 15 points in OT...definitely helped get us into the winners circle. 

Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 07:47:06 PM
Depends on whether you value the ball or something.  Clearly the player in red is better(except turnovers and rebounds....which are important) but not that much better right?

In my view the player in red is MUCH better...I'd gladly take a guy who turns the ball over roughly 1 turnover more per game...in exchange for the additional points he generates, high FG percentage, respectable 3 pt FG percentage which ensures he needs to be guarded at all areas on the floor, and the resulting floor spacing that creates...

But go ahead with your point/rub...am quite curious to learn of the point you want to make..

I'm in danger of violating the NEP, but I've been good so I think I've earned a relapse.

Buzz has seen what Dawson can do with a 30 minute run. He sees it every day IN PRACTICE.

My guess is that Dawson is getting schooled in practice. I mean come on, when has Buzz EVER resorted to using a PG for a full 40 minutes? He doesn't even trust Dawson to be a backup PG. Even the lowly Derrick Wilson managed to steal 12 minutes a game from Cadougan.

I agree that a coach may stick with a veteran too long, but I trust our coach enough to know that a PG who hasn't even earned the minutes to be Derrick's backup, is no where near being ready to be Derrick's replacement.

I really want to know who Red is and why I should be embarrassed to like him more than Blue.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 10:30:12 PM
LOL - Clown.  Nice, resort to name calling...I'm quite confident in my track record with regard to projecting talent and ability early on in players careers/players in general.  We'll see how it plays out.  I am confident Dawson will prove me right - as has Davante Gardner (who I said as a freshman 3 games in would be as good if not better than Robert Jackson - which I was mocked repeatedly for.)  Have said Mayo had a ton of game his freshman year...and likely would be team's 2nd-3rd leading scorer this year and could replace Vander's production...and all he needed was more minutes, more run...and what happened the last 5 games??  Numbers better than Vander's last season.  Said DJ Newbill was going to be a really good player after watching him play early at Southern Miss his freshman year..and probably would be better than Vander...pretty sure you will see DJ Newbill get drafted into the NBA...said Jake Thomas would get legitimate minutes when he transferred to Marquette..mocked by some for that prediction as well.  Said as early as 3 games into the season, that team was going to struggle if Derrick kept getting 30+...seems to have held true. Said Buzz was the real deal, and best thing to happen to MU since Al, 2 months into his first season at MU.

Gardner is not as good as Robert Jackson. Just about every other poster also said Mayo had game his freshman year (and some even before that). Newbill is not better than Blue and won't get drafted. Jake wanted to leave and only plays minutes by default but I suppose I do have to give you that one because he does play. The team is struggling but you can't say with certainty that it's because of Derrick's minutes. You were right about Buzz. Congrats on the track record!

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 10:30:12 PM
Sorry I had to brag - usually don't do that unless totally provoked...but I know where your arguments come from - a place of knowing deep down inside the guy you've hitched your wagon to has been a major disappointment...and whatever stats you would try to build a case to support your guy...well...those stats just don't exist...

In the mind of most logical fans, Derrick has absolutely not been a "major disappointment." Derrick is what he is. He's a heady, back-up PG who's been thrust into a starting role out of necessity (i.e. he's the best PG on the roster). He's a good defender who takes care of the ball and is limited offensively. I don't think that any of the so-called "pro-Derrick" crowd has said anything different about him. Do I wish he was better? Of course! So does Buzz and so does Derrick.

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 10:30:12 PM
And there was no backpeddle on the whole asinine "different games" argument you tried to throw out regarding MU playing Georgetown 5 weeks later.  Bottom line is, it is just a reflection of your insecurity over Derrick.  To suggest it isn't an apples to apples comparison when the same damn guys are playing the game (other than of course if you flip the PG minutes to where Derrick gets 30 and Dawson 10)  and being coached by the same head coaches - and only difference is the game is being played on MU's home court which should push things 5 points in our favor to start...there is zero reason why MU should lose to GTown at home.  I mean we are coming off our best 5 game stretch of the season, and by your standards and beliefs, Derrick has played brilliantly these last 5 games, right?

Every game is different. MU lost to Butler by 12 on the road but beat them at home by 7. Was homecourt worth 19 points in that situation? MU beat DePaul by 10 at home and 2 on the road. Was DePaul's homecourt only worth 8 points? MU beat Seton Hall by 1 at home and 11 on the road? How could that be when everything was equal except for Seton Hall's homecourt advantage? Oh yeah, every game is different!

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 25, 2014, 02:49:44 AM
I'm in danger of violating the NEP, but I've been good so I think I've earned a relapse.

Buzz has seen what Dawson can do with a 30 minute run. He sees it every day IN PRACTICE.

My guess is that Dawson is getting schooled in practice. I mean come on, when has Buzz EVER resorted to using a PG for a full 40 minutes? He doesn't even trust Dawson to be a backup PG. Even the lowly Derrick Wilson managed to steal 12 minutes a game from Cadougan.

I agree that a coach may stick with a veteran too long, but I trust our coach enough to know that a PG who hasn't even earned the minutes to be Derrick's backup, is no where near being ready to be Derrick's replacement.

Great post!

I've decided to give up posting on Scoop for Lent and since I'm leaving for vacation tomorrow, I'm starting Lent today. Cheers all!

all i know is everyone on this board jumped on the "defense wins championship" slogan (which imho is overly simplistic), and we have the best defensive team in the BEAST...so i'm just waiting to win a championship. 

Games   FG   FGA   %   3Pt FG   3Pt FGA   %   FT%   Def   Off   Total R   Asst   Steal   Block   Foul   TO   Total Points   35     2.9   5.7   51          0.3   0.9      30.3          2.2   0.6   2.8   3.4   2.5   0.2   1.8   2.0   7.8  27     2.1   3.9   41          0.0   0.5      7.7          2.5   1.3   3.7   4.1   1.3   0.0   2.4   1.5   5.6

Sorry, tables are really impossible on Scoop.  I redid the numbers on a per game basis.  Red scores a couple of points more, turns the ball over more but creates a few more possessions with his defense than does the blue player.  Blue is a much better rebounder, especially on the offensive end.  I'd take red but blue definitely has value in comparison right?

Quote from: Ners on February 24, 2014, 10:37:46 PM
In my view the player in red is MUCH better...I'd gladly take a guy who turns the ball over roughly 1 turnover more per game...in exchange for the additional points he generates, high FG percentage, respectable 3 pt FG percentage which ensures he needs to be guarded at all areas on the floor, and the resulting floor spacing that creates...

But go ahead with your point/rub...am quite curious to learn of the point you want to make..

Ners! I salute you for your participation and support of MU basketball. Nearly 4,000 words yesterday on MUScoop. I disagree with you quite a bit but you obviously love the school and program

Quote from: mu03eng on February 25, 2014, 07:48:58 AM

Games   FG   FGA   %   3Pt FG   3Pt FGA   %   FT%   Def   Off   Total R   Asst   Steal   Block   Foul   TO   Total Points   35     2.9   5.7   51          0.3   0.9      30.3          2.2   0.6   2.8   3.4   2.5   0.2   1.8   2.0   7.8  27     2.1   3.9   41          0.0   0.5      7.7          2.5   1.3   3.7   4.1   1.3   0.0   2.4   1.5   5.6

Sorry, tables are really impossible on Scoop.  I redid the numbers on a per game basis.  Red scores a couple of points more, turns the ball over more but creates a few more possessions with his defense than does the blue player.  Blue is a much better rebounder, especially on the offensive end.  I'd take red but blue definitely has value in comparison right?

Honestly I'd need to have all these stats in per possession rather than per game to make a decision.  Right now I think red is the clear favorite and think per possession stats might flip it in his favor even more.

I WANT TO KNOW WHO RED IS!  I WANT YOU TO SHOW ME!

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on February 25, 2014, 07:25:37 AM
Gardner is not as good as Robert Jackson. Just about every other poster also said Mayo had game his freshman year (and some even before that). Newbill is not better than Blue and won't get drafted. Jake wanted to leave and only plays minutes by default but I suppose I do have to give you that one because he does play. The team is struggling but you can't say with certainty that it's because of Derrick's minutes. You were right about Buzz. Congrats on the track record!

In the mind of most logical fans, Derrick has absolutely not been a "major disappointment." Derrick is what he is. He's a heady, back-up PG who's been thrust into a starting role out of necessity (i.e. he's the best PG on the roster). He's a good defender who takes care of the ball and is limited offensively. I don't think that any of the so-called "pro-Derrick" crowd has said anything different about him. Do I wish he was better? Of course! So does Buzz and so does Derrick.

Every game is different. MU lost to Butler by 12 on the road but beat them at home by 7. Was homecourt worth 19 points in that situation? MU beat DePaul by 10 at home and 2 on the road. Was DePaul's homecourt only worth 8 points? MU beat Seton Hall by 1 at home and 11 on the road? How could that be when everything was equal except for Seton Hall's homecourt advantage? Oh yeah, every game is different!

Nice post Merritt...good tone.  Agree to disagree on Robert Jackson being better than Gardner...its a nice luxury when you play with an all world player like D-Wade..nice to also have Diener and Novak around you too.  Agree to disagree on DJ Newbill as well...he's better than Blue...and believe you'll see him drafted into NBA.  Your statements on Derrick are certainly fair and ones I agree with - I just disagree that Dawson wouldn't be an upgrade now, or 2 months ago..ceiling is much higher and eventually talent wins out over experience.  As for the game examples you cite - fair points, we played in exact inverse with Seton Hall...were in full control till about 5 minutes left and then just tanked at home...whereas at Seton Hall, we were on the verge of getting taken out, but bowed up and won the game...and of course Derrick played big minutes in both those games. 

Enjoy your Scoop vacation, but feel free to come back and gloat if Derrick's play takes a nice step up..hopefully it does...as we'll need it to in order to make NCAA.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 25, 2014, 02:49:44 AM
I'm in danger of violating the NEP, but I've been good so I think I've earned a relapse.

Buzz has seen what Dawson can do with a 30 minute run. He sees it every day IN PRACTICE.

My guess is that Dawson is getting schooled in practice. I mean come on, when has Buzz EVER resorted to using a PG for a full 40 minutes? He doesn't even trust Dawson to be a backup PG. Even the lowly Derrick Wilson managed to steal 12 minutes a game from Cadougan.

Hmmmm...    ;)

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 25, 2014, 02:49:44 AM
I'm in danger of violating the NEP, but I've been good so I think I've earned a relapse.

Buzz has seen what Dawson can do with a 30 minute run. He sees it every day IN PRACTICE.

My guess is that Dawson is getting schooled in practice. I mean come on, when has Buzz EVER resorted to using a PG for a full 40 minutes? He doesn't even trust Dawson to be a backup PG. Even the lowly Derrick Wilson managed to steal 12 minutes a game from Cadougan.

I agree that a coach may stick with a veteran too long, but I trust our coach enough to know that a PG who hasn't even earned the minutes to be Derrick's backup, is no where near being ready to be Derrick's replacement.

Just FYI...teams don't run 30 minutes against each other in practice....you have a ton of situational work, scouting report incorporation - rarely will the team go up and down in a game like situation.  I don't dispute your point that there are many times where Derrick and Dawson go head to head...I'd imagine all the time in drill work, in the situational work - usually done in the halfcourt setting in practice.

If you triple Dawson's stats (based on him playing 10 minutes a game), his stat line is comparable to Derrick and he's a freshman...and most players can't put up stats playing sporadic minutes, getting occasional DNPs, and rarely seeing 20+ minutes.  Look at Mayo's production the last 5 games...its risen quite nicely with just a minute increase of 7 minutes per game.  Additionally, you cannot quantify the value a player that needs to be defended everywhere on the court brings to a team..as opposed to one who is sagged off 6-8' consistently.

Anyway...to suggest Dawson isn't close to ready is ridiculous...

Quote from: Ners on February 25, 2014, 09:37:54 AM
If you triple Dawson's stats (based on him playing 10 minutes a game), his stat line is comparable to Derrick and he's a freshman...and most players can't put up stats playing sporadic minutes, getting occasional DNPs, and rarely seeing 20+ minutes.  Look at Mayo's production the last 5 games...its risen quite nicely with just a minute increase of 7 minutes per game.  Additionally, you cannot quantify the value a player that needs to be defended everywhere on the court brings to a team..as opposed to one who is sagged off 6-8' consistently.

Anyway...to suggest Dawson isn't close to ready is ridiculous...

If you triple Dawson's numbers, it's not legitimate and you know it. Most of Dawson's minutes have come in garbage time against bad opponents. You can't multiple those stats and pass them off as season stats.

If suggesting he's not close to ready is "really ridiculous" then how do you explain Dawson getting so many DNPs when Buzz has NEVER not had a backup PG before?

Quote from: Ners on February 25, 2014, 09:37:54 AM
If you triple Dawson's stats (based on him playing 10 minutes a game), his stat line is comparable to Derrick and he's a freshman...

OK, you lost me at "if you triple Dawson's stats."  You know better than to suggest that you automatically get better production, and get it in equal proportions, simply by increasing minutes.  First off, Dawson usually doesn't play against the other team's starters, and more importantly, he doesn't have to fight the fatigue that comes with playing longer minutes.

But just to indulge your little hypothetical:  If you triple Dawson's numbers, he would still be behind Derrick in rpg (by 0.7), apg (by 1.1), and spg (by 0.7)...while leading in tpg (by 0.3).  While those numbers don't sound like much, that means with Derrick we'd get an additional 1.7 possessions per game...pretty critical for a team that has already played 4 OT games.  And while John would be ahead by 0.4 ppg, the deficiency of 1.1 apg would still put him behind by 1.8 ppg when you consider points scored plus points created by assists (and that's assuming all of the assists are only on two-pointers).

I believe John will have a very good career at Marquette.  But even extrapolating statistics - a pretty weak exercise to begin with - doesn't produce better numbers than Derrick has produced this season.  And then there's the defense.

Quote from: mu03eng on February 25, 2014, 07:48:58 AM

Games   FG   FGA   %   3Pt FG   3Pt FGA   %   FT%   Def   Off   Total R   Asst   Steal   Block   Foul   TO   Total Points   35     2.9   5.7   51          0.3   0.9      30.3          2.2   0.6   2.8   3.4   2.5   0.2   1.8   2.0   7.8  27     2.1   3.9   41          0.0   0.5      7.7          2.5   1.3   3.7   4.1   1.3   0.0   2.4   1.5   5.6

Sorry, tables are really impossible on Scoop.  I redid the numbers on a per game basis.  Red scores a couple of points more, turns the ball over more but creates a few more possessions with his defense than does the blue player.  Blue is a much better rebounder, especially on the offensive end.  I'd take red but blue definitely has value in comparison right?

Well now you shifted it to per game production...and Red has more games played than Blue...which reduces overall output per game.  The original post you used minutes played as the comparison....and quite frankly, RED was a clear cut better choice..  Of course a player will produce more, the more minutes they play...and in your original post the minute comparison between red and blue was pretty close...but to stretch the production out over 35 games as opposed to 27...sure that makes the Red guys stats look less impressive on a per game basis...

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 25, 2014, 10:05:57 AM
If you triple Dawson's numbers, it's not legitimate and you know it. Most of Dawson's minutes have come in garbage time against bad opponents. You can't multiple those stats and pass them off as season stats.

If suggesting he's not close to ready is "really ridiculous" then how do you explain Dawson getting so many DNPs when Buzz has NEVER not had a backup PG before?

Oh please...you can't even engage in a reasonable debate on the topic.  Sure were some garbage minutes against Georgetown in overtime on the road against arguably best back court in Big East.  More garbage minutes in first half against DePaul...as well as those he played at Xavier.

Question:  Why do you think there is one game in Dawson's whole season that stands out from the rest?  Was it a fluke..or just a coincidence that it coincided with the ONE TIME ALL YEAR he's gotten 30 minutes.  Has Todd's production gotten better since his minutes increased and Playing time stints haven't been as interrupted?  Most guys who are talented basketball players are going to produce MORE not less with more minutes.

As for DNP after Seton Hall....perhaps you can check with an insider in the program and learn if John took a shot to the head in practice and was dealing with concussive symptoms and therefore held out for 2 games.  Nice try though. 

Quote from: GooooMarquette on February 25, 2014, 10:50:49 AM
OK, you lost me at "if you triple Dawson's stats."  You know better than to suggest that you automatically get better production, and get it in equal proportions, simply by increasing minutes.  First off, Dawson usually doesn't play against the other team's starters, and more importantly, he doesn't have to fight the fatigue that comes with playing longer minutes.

But just to indulge your little hypothetical:  If you triple Dawson's numbers, he would still be behind Derrick in rpg (by 0.7), apg (by 1.1), and spg (by 0.7)...while leading in tpg (by 0.3).  While those numbers don't sound like much, that means with Derrick we'd get an additional 1.7 possessions per game...pretty critical for a team that has already played 4 OT games.  And while John would be ahead by 0.4 ppg, the deficiency of 1.1 apg would still put him behind by 1.8 ppg when you consider points scored plus points created by assists (and that's assuming all of the assists are only on two-pointers).

I believe John will have a very good career at Marquette.  But even extrapolating statistics - a pretty weak exercise to begin with - doesn't produce better numbers than Derrick has produced this season.  And then there's the defense.

Good work.  I know this won't kill the Rasputin of discussion points, but it is good work.

A thread on Brew City forum... seems the perfect place to start a discussion on Derrick vs. John.

So much new ground to cover!!

Quote from: brandx on February 25, 2014, 11:25:14 AM
A thread on Brew City forum... seems the perfect place to start a discussion on Derrick vs. John.

So much new ground to cover!!

To be fair we had a solid retrospective going on the whole Derrick vs. Dawson thing, which naturally segued into the actual Derrick vs. Dawson thing.

Quote from: Ners on February 25, 2014, 10:53:27 AM
Well now you shifted it to per game production...and Red has more games played than Blue...which reduces overall output per game.  The original post you used minutes played as the comparison....and quite frankly, RED was a clear cut better choice..  Of course a player will produce more, the more minutes they play...and in your original post the minute comparison between red and blue was pretty close...but to stretch the production out over 35 games as opposed to 27...sure that makes the Red guys stats look less impressive on a per game basis...

Yeah, my bad I wanted to do it on a per game basis all along.  I do it per possession but as stupid as it sounds I don't know how to transform the data like that.

The player in red is Rajon Rondo, from his first year playing at Kentucky.  Derrick is not even a homeless man's Rondo, but the comparison struck me because Rondo is a terrible shooter and played on defensive minded Kentucky team that had more talent than MU currently has.  I think everyone would take the Rondo numbers but they are way closer than I would have thought and I do think it puts a little perspective on Derrick's performance to date.....and a lot of teams guarded 4-5 feet off Rondo in college, just like they do in the NBA now.

Quote from: brandx on February 25, 2014, 11:25:14 AM
A thread on Brew City forum... seems the perfect place to start a discussion on Derrick vs. John.

So much new ground to cover!!

I've been scarce lately due to work but this made me laugh.

Quote from: mu03eng on February 25, 2014, 02:08:14 PM
Yeah, my bad I wanted to do it on a per game basis all along.  I do it per possession but as stupid as it sounds I don't know how to transform the data like that.

The player in red is Rajon Rondo, from his first year playing at Kentucky.  Derrick is not even a homeless man's Rondo, but the comparison struck me because Rondo is a terrible shooter and played on defensive minded Kentucky team that had more talent than MU currently has.  I think everyone would take the Rondo numbers but they are way closer than I would have thought and I do think it puts a little perspective on Derrick's performance to date.....and a lot of teams guarded 4-5 feet off Rondo in college, just like they do in the NBA now.

No worries on the original being listed on a per minute versus per game basis...Rondo is a unique talent, because, yes..as you point out...teams give him a decent cushion on perimeter as he isn't a great shooter - yet I feel part of that strategy is employed due to the fact Rondo is lightning quick..and getting up on him...he can easily blow by and force help, collapse defense and cause all kinds of problems.  Derrick isn't anywhere in Rondo's league athletically...nor is Dawson for that matter...Rondo has that Iverson-esque cat like quickness that makes him a nightmare.  Nonetheless, though, just by virtue of Rondo making the 3's he did as a freshman, and shooting them...it does force the defense to respect it somewhat..

Quote from: g0lden3agle on February 25, 2014, 08:20:01 AM
Honestly I'd need to have all these stats in per possession rather than per game to make a decision.  Right now I think red is the clear favorite and think per possession stats might flip it in his favor even more.

I WANT TO KNOW WHO RED IS!  I WANT YOU TO SHOW ME!

Yes, see my earlier post in this thread.. the tempo free stats do help red, as do knowing his college team, his role on that team, etc... (and his role today in the NBA).