They had a couple of intersting stats pop up in the Kansas vs Georgia Tech game, it sort of applies to MU...
- Each of the last 20 national champions has had a player 6'8 or taller that has gone on to play in the NBA
- 19 of the last 20 national champions had at least one guard who went on to play in the NBA
We have the guard down most likely, but this seems to imply that we really need to bring in a stud big man in order to have a chance at a national title. Now some posters on this board have been preaching this for as long as I can remember and I never really believed it. This number seems to support their argument very well. Now, Im not bashing our big guys, they are servicible at the least. Im just pointing out something that is lacking on our team in comparison to the last 20 national champions.
Hayward isn't quite 6'8" but he is a dominant post presence and plays bigger than he is. I know that many will comment regarding this and I saw the stat too and I don't know if we're at the level to win the tourney, but we can make a deep run and could be a Final Four team.
Hayward is 6'5".
I do not think the size matters as much as it needs to be a player who can take over the game. I think you will find that most final four teams have at least three pro players on their roster. MU's final fours:
1974 Lee, Walton, Lucas, Tatum, Ellis
1977 Lee, Ellis, Whitehead, Toone
2003 Wade, Diener, Novak
2008 or 2009 James?McNeil?Hayward?Matthews? At best they are marginal pro players and mostly second round picks. There is not a go to guy in the group that can take over the game at will. We certainly had that in Wade, Lee, Ellis & Lucas.
Quote from: spartan3186 on December 18, 2007, 08:34:12 PM
They had a couple of intersting stats pop up in the Kansas vs Georgia Tech game, it sort of applies to MU...
- Each of the last 20 national champions has had a player 6'8 or taller that has gone on to play in the NBA
- 19 of the last 20 national champions had at least one guard who went on to play in the NBA
I heard the same thing during the ESPN game. I am a bit suspicious of this. There are at least three teams that do not appear to fit this. The one I think of right away is Arizona in 1997. Who 6'8" or above could have possibly made the NBA from that team? Michael Dickerson was only 6'6".
Okay, I looked it up... A.J. Bramlett played a whopping 8 games total in the NBA. This is so misleading. He doesn't even make the NBA unless Zona gets to the Final Four that year.
That team had absolutely no NBA worthy post player on the team. That whole team was Miles Simon (6'4" , Bibby (6'1") , and Dickerson (6'6").
Quote from: MarquetteDano on December 18, 2007, 11:38:23 PM
Okay, I looked it up... A.J. Bramlett played a whopping 8 games total in the NBA. This is so misleading. He doesn't even make the NBA unless Zona gets to the Final Four that year.
That team had absolutely no NBA worthy post player on the team. That whole team was Miles Simon (6'4" , Bibby (6'1") , and Dickerson (6'6").
And Mean Gene Edgerson.
(http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/97/78/02_7_1.jpg)
Relax folks. Clearly this means one thing.
Ooze is going pro!
It's an interesting stat - but how exactly does it work? Obviously the announcers said it one way, but think of it this way...
If a team with a decent 6'8"+ guy (averaging near a double-double) wins the NCAA tournament, then that 6'8"+ guy has a good shot a being drafted by the NBA.
I'm not arguing that MU will win the NCAA title this year, but rather, if they do, Oooze and/or Burke will likely end up in the NBA. Lots of it is exposure - and with that exposure, being able to play decent games against great competition does wonders towards getting to the NBA.
Did anyone really think Joakim Noah & Chris Richard were NBA material before the Gators won a championship? Probably not.
Quote from: muwarrior87 on December 18, 2007, 09:14:56 PM
Hayward isn't quite 6'8" but he is a dominant post presence and plays bigger than he is. I know that many will comment regarding this and I saw the stat too and I don't know if we're at the level to win the tourney, but we can make a deep run and could be a Final Four team.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this comment about Hayward. He is a 2/3 miscast as a 4. He does the best with what he has, but when we get to the Big East and face the bigger and better interior players, he will by no means be dominant. Hopefully he will hold his own. He is not a post player at all, let alone a dominant one, since being a post player implies that he will post up in the low box, make a move and score, and that is not what he does.
Don't get me wrong, I love the kid and he is a very good player and I really appreciate his selfless attitude in playing the 4 when he is obviously more suited to the 2/3, which is where his basketball future, if he has one, lies.
Ooze and Burke are serviceable major college interior players, but I think in the end we are one big guy (I was hoping Mbabkwe would be that guy) short. With the cast we have, we can complete with anyone, so anything is possible, but I think we're gonna hit a tourney game at some point where the shots aren't falling and we won't have the inside guy who can throw a 16/12 night at the opposition to help offset it.
Take a step back and really read what this stat is saying:
You need to have good/outstanding players at the key positions to win a national championship (key positions being generic "guard" or "guards" and generic "big(ger) forward and/or center".
I don't think there is anything mind blowing about this.
You need to have talented players to win it all. You can do it with great guards and good big men, or great bigs and good guards... but no matter what you need to have talent at all of the positions. Again, DUH!
Does MU have enough talent to do it this year? I don't know.
Does MU need to have quality bigs to win? Yes, but I think part of the overall idea that MU needs talented players who develop at every position.