https://twitter.com/matt_velazquez/status/804189291035447296
Obvious Wojo taking scoop advice
Couldn't agree more.
We are better with Sam in the game
Agree. Sam is the real deal. Great shooter and passer.. says smart with few turn overs, rebounds well, steals the ball and blocks shots and seems to be two inches or so taller than Reinhart.
Blatant attempt by Wojo to curry favor with Joey
Quote from: TSmith34 on December 01, 2016, 06:30:01 AM
Blatant attempt by Wojo to curry favor with Joey
Until Joey goes NBA and Wojo gives Sam the poleax. All smoke and mirrors, hey?
With Sam starting, our lineup goes 6'11, 6'7, 6'5, 6'5, PG-TBD. That isn't embarrassingly small. I suspect Sam will get beat up by a few widebody 4's, but so will anyone else.
Quote from: tower912 on December 01, 2016, 06:38:52 AM
With Sam starting, our lineup goes 6'11, 6'7, 6'5, 6'5, PG-TBD. That isn't embarrassingly small. I suspect Sam will get beat up by a few widebody 4's, but so will anyone else.
Yes. Just part of the learning process.
Quote from: TSmith34 on December 01, 2016, 06:30:01 AM
Blatant attempt by Wojo to curry favor with Joey
Mmmm...curry...hopefully Joey prefers yellow curry to red
TV announcers said Reinhardt was ill and could not play. Will be interesting to see if Hauser starts future games.
Hauser plays defense. He's going to have bad match-ups, but it'll still be the best chance we stand to defend against some lineups.
Mind games again.
Quote from: chapman on December 01, 2016, 08:09:56 AM
Hauser plays defense. He's going to have bad match-ups, but it'll still be the best chance we stand to defend against some lineups.
KR plays defense, too. Right now, even when KR doesn't have the flu, Sam is playing smarter offense and rebounding better.
Quote from: NCMUFan on December 01, 2016, 07:47:30 AM
TV announcers said Reinhardt was ill and could not play. Will be interesting to see if Hauser starts future games.
Yes, that is why Wojo said that even if everyone was healthy Sam would've started.
Quote from: chapman on December 01, 2016, 08:09:56 AM
Hauser plays defense. He's going to have bad match-ups, but it'll still be the best chance we stand to defend against some lineups.
His understanding of space and working within a team concept on that end is very good. Advanced for a frosh. But his footwork/quickness is letting him down. Tends to sell out on closeouts and gets wrong-footed. He'll get there, though.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 01, 2016, 08:50:57 AM
His understanding of space and working within a team concept on that end is very good. Advanced for a frosh. But his footwork/quickness is letting him down. Tends to sell out on closeouts and gets wrong-footed. He'll get there, though.
Sam is already a better defender that HE ever was at MU. Very high basketball IQ. I believe he'll be a 4 year starter at the 3/4.
Sure Sam might start now. The season is long and KR is experienced. We will see how it plays out over time.
I like that Wojo isn't locked into one lineup, no matter what. He's repeatedly made it clear that performance determines playing time. Sam has earned every minute.
Man, it's all Good
Quote from: jsglow on December 01, 2016, 09:41:43 AM
Sam is already a better defender that HE ever was at MU. Very high basketball IQ. I believe he'll be a 4 year starter at the 3/4.
'til Sam early bolts for da Association, hey?
Quote from: Marcus92 on December 01, 2016, 09:47:06 AM
I like that Wojo isn't locked into one lineup, no matter what. He's repeatedly made it clear that performance determines playing time. Sam has earned every minute.
I agree, I think Wojo uses starters as a carrot/stick thing. Minutes will show who he really trusts to get it done. Both KR and SH he trusts. Just one shoots a bit too much and the other has a learning curve. The guy I feel bad for is Sandy. Wonder what happened there...we were all high on his upside at different times over the last couple years.
In any case a healthy KR gets minutes and we'll need him.
Quote from: MUBigDance on December 01, 2016, 12:23:59 PM
The guy I feel bad for is Sandy. Wonder what happened there...we were all high on his upside at different times over the last couple years.
In any case a healthy KR gets minutes and we'll need him.
The more Sandy played, the more it became apparent he didn't have the game for this level. Furthermore, that took a toll on his confidence. It was painful to watch him the second half last year. He was playing hard, but he couldn't will the ball in the hoop.
I wish Sandy well, but I don't think there's any mystery as to why he didn't succeed at MU.
Quote from: RJax55 on December 01, 2016, 12:41:22 PM
The more Sandy played, the more it became apparent he didn't have the game for this level. Furthermore, that took a toll on his confidence. It was painful to watch him the second half last year. He was playing hard, but he couldn't will the ball in the hoop.
I wish Sandy well, but I don't think there's any mystery as to why he didn't succeed at MU.
Kid was in the deep end of the pool.
A minnow in da shark's tank, hey?
Quote from: RJax55 on December 01, 2016, 12:41:22 PM
The more Sandy played, the more it became apparent he didn't have the game for this level. Furthermore, that took a toll on his confidence. It was painful to watch him the second half last year. He was playing hard, but he couldn't will the ball in the hoop.
I wish Sandy well, but I don't think there's any mystery as to why he didn't succeed at MU.
Yep. A darn good kid but a skill level that would relegate him to the end of the bench as a Junior/Senior. I really wish Sandy had pulled the trigger a month earlier for his sake.
Sandy was no Juan Anderson.
Not even Don Smolinski, hey?
Hopefully KR can play vs Georgia. He's had a few not so good games this year but he's a leader on the team and hopefully he can bring some energy off the bench
Is he though?
Quote from: We R Final Four on December 02, 2016, 08:09:40 AM
Is he though?
When he's making shots, he's a leader and good person who saves puppies and adopts underprivileged children. When he misses a shot, he's the reason everything bad in 2016 happened.
Georgia has a few slow footed bigs. Reinhardt could potentially create some good mismatches on offense. Better that he's available. Hopefully the night off gets him back on track.
Kaopectate's gotta help, ai na?
Also, people do realize that Sam has started over Reinhardt the last three games right? Hauser starting isn't new.
I don't know if Reinhardt is a great person or not. I don't know him personally. But I do think I remember reading somewhere that he has become a leader and is pretty popular on the team.
Unless I'm mistaken ... although it would be a shame to make my first mistake this year with less than a month to go to perfection!
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 02, 2016, 11:21:24 AM
Also, people do realize that Sam has started over Reinhardt the last three games right? Hauser starting isn't new.
I have believed for some time Hauser will make fans forget Henry. He is tracking nicely on that path. I like his game a lot.
Who? HE gowne.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 02, 2016, 06:03:21 PM
I have believed for some time Hauser will make fans forget Henry. He is tracking nicely on that path. I like his game a lot.
Well, Hauser isn't a selfish ball-hog who is only looking out for himself. That alone will get people to pay attention.
Quote from: jesmu84 on December 02, 2016, 06:30:30 PM
Well, Hauser isn't a selfish ball-hog who is only looking out for himself. That alone will get people to pay attention.
Neither was Henry.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 02, 2016, 08:14:06 PM
Neither was Henry.
I didn't think the teal was needed.
I know that's MUFNY's stance on Henry, so I was trying to have some fun.
Quote from: jesmu84 on December 02, 2016, 08:24:37 PM
I didn't think the teal was needed.
I know that's MUFNY's stance on Henry, so I was trying to have some fun.
Gotcha. I have heard others say the same thing.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 02, 2016, 08:14:06 PM
Neither was Henry.
I can't say Henry was selfish (don't know one way or another) but either a) he was kinda a ball hog or b) Wojo wanted him to jack 3s at will. I sincerely hope the correct answer is (a).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 02, 2016, 10:43:09 PM
I can't say Henry was selfish (don't know one way or another) but either a) he was kinda a ball hog or b) Wojo wanted him to jack 3s at will. I sincerely hope the correct answer is (a).
Hank attempted 3.2 3 pointers per game. That'd be good for 6th most on this team. Guess Wojo's doing a whole lotta allowing his players to jack up 3s at will.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 02, 2016, 11:33:30 PM
Hank attempted 3.2 3 pointers per game. That'd be good for 6th most on this team. Guess Wojo's doing a whole lotta allowing his players to jack up 3s at will.
How many did Hank make?
Stationing your best rebounder 25 feet from the basket to display his NBA skills may have been what Henry and his family wanted/demanded but it hurt the team. Nobody who watched us last year could deny that.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 03, 2016, 12:01:05 AM
How many did Hank make?
Stationing your best rebounder 25 feet from the basket to display his NBA skills may have been what Henry and his family wanted/demanded but it hurt the team. Nobody who watched us last year could deny that.
Well sure if you want to keep shifting goal posts you win.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 03, 2016, 12:04:13 AM
Well sure if you want to keep shifting goal posts you win.
How am I shifting the goalposts? Hank was a very bad 3 point shooter - 28.8%. The worst of any scholarship player on the team who tried one not named Ellenson (his brother Wally was worse at 25%). Yet in spite of being the 7th best of 8 guys who were allowed to shoot 3s he put up the 2nd most of them. So...
What do you call a guy who hurts his team by continually shooting shots a) he's bad at and b) that preclude him from doing what he does best (rebounding)?
Answer: a) a ball hog b) poorly coached or c) both.
Your choice. (There is a correct answer).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 03, 2016, 12:16:36 AM
How am I shifting the goalposts? Hank was a very bad 3 point shooter - 28.8%. The worst of any scholarship player on the team who tried one not named Ellenson (his brother Wally was worse at 25%). Yet in spite of being the 7th best of 8 guys who were allowed to shoot 3s he put up the 2nd most of them. So...
What do you call a guy who hurts his team by continually shooting shots a) he's bad at and b) that preclude him from doing what he does best (rebounding)?
Answer: a) a ball hog b) poorly coached or c) both.
Your choice. (There is a correct answer).
So now we're discussing whether or not he makes a high percentage or where he should be on the court? I see. Entirely different than discussing his "shooting 3s at will."
Remind me again how you're not shifting goal posts?
Quote from: wadesworld on December 03, 2016, 12:27:18 AM
So now we're discussing whether or not he makes a high percentage or where he should be on the court? I see. Entirely different than discussing his "shooting 3s at will."
Remind me again how you're not shifting goal posts?
C'mon Wades, your nitpicking at best. When you're shooting the 2nd most 3s on the team you have the green light (shooting them at will). Either the coach encouraged him to do that (stupid) or he took it on himself to do that (ball hog) or both.
How many 3s we take this year is not an issue since the guys shooting them can make em. Talk about moving goalposts. One similarity though - again this year our worst 3 point shooter is hoisting them at the 2nd highest rate on the team. Maybe it's a "Wojo thing", but at least Rhinehardt has a past history of making them.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 03, 2016, 12:44:52 AM
C'mon Wades, your nitpicking at best. When you're shooting the 2nd most 3s on the team you have the green light (shooting them at will). Either the coach encouraged him to do that (stupid) or he took it on himself to do that (ball hog) or both.
How many 3s we take this year is not an issue since the guys shooting them can make em. Talk about moving goalposts. One similarity though - again this year our worst 3 point shooter is hoisting them at the 2nd highest rate on the team. Maybe it's a "Wojo thing", but at least Rhinehardt has a past history of making them.
You are still shifting those goal posts. You used Hank's "shooting 3s at will" to show he was a ball hog, poorly coached, or both. He obviously didn't "shoot 3s at will."
Also you clearly have a great offensive scheme in mind. We have Luke who is obviously going to be on the blocks offensively, we have a team that needs to get to the rim to score because they can't shoot, and you also think Hank should be plotting himself on the block the entire game because you don't think his 10 easy rebounds per game are enough. Genius. Talk about making things easy for the defense...
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 03, 2016, 12:01:05 AM
How many did Hank make?
Stationing your best rebounder 25 feet from the basket to display his NBA skills may have been what Henry and his family wanted/demanded but it hurt the team. Nobody who watched us last year could deny that.
And yet he lead the BE in rebounding. It must have only been the rebounds that bounced out 25 feet.
Quote from: TSmith34 on December 03, 2016, 10:01:59 AM
And yet he lead the BE in rebounding. It must have only been the rebounds that bounced out 25 feet.
Yup. Only for him to immediately hoist those 3 point attempts at will!
Quote from: TSmith34 on December 03, 2016, 10:01:59 AM
And yet he lead the BE in rebounding. It must have only been the rebounds that bounced out 25 feet.
Touché - point TSmith34
But...it's true with hindsight that 1-n-done's are not good for MU ball. HE showed that. He's a good guy with good intentions but they didn't line up with MU success in the long run. If another guy like that shows up that wants to come here....maybe the bluegrass is best for all...
Quote from: MUBigDance on December 03, 2016, 10:17:11 AM
But...it's true with hindsight that 1-n-done's are not good for MU ball. HE showed that. He's a good guy with good intentions but they didn't line up with MU success in the long run. If another guy like that shows up that wants to come here....maybe the bluegrass is best for all...
No its not 'true'.
Quote from: keefe on December 01, 2016, 02:07:58 PM
Kid was in the deep end of the pool.
I think Rowsey may be in there as well.
Monday morning quarterbacking Henry Ellenson is the Scoopiest thing ever.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 03, 2016, 09:58:10 AM
You are still shifting those goal posts. You used Hank's "shooting 3s at will" to show he was a ball hog, poorly coached, or both. He obviously didn't "shoot 3s at will."
Also you clearly have a great offensive scheme in mind. We have Luke who is obviously going to be on the blocks offensively, we have a team that needs to get to the rim to score because they can't shoot, and you also think Hank should be plotting himself on the block the entire game because you don't think his 10 easy rebounds per game are enough. Genius. Talk about making things easy for the defense...
Guess you've never seen Bill Self's high/low offense with 2 bigs. Not surprised. Nothing surprises me from a guy who thinks it's wise to green light our worst 3 point shooter to the point where he's second on the team in attempts rather than keeping him within 17 feet from the basket where he's effective. Henry could have been a great college player but he was more concerned with showing NBA scouts he could play the stretch 4 since it was his only NBA position. Wojo went along with it because even with Henry shooting too much from long range we were better than we would have been without HE. I think that sets a bad precedent for a coach. Give me guys who will play outside of their NBA position for the betterment of the team (Lazar, Jae and others) any day.
Quote from: TSmith34 on December 03, 2016, 10:01:59 AM
And yet he lead the BE in rebounding. It must have only been the rebounds that bounced out 25 feet.
Thanks for making my point. Best rebounder in the league and one of the league's worst 3 point shooters. Do you want him want him on the perimeter as your 2nd highest volume 3 point shooter or closer to the basket where you can benefit from his skill?
Mu was at it best last year when luke was in foul trouble n we played 4 guards around henry. Go back n watch the games n it wasnt even close. We were at our worst when they were in there to gether with henry playing the 4 and chucking 3s.
Even with our poor shhoting perimeter players last year if we had alternated henry n luke like we r this year with heldt n luke we would of been a much better team imho.
Henry is a talent but even a great talent can be detrimental if he plays out of position.
Quote from: MUBigDance on December 03, 2016, 10:17:11 AM
Touché - point TSmith34
But...it's true with hindsight that 1-n-done's are not good for MU ball. HE showed that. He's a good guy with good intentions but they didn't line up with MU success in the long run. If another guy like that shows up that wants to come here....maybe the bluegrass is best for all...
But the question I ask is how did the Bluebloods become Bluebloods. Did they change their recruiting formula or has it's been so long we forgot it ever happen?
Quote from: Loose Cannon on December 03, 2016, 10:58:54 AM
But the question I ask is how did the Bluebloods become Bluebloods. Did they change their recruiting formula or has it's been so long we forgot it ever happen?
Hire a good coach. Keep him around. When that coach leaves, replace him with a good coach. Earn and devote a lot of resources to the basketball program in the meantime.
I'm not calling Wisconsin a "blue blood," but that right there is how you build a program from nothing.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 03, 2016, 10:39:41 AM
Guess you've never seen Bill Self's high/low offense with 2 bigs. Not surprised. Nothing surprises me from a guy who thinks it's wise to green light our worst 3 point shooter to the point where he's second on the team in attempts rather than keeping him within 17 feet from the basket where he's effective. Henry could have been a great college player but he was more concerned with showing NBA scouts he could play the stretch 4 since it was his only NBA position. Wojo went along with it because even with Henry shooting too much from long range we were better than we would have been without HE. I think that sets a bad precedent for a coach. Give me guys who will play outside of their NBA position for the betterment of the team (Lazar, Jae and others) any day.
OH! So now it's no longer under the basket where he can do what he does best (grab easy rebounds) it's now a high low game with him 3 feet further in than where you're complaining he was too far away from the basket to grab all those easy rebounds. 20 feet away he can't be at his best grabbing rebounds, 17 feet out he's great. Got it!
Goal posts: shifted.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 03, 2016, 10:47:26 AM
Thanks for making my point. Best rebounder in the league and one of the league's worst 3 point shooters. Do you want him want him on the perimeter as your 2nd highest volume 3 point shooter or closer to the basket where you can benefit from his skill?
Which is it? Literally your last post talks about wanting Hank as part of a high low offense 17 feet from the basket. So do you want him where you can "benefit from his skill" (which you stated is his rebounding) or do you want him 17 feet from the hoop in a high low offense?
Hank really hauled in those 17 foot boards well last year I guess.
Quote from: MUBigDance on December 03, 2016, 10:17:11 AM
But...it's true with hindsight that 1-n-done's are not good for MU ball. HE showed that. He's a good guy with good intentions but they didn't line up with MU success in the long run. If another guy like that shows up that wants to come here....maybe the bluegrass is best for all...
I'm not sure that I would draw that conclusion. Why wouldn't we want to be considered an institution that guys with the talent to be one-and-dones come to? I suspect Wojo uses Henry getting to the NBA after one year as a positive part of his recruiting story.
I think that the only way that it negatively affected MU was that Wojo couldn't convince another 4 to come here because they weren't sure when Henry was leaving. But overall the team appears to be better this year than last, despite losing Henry. Everyone else on the roster is more experienced and Wojo brought in four more talented guys.
Henry shot poorly last year; he's much better than the numbers say, though. His shot attempts and his 3FGA/FGA was just fine.
The analysis isn't "what is this guy shooting from the field? Oh, it's not good. Therefore, don't let him shoot or don't play him"...
It's "what do I think he can/will do?"
HE was better than his 3FG% showed. KR is better than his eFG% has shown thus far.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 03, 2016, 10:47:26 AM
Thanks for making my point.
Actually, it's in direct opposition to your point(s) which were that Henry was either selfish or given the green light by Wojo and that he couldn't rebound by playing outside.
Not only did he rebound at an excellent rate, but he shot threes at a lower rate than multiple players on the current team. He also shot slightly fewer threes per game in the second half of the season (3.3 vs. 3.4) and made them at a better-if-still-not-good rate (32.1% vs 25.5%). Henry's skills probably improved incrementally, but it also suggests that he was more selective in his shots--contradicting the idea that he was a ball hog or that Wojo wanted him to jack up threes regardless.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 03, 2016, 11:32:49 AM
OH! So now it's no longer under the basket where he can do what he does best (grab easy rebounds) it's now a high low game with him 3 feet further in than where you're complaining he was too far away from the basket to grab all those easy rebounds. 20 feet away he can't be at his best grabbing rebounds, 17 feet out he's great. Got it!
Goal posts: shifted.
You're illogical, you lie or put words in people's mouth (who ever mentioned easy rebounds?) and you look for fights when its obvious you're wrong. Henry was better playing 17' out or closer (high low double post players alternate high and low - guess you didn't know that) than he was playing22+ feet from the basket. Numbers show that. Wojo let him roam outside much of the time either because he thought it gave us a better chance of winning (the numbers say it didn't) or to help showcase Henry for the NBA. You can take another turn misrepresenting my points - I'm done fighting with you.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 03, 2016, 12:04:13 AM
Well sure if you want to keep shifting goal posts you win.
How dare you shift the goal posts after I spent all this time pushing them across the field?
Comparing Hank's number of attempts with this team is completely disingenuous. First, this team shoots a higher percentage of shots from outside and scores a higher percentage of points from outside. Shooting threes is a much bigger part of the gameplan. Second, Henry shot a notably lower percentage (28.8%) from three than any of the five this year you refer to except Reinhardt, and as his shooting volume, selection, and quality has been discussed ad nauseam, that kind of proves the point about Henry's deep quantity. Third, Henry had a higher eFG% inside the arc and when combining that with his team leading 5.6 fouls drawn per forty minutes, he was FAR better suited to restrict his three point shooting.
Henry took too many threes on a team where threes were less of a focal points and his lack of efficiency was only matched in the past two years by the subject of this thread. Trying to compare Henry's number of three attempts last year when our entire team gameplan this year is to shoot more threes because we have better long range shooters is a fallacious argument and the very definition of goalpost shifting.
Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 03, 2016, 11:09:03 AM
Hire a good coach. Keep him around. When that coach leaves, replace him with a good coach. Earn and devote a lot of resources to the basketball program in the meantime.
I'm not calling Wisconsin a "blue blood," but that right there is how you build a program from nothing.
I agree.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 03, 2016, 04:10:34 PM
How dare you shift the goal posts after I spent all this time pushing them across the field?
Comparing Hank's number of attempts with this team is completely disingenuous. First, this team shoots a higher percentage of shots from outside and scores a higher percentage of points from outside. Shooting threes is a much bigger part of the gameplan. Second, Henry shot a notably lower percentage (28.8%) from three than any of the five this year you refer to except Reinhardt, and as his shooting volume, selection, and quality has been discussed ad nauseam, that kind of proves the point about Henry's deep quantity. Third, Henry had a higher eFG% inside the arc and when combining that with his team leading 5.6 fouls drawn per forty minutes, he was FAR better suited to restrict his three point shooting.
Henry took too many threes on a team where threes were less of a focal points and his lack of efficiency was only matched in the past two years by the subject of this thread. Trying to compare Henry's number of three attempts last year when our entire team gameplan this year is to shoot more threes because we have better long range shooters is a fallacious argument and the very definition of goalpost shifting.
Huh? Comparing 3 point attempts to...3 point attempts is shifting goal posts? Wow. That is an interesting definition of goalpost shifting.
When someone says, "he was allowed to shoot 3 pointers at will! Horrible coaching! What a ball hog!" I don't care who it is or what the percentage that person shoots those 3 pointers. That statement is
entirely about the quantity of shots attempted.
A guy like Novak who shoots 8.4 3 pointers per game his senior year shoots the 3 at will. A guy like Henry Ellenson who shot 3.2 3 pointers per game his one year at Marquette did not shoot the 3 pointer at will.
Whether Hank or Novak
should be shooting the 3 at will is an entirely different argument. The quantity of 3 pointers is what defines whether someone "shoots the 3 at will," not the quality of the shot or the ability to make those shots.
Was Roosevelt Jones a guy who "shot the 3 at will" because he shot 100% from 3 in his college career? Of course not. He went 1/1 on 3 pointers in his career. It's not quality, it's quantity.
PS eFG% by it's definition includes shots outside the arc. The equation includes the number of 3 pointers made.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 03, 2016, 03:14:56 PM
You're illogical, you lie or put words in people's mouth (who ever mentioned easy rebounds?) and you look for fights when its obvious you're wrong. Henry was better playing 17' out or closer (high low double post players alternate high and low - guess you didn't know that) than he was playing22+ feet from the basket. Numbers show that. Wojo let him roam outside much of the time either because he thought it gave us a better chance of winning (the numbers say it didn't) or to help showcase Henry for the NBA. You can take another turn misrepresenting my points - I'm done fighting with you.
So you wanted Luke roaming around 17 feet from the basket? Yeesh. This offensive gameplan you propose Wojo should've used just sounds worse and worse to me the more you talk about it.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 03, 2016, 05:01:55 PM
Huh? Comparing 3 point attempts to...3 point attempts is shifting goal posts? Wow. That is an interesting definition of goalpost shifting.
PS eFG% by it's definition includes shots outside the arc. The equation includes the number of 3 pointers made.
To the first, yes it absolutely is shifting the goalposts. Henry took 18.1% of the teams three point attempts. By comparison, our most frequent three point shooter is Sam, who takes 18.2% of the team's attempts. It's a different offense so simply looking at number of attempts is myopic and disingenuous. A 28.8% three point shooter taking that percentage of the attempts is too much and not comparable to anyone this year including the guys that take more quantity. It's effectively a question of tempo.
And duh, however when you compare Henry's efficiency inside the arc, he was far more efficient on those shots he took inside the arc. His higher eFG% on those shots (6.3% higher) demonstrates that he was much better off inside the arc, which is why he shouldn't be taking 18.1% of the team's three point attempts. The only other player on the team that was more efficient inside the arc was Sandy, by a comparably minimal 1.5%.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 03, 2016, 05:27:03 PM
To the first, yes it absolutely is shifting the goalposts. Henry took 18.1% of the teams three point attempts. By comparison, our most frequent three point shooter is Sam, who takes 18.2% of the team's attempts. It's a different offense so simply looking at number of attempts is myopic and disingenuous. A 28.8% three point shooter taking that percentage of the attempts is too much and not comparable to anyone this year including the guys that take more quantity. It's effectively a question of tempo.
And duh, however when you compare Henry's efficiency inside the arc, he was far more efficient on those shots he took inside the arc. His higher eFG% on those shots (6.3% higher) demonstrates that he was much better off inside the arc, which is why he shouldn't be taking 18.1% of the team's three point attempts. The only other player on the team that was more efficient inside the arc was Sandy, by a comparably minimal 1.5%.
Nobody's arguing Hank was better inside the arc. You're going into efficiency (quality) when it really is a statement of attempts (quantity). It's much simpler than what you're trying to make it out to be.
The fact of the matter remains Hank didn't "shoot 3s at will." No goal post shifting necessary. There was no "shooting 3s at will." Percentages have nothing to do with whether a guy "shot 3s at will or not."
Steph Curry "shoots 3s at will." Klay Thompson "shoots 3s at will." Steve Novak "shot 3s at will." Henry Ellenson? Nope.
Also it doesn't matter what the team makeup was. The top X number of players that attempt the most 3 pointers on a given basketball team doesn't define who "shoots the 3 at will." If a team attempts 10 3s a game chances are no more than 1 player is attempting a lot of 3s. If a team attempts 35 there are probably multiple players who attempt quite a few 3s. The 5 players who attempt the most 3s on a team aren't automatically "shooting 3s at will."
Quote from: wadesworld on December 03, 2016, 05:38:19 PM
Also it doesn't matter what the team makeup was. The top X number of players that attempt the most 3 pointers on a given basketball team doesn't define who "shoots the 3 at will." If a team attempts 10 3s a game chances are no more than 1 player is attempting a lot of 3s. If a team attempts 35 there are probably multiple players who attempt quite a few 3s. The 5 players who attempt the most 3s on a team aren't automatically "shooting 3s at will."
If you don't believe in tempo free stats, I suppose. ?-(
Henry would have been a great player as a Junior and Senior. He was a loose cannon that hurt the team as much as helped it.
Quote from: Stretchdeltsig on December 03, 2016, 05:45:20 PM
Henry would have been a great player as a Junior and Senior. He was a loose cannon that hurt the team as much as helped it.
I criticized his shot selection as much as anyone, but this just isn't true. He may have cost us two games with his reckless play, but he powered us to at least six wins that we don't get without him.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 03, 2016, 05:40:31 PM
If you don't believe in tempo free stats, I suppose. ?-(
I more don't believe any player who shoots 3.2 3 pointers in 33.5 mpg is "shooting the 3 at will" in today's day and age. To each their own I guess ::)
I am not sold on Reinhardt. Sam and JJJ seem so much better.
Quote from: wadesworld on December 03, 2016, 05:56:59 PM
I more don't believe any player who shoots 3.2 3 pointers in 33.5 mpg is "shooting the 3 at will" in today's day and age. To each their own I guess ::)
Yes, Henry was a high usage, low 3% guy. But, part of the problem was no one wanted to step up and be the guy. Luke was in foul trouble in half the BE games, the rest of Frosh had never been through the wringer, Buzz recruits were not yet fits in the offense (although JJ came on at the end). Was that Henry's fault or was he the guy? Clearly, he was the guy. But, that means inefficiency.
This year, we have more guys.
Quote from: Stretchdeltsig on December 03, 2016, 06:00:56 PM
I am not sold on Reinhardt. Sam and JJJ seem so much better.
There will be matchups where Reinhardt will be more useful than Hauser. Plus you know Hauser will go through the infamous freshmen wall at some point. I think Hauser and Reinhardt should equally split time at the "4" overall (with some games being 28-12 depending on the matchup).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 03, 2016, 12:01:05 AM
How many did Hank make?
Stationing your best rebounder 25 feet from the basket to display his NBA skills may have been what Henry and his family wanted/demanded but it hurt the team. Nobody who watched us last year could deny that.
I agree with this analysis.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on December 03, 2016, 08:00:48 PM
There will be matchups where Reinhardt will be more useful than Hauser. Plus you know Hauser will go through the infamous freshmen wall at some point. I think Hauser and Reinhardt should equally split time at the "4" overall (with some games being 28-12 depending on the matchup).
Not sold on Reinhardt yet either, but I agree with you. I'll give an example of where he will be more useful. Against UW, if we win, it'll be because Reinhardt shuts down Hayes. We'll need a big game from him on the defensive end; that will be where Reinhardt makes his mark.