I got this idea from a post by SilverWarrior over on the other board. Many have asserted that we have the talent to be one of the better teams in the Big East. Where would you rank each of our players compared to the other Big East players by position?
My ranks (based just on this season's performances):
PG:
1. Mo Watson Jr. - Creighton
2. Jalen Brunson - Villanova
3. Edmond Sumner - Xavier
4. Marcus LoVett Jr. - St. John's
5. Tyler Lewis - Butler
6. Kyron Cartwright - Providence
7. Markus Howard - Marquette
8. Billy Garrett Jr. - Depaul
9. Madison Jones - Seton Hall
10. Jagan Mosley - Georgetown
SG:
1. Josh Hart - Villanova
2. Rodney Pryor - Georgetown
3. Khadeen Carrington - Seton Hall
4. Khyri Thomas - Creighton
5. JP Macura - Xavier
6. Haanif Cheatham - Marquette
7. Kamar Baldwin - Butler
8. Jalen Lindsday - Providence
9. Federico Mussini - St. John's
10. Brandon Cyrus - Depaul
SF:
1. Marcus Foster - Creighton
2. Mikal Briges - Villanova
3. L.J. Peak - Georgetown
4. Shamorie Ponds - St. John's
5. Kelan Martin - Butler
6. Jajuan Johnson - Marquette
7. Eli Cain - Depaul
8. Desi Rodriguez - Seton Hall
9. Malcolm Bernard - Xavier
10. Ryan Fazekas - Providence
PF:
1. Rodney Bullock - Providence
2. Trevonn Bluiett - Xavier
3. Andrew Chrabascz - Butler
4. Kris Jenkins - Villanova
5. Sam Hauser - Marquette
6. Cole Huff - Creighton
7. Bashir Ahmed - St. John's
8. Ish Sanogo - Seton Hall
9. Isaac Copeland - Georgetown
10. Joe Hanel - Depaul
C:
1. Justin Patton - Creighton
2. Angel Delgado - Seton Hall
3. Luke Fischer - Marquette
4. Emmit Holt - Providence
5. Rashid Gaston - Xavier
6. Tyler Wideman - Butler
7. Darryl Reynolds - Villanova
8. Bradley Hayes - Georgetown
9. Tre'Darius McCallum - Depaul
10. Kassoum Yakwe - St. John's
Bench:
1. Reinhardt/Carter/Wilson/Rowsey/Heldt - Marquette
2. Campbell/Derrickson/Govan/Agau/Mulmore - Georgetown
3. Zierden/Hegner/Krampelj/Harrell Jr/Clement -Creighton
4. Booth/DiVincenzo/Paschall - Villanova
5. Woodson/McDermott/Savage/Fowler - Butler
6. Goodin/O'Mara/Gates/Jones - Xavier
7. Jackson/Diallo/Young/Edwards/White - Providence
8. Powell/Nzei/Singh - Seton Hall
9. Harrison-Docks/Wood/Cook/Curington/Eichelberger/Gage -Depaul
10. Ellison/Ownes/Freudenberg/Alibegovic - St. John's
Like many have pointed out, we lack a go to player. We have talent at every position. I don't think any of our players are bottom three of their individual positions, but Luke is the only one I see in the top 3. I do think we have the best bench in the conference but that won't win you that many games. This team could have sorely used an alpha dog grad transfer. I think Wojo might have thought Reinhardt could have become that but that certainly hasn't panned out.
Solid post man. I agree our bench is the best in the conference. I also sadly agree we are not tough enough and are likely 4-5 in conference this season.
Quote from: fjm on December 12, 2016, 02:13:50 PMSolid post man. I agree our bench is the best in the conference. I also sadly agree we are not tough enough and are likely 4-5 in conference this season.
Finishing 4th or 5th would outperform virtually every preseason prediction (including the Big East coaches) and likely be good for an NCAA bid. This team is far from perfect, but getting back to the postseason would be a big step in the right direction.
Quote from: Marcus92 on December 12, 2016, 02:40:40 PM
Finishing 4th or 5th would outperform virtually every preseason prediction (including the Big East coaches) and likely be good for an NCAA bid. This team is far from perfect, but getting back to the postseason would be a big step in the right direction.
True. We were picked 7. I meant that post to be in excitement that we would get 4-5. Rereading my post, I sound disappointed. Ha.
I think it goes
1) nova
2) creighton
3) butler
4) Xavier
5) MU
6-10) not us.
Nice post TAMU Eagle. Although, I'm not sure I would put Hauser that high as a power forward - he lives out at the 3 point line too much for a true power forward and he is only a freshman and will have a lot of rough games in Big East play - just look at the UW game.
So by your rankings (averaging the 5 positions + the bench) here's how the Big East looks heading into conference play:
1. Creighton 15 (2.67 avg)
2. Villanova 20 (3.33)
3. Marquette 28 (4.67)
4. Xavier 30 (5.0)
5. Butler 31 (5.16)
6. GTown 34 (5.67)
7. Providence36 (6.0)
8. Seton Hall 38 (6.33)
9. St Johns 44 (7.33)
10. DePaul 53 (8.84)
I realize the variances between players can be more or less than their positions would indicate so this isn't exact, but if out talent is anywhere near as good as you think we should be dancing in March!
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 13, 2016, 10:45:46 AM
So by your rankings (averaging the 5 positions + the bench) here's how the Big East looks heading into conference play:
1. Creighton 15 (2.67 avg)
2. Villanova 20 (3.33)
3. Marquette 28 (4.67)
4. Xavier 30 (5.0)
5. Butler 31 (5.16)
6. GTown 34 (5.67)
7. Providence36 (6.0)
8. Seton Hall 38 (6.33)
9. St Johns 44 (7.33)
10. DePaul 53 (8.84)
I realize the variances between players can be more or less than their positions would indicate so this isn't exact, but if out talent is anywhere near as good as you think we should be dancing in March!
Well that's a horribly misleading conclusion.
You just equated bench talent to starting 5.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 12, 2016, 02:01:30 PM
I got this idea from a post by SilverWarrior over on the other board. Many have asserted that we have the talent to be one of the better teams in the Big East. Where would you rank each of our players compared to the other Big East players by position?
My ranks (based just on this season's performances):
PG:
1. Mo Watson Jr. - Creighton
2. Jalen Brunson - Villanova
3. Edmond Sumner - Xavier
4. Marcus LoVett Jr. - St. John's
5. Tyler Lewis - Butler
6. Kyron Cartwright - Providence
7. Markus Howard - Marquette
8. Billy Garrett Jr. - Depaul
9. Madison Jones - Seton Hall
10. Jagan Mosley - Georgetown
SG:
1. Josh Hart - Villanova
2. Rodney Pryor - Georgetown
3. Khadeen Carrington - Seton Hall
4. Khyri Thomas - Creighton
5. JP Macura - Xavier
6. Haanif Cheatham - Marquette
7. Kamar Baldwin - Butler
8. Jalen Lindsday - Providence
9. Federico Mussini - St. John's
10. Brandon Cyrus - Depaul
SF:
1. Marcus Foster - Creighton
2. Mikal Briges - Villanova
3. L.J. Peak - Georgetown
4. Shamorie Ponds - St. John's
5. Kelan Martin - Butler
6. Jajuan Johnson - Marquette
7. Eli Cain - Depaul
8. Desi Rodriguez - Seton Hall
9. Malcolm Bernard - Xavier
10. Ryan Fazekas - Providence
PF:
1. Rodney Bullock - Providence
2. Trevonn Bluiett - Xavier
3. Andrew Chrabascz - Butler
4. Kris Jenkins - Villanova
5. Sam Hauser - Marquette
6. Cole Huff - Creighton
7. Bashir Ahmed - St. John's
8. Ish Sanogo - Seton Hall
9. Isaac Copeland - Georgetown
10. Joe Hanel - Depaul
C:
1. Justin Patton - Creighton
2. Angel Delgado - Seton Hall
3. Luke Fischer - Marquette
4. Emmit Holt - Providence
5. Rashid Gaston - Xavier
6. Tyler Wideman - Butler
7. Darryl Reynolds - Villanova
8. Bradley Hayes - Georgetown
9. Tre'Darius McCallum - Depaul
10. Kassoum Yakwe - St. John's
Bench:
1. Reinhardt/Carter/Wilson/Rowsey/Heldt - Marquette
2. Campbell/Derrickson/Govan/Agau/Mulmore - Georgetown
3. Zierden/Hegner/Krampelj/Harrell Jr/Clement -Creighton
4. Booth/DiVincenzo/Paschall - Villanova
5. Woodson/McDermott/Savage/Fowler - Butler
6. Goodin/O'Mara/Gates/Jones - Xavier
7. Jackson/Diallo/Young/Edwards/White - Providence
8. Powell/Nzei/Singh - Seton Hall
9. Harrison-Docks/Wood/Cook/Curington/Eichelberger/Gage -Depaul
10. Ellison/Ownes/Freudenberg/Alibegovic - St. John's
Not sure that it's fair or not, but given our situation at PG, it's really more of a collective than one player....more so it seems than any other team in the BE
Quote from: jesmu84 on December 13, 2016, 11:42:35 AM
Well that's a horribly misleading conclusion.
You just equated bench talent to starting 5.
I think it a misleading conclusion, but for the reasons Lenny pointed out when he posted it (the variances between players can be more or less than their positions would indicate so this isn't exact"), but the bench as a group plays MORE than any individual starter so equating bench talent to starting 5 isn't wrong unless your point was he should have counted it more.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 13, 2016, 10:45:46 AM
So by your rankings (averaging the 5 positions + the bench) here's how the Big East looks heading into conference play:
1. Creighton 15 (2.67 avg)
2. Villanova 20 (3.33)
3. Marquette 28 (4.67)
4. Xavier 30 (5.0)
5. Butler 31 (5.16)
6. GTown 34 (5.67)
7. Providence36 (6.0)
8. Seton Hall 38 (6.33)
9. St Johns 44 (7.33)
10. DePaul 53 (8.84)
I realize the variances between players can be more or less than their positions would indicate so this isn't exact, but if out talent is anywhere near as good as you think we should be dancing in March!
Like you said, variances between positions vary. I think for the most part, the middle of the pack players (i.e. everyone on Marquette) are closer together while the players at the top tend be further away. For example, I think the distance between Josh Hart at SG #1 and Rodney Pryor at SG #2 is bigger than the difference between Rodney Pryor at SG #2 and JP Macura at SG #5. I also think that some positions are more valuable than others. I would ranked the PG position (our worst) as most important and the bench (our best) as least important. I'd also be lying if I said that these weren't based on the brief moments that I have watched all these players this season and their stats (which favor offensive players).
I personally see us as the 5th best team so far, behind Creighton, Nova, Butler, and X. But I think the distance between us and #4 is greater than the distance between us and #8. Providence, Georgetown, Hall, and MU all in a cluster in the middle IMHO.
Quote from: Norm on December 13, 2016, 09:26:35 AM
Nice post TAMU Eagle. Although, I'm not sure I would put Hauser that high as a power forward - he lives out at the 3 point line too much for a true power forward and he is only a freshman and will have a lot of rough games in Big East play - just look at the UW game.
I was surprised by where I put him too. I wasn't really judging players by how good they were at that position, but more as a player overall. For example, Shamorie Ponds is not a SF. But with St. John's starting 6"0 LoVett, 6"1 Ponds, and 6"2 Mussini, one of them had to go to that position. PF is a surprisingly weak position across the Big East. I'd love to see your take on the rankings.
I'd love to see other people's takes if they've got them.
Depends what you mean by "performances"
For PG... You've got Howard behind some I might not...
MH: 125.6 ORtg, 20.8% usage, 17.4% TO%
Player A: 101.6, 21.8%, 24.2%
Player B: 104.2, 23.3%, 20.1%
<shrug>
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 13, 2016, 02:34:51 PM
Depends what you mean by "performances"
For PG... You've got Howard behind some I might not...
MH: 125.6 ORtg, 20.8% usage, 17.4% TO%
Player A: 101.6, 21.8%, 24.2%
Player B: 104.2, 23.3%, 20.1%
<shrug>
There's more to the PG position than that, though.
MH: 17.0% assist rate, 48.8% minutes played
Player A: 45.0% assist rate, 82.5% minutes played
Player B: 24.4% assist rate, 84.7% minutes played
There are other stats that favor MH, A, or B, but right now, both A & B contribute more minutes and are better providers at the point.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 13, 2016, 02:44:39 PM
There's more to the PG position than that, though.
MH: 17.0% assist rate, 48.8% minutes played
Player A: 45.0% assist rate, 82.5% minutes played
Player B: 24.4% assist rate, 84.7% minutes played
There are other stats that favor MH, A, or B, but right now, both A & B contribute more minutes and are better providers at the point.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 13, 2016, 02:44:39 PM
There's more to the PG position than that, though.
MH: 17.0% assist rate, 48.8% minutes played
Player A: 45.0% assist rate, 82.5% minutes played
Player B: 24.4% assist rate, 84.7% minutes played
There are other stats that favor MH, A, or B, but right now, both A & B contribute more minutes and are better providers at the point.
Minutes: if playing more automatically makes you a better player, then OK. If not....
Assists: if having a high assist rate far outweighs an Ortg (and TO%), then OK. #2 Brunson's asst us low compared to others... is this an issue for you?
MU's offense works very well despite its middle of the road assist rate. It's a style.
We can pick & choose what we prefer all day and pretend that equals a "great performance", but then it becomes nothing more than a sports show blabbing about nothing
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 13, 2016, 03:03:50 PM
Minutes: if playing more automatically makes you a better player, then OK. If not....
Assists: if having a high assist rate far outweighs an Ortg (and TO%), then OK. #2 Brunson's asst us low compared to others... is this an issue for you?
MU's offense works very well despite its middle of the road assist rate. It's a style.
We can pick & choose what we prefer all day and pretend that equals a "great performance", but then it becomes nothing more than a sports show blabbing about nothing
I'm not picking any over the other, but I think it's perfectly fair to say you are only painting the part of the picture you want to paint. I love Howard. I think he has great upside and will be a great player for us the next four years.
That said, it's easier to impact a game when you are on the court, and whether by virtue of better competition or still needing to develop, he's not there yet. And call me traditional, but I like having a floor general that distributes. It doesn't have to be at the point, but we don't really have that type of guy anywhere on the court when Traci's not out there.
Markus Howard has great potential. I have no doubt I'll love watching his career, and I've no doubt the rest of the board appreciates what he brings to the table. That doesn't mean you have to make him out to be St. John's Achiuwa every time someone mentions him ;)
Quote from: jesmu84 on December 13, 2016, 11:42:35 AM
Well that's a horribly misleading conclusion.
You just equated bench talent to starting 5.
No. I just equated the entire bench production to the value of one (1) position in the starting five. If anything, maybe the bench deserves extra weight.
"Which player has performed better offensively? And by offensively I don't care about what they've contributed on offense overall -- I mean weighted toward assists because I personally like the idea of a pass first point guard. So, if he doesn't shoot as well as another guy & turns it over more, that's OK. Just as along as we have more assists on the stat sheet!"
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 13, 2016, 04:11:02 PM
"Which player has performed better offensively? And by offensively I don't care about what they've contributed on offense overall -- I mean weighted toward assists because I personally like the idea of a pass first point guard. So, if he doesn't shoot as well as another guy & turns it over more, that's OK. Just as along as we have more assists on the stat sheet!"
Way to try twisting my words into something I didn't say. You deliberately chose to misrepresent my position. Give it a rest. ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 13, 2016, 12:07:49 PM
I think it a misleading conclusion, but for the reasons Lenny pointed out when he posted it (the variances between players can be more or less than their positions would indicate so this isn't exact"), but the bench as a group plays MORE than any individual starter so equating bench talent to starting 5 isn't wrong unless your point was he should have counted it more.
Warrior - didn't see this before I responded to jesmu. You said it better than me - thanks!
Minutes per game is important to lend context to O rating because players tend to regress to the mean over time.
Trust me, I took math in high school.
Quote from: Lazar's Headband on December 14, 2016, 08:36:17 AM
Minutes per game is important to lend context to O rating because players tend to regress to the mean over time.
Trust me, I took math in high school.
If you couldn't dunk then it does not mean a thing
Quote from: Newsdrms on December 14, 2016, 09:54:42 AM
If you couldn't dunk then it does not mean a thing
I can dunk anything. Krispy Kreme, Dunkin Donuts, Greenbush Bakery, you name it.
Quote from: Lazar's Headband on December 14, 2016, 08:36:17 AM
Minutes per game is important to lend context to O rating because players tend to regress to the mean over time.
Trust me, I took math in high school.
No.
You believe a guy who plays 25 mins a game should be expected to have a lower ORtg than a guy playing 20 per game because of him "regressing to the mean"?
No.
If you want to make an argument that the guy who plays 25 may become tired because of team style... we'll probably still disagree, but at least that makes a little sense
Now, if you're talking about a guy who gets 4 minutes a game, sure you may have something.
But not when talking about the players in this topic.