Did you notice how much our offense sucked without James today. When he went out we lost our freakin minds. Wild shots, turnovers, it was ridiculous. McNeal/Acker/Cubillan simply can't control the offense like Dominic.
James makes our offense go. So please, stop hating.
To go anywhere in this tourney we will need some big play from James. He is a bit out of sync at the moment but I think he goes off against Stanford 18pts 4R 7A 3 Steals
I have to agree mostly with this post. Acker simply does not have as much control over this teams as james does when he is running it. it seemed like most of the runs UK had were when james was on the bench.
It's true - we do not get good ball movement with James out - we get a lot of off-blanaced shots, rushed shots etc. He definitley runs the floor the best
Quote from: patso on March 20, 2008, 08:38:10 PM
To go anywhere in this tourney we will need some big play from James. He is a bit out of sync at the moment but I think he goes off against Stanford 18pts 4R 7A 3 Steals
This, to me, is the major misconception people have with James. I don't think James needs to "go off" statistically for us to be successful. Just his ability to manage the offense and play solid D makes us better. When he tries too hard to "go off," our offense sputters. When he gets in foul trouble and is on the bench, our offense plays like hyper-active 11 year olds who forgot their ridlin.
Yeah I feel like we pounded them when James was on the floor and would give up ground when he was out. Remeber twice I said 'of course they are making a run now james is out." I don't know if that had more to do with the offence or defence without him though.
Quote from: RawdogDX on March 20, 2008, 09:03:33 PM
Yeah I feel like we pounded them when James was on the floor and would give up ground when he was out. Remeber twice I said 'of course they are making a run now james is out." I don't know if that had more to do with the offence or defence without him though.
most likely a little of each. When he controls the pace and offense, 'Zar and Jerel are able to take over on the offensive end. I'd gladly take 10 pts, 6+ assists, and only 1 or 2 turnovers out of James and say it's a good game for him.
Quote from: patso on March 20, 2008, 08:38:10 PM
To go anywhere in this tourney we will need some big play from James. He is a bit out of sync at the moment but I think he goes off against Stanford 18pts 4R 7A 3 Steals
his late second half three was huge!!!
Quote from: 79Warrior on March 20, 2008, 09:24:30 PM
his late second half three was huge!!!
yes it was......that was the key sequence in the game. That three off the ORB followed by the aggressive move by Bradley for the layup.....a 3 point lead becomes 8.
DJ -- 29 mins, zero turnovers, 15 points, 3 assists. Great performance
There is no doubt that James gets our offense going. His quickness and ability to find open guys really helps us get some good looks. He had a few nice drives today. I wish he would cut his number of jumpers in half and start driving more.
mcneal and acker can run the offense just as well as james, seems like to me when mcneal goes to the bench the offense staggers
Quote from: mcnealfan1 on March 21, 2008, 05:01:54 AM
mcneal and acker can run the offense just as well as james, seems like to me when mcneal goes to the bench the offense staggers
Right, the offense staggers when the 2G who turns the ball over more than any player at his position in the Big East leaves the floor.
(sarcasm off)
James.......15 points, three assists, zero turnovers in an NCAA game going against the first-team All-SEC point guard. Let's give the guy some credit.
Quote from: MUSF on March 20, 2008, 09:01:45 PM
Quote from: patso on March 20, 2008, 08:38:10 PM
To go anywhere in this tourney we will need some big play from James. He is a bit out of sync at the moment but I think he goes off against Stanford 18pts 4R 7A 3 Steals
This, to me, is the major misconception people have with James. I don't think James needs to "go off" statistically for us to be successful. Just his ability to manage the offense and play solid D makes us better. When he tries too hard to "go off," our offense sputters. When he gets in foul trouble and is on the bench, our offense plays like hyper-active 11 year olds who forgot their ridlin.
I couldnt have said it better myself
Quote from: mcnealfan1 on March 21, 2008, 05:01:54 AM
mcneal and acker can run the offense just as well as james, seems like to me when mcneal goes to the bench the offense staggers
You watched a completely different game than I did yesterday.
Quote from: MUSF on March 21, 2008, 07:56:28 AM
Quote from: mcnealfan1 on March 21, 2008, 05:01:54 AM
mcneal and acker can run the offense just as well as james, seems like to me when mcneal goes to the bench the offense staggers
You watched a completely different game than I did yesterday.
Acker did nothing yesterday to warrant saying he can run the offense just as well as James.
Offensively, the last two games have been two of the worst performances James has had all season.
The good news is we won and I expect he'll play a lot better Saturday (and next week).
Don't forget PR Nightmare has been predicting a Sweet 16 since before the pairings even came out. I have faith that we're going to play well Saturday...and I don't think we played particularly well yesterday.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 21, 2008, 08:03:20 AM
Offensively, the last two games have been two of the worst performances James has had all season.
The good news is we won and I expect he'll play a lot better Saturday (and next week).
Don't forget PR Nightmare has been predicting a Sweet 16 since before the pairings even came out. I have faith that we're going to play well Saturday...and I don't think we played particularly well yesterday.
Again, I don't understand why you think this was one of James worst offensive games. I think his contribution offensively has little to do with his ppg and everything to do with his ability to run the offense, get penetration, and distribute the ball. He did those three things well yesterday and we won.
Quote from: MUSF on March 21, 2008, 08:09:16 AM
Again, I don't understand why you think this was one of James worst offensive games. I think his contribution offensively has little to do with his ppg and everything to do with his ability to run the offense, get penetration, and distribute the ball. He did those three things well yesterday and we won.
true....and played 29 mins without a turnover, and in the game's key sequence had 5 straight points.
Quote from: NYWarrior on March 21, 2008, 08:16:44 AM
Quote from: MUSF on March 21, 2008, 08:09:16 AM
Again, I don't understand why you think this was one of James worst offensive games. I think his contribution offensively has little to do with his ppg and everything to do with his ability to run the offense, get penetration, and distribute the ball. He did those three things well yesterday and we won.
true....and played 29 mins without a turnover, and in the game's key sequence had 5 straight points.
Yeah, and we are just talking about his offense. His defense was phenomenal yesterday. James is one of the best on ball defenders I have ever seen at MU. McNeal might be a slightly better all around defender but James is right there.
the only thing DJ did wrong yesterday was trying for the interception late in the game, leaving his guy wide open for a three that cut the lead in half,. Other than that, he was very solid at both ends.
NBA box scores this year have started carrying an NHL-like +/- stat for players, gauging how many more or less points each player's team scored than their opponents while he was on the court.
I can't say this for a fact without re-watching yesterday's game play-by-play and taking notes, but I'd venture to guess DJ was more than a +8 against Kentucky.
Quote from: ecompt on March 21, 2008, 09:00:12 AM
the only thing DJ did wrong yesterday was trying for the interception late in the game, leaving his guy wide open for a three that cut the lead in half,. Other than that, he was very solid at both ends.
He did take one three early in a posession in the second half and I thought, "oh s**t, here we go again," but he went right back to game management mode. I'm almost glad he missed that three, so he wasn't encouraged to keep jacking them up with 20 seconds left on the shot clock.
The team has been talking about playing with a sense of urgency to start the game. I didn't feel like I saw that from James in the beginning of the game. I think he played a great overall game but I liked the 2nd half from him better than the first. I love when James penetrates the defense and somehow gets a pass off to an open man.
As for that open 3 he let his guy have....at least he didn't foul him.
Quote from: muwarrior87 on March 20, 2008, 09:18:32 PM
Quote from: RawdogDX on March 20, 2008, 09:03:33 PM
Yeah I feel like we pounded them when James was on the floor and would give up ground when he was out. Remeber twice I said 'of course they are making a run now james is out." I don't know if that had more to do with the offence or defence without him though.
most likely a little of each. When he controls the pace and offense, 'Zar and Jerel are able to take over on the offensive end. I'd gladly take 10 pts, 6+ assists, and only 1 or 2 turnovers out of James and say it's a good game for him.
Yeah that would be perfect if you just add -9 shots, 3+ rb and 2+ stls.
I think his D is also missed when he's out. Have to agree, when he is in the game, we're a better team on O and D. I think he was in a bit of foul trouble in the first half, and then we were up, so we tried to steal a few minutes without him in the second half. It would help if the McNeal/Cubes/Acker trio could shoot a bit better.
nywarrior u must not have a brain if you think jm turns the ball over more then any 2g in the nation, avg 3.0 on the year sorry, and please stop talking about how good james distributes the ball when he only had 3 assists, i think james is a good player but not a great point gaurd
he's a much better point guard than any other player we have. at least if he is not distributing, he gives the opponent another thing to worry about moreso than Cubillan or Acker do.
wouldnt say that, i think acker is a much better pure point gaurd then james, hes just a little smaller, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Im kind of sick of hearing how jerel is our mvp, it really is James.
While jerel is easily our most consistent player, James controls the game. He creates for everyone, and is unguardable when he uses his quickness.
I do agree that he can be an aweful aweful shooter, but he's our best ball handler, hes a great defender and he's incredibly quick.
We aren't the same team without him on the court.
Anybody who thinks James is the MVP is delusional. James plays the most important position in our offense, but he's far from our most valuable player. When dcmk89 claims he "controls the game," he's really just referring to the position he plays. In regards to his "creating for everybody," that too is inaccurate. Oftentimes, James drives to the basket and either throws it at the rim or is forced to drop it to a teammate when his path is blocked. He's not "distributing" the ball, he's getting rid of it when he's not able to throw it at the basket. This doesn't account for all his assists as I think he's a good passer WHEN HE WANTS TO PASS, but he hasn't been a good passer in several games because he thinks he's a scorer.
In fact, if I had to place our players in order of their "value," I'd say he may be 4th on this list. When you consider our lack of size, Hayward and Matthews are more valuable because they have to guard guys that are usually significantly bigger than they are. So does McNeal...and he adds to that by being our most effective offensive player (lately). Hayward is also our only post presence...and this came in very handy early against Kentucky...despite being shorter than almost every 4 we have played all season.
James is NOT the most valuable player on this team. Acker is not nearly as good as he is, but we'd be fine if he had to run the point for an extended period of time.
"...and please stop talking about how good james distributes the ball when he only had 3 assists, i think james is a good player but not a great point gaurd."
Can we stop with the stat obsession? Distribution is not just measured with assists. It takes two players to get an assist and sometimes it is better to make an extra pass. There is also no statistic that reflects how well he manages the offense. Watch the freakin game. We are much worse without him in the game.
Quote from: mcnealfan1 on March 21, 2008, 05:37:47 PM
wouldnt say that, i think acker is a much better pure point gaurd then james, hes just a little smaller, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Ludacris, ridiculous, assinine....
uhhh....
I'm speechless.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 21, 2008, 06:44:37 PM
Anybody who thinks James is the MVP is delusional. James plays the most important position in our offense, but he's far from our most valuable player. When dcmk89 claims he "controls the game," he's really just referring to the position he plays. In regards to his "creating for everybody," that too is inaccurate. Oftentimes, James drives to the basket and either throws it at the rim or is forced to drop it to a teammate when his path is blocked. He's not "distributing" the ball, he's getting rid of it when he's not able to throw it at the basket. This doesn't account for all his assists as I think he's a good passer WHEN HE WANTS TO PASS, but he hasn't been a good passer in several games because he thinks he's a scorer.
In fact, if I had to place our players in order of their "value," I'd say he may be 4th on this list. When you consider our lack of size, Hayward and Matthews are more valuable because they have to guard guys that are usually significantly bigger than they are. So does McNeal...and he adds to that by being our most effective offensive player (lately). Hayward is also our only post presence...and this came in very handy early against Kentucky...despite being shorter than almost every 4 we have played all season.
James is NOT the most valuable player on this team. Acker is not nearly as good as he is, but we'd be fine if he had to run the point for an extended period of time.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. My point is this, when James is playing well, which I consider managing the offense well, distributing well, getting good penetration, and solid D, we are a very good team. When he does not do those things, as you have pointed out, we are not very good. This makes him the most important player on our team in my opinion. I won't say most valuable because that could mean so many different things but, I do think that when we lose James or he sits out for an extended period of time, it has a bigger impact than losing McNeal/Lazar/Mathews.
Quote from: mcnealfan1 on March 21, 2008, 04:32:03 PM
nywarrior u must not have a brain if you think jm turns the ball over more then any 2g in the nation, avg 3.0 on the year sorry, and please stop talking about how good james distributes the ball when he only had 3 assists, i think james is a good player but not a great point gaurd
Actually I said, "the 2G who turns the ball over more than any player at his position in the
Big East"
McNeal is that player (unless you count Devendorf's 10 games as a full season).
Quote from: MUSF on March 21, 2008, 08:27:50 PM
Can we stop with the stat obsession? Distribution is not just measured with assists. It takes two players to get an assist and sometimes it is better to make an extra pass. There is also no statistic that reflects how well he manages the offense. Watch the freakin game. We are much worse without him in the game.
Great point, there is no 'second assist' in hoops.
It's amazing -- James has 30% of MU's assists and zero turnovers while going head to head against the first team all-SEC point guard - - - and that performance is panned in some quarters. Not to mention his 2:1 A/TO ratio this season. Somehow Acker is better. Wow.
Quote from: NYWarrior on March 21, 2008, 08:54:24 PM
Quote from: mcnealfan1 on March 21, 2008, 04:32:03 PM
nywarrior u must not have a brain if you think jm turns the ball over more then any 2g in the nation, avg 3.0 on the year sorry, and please stop talking about how good james distributes the ball when he only had 3 assists, i think james is a good player but not a great point gaurd
Actually I said, "the 2G who turns the ball over more than any player at his position in the Big East"
McNeal is that player (unless you count Devendorf's 10 games as a full season).
With a name like mcnealfan, I'm sure his opinion is very objective.
Quote from: NYWarrior on March 21, 2008, 08:57:56 PM
Quote from: MUSF on March 21, 2008, 08:27:50 PM
Can we stop with the stat obsession? Distribution is not just measured with assists. It takes two players to get an assist and sometimes it is better to make an extra pass. There is also no statistic that reflects how well he manages the offense. Watch the freakin game. We are much worse without him in the game.
Great point, there is no 'second assist' in hoops.
It's amazing -- James has 30% of MU's assists and zero turnovers while going head to head against the first team all-SEC point guard - - - and that performance is panned in some quarters. Not to mention his 2:1 A/TO ratio this season. Somehow Acker is better. Wow.
The stats bear out that James is better at taking care of the ball. Per Ken Pom, James' TO rate is 16.9% per 100 possessions, Acker's is 24.9%. The fact that James has the second lowest rate on the whole team (Fitz has the lowest)is ridiculous when you consider that he has the ball in his hands more than anyone else when he's on the court.
What this means is that if Acker were to run the offense for a full game instead of James, is that MU would have
5.5 more turnovers per game. (MU averages 68.3 possessions per game, so you multiply .08 x 68.3)
James has worse overall numbers than both Hayward and McNeal. In addition, McNeal has taken his game to an entirely different level in the last six games.
However, James is by far the most important person on the team, and the explanation is actually very simple.
If James doesn't play well, we almost never win.
James has had nine net negative games since the start of conference play. We've lost seven of those. Another net negative game was USF, where the team looked awful. McNeal has had net positive contributions in the following games (Syracuse, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, UL#2) and we still lost.
There's no sense hating on James. If you want Marquette to win tomorrow, you better hope that he has a good game.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 21, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
James has worse overall numbers than both Hayward and McNeal. In addition, McNeal has taken his game to an entirely different level in the last six games.
However, James is by far the most important person on the team, and the explanation is actually very simple.
If James doesn't play well, we almost never win.
James has had nine net negative games since the start of conference play. We've lost seven of those. Another net negative game was USF, where the team looked awful. McNeal has had net positive contributions in the following games (Syracuse, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, UL#2) and we still lost.
There's no sense hating on James. If you want Marquette to win tomorrow, you better hope that he has a good game.
This proves my point exactly. I am not saying that James is the best player on the team or even my favorite player on the team. It seems to me that James has finally, knock on wood, figured out what he has to do to make our team better. Sugar's post is statistical evidence, for those who need stats, that proves what everyone should be able to see when they watch the games.
James plays well = MU very good
James plays poorly = MU very average
That only proves we need a positive contribution from a point guard, not necessarily from James. It only reiterates my contention that he plays the most important position, not that he's the most important (or "valuable") player on our team.
But whatever...lets hope he is LIGHTS OUT today!!
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 21, 2008, 06:44:37 PM
Anybody who thinks James is the MVP is delusional. James plays the most important position in our offense, but he's far from our most valuable player.
James is NOT the most valuable player on this team. Acker is not nearly as good as he is, but we'd be fine if he had to run the point for an extended period of time.
I'd probably call McNeal our best player, but James is our MVP because he is the player we could least afford to do without. I say this because we always give ground when he goes to the bench. Always. You can count on it. I'm glad we have both of them.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 21, 2008, 06:44:37 PM
Anybody who thinks James is the MVP is delusional. James plays the most important position in our offense, but he's far from our most valuable player. When dcmk89 claims he "controls the game," he's really just referring to the position he plays. In regards to his "creating for everybody," that too is inaccurate. Oftentimes, James drives to the basket and either throws it at the rim or is forced to drop it to a teammate when his path is blocked. He's not "distributing" the ball, he's getting rid of it when he's not able to throw it at the basket. This doesn't account for all his assists as I think he's a good passer WHEN HE WANTS TO PASS, but he hasn't been a good passer in several games because he thinks he's a scorer.
In fact, if I had to place our players in order of their "value," I'd say he may be 4th on this list. When you consider our lack of size, Hayward and Matthews are more valuable because they have to guard guys that are usually significantly bigger than they are. So does McNeal...and he adds to that by being our most effective offensive player (lately). Hayward is also our only post presence...and this came in very handy early against Kentucky...despite being shorter than almost every 4 we have played all season.
James is NOT the most valuable player on this team. Acker is not nearly as good as he is, but we'd be fine if he had to run the point for an extended period of time.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you just dont know basketball.
I am not saying he's our best player, but he has the biggest impact when he's NOT on the floor.
We aren't the same team without him, and if you haven't noticed this you haven't been watching any games this year.
No, i'm not referring to "the position he plays." When acker, cubillan, or sometimes Mcneal run the point, we DONT work. Our offense DOESN'T work.
We saw this in the Stanford game. Sure, James was 4-16 shooting, but he set the tone of the offense. Most of Mcneal's 30 came from James driving and creating.
Sure, some games he doesn't get the assists (but he had 10 v. stanford), but assists don't tally what James creates for us. He makes defenses cave in on him, and opens the floor for others to either shoot or have lanes to drive.
Jerel is out best player.
James is our MVP.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 21, 2008, 06:44:37 PM
Anybody who thinks James is the MVP is delusional. James plays the most important position in our offense, but he's far from our most valuable player. When dcmk89 claims he "controls the game," he's really just referring to the position he plays. In regards to his "creating for everybody," that too is inaccurate. Oftentimes, James drives to the basket and either throws it at the rim or is forced to drop it to a teammate when his path is blocked. He's not "distributing" the ball, he's getting rid of it when he's not able to throw it at the basket. This doesn't account for all his assists as I think he's a good passer WHEN HE WANTS TO PASS, but he hasn't been a good passer in several games because he thinks he's a scorer.
In fact, if I had to place our players in order of their "value," I'd say he may be 4th on this list. When you consider our lack of size, Hayward and Matthews are more valuable because they have to guard guys that are usually significantly bigger than they are. So does McNeal...and he adds to that by being our most effective offensive player (lately). Hayward is also our only post presence...and this came in very handy early against Kentucky...despite being shorter than almost every 4 we have played all season.
James is NOT the most valuable player on this team. Acker is not nearly as good as he is, but we'd be fine if he had to run the point for an extended period of time.
But then why is it that we are terrible when he's not in the game? We are worse on offence and defence. We can't get an open shot when he's not on the floor. I don't think he's that amazing and I hate to just blame it on acker but I don't get worried when mcneil cuecks out. When lazar takes a briether I don't think to myself "Oh crap here they come." when matthews picks up his third early in the 2nd half I'm not that concerend. But we look bad when james is on the bench. I'm sure sugar has some sort of offenesive eff stat for the team with or without him but I'm amazed you don't see it this way, i feel like it's obvious.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 21, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
James has worse overall numbers than both Hayward and McNeal. In addition, McNeal has taken his game to an entirely different level in the last six games.
However, James is by far the most important person on the team, and the explanation is actually very simple.
If James doesn't play well, we almost never win.
James has had nine net negative games since the start of conference play. We've lost seven of those. Another net negative game was USF, where the team looked awful. McNeal has had net positive contributions in the following games (Syracuse, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, UL#2) and we still lost.
There's no sense hating on James. If you want Marquette to win tomorrow, you better hope that he has a good game.
Just curious, Henry...I'm sure the above bold statement holds true for the season, but what about the last couple of games (last 10 games, BE tourney, and NCAA tourney)?
if people hit OPEN SHOTS dj would have had 15+assists vs stanford...but there were times in the stanford game i thought jm's will power was taller than the 14 ft of lopez's..i was like... dwade style???..NO..i dont see how we can lose either or call 1 a bigger asset than the other at this point.. i have great 8/ final 4 hopes for next yr..if we lose dj or jm it wouldnt b realistic hope anymore..
Quote from: dcmk89 on March 23, 2008, 01:04:45 PM
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on March 21, 2008, 06:44:37 PM
Anybody who thinks James is the MVP is delusional. James plays the most important position in our offense, but he's far from our most valuable player. When dcmk89 claims he "controls the game," he's really just referring to the position he plays. In regards to his "creating for everybody," that too is inaccurate. Oftentimes, James drives to the basket and either throws it at the rim or is forced to drop it to a teammate when his path is blocked. He's not "distributing" the ball, he's getting rid of it when he's not able to throw it at the basket. This doesn't account for all his assists as I think he's a good passer WHEN HE WANTS TO PASS, but he hasn't been a good passer in several games because he thinks he's a scorer.
In fact, if I had to place our players in order of their "value," I'd say he may be 4th on this list. When you consider our lack of size, Hayward and Matthews are more valuable because they have to guard guys that are usually significantly bigger than they are. So does McNeal...and he adds to that by being our most effective offensive player (lately). Hayward is also our only post presence...and this came in very handy early against Kentucky...despite being shorter than almost every 4 we have played all season.
James is NOT the most valuable player on this team. Acker is not nearly as good as he is, but we'd be fine if he had to run the point for an extended period of time.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you just dont know basketball.
I am not saying he's our best player, but he has the biggest impact when he's NOT on the floor.
We aren't the same team without him, and if you haven't noticed this you haven't been watching any games this year.
No, i'm not referring to "the position he plays." When acker, cubillan, or sometimes Mcneal run the point, we DONT work. Our offense DOESN'T work.
We saw this in the Stanford game. Sure, James was 4-16 shooting, but he set the tone of the offense. Most of Mcneal's 30 came from James driving and creating.
Sure, some games he doesn't get the assists (but he had 10 v. stanford), but assists don't tally what James creates for us. He makes defenses cave in on him, and opens the floor for others to either shoot or have lanes to drive.
Jerel is out best player.
James is our MVP.
Hmmmm. What I noticed is that our "MVP" shot 24 percent from the field in the post season. 24 percent! Do you realize how bad that is? You could chalk up one game as an off night. Two maybe. But over three games he shot 10 out of 41. That's putrid. And you want get an "MVP" chant started?
What is the criteria for judging value? In my world it's somebody who performs at a consistently high level. Consistent is the last word anybody would use to describe James' play, which is why calling him our "MVP" is absolutely absurd.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on March 23, 2008, 11:57:33 PM
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 21, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
If James doesn't play well, we almost never win.
Just curious, Henry...I'm sure the above bold statement holds true for the season, but what about the last couple of games (last 10 games, BE tourney, and NCAA tourney)?
Over the last 12 games, we lost four times (GTown, Syracuse, Pitt-BET, Stanford).
James was net negative in every game we lost (including Stanford) and he was net positive in every game we won. Specific results are Georgetown (-1.4), Syracuse (-6.1), Pittsburgh (-2.3), and Stanford (-0.3).
McNeal was net positive in every single game over the last 12 games. He really did take his performance to the next level at the end of the season.
Looking at the entire season, there are only three exceptions to the "James plays well" rule.
@ND - James is net positive, McNeal is net negative = We lose
@UC - James is net negative, McNeal is net positive = We win
USF - James and McNeal are both net negative = We win (but look very bad)
In every other loss or win, James' performance was correlated with the team's result.
(maybe if I get bored, I'll run a regression on individual players' net points and the team net points to get a scientific answer. That would definitely prove which player's performance has the greatest impact on our team results.)He wasn't our best player this year, but he was our most important player.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 24, 2008, 10:07:15 AM
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on March 23, 2008, 11:57:33 PM
Quote from: Henry Sugar on March 21, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
If James doesn't play well, we almost never win.
Just curious, Henry...I'm sure the above bold statement holds true for the season, but what about the last couple of games (last 10 games, BE tourney, and NCAA tourney)?
Over the last 12 games, we lost four times (GTown, Syracuse, Pitt-BET, Stanford).
James was net negative in every game we lost (including Stanford) and he was net positive in every game we won. Specific results are Georgetown (-1.4), Syracuse (-6.1), Pittsburgh (-2.3), and Stanford (-0.3).
McNeal was net positive in every single game over the last 12 games. He really did take his performance to the next level at the end of the season.
Looking at the entire season, there are only three exceptions to the "James plays well" rule.
@ND - James is net positive, McNeal is net negative = We lose
@UC - James is net negative, McNeal is net positive = We win
USF - James and McNeal are both net negative = We win (but look very bad)
In every other loss or win, James' performance was correlated with the team's result. (maybe if I get bored, I run a regression on individual players' net points and the team net points to get a scientific answer. That would definitely prove which player's performance has the greatest impact on our team results.)
He wasn't our best player this year, but he was our most important player.
Henry, that's the kind of stuff I was looking for!!! Thanks!
So, to settle it...
James and McNeal...
CO-MVPs!!!
James is most valuable for his importance, McNeal most outstanding for his play...
James=MVP
McNeal=MOP
"Hmmmm. What I noticed is that our "MVP" shot 24 percent from the field in the post season. 24 percent! Do you realize how bad that is? You could chalk up one game as an off night. Two maybe. But over three games he shot 10 out of 41. That's putrid. And you want get an "MVP" chant started?
What is the criteria for judging value? In my world it's somebody who performs at a consistently high level. Consistent is the last word anybody would use to describe James' play, which is why calling him our "MVP" is absolutely absurd."
Your point is valid when you simply focus on scoring. Is James a consistent scorer? Absolutely not. As many, including myself, have said repeatedly, it is not just about scoring and stats with James.
To the point of "most valuable," I say who really cares. James and McNeal are both great. I personally think that it is more important that James plays well and HS's statistical analysis appears to validate that thought.
There are many who have suggested on this board that we may be better off without James which I think is absolutely ridiculous. That was the basis for the original post, not to suggest that James is better than McNeal