MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown on January 04, 2012, 09:20:52 PM
-
Okay so MU is a small team, and has been so since I arrived as a freshman on campus (2003). I don't understand how the lack of true bigs on our roster year in and year out doesn't solve itself with halfway-competent recruiting.
If I'm a 7ft top prospect out of high school, I'd be interested in a place where I can likely play as a freshman, and where I have a supporting cast of guards and wings. I'd be the missing piece to a team that overachieves without size.
I guess my question is: is there anything about MU itself that's keeping us from landing quality bigs? TC seems to have been able to get them at IU, so why not here? Why just that position?
-
We have all avenues open to us (JUCO, prep) and not hard admissions for b-ball. With a recruiter's rep Buzz should be able to land a couple M Jax or (hopefully) better types in a 2-3 year span.
-
About a year ago I floated the idea of pursuing Colton Iverson when he announced he was transferring and everyone disagreed. I get that he would not be eligible this year and would take up a scholarship but I would feel a lot better if knew that we had a 6'10, 260 player with Big 10 experience coming in next year.
-
I generally agree with the concern about bigs....but, honestly, tonight...I don't think that was our problem. I can't blame the meltdown as a lack of bigs...Gardner was terrific and we seemed to hit the boards pretty hard overall. A big would not have been guarding the perimeter 3 which is what absolutely killed us....maybe a big helps seal up the interior a bit and our guards would be freer to stay outside, but, I just did not find myself watching this particular game and thinking if we had another big body we would not be blowing this so badly.
overall, though, I agree it is perplexing on this deficiency in our roster year after year.
-
Fire buzz and hire sixstring, he cracked the caper!
So so refreshing to hear a new argument on what MU is not doing to win.
Thanks!
-
Fire buzz and hire sixstring, he cracked the caper!
So so refreshing to hear a new argument on what MU is not doing to win.
Thanks!
confused by that response; not at all what i posted. Tell us some more about how law of averages plays into this?
-
confused by that response; not at all what i posted. Tell us some more about how law of averages plays into this?
How about the law of supply? Familiar with that one chief?
Look up how many skilled players there are above 6'9" coming out of high school every year and you have your answer on why MU has had to rely on the Barros, Otules, and the Mbaos of the world. And yet, year in and year out we have team inside or near the top 25 in the country.
-
How about the law of supply? Familiar with that one chief?
Look up how many skilled players there are above 6'9" coming out of high school every year and you have your answer on why MU has had to rely on the Barros, Otules, and the Mbaos of the world. And yet, year in and year out we have team inside or near the top 25 in the country.
You've already criminally misapplied the law of averages tonight, and though not an econ major, I believe the term is law of supply and demand. As far as that law goes, I think there's enough of a supply that a regular NCAA team that plays in a high profile conference and is on national TV as often as we are should be able to score a 6-9 non-project at least once a decade. Cincinnati always has a few of those guys, as do most of the Big East teams we face. Crean had all kinds of trouble getting those kinds of players and now it appears that Buzz is,too. It is odd to many that we don't seem to get a representative share of those kind of guys. It really is curious when you think about it. Your point that bringing this up again and again is beating a dead horse is quite valid, though.
-
I think what reinko was trying to say is that there are less than 25 big men that come out of high school, so MU shouldn't expect one?
Is that right chief? ?-( ;)
-
I would like to say that I'm loving the amount of times chief has been used on the board tonight.
-
How about the law of supply? Familiar with that one chief?
Look up how many skilled players there are above 6'9" coming out of high school every year and you have your answer on why MU has had to rely on the Barros, Otules, and the Mbaos of the world. And yet, year in and year out we have team inside or near the top 25 in the country.
I think what reinko was trying to say is that there are less than 25 big men that come out of high school, so MU
Is that right chief? ?-( ;)
I am so tired of seeing this ridiculous myth posted on this board year after year. So I did a quick check of two leagues, Missouri Valley and the Big East. Let,s look at some facts, Miss. Valley each team averages 4.2 players 6-8 or taller with one team with 7 players. The Big East averages 4.5 players 6-8 or taller with Gtown with 8. On the other hand, MU has only 2 players 6-8 or taller.
-
Why could'nt we get that 7 footer that played for UWGB? Decent player, no?
-
Your point that bringing this up again and again is beating a dead horse is quite valid, though.
To clarify - really not interested in making this the millionth forum to complain about the situation... just haven't heard any theories at all as to why MU seems to stand out (regardless who our coach is) in not landing that type of player. Wouldn't we be one of the more attractive schools for a star center type?
-
I would like to say that I'm loving the amount of times chief has been used on the board tonight.
excellent observation chief.
"MUScoop: too many chiefs, not enough injins."
-
excellent observation chief.
"MUScoop: too many chiefs, not enough injins."
I always figured 4ever and willie were the only Natives on the board.
-
I am so tired of seeing this ridiculous myth posted on this board year after year. So I did a quick check of two leagues, Missouri Valley and the Big East. Let,s look at some facts, Miss. Valley each team averages 4.2 players 6-8 or taller with one team with 7 players. The Big East averages 4.5 players 6-8 or taller with Gtown with 8. On the other hand, MU has only 2 players 6-8 or taller.
Next season, MU should have four that are 6'8" or taller...with JWilson being the 0.5 to get MU to 4.5 players.
-
You've already criminally misapplied the law of averages tonight, and though not an econ major, I believe the term is law of supply and demand. As far as that law goes, I think there's enough of a supply that a regular NCAA team that plays in a high profile conference and is on national TV as often as we are should be able to score a 6-9 non-project at least once a decade. Cincinnati always has a few of those guys, as do most of the Big East teams we face. Crean had all kinds of trouble getting those kinds of players and now it appears that Buzz is,too. It is odd to many that we don't seem to get a representative share of those kind of guys. It really is curious when you think about it. Your point that bringing this up again and again is beating a dead horse is quite valid, though.
Well, actually they are not so much "laws" as they are merely "suggestions"..........
-
I generally agree with the concern about bigs....but, honestly, tonight...I don't think that was our problem. I can't blame the meltdown as a lack of bigs...Gardner was terrific and we seemed to hit the boards pretty hard overall. A big would not have been guarding the perimeter 3 which is what absolutely killed us....maybe a big helps seal up the interior a bit and our guards would be freer to stay outside, but, I just did not find myself watching this particular game and thinking if we had another big body we would not be blowing this so badly.
overall, though, I agree it is perplexing on this deficiency in our roster year after year.
I agree with you mostly, but do believe we have to double down so hard without a big that one player has to be open - and a team with a couple of great 3-pointer shooters makes sure it's a guy on the perimeter. When Otule was guarding the rim, we were much freer to stay manned up.
still, I thought Crowder did the right thing at the end to try to channel Sims into DJO for the charge - maybe we get that call at home or on a neutral court. Overall it was a great showing - home court is worth 4 and we lost by 3 to a top 10 team. I know people don't like my moral victories - but play like that again in March against them and we easily win at the Bradley Center.
-
This point was stated many times. We need a quality point guard and good big. Wouldn't hurt to have some bigger wings that can shoot. Still don't like the inner city playground style of slash and draw a foul. We don't have a Michael Jordan.
-
I think there is a big difference between Syracuse and MU. Bigs want to play for Syracuse and I suspect it is because they play zone. MU has trouble recruiting bigmen and I suspect they avoid MU, because they do not want to be running all over the court.
-
I think there is a big difference between Syracuse and MU. Bigs want to play for Syracuse and I suspect it is because they play zone. MU has trouble recruiting bigmen and I suspect they avoid MU, because they do not want to be running all over the court.
There's also simple history. Boeheim can point to Derrick Coleman, Etan Thomas, John Wallace, Hakim Warrick, and Donte Green as 4s and 5s (at least at the collegiate level) that he placed in the NBA. Buzz can point at...erm...Jim McIlvaine, if he's fortunate enough to have Jim and Homer in the building at the time prepping for a broadcast.
-
I think there is a big difference between Syracuse and MU. Bigs want to play for Syracuse and I suspect it is because they play zone. MU has trouble recruiting bigmen and I suspect they avoid MU, because they do not want to be running all over the court.
Hmmm...never thought of that. Interesting. You might have something there.
Also, I assume there is fierce competition for the limited supply of 4-5 star bigs, and best of them want to go to the elite schools. We used to be one of those, but we aren't anymore and haven't been for decades since you know who was our coach.
Kinda like what's happened to Nebraska football in terms of recruiting overall talent. Frank Solich was very successful...until Tom Osborne's recruits exhausted their eligibility. They've been irrelevant nationally ever since.
-
I think there is a big difference between Syracuse and MU. Bigs want to play for Syracuse and I suspect it is because they play zone. MU has trouble recruiting bigmen and I suspect they avoid MU, because they do not want to be running all over the court.
Nonsense! Kentucky, NC, Memphis all run and all get bigs all the time. Even further nonsense is this notion that there are not many good bigs. Quick look at ESPN100 for 2011 shows 35 players 6-8 and taller. A list of the teams include New Mexico St., Charleston, Houston, BC, LSU, Arkansas, George Mason, Va Tech, and others. We can't compete with these teams? Ridiculous! We don't get bigs because Buzz wants "switchables". There are plenty of good bigs, hell every team we play has them!
-
I always figured 4ever and willie were the only Natives on the board.
Right, kemosabe.
-
1. With Otule I think we win that game. No way Georgetown shoots 84% on 2 point attempts if C.O. is there.
2. We will smoke them on Senior Day.
3. We need to offer this guy. They are already calling him the Otule of India. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=AvknOlKuBjw
-
Right, kemosabe.
I thought you were from the Ukraine. or is that just the missus?
-
Size has been our nemesis for 8 years or more. Its really frustrating with all the good players we have not to have a 7 footer.
Even Green Bay has one. How many top twenty teams don't have a center or 2? I just don't understand why that isn't the
number 1 prority in recruiting?
-
agree..., needum aircraft carrier, and how.
-
Size has been our nemesis for 8 years or more. Its really frustrating with all the good players we have not to have a 7 footer.
Even Green Bay has one. How many top twenty teams don't have a center or 2? I just don't understand why that isn't the
number 1 prority in recruiting?
We have one. He's on the bench with an undisclosed injury. Okay...6'11", but Otule would make a huge difference right now. We'd have 2 less losses with him, that's for sure.
-
...what mean "we", paleface?
-
We have one. He's on the bench with an undisclosed injury. Okay...6'11", but Otule would make a huge difference right now. We'd have 2 less losses with him, that's for sure.
This. Exactly this. We miss Otule BADLY. We'd have a solid 8 man rotation with no one playing out of position and a drastic reduction in the need for double downs and defensive breakdowns.
-
We'd have 2 less losses with him, that's for sure.
C'mon, really?
I mean, I love the guy, but he's not Wilt.
-
We don't get bigs because Buzz wants "switchables". There are plenty of good bigs, hell every team we play has them!
Agree with your post except for this part... Why did TC struggle the same way at MU? At Indiana, Indiana he's recruiting them and successfully.
Just seems like the one constant is the school, and it makes no sense why a great big man wouldn't want the playing time and support at other positions that he gets here. With a complete roster we're in the Sweet Sixteen regularly, and contending for BE titles.
-
C'mon, really?
I mean, I love the guy, but he's not Wilt.
Absolutely. No, he's not Wilt, but we would have won the LSU game if someone had bothered to EVER box out Storm Warren or could have challenged their bigs, despite our offensive inadequacies, and we would have beat Georgetown if anyone could have made driving the lane even remotely difficult for Jason Clark at the end. I have no doubt in my mind that we would be 14-1 (2-0) and probably right outside the top-10 if CO is still in the lineup.
You don't have to be Wilt to make a massive difference on this team. CO's defense is the single biggest difference making ability of anyone on this team and on offense it's really nice having a guy who can open up the lane and doesn't need the ball to be effective.
-
Absolutely. No, he's not Wilt, but we would have won the LSU game if someone had bothered to EVER box out Storm Warren or could have challenged their bigs, despite our offensive inadequacies, and we would have beat Georgetown if anyone could have made driving the lane even remotely difficult for Jason Clark at the end. I have no doubt in my mind that we would be 14-1 (2-0) and probably right outside the top-10 if CO is still in the lineup.
You don't have to be Wilt to make a massive difference on this team. CO's defense is the single biggest difference making ability of anyone on this team and on offense it's really nice having a guy who can open up the lane and doesn't need the ball to be effective.
Don't know for sure if we would have won without him, but I think it is very likely.
1. Need the 8th guy for the rotation
2. Desperately need him for defense
3. minimizes foul trouble for J Wil
4. More players playing the correct postion
-
Dingdingdingding.....we have a winner. With a healthy Otule, we have an 8 man rotation, we have a more effective DG playing in shorter bursts., we have JWil spending 3 minutes at the 5, Jae gets more rest so he doesn't get so easily off of the dribble by a 6'10 guy, resulting in a wide open 3 from the corner. And yes, we would have 2 more wins. I acknowledge the difference in the quality of competition, but I will bet that when Henry Sugar runs the 7 games with Otule playing the whole game vs the 6 games he hasn't played at all, plus the Washington game, the offensive and defensive efficiencies are going to show a marked difference.
-
C'mon, really?
I mean, I love the guy, but he's not Wilt.
Otule has turned into Hasheem Thabeet over the last month during his absence.
-
Otule has turned into Hasheem Thabeet over the last month during his absence.
that's not bad, considering the whole ACL thing. ;D
-
Otule has turned into Hasheem Thabeet over the last month during his absence.
In terms of value added, absolutely. We have a replacement for everyone else.
-
Dingdingdingding.....we have a winner. With a healthy Otule, we have an 8 man rotation, we have a more effective DG playing in shorter bursts., we have JWil spending 3 minutes at the 5, Jae gets more rest so he doesn't get so easily off of the dribble by a 6'10 guy, resulting in a wide open 3 from the corner. And yes, we would have 2 more wins. I acknowledge the difference in the quality of competition, but I will bet that when Henry Sugar runs the 7 games with Otule playing the whole game vs the 6 games he hasn't played at all, plus the Washington game, the offensive and defensive efficiencies are going to show a marked difference.
you rang?
Sorry, but I still don't believe there is a statistically significant relationship between Otule's absence and any of our Offensive/Defensive efficiency or eFG%.*
Beyond that, I don't believe the absence of Otule allowed Georgetown to shoot an eFG% of 70% (and 86% in the second half). I also do not believe the absence of Otule allowed LSU to shoot an eFG% of 62% and Vandy to shoot 57%. All three teams would have shot excessively well against MU with or without Otule.
*MATHS
If you look at just the absence of Otule on those four areas, there is a statistically significant relationship between the Defensive Efficiency and Otule being gone. There is a weak statistical relationship between our offensive eFG% and Otule being gone (not 95% confident, but close). There is no relationship on our defensive eFG% or Offensive Efficiency.
However, I then ran an analysis that controlled for quality of the opponent. After all, the avg Pomeroy ranking of opponents pre-absence was 185 and it is 90 during-absence. When I include the Pomeroy rank of our opponent, the relationship of Otule being gone disappears in every analysis. There is a statistically significant relationship between quality of opponent and our offensive/defensive eFG%. We are more likely playing worse because we are playing better opponents.
Interestingly, neither quality of opponent or Otule's absence are correlated with the decline in Offensive and Defensive Efficiency with both sets of data are included.
-
Absolutely. No, he's not Wilt, but we would have won the LSU game if someone had bothered to EVER box out Storm Warren or could have challenged their bigs, despite our offensive inadequacies, and we would have beat Georgetown if anyone could have made driving the lane even remotely difficult for Jason Clark at the end. I have no doubt in my mind that we would be 14-1 (2-0) and probably right outside the top-10 if CO is still in the lineup.
You don't have to be Wilt to make a massive difference on this team. CO's defense is the single biggest difference making ability of anyone on this team and on offense it's really nice having a guy who can open up the lane and doesn't need the ball to be effective.
Well the logic of this argument is that everything else would have gone exactly the same if Otule was there. But that's not necessarily the case. Changing one variable like that changes everything. It would've changed how Marquette and Georgetown played. Maybe Georgetown never gets down that big lead if Otule played. Maybe Marquette's plan would've been to pound the ball in to Otule on offense rather than push it up the court for easy scores like they did. Maybe Georgetown comes out more focused defensively because the other team had a true Center to match up against.
Anyway, the reason why bigs don't go to Marquette is because most want programs with proven track records of putting big into the NBA. And some of the best of the big men want something that only Uconn, Cuse, and Kentucky are willing to supply them with($$$). Marquette can't offer the first and won't offer the second. It's a vicious cycle. You can't successfully recruit big men because you don't have a track record of success with bigs, and you can't get a track record unless you successfully recruit bigs.
-
Anyway, the reason why bigs don't go to Marquette is because most want programs with proven track records of putting big into the NBA. And some of the best of the big men want something that only Uconn, Cuse, and Kentucky are willing to supply them with($$$). Marquette can't offer the first and won't offer the second. It's a vicious cycle. You can't successfully recruit big men because you don't have a track record of success with bigs, and you can't get a track record unless you successfully recruit bigs.
In other words, we're hopelessly screwed.
-
If MU is going to make a serious run at a conference title or deep tourney run, they will need Otule.
BUT, I don't think I'm willing to say "MU would have 2 more wins with Otule". WAYYYYY too many variables for that kind of statement.
Hell, with that line of thinking, MU would have won the national championship if Dominic James didn't get hurt, right?
I understand that a big man is a rare commodity on this team, but let's not make the guy out to be Chuck Norris Trevor Mbakwe.
-
Next season, MU should have four that are 6'8" or taller...with JWilson being the 0.5 to get MU to 4.5 players.
Beyond that, I don't believe the absence of Otule allowed Georgetown to shoot an eFG% of 70% (and 86% in the second half). I also do not believe the absence of Otule allowed LSU to shoot an eFG% of 62% and Vandy to shoot 57%. All three teams would have shot excessively well against MU with or without Otule.
Again, these are facts, getting in the way of WILD CONJECTURE.
Let's get back to conversations about timeouts taken midway through halves losing us games, high fiving ettiquite, why 99.9% of Marquette basketball fans like a guy who scores lots of points in the post, Vander Blue not living up to completely unrealistic expectations, and why MU can't recruit big men.
-
In terms of value added, absolutely. We have a replacement for everyone else.
Desperation when a serviceable center getting 5 and 4/game is considered irreplaceable.
-
Desperation when a serviceable center getting 5 and 4/game is considered irreplaceable.
He was also blocking shots at a level only bettered by Melo, Drummond, and Dieng, the Big East's premier defensive centers. Not that that should be considered in the evaluation or anything.
Plus we're starved for height and at 6' 11" he's our only player over 6' 8". Not that that should be considered in the evaluation or anything.
We also have to play Jamil Wilson, a 3/4 switchable at center for 15-20 mpg now. Not that that should be considered in the evaluation or anything.
I love numbers and appreciate Sugar's evaluations, but hypothesis testing through regressions can't explain everything in basketball or life.
-
He was also blocking shots at a level only bettered by Melo, Drummond, and Dieng, the Big East's premier defensive centers. Not that that should be considered in the evaluation or anything.
Plus we're starved for height and at 6' 11" he's our only player over 6' 8". Not that that should be considered in the evaluation or anything.
We also have to play Jamil Wilson, a 3/4 switchable at center for 15-20 mpg now. Not that that should be considered in the evaluation or anything.
I love numbers and appreciate Sugar's evaluations, but hypothesis testing through regressions can't explain everything in basketball or life.
In other words, you're good with numbers and analysis as long as they conform to your pre-existing biases.
-
In other words, you're good with numbers and analysis as long as they conform to your pre-existing biases.
I just think there's MORE than just numbers. For instance, what's the R-squared of these regressions you're running? If it's not 1, then there are other things that explain the outcome of a game than a linear equation.
-
I just think there's MORE than just numbers. For instance, what's the R-squared of these regressions you're running? If it's not 1, then there are other things that explain the outcome of a game than a linear equation.
So your point is that regression analysis has limitations? Not disputing that.
Because what I thought you were saying was, "I know that right now there's no proof of a relationship between Otule being gone and Marquette playing worse, but I believe it to be true even though the numbers don't agree with me".
-
I do think we have at least two more wins, if Otule had not got hurt. However, on the flip side Gardner and Wilson are benefiting greatly by the increased responsibility. It hurts in the short run, but we will see the benefit of this next year.
-
However, on the flip side Gardner and Wilson are benefiting greatly by the increased responsibility. It hurts in the short run, but we will see the benefit of this next year.
I agree with this, especially on Gardner. I'm excited to watch him develop and hope he can continue to progress as the season goes along.
-
Is this gonna be the season folks claim we would've been a Final Four team with a healthy Otule like they did when DJ broke his foot?
-
Is this gonna be the season folks claim we would've been a Final Four team with a healthy Otule like they did when DJ broke his foot?
I wouldn't go final four, but I'd say a legitimate repeat to get to the second weekend and at least be competitive in our sweet 16 match up.
-
Is this gonna be the season folks claim we would've been a Final Four team with a healthy Otule like they did when DJ broke his foot?
I wouldn't go final four, but I'd say a legitimate repeat to get to the second weekend and at least be competitive in our sweet 16 match up.
Nice one 4ever as it made me laugh but MU defintitely misses Otule this year but camparing his injury to the loss of DJ in '09 is apples and oranges. I still think that team had a solid chance to make a run to the FF but we'll never know.
-
He was also blocking shots at a level only bettered by Melo, Drummond, and Dieng, the Big East's premier defensive centers. Not that that should be considered in the evaluation or anything.
Plus we're starved for height and at 6' 11" he's our only player over 6' 8". Not that that should be considered in the evaluation or anything.
We also have to play Jamil Wilson, a 3/4 switchable at center for 15-20 mpg now. Not that that should be considered in the evaluation or anything.
I love numbers and appreciate Sugar's evaluations, but hypothesis testing through regressions can't explain everything in basketball or life.
Wow. A 6'11' guy blocking 1.5/game. That's not that impressive. It's pretty much what you'd expect, especially since it mostly came against second-rate opposition in the non-con schedule.
Also, Otule doesn't even play half of the game. Assuming he was healthy, and his playing time was handled the same way by Buzz, what's the excuse for the other 23 minutes he's not on the court when MU is beaten?
You should also consider MU is a decidedly average rebounding team. We have been the last 72 seasons. Otule's played more then half the games this season so you can't only chalk up that terrible standing to his injury.
I like Otule. I think he's marginally improved in his time at MU. He is a serviceable 5 which is all we typically need. But for the many people here to claim that his absence is a large factor in MU's swoon is misplaced.
-
So your point is that regression analysis has limitations? Not disputing that.
Because what I thought you were saying was, "I know that right now there's no proof of a relationship between Otule being gone and Marquette playing worse, but I believe it to be true even though the numbers don't agree with me".
I'm saying that we started playing taller more athletic teams. Naturally, you're going to miss your starting 6' 11" center in those scenarios. I get that you love Gardner. I love Gardner too. I'm not making an either/or argument. I want both. Neither plays the whole game, but when both can man the 5 we are a better team. No one has to play out of position in that case. We can't play a single guy over 6' 8" now. When Gardner sits, our center is now a 6' 7" switchable. That's not a recipe for success in the Big East. We look a lot more like the 2009-2010 team on defense now except we lack their ability to bomb it from three. Why is it even debatable that we're better with Otule?
-
Wow. A 6'11' guy blocking 1.5/game. That's not that impressive. It's pretty much what you'd expect, especially since it mostly came against second-rate opposition in the non-con schedule.
Also, Otule doesn't even play half of the game. Assuming he was healthy, and his playing time was handled the same way by Buzz, what's the excuse for the other 23 minutes he's not on the court when MU is beaten?
You should also consider MU is a decidedly average rebounding team. We have been the last 72 seasons. Otule's played more then half the games this season so you can't only chalk up that terrible standing to his injury.
I like Otule. I think he's marginally improved in his time at MU. He is a serviceable 5 which is all we typically need. But for the many people here to claim that his absence is a large factor in MU's swoon is misplaced.
Doesn't even play half the game? Against the only two legit teams we played in the non-con he got 27 mpg. We have also changed the way we play defensively since he's been gone. We weren't doubling down on the post when he was here. Now we have to out of necessity. A couple ball reversals and there's a wide open layup or three. And you're right, he's a serviceable slightly above average Big East 5, which is all this team needs. I'm not trying to make the dude out to be Superman. I'm just saying we need 40 minutes of center play to reach our potential. How is than an outlandish statement? Name one team that challenged for a Big East title or made a deep tournament run without 40 minutes of solid center play? You could say Villanova in '08-'09 but they had ridiculous guard play, which we don't. We were a pretty well-balanced team this year with Otule/Gardner manning the 5. Now we aren't. Where is the argument against that?
-
I'm surprised by Henry's numbers. They don't agree with the eyeball test, particularly on defense, though with the competition being tougher, I can accept the possibility the eyeball test isn't accurate.
-
I'm saying that we started playing taller more athletic teams. Naturally, you're going to miss your starting 6' 11" center in those scenarios. I get that you love Gardner. I love Gardner too. I'm not making an either/or argument. I want both. Neither plays the whole game, but when both can man the 5 we are a better team. No one has to play out of position in that case. We can't play a single guy over 6' 8" now. When Gardner sits, our center is now a 6' 7" switchable. That's not a recipe for success in the Big East. We look a lot more like the 2009-2010 team on defense now except we lack their ability to bomb it from three. Why is it even debatable that we're better with Otule?
I'm not discussing Gardner. Nor am I disputing that we are a better team with Otule.
The question was whether our offensive and defensive efficiencies were worse without Otule. I answered that I do not see a statistically significant relationship between the absence of Otule and the decline in our efficiencies, when you consider the strength of our opponents.
Why does this matter?
Because I think that Otule has been chalked up as a panacea to cure all ills. People want to say, "oh man, if only we had Otule none of this would be happening". However, I believe there are more fundamental problems and getting Otule back isn't going to fix those issues.
In particular, Buzz needs to fix the f*cking defense.
-
Is this gonna be the season folks claim we would've been a Final Four team with a healthy Otule like they did when DJ broke his foot?
MU had a Final Four type team the year DJ broke his foot. The Big East was the best in college basketball history and our Warriors were right there going into the final five games. What a team and league that was. A very special team with three NBA players on it. What a shame.
-
Because I think that Otule has been chalked up as a panacea to cure all ills. People want to say, "oh man, if only we had Otule none of this would be happening". However, I believe there are more fundamental problems and getting Otule back isn't going to fix those issues.
In particular, Buzz needs to fix the f*cking defense.
+1
The defense was poor last year and Otule played in every game.
-
Doesn't even play half the game? Against the only two legit teams we played in the non-con he got 27 mpg. We have also changed the way we play defensively since he's been gone. We weren't doubling down on the post when he was here. Now we have to out of necessity. A couple ball reversals and there's a wide open layup or three. And you're right, he's a serviceable slightly above average Big East 5, which is all this team needs. I'm not trying to make the dude out to be Superman. I'm just saying we need 40 minutes of center play to reach our potential. How is than an outlandish statement? Name one team that challenged for a Big East title or made a deep tournament run without 40 minutes of solid center play? You could say Villanova in '08-'09 but they had ridiculous guard play, which we don't. We were a pretty well-balanced team this year with Otule/Gardner manning the 5. Now we aren't. Where is the argument against that?
He only played against one legit team in Wisconsin.
Color me a crank, but I think we can overcome not having a serviceable 5. Hell, 3/4 of the last guy's teams didn't even have a serviceable 5 when everyone was healthy. Besides, when Otule has been healthy like last season, the defense was still suspect whether we were allowed to play straight up post or double down or dive wildly in the hopes of stealing the ball or whatever crazy scheme was developed.
MU has done very well in the recent past playing hybrid 5s. I just don't see the claim that suddenly Buzz' gameplan has to be completely redrawn because an oft-injured, 5th option center is not available due to absence therefore the entire balance of the team is so disrupted they can be excused for their lack of smart play.