C: past, present and future

[77ncaachamps]

Put Luke's season numbers in perspective though: better than most MU Cs you listed but they're really struggling this year.

I'd easily trade Otule's numbers for the success the team had while he was here.

[Marcus92]

Of course I miss being in the Elite 8 and Final 4. (Or even in the NCAA tournament altogether.) This team is what it is: talented and full of potential but young and inexperienced — in a league that might just be the toughest in the country from top to bottom.

Still hopeful that we're still playing after the conference tournament. However this season plays out, I'm confident we'll start to see that potential realized next year.

[GGGG]

Maybe a bigger takeaway is that Fischer is performing at or above the level of two players who spent multiple seasons on NBA rosters (McIlvane and McCaskill). And he's doing so against top competition in the Big East, at least equal to if not better than the Great Midwest or Conference USA in terms of conference strength.

McIlvane was a truly gifted shot blocker. McCaskill was probably a better athlete. But to even include Fischer in the same conversation says a lot. Only 1.2% of all college players go to the NBA. Luke is playing at an elite level.

An elite level?  No way. He is a good to occasionally very good center. No more than that.

Comparing him to two NBA centers from 20 years ago on simple ppg and rpg analysis isn't really a good way to compare anyway. It ignores issues like the minutes they played, the teammates around them, and their total impact on the offense.

[Marcus92]

I read a lot on this board about how Luke isn't that good, should be rebounding better, fouling less, et cetera. My question is: What standard do you hold him to exactly?

On a team level, he's 1st in blocks, FG% and offensive efficiency, 2nd in rebounds and minutes (trailing only an NBA lottery pick on both), and 3rd in scoring (just 1 point behind Duane).

In the Big East, Luke is 3rd in FG% and in blocks, 10th in rebounding (tops of any center), and 17th in scoring (again with the highest PPG of any center in the league). Value Add ranks him among the 10 most valuable players in the conference. To put it another way, any other team in the Big East would love to have him on the roster.

He's shown clear improvement over last year. And he's only a junior, playing in his 3rd semester as a starter.

If a "good" center is someone who's likely the best player in the Big East at his position right now, who's currently drawing interest from NBA scouts and who could get even better, then I'll agree that Luke is just a good center.

[Herman Cain]

Luke is a quality center, who in my view because of the shoulder situation, has never truly come into a season healthy and strong. He still has been very productive for us.

I am looking forward to next season. He will have a whole summer to get stronger and work on his game. That should bring a confidence that will allow him to move into the upper tier of Big East centers.

[GGGG]

In the Big East, Luke is 3rd in FG% and in blocks, 10th in rebounding (tops of any center), and 17th in scoring (again with the highest PPG of any center in the league). Value Add ranks him among the 10 most valuable players in the conference. To put it another way, any other team in the Big East would love to have him on the roster.

All that tells me is that the center position in the Big East sucks. The tenth beat rebounder is the first center???

He's good. Maybe he'll get a cup of coffee in the NBA. He's not elite.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

In the Big East, Luke is 3rd in FG% and in blocks, 10th in rebounding (tops of any center), and 17th in scoring (again with the highest PPG of any center in the league).

All that tells me is that the center position in the Big East sucks. The tenth beat rebounder is the first center???

Marcus is using what ESPN labels players as. Angel Delgado, Daniel Ochefu, and James Farr are all listed as forwards but play center and are ahead of Luke.

But agree with the general premise that Luke is a very good college center and takes more crap here than he deserves.

[Dawson Rental]

Marcus is using what ESPN labels players as. Angel Delgado, Daniel Ochefu, and James Farr are all listed as forwards but play center and are ahead of Luke.

But agree with the general premise that Luke is a very good college center and takes more crap here than he deserves.

I suspected as much, but didn't have the time to do the checking.  I appreciate you getting to it.  The other factor is if you add up the top two centers at Creighton, I suspect they would be ahead, as well.  (Anyone who cares can feel free to add Matt Heldt's numbers to Luke's to make it a fair comparison.)

[We R Final Four]

I see Sultan and 82 and changing their hardline stance on Luke will NEVER even get a look in the NBA to a cup of coffee and a maybe.  Progress.

[Jay Bee]

I read a lot on this board about how Luke isn't that good, should be rebounding better, fouling less, et cetera. My question is: What standard do you hold him to exactly?

On a team level, he's 1st in blocks, FG% and offensive efficiency, 2nd in rebounds and minutes (trailing only an NBA lottery pick on both), and 3rd in scoring (just 1 point behind Duane).

In the Big East, Luke is 3rd in FG% and in blocks, 10th in rebounding (tops of any center), and 17th in scoring (again with the highest PPG of any center in the league).

ppg, rpg... matter how?

I think Luke is just fine, but his turnover rate of 19% is higher than you'd want to see from a guy with his role on this team and his DR% of 11.4% is poor for his size and position.

In conference games there are 70 guys who have played at least 40% of their team's minutes. Of those 70, Luke's defensive rebounding percentage puts him at #40.

Brutal.

[MU82]

I see Sultan and 82 and changing their hardline stance on Luke will NEVER even get a look in the NBA to a cup of coffee and a maybe.  Progress.

I like Luke. Decent to good college center and seems like a nice young man. Not NBA material. After Buycks, I'm avoiding saying "never," so I'll just stick with highly, highly unlikely.

There's no shame in not being an NBAer. Some of our best players over the last dozen years couldn't make it.

[WarriorFan]

A lot of things (good things) can happen when guys start playing ball for money.

Buycks, for example, learned how to play PG and to make the NBA 3 consistently.

If Luke develops a J out to 12-15 feet he could be a serviceable pro reserve getting 10-12 mins per game.

The TO's are a function of the collegiate game, with so many hands on the ball under the basket and more uncontrolled physicality.  The NBA - with better spacing and tighter contact rules - may actually be easier for him from a turnover perspective.

[GGGG]

I like Luke. Decent to good college center and seems like a nice young man. Not NBA material. After Buycks, I'm avoiding saying "never," so I'll just stick with highly, highly unlikely.

There's no shame in not being an NBAer. Some of our best players over the last dozen years couldn't make it.

Yep. Ditto. I actually clarified my "cup of coffee" position a couple weeks ago.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Luke is a quality center, who in my view because of the shoulder situation, has never truly come into a season healthy and strong. He still has been very productive for us.

I am looking forward to next season. He will have a whole summer to get stronger and work on his game. That should bring a confidence that will allow him to move into the upper tier of Big East centers.

Not sure how he could be considered anything less than the upper tier of Big East centers as is. He isn't the big bruising banger that some BE teams have, but Luke has been very, very effective for us.

[Marcus92]

I don't think I have anything more to offer on this. (Some might debate whether I had anything to offer in the first place.) The issue seems to come down to differing expectations — and in some cases, simple word choice.

To me, being in the top 95th or 99th percentile of anything — whether you're talking about college basketball players or income — is the very definition of elite. The Big East is ranked 2nd out of 32 conferences in Division I. And the NCAA estimates that just 1.2% of all college basketball players go on to make an NBA roster. So if Luke is considered one of the best players in the Big East and getting a look from NBA scouts, I'd call that elite territory.

The thing is, the dictionary definition of "elite" doesn't include any sort of qualifying information. It just means "the choice or best of anything considered collectively." Some may reserve that kind of label for the Big East player of the year, or NBA lottery picks — or only players in the Basketball Hall of Fame, for that matter.

There's no sense in arguing whether Luke is elite or not. I would argue that using language such as "brutal" in talking about his game isn't any more helpful. This implies anything but a good player. Just the opposite, in fact; it suggests that Wojo is certifiable for giving him so much floor time or even keeping him on scholarship.

I enjoy watching Luke play, appreciate what he brings to the team and look forward to seeing how much better he can get as a player. I'm confident he's going to play a huge role in Marquette's success next year. That's enough from me on the  subject.

[We R Final Four]

He doesn't shoot enough jumpers to satisfy some.

[Herman Cain]

Let's put it this way , if we signed up a graduate transfer center that had Luke's production this board would be predicting final four.  We need to appreciate what we have with him.  I think next year will be a very big year for him.

[MU82]

Just because I don't think he'll be a pro doesn't mean I lack appreciation for what Luke does at MU.

I didn't think Vander, Jerel, Dom, Robert Jackson or Davante would be pros but I appreciated the hell out of them when they wore blue and gold. I also had my doubts about the pro potential of Lazar, Diener and a few others who ended up getting some nice paychecks. Appreciated them all!