Scott Christopherson Revisited

[wadesworld]

Since many people on this board seem to think that Buzz is such an amazing coach when we win and can't coach to save his life when we lose (interesting), I figure we can revisit this topic as well, as for a while he would have a good game and myself or Chicos would point it out, and then he would have a bad game and some other people who are bitter at life would point that out.

Scott Christopherson had 18 points and the game clinching free throws (of which he was 5-5 on in the game) AT Kansas State.  He shot 5-7 on field goals and 4-4 on 3 point field goals.  For those of you who are UNAWARE, Kansas State is the number 5 team in the country and probably would have been a number 1 seed in the NCAA Tournament if it wasn't for this lose or a first round Big 12 Tournament loss.  So you can downplay what he did at home against Nebraska, but today's performance was quite impressive.

I wouldn't mind having a player on our team who can calmly step up to the free throw line and knock down clutch free throws to put away, especially considering we had an open scholarship this year.  If we had a player that could do that, we win at West Virginia, at DePaul, and vs. Florida State (basically at Florida State, all things considered).  And we possibly beat Villinova at home (can't remember if free throws affected the outcome of that one).

Who would have thought a Division 3 player could have such an impact on the senior night of the number 5 team in the country?  Weird.

[Daniel]

What is this supposed to mean?  We blew it with every transfer that left Marquette?  Would we like a player like you describe in your last sentence?  Sure, why not. 

Will we be talking about Damien Saunders again?  Odartey Blankston?  J-May next year? 

[Pakuni]

Teal?
Please?

[wadesworld]

Teal?
Please?

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=300652306

There's all the blueish color you need.  You don't see too many division 3 basketball players doing that to one of the best teams in the nation.  I suppose I could be wrong about that though.

[Daniel]

I, for one, never thought Christopherson was a D-3 player.  I was a big fan - he was one of the players I thought would make an impact for us.  Others thought not.  All I am saying is, we need to move forward.  He's gone.  Didin't work out for whatever reason.

[Pakuni]

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=300652306

There's all the blueish color you need.  You don't see too many division 3 basketball players doing that to one of the best teams in the nation.  I suppose I could be wrong about that though.

So the fact Christopherson is not a D-III player - an argument made by, oh, about .00001% of the people here - means he would have been a significant player for MU?
Nice logic at work.
Face facts ... Christopherson would have battled it out with Cubi for 4th best off guard on this team.

[77ncaachamps]

Kid has a great game vs. #5 KSU.
Yet, the same kid scores 3 points in 33 min vs. a LOWLY Colorado team.

Would he get minutes on this team? Sure.
Would he get up on Lazar's miss and dunk the ball? HELL NO.

I'll take DJO any day.

[wadesworld]

So the fact Christopherson is not a D-III player - an argument made by, oh, about .00001% of the people here - means he would have been a significant player for MU?
Nice logic at work.
Face facts ... Christopherson would have battled it out with Cubi for 4th best off guard on this team.

Haha .00001%?  Really?  I'd argue it's quite a bit more.  And, that's fine that he would battle with Coobie.  Coobie gets a lot of playing time.

The point is that he definitely could have helped us at end of games.  He makes nearly 90% of his free throws and he goes into a hostile environment on a senior night of the #5 team in the country and clinches the game.

[wadesworld]

Kid has a great game vs. #5 KSU.
Yet, the same kid scores 3 points in 33 min vs. a LOWLY Colorado team.

Would he get minutes on this team? Sure.
Would he get up on Lazar's miss and dunk the ball? HELL NO.

I'll take DJO any day.

I'll take DJO as well.  I'll take Christopherson over Roseborro.  Oh wait, he already weeded himself out.  And long term I'll take him over Mbao, and this year Cadougan and Williams.

[77ncaachamps]

I'll take DJO as well.  I'll take Christopherson over Roseborro.  Oh wait, he already weeded himself out.  And long term I'll take him over Mbao, and this year Cadougan and Williams.

Then I'll take Maymon over Christopherson.

Oh wait...they both LEFT our program.

Frack them.

[NickelDimer]

Since no one else has said it....who gives a f*ck???

[Marquette84]

So the fact Christopherson is not a D-III player - an argument made by, oh, about .00001% of the people here - means he would have been a significant player for MU?
Nice logic at work.
Face facts ... Christopherson would have battled it out with Cubi for 4th best off guard on this team.

Isn't Newbill going to battle it out with Blue and Buycks for the 4th best off guard next year? 

[Niv Berkowitz]

Seriously, spare me the "Scotty C did this tonight so he would have done it for MU". The kid left the friggin school and isn't nearly as athletic as any of the guards on this team. Does he shoot free throws well? Yes. But so does Lazar and Jimmy and Cubie according to their percentages. So give it a rest.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, it was definitely more than 0.0001%....that's an insulting number.


Let's just cut to the chase...the same people (largely) that ripped on Acker, Cubillan, Christopherson did so for the same reason and we all know what that reason is.

Because of who brought those kids to MU, that's the only reason.


Personally, I think Christopherson is at a better place for him considering the style of play Buzz runs.  I'm happy for the young man as he seems to be nice kid with his head on straight.  I'm also happy that he has dispelled some of the ridiculous attacks against him and his level of skill much like Cubillan and Acker have. 

SC has moved on and I hope he continues to do well.  Go Marquette

[bilsu]

A player that can make free throws only matters if he is the one shooting them, so adding Christopherson to our team yesturday probalby would not of mattered. I always claimed he was better than most people were given him credit for. But he is not quick enough to play the in your face defense Buzz wants, so he would not have been on the floor yesturday for MU. The Notre Dame game reminded me of the DePaul game. I think we were just destined to lose those two games. Missing free throws aginst DePaul is one thing, but they had to hit two great shots to beat us. Now look at yesturday's game. ND throws the ball away, but it hits the ref and Buzz gets a technical. That was a four point swing right there. Throughout the year Hayward has gotten stupid reaching in fouls. Yesturday he fouls out on essentially four rebounding fouls, none of them in my opinion were over the back. He did reach in on his last foul. However, Hayward did not get a foul while defending a player yesturday and still fouls out in a game that there were not a lot of fouls called. They also called a three second call on Hayward when he got tied up in the lane. That to me was an unusual call.  First of all three seconds is rarely called and when it is it is usuall called on a center that is camped out in the lane without the ball, which is what the rule is designed to prevent. Butler missed one free throw that was half way down. ND's #1 bounces one high off the rim and it falls in. Late in the game a Notre Dame player misses a shot right at the rim and just slaps at the rebound and goes back up and in. The next two posessions DJO takes the ball to the hoop and neither shot drops. We played great defense on the last play and regulation and somehow ND hits a three point shot out of it. More than once a missed shot by Notre Dame resulted in the rebound bouncing offoff the rim right to a Notre Dame player. Those things you cannot control. I would not mind playing Notre Game again.

[Pakuni]

Isn't Newbill going to battle it out with Blue and Buycks for the 4th best off guard next year? 

No. There's no chance Blue is going to be battling it out for the 4th best off guard on the team next year.
Christoperson would, though.
Of course, Christopherson would be a 6'2" senior with a limited skill set. Newbill will be a 6'4" freshman who can play multiple positions and has three additional years of development ahead of him.
Some might suggest there's a difference. Some might suggest a developing frosh has more value to a team tucked away on the bench than a senior.
Some might also suggest it's assinine to pine over a player who chose to leave two years ago and is averaging 7.8 ppg for a team that won't even make the NIT.

[Pakuni]

Well, it was definitely more than 0.0001%....that's an insulting number.

An insulting number?
Could you please cite some examples of the many posters who have declared him in D-III player?

[Marquette84]

An insulting number?
Could you please cite some examples of the many posters who have declared him in D-III player?

The most people ever on this board was about 650--652 (March 28, 2008, 12:04:20 AM).  If even just ONE of those peoples said it, it's .15%.  In fact, a single person is mathematically closer to 100% than it is to your suggestion of .00001%.

Just to put that in perspective, if someone made your order of magnitude mistake when describing Jerel McNeal's career scoring, they would say he scored just 0.13 points in his Marquette career.

Perhaps "insulting" isn't the correct word--but stunningly incorrect or incredibly misleading certainly applies. 

Its also ironic.  In your attempt to suggest that the complaint about Christoperson was overstated, you turned around and understated it by an even greater amount.

No. There's no chance Blue is going to be battling it out for the 4th best off guard on the team next year.
Christoperson would, though.
Of course, Christopherson would be a 6'2" senior with a limited skill set. Newbill will be a 6'4" freshman who can play multiple positions and has three additional years of development ahead of him.
Some might suggest there's a difference. Some might suggest a developing frosh has more value to a team tucked away on the bench than a senior.
Some might also suggest it's assinine to pine over a player who chose to leave two years ago and is averaging 7.8 ppg for a team that won't even make the NIT.

Keep in mind I brought in Newbill to expose your hypocrisy. You claim that we didn't need a 4th off guard on this years team, but defend signing a 4th for next year.

Second, some would say senior leadership is more important than having a frosh who will be tucked 4 deep at his position. 

Finally, Acker and Cubillan are two other guys who were also frequently accused of not having D1 skills (by far more than .00001% of posters on this board).  Are they "tucked away on the bench" this year?  How can you be so certain that Christopherson wouldn't be able to contribute this year or next?

[Freeport Warrior]

One of the current headlines on the front page of SI.com:

Christopherson, Iowa St. upset No. 5 Kansas State

It caused me to do a double-take. Count me in the .0001% who was/is happy he isn't here (although I didn't think he's a D-3 player). Good for him that he found a great fit, but I couldn't see him burying 3s or creating any other shots for us this year even close to what we've seen from DJO. And that's not even talking about D.  Win-win for all involved.

[ChicosBailBonds]

An insulting number?
Could you please cite some examples of the many posters who have declared him in D-III player?

0.0001% is an insulting number.  What do you think we have, a million members on this board.  I'm sure you were trying to be cute, but you also have tried to downplay a very real phenomenon with a sect of people that will simply say black is white or day is night solely based on one common denominator, and we all know what that denominator is.

I said insulting because it's a ridiculous number on every level.  It insults intelligence of anyone that got past basic algebra.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One of the current headlines on the front page of SI.com:

Christopherson, Iowa St. upset No. 5 Kansas State

It caused me to do a double-take. Count me in the .0001% who was/is happy he isn't here (although I didn't think he's a D-3 player). Good for him that he found a great fit, but I couldn't see him burying 3s or creating any other shots for us this year even close to what we've seen from DJO. And that's not even talking about D.  Win-win for all involved.

I'm glad it worked out for everyone. For the jagoffs that said the kid was a DIII player or low DI, I'm happy they've been proven wrong.

[Lennys Tap]

0.0001% is an insulting number.  What do you think we have, a million members on this board.  I'm sure you were trying to be cute, but you also have tried to downplay a very real phenomenon with a sect of people that will simply say black is white or day is night solely based on one common denominator, and we all know what that denominator is.

I said insulting because it's a ridiculous number on ever level.  It insults intelligence of anyone that go past basic algebra.

And your penultimate sentence insults English majors on EVER(Y) level. Your ultimate one insults the intelligence of anyone that GO(ES) past 1st grade English.

The point is you and 84 are "insulted" by a simple math error by Pakuni instead of discussing the basic truth of his assertion - that maybe one or two at most on this board ever said Chistopherson was a D3 player. If the number is higher please cite examples.

[Pakuni]

The most people ever on this board was about 650--652 (March 28, 2008, 12:04:20 AM).  If even just ONE of those peoples said it, it's .15%.  In fact, a single person is mathematically closer to 100% than it is to your suggestion of .00001%.

Just to put that in perspective, if someone made your order of magnitude mistake when describing Jerel McNeal's career scoring, they would say he scored just 0.13 points in his Marquette career.

Perhaps "insulting" isn't the correct word--but stunningly incorrect or incredibly misleading certainly applies.  

Are you this obtuse and overly literal in real life, or just on the Internet?
You're right ... you totally busted me, dude. Clearly I wasn't exaggerating for effect. [/quote]

Keep in mind I brought in Newbill to expose your hypocrisy. You claim that we didn't need a 4th off guard on this years team, but defend signing a 4th for next year.

Umm ... Mr. Literal? Please point out where I ever said such a thing.
I mean, in order for you to "expose my hypocrisy" shouldn't I have at least said the hypocritical statement first?
Of course, I didn't.
What I have said - and what I stand by - is that Christopherson would not be a significant player on this year's team. Even charter members of the Scott Christopherson Fan Club (see: Chico's) admit as much.
I note you have yet to argue otherwise. You have yet to explain why SC would have been a big contribuor this year, why this NCAA-bound MU squad would have been significantly better with a bench player from a sub-.500 program.
Probably because you recognize it as a losing argument. So instead, you choose to engage in a petty and irrelevant discussion of my math, when even Ray Charles would have seen it as an intentional exaggeration.
Bravo, my man. I'll remember to be more exact in your presence.

p.s. According to this site, it has 3,353 registered members. That's more than 650-652. Not that anybody is counting. Still, I would expect you to demand the same level of mathematical accuracy from yourself that you demand from others. Guess not.

[Daniel]

The most people ever on this board was about 650--652 (March 28, 2008, 12:04:20 AM).  If even just ONE of those peoples said it, it's .15%.  In fact, a single person is mathematically closer to 100% than it is to your suggestion of .00001%.

Just to put that in perspective, if someone made your order of magnitude mistake when describing Jerel McNeal's career scoring, they would say he scored just 0.13 points in his Marquette career.

Perhaps "insulting" isn't the correct word--but stunningly incorrect or incredibly misleading certainly applies. 

Its also ironic.  In your attempt to suggest that the complaint about Christoperson was overstated, you turned around and understated it by an even greater amount.

Keep in mind I brought in Newbill to expose your hypocrisy. You claim that we didn't need a 4th off guard on this years team, but defend signing a 4th for next year.

Second, some would say senior leadership is more important than having a frosh who will be tucked 4 deep at his position. 

Finally, Acker and Cubillan are two other guys who were also frequently accused of not having D1 skills (by far more than .00001% of posters on this board).  Are they "tucked away on the bench" this year?  How can you be so certain that Christopherson wouldn't be able to contribute this year or next?

Well, math errors happen.  1/650 = .0015%

[Moonboots]

Well, math errors happen.  1/650 = .0015%

No. 1/650 = .0015 = .15%