Jimmy Butler Makes Rivals.com 2010-11 Second Team All-Senior Team

[Mr. Nielsen]

Your in the top 10 on a senior list, that is pretty good for Jimmy!!

[jmayer1]

84, why was the 2004 team so untalented (in your eyes)? That was Crean's 5th year and it came on the heels of 2 straight very strong seasons.  Same question with the 2005 team.  MU lost only lost one player early due to leaving for the pros.  Why didn't Crean recruit/develop players better during those seasons so that there would be more talent (in your eyes)?  Why did the 2006 recruiting class have to save a sinking ship?

The very reliable and dependable professional recruiting services thought the 2004 squad had more natural talent than the 2010 team. Numerous coaches also mentioned last year how well the team played despite a lack of talent.  That team played well due to great coaching, just as the 2006 team did.  I'm sure Buzz will have a team that underperforms its talent, just as the 2004 and 2005 teams did.

[Lennys Tap]

Of course it wasn't factually incorrect. It was just out of context and intentionally misleading.

Lenny pretended that Butler never developed after he left high school and was still that 300+ ranked player in 2010.

Its obvious that he wasn't the same player he was in HS, so his HS rank was completely irrelevant to the discussion (even if it was factually correct).

No. 

Lenny was trying to change the playing field.

He didn't want to compare 2004 to 2010.  He wanted to compare which players had developed further since HS. 

Its perfectly valid to compare Merritt in 2004 to Butler in 2010.  Statsheet makes is extremely easy to do so:
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=scott-merritt&i=1&p1=jimmy-butler



I'm comparing two ACTUAL teams and ACTUAL performances.  Can't be any more apples to apples than that.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

First, how do you know those were the best recruits?  You just said you can't compare HS top 100 to Juco rankings.  But now you claim those HS players were better than the Jucos? 

But more importantly, so what?   Those players weren't a part of my comparison, were they?  Did I say that Buzz had more talent because he had Maymon and Cadougan?  No.  I compared the actual teams.





In other words, due to hard work, maturity, and coaching, by 2010 Butler was arguably more talented than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend were in 2004.

You can't have it both ways on this.  You can't give credit to Buzz for making Butler better than Merrit, and at the same time say that Crean had more talent in 2004 because he had Merritt. 

First of all, I do not take things out of context - your the the one who consistantly pulls a sentence or two out of a multi-paragraph thread.

The major weakness in your arguement is confusing talent and performance. David Cubillan performed better his senior year at MU than Dameon Mason did his senior year at LSU. Yet nobody in his right mind would ever suggest that Cubillan was the more talented player.  Because we performed better than UCONN last year does it means we were the more talented team? Even Jim Calhoun wouldn't suggest that. The same holds true when comparing last year's team with the 2004 team.

[Marquette84]

First of all, I do not take things out of context - your the the one who consistantly pulls a sentence or two out of a multi-paragraph thread.

You're attempting to use a HS rating from three years ago as a proxy for the current talent level of a college junior. 

I would call that taking something out out of context.

The major weakness in your arguement is confusing talent and performance. David Cubillan performed better his senior year at MU than Dameon Mason did his senior year at LSU. Yet nobody in his right mind would ever suggest that Cubillan was the more talented player.  

That's because Dameon Mason only played 7 games his senior year due to a serious illness.  Another out-of-context comparison--seems to be par for the course for you.     

Meanwhile, I think a very solid case can be made that Butler by 2010 turned out to be a much more talented player than either Merritt, Chapman or Townsend were in 2004.  Not just on a performance basis--but on a talent basis. 

Maybe you never saw Merritt Chapman or Townsend in person.  But take it from me--and anybody else who has actually all those players--nobody in their right mind would say that Butler now is LESS talented that those 2004 players. 

For whatever reason, Butler didn't show that talent in HS.  Maybe he didn't have good HS coaching.  Maybe he didn't apply himself.  Maybe he hadn't yet reached physical maturity.  Maybe he hadn't practiced enough.

I don't know what the reason was (nor do you)--and frankly, I don't care.   

The bottom line is that NOW he is clearly more talented, and that was obviously true to anyone who saw him play..

[Lennys Tap]

You're attempting to use a HS rating from three years ago as a proxy for the current talent level of a college junior. 

I would call that taking something out out of context.


That's because Dameon Mason only played 7 games his senior year due to a serious illness.  Another out-of-context comparison--seems to be par for the course for you.     

Meanwhile, I think a very solid case can be made that Butler by 2010 turned out to be a much more talented player than either Merritt, Chapman or Townsend were in 2004.  Not just on a performance basis--but on a talent basis. 

Maybe you never saw Merritt Chapman or Townsend in person.  But take it from me--and anybody else who has actually all those players--nobody in their right mind would say that Butler now is LESS talented that those 2004 players. 

For whatever reason, Butler didn't show that talent in HS.  Maybe he didn't have good HS coaching.  Maybe he didn't apply himself.  Maybe he hadn't yet reached physical maturity.  Maybe he hadn't practiced enough.

I don't know what the reason was (nor do you)--and frankly, I don't care.   

The bottom line is that NOW he is clearly more talented, and that was obviously true to anyone who saw him play..

There you go again, pulling a couple of sentences "out of context" in some respects and totally misrepresenting what I said in others. When did I EVER compare Jimmy Butler to Todd Townsend or Joe Chapman. Answer? Never. I compared starters to starters and backups (Marcus Jackson, Chapman and Townsend) to 2010 backups (Fulce, Buycks and ?). That what I do - compare apples to apples. I know that's a foreign concept to you but learning it can make your arguements more cogent and persuasive.

This is really a simple disageement. You think that because the 2010 team performed better on the court it necessarily means they were more talented. You further think that not agreeing with this point of view is an attempt at "having it both ways".

I think teams with less talent outperform their more talented counterparts relatively frequently and that hard work, player development and good coaching can often help a team overcome the talent gap. Two obvious examples I use are MU 2010 vs MU 2004 and MU 2010 vs UCONN 2010. I could give you hundreds of other equally clearcut cases of less talented teams outperforming their more gifted couterparts but since you think it's not possible (i.e. "having it both ways") I won't waste my time trying to convince you.

[brewcity77]

Northern Iowa was clearly more talented than Kansas in 2010.

[Marquette84]

There you go again, pulling a couple of sentences "out of context" in some respects and totally misrepresenting what I said in others. When did I EVER compare Jimmy Butler to Todd Townsend or Joe Chapman. Answer? Never. I compared starters to starters and backups (Marcus Jackson, Chapman and Townsend) to 2010 backups (Fulce, Buycks and ?). That what I do - compare apples to apples. I know that's a foreign concept to you but learning it can make your arguements more cogent and persuasive.

This is really a simple disageement. You think that because the 2010 team performed better on the court it necessarily means they were more talented. You further think that not agreeing with this point of view is an attempt at "having it both ways".

I think teams with less talent outperform their more talented counterparts relatively frequently and that hard work, player development and good coaching can often help a team overcome the talent gap. Two obvious examples I use are MU 2010 vs MU 2004 and MU 2010 vs UCONN 2010. I could give you hundreds of other equally clearcut cases of less talented teams outperforming their more gifted couterparts but since you think it's not possible (i.e. "having it both ways") I won't waste my time trying to convince you.

Let's make this easy. 

I'll repost the four supporting points for my view--you just tell me which ones you agree with and which you disagree with.

• Anyone as good as Hayward on Crean's 2004 team?  Nope.  Best was Novak (a sophomore to be) and Diener (a junior-to-be).   Both were good--but neither had the combination of shooting touch, athleticism, speed and most importantly the experience of Hayward.
  
• Buzz's best outside shooter turned out to be Acker--the same Acker (and not Novak) who holds the MU senior-season record for 3 point shooting.  And I think he probably handled the ball (and possibly even defended) better than Novak as a soph. I don't know if I'd take Acker over Novak now that Novak is fully developed--but Acker's performance as a 5th year senior is arguably superior to Novak's sophomore season.
  
  • I think by any reasonable argument, DJO came in this year with the same reputation for shooting that Diener had (without Diener's reputation for lack of speed, athleticism or explosiveness).  Diener saw the floor better than DJO--but I think if you compare DJO's soph season with Diener's junior year, you'd have to say they're pretty damn close--possibly a slight edge, but certainly not a huge advantage to Diener.
    
  • Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend.
  
  
  If you disagree on any point, can you please explain why you feel that way without resorting to irrelevancies like the 2010 UConn team, LSU, or 3-year old HS ratings.
  
  And just to show you I'm open to rethinking my positions, I can accept that I probably overstated the Novak/Acker comparision. 
  
  If you think, for example, I got the first point wrong--that there was nobody on the 2004 that approached Hayward--then explain why you feel that way.
  
  
  Here's the next exercise.  I'll rank all players from both team's primary rotations  in one ranking.  This includes 8 players who appeared in all 31 games in 2004, and the 6 players who appeared in all 34 games in 2010, plus Buycks who appeared in 32 of the 34 games.
  
  So here's how I would rank the talent levels of those 15 players based on what I saw.  I grouped the players into three groups of five to show where I think there is a clear division of talent.
   
  1. Hayward
  2. Butler
  3T. Diener
  3T. DJO
  5. Novak
  
  6. Acker
  7 Sanders
  8.  Mason
  9T. Merritt
  9T Buycks
  
  11. Cubillan
  12. Fulce
  13. Chapman
  14. Townsend
  15. Marcus Jackson
  
  Now, you're free to move some players up and some down--but please explain what you saw that caused you to think that way.
  
  
  
  Finally, I will tell you flat out that I think Dwayne Wade was the most talented player on the 2003 team--even though he was not the highest rated coming out of HS.  If you can accept that observation, please explain why you won't accept that  Jimmy Butler was the 2nd most talented on the court in 2010, even though he wasn't the highest rated.
  
  

[Lennys Tap]

Let's make this easy. 

I'll repost the four supporting points for my view--you just tell me which ones you agree with and which you disagree with.

• Anyone as good as Hayward on Crean's 2004 team?  Nope.  Best was Novak (a sophomore to be) and Diener (a junior-to-be).   Both were good--but neither had the combination of shooting touch, athleticism, speed and most importantly the experience of Hayward.
  
• Buzz's best outside shooter turned out to be Acker--the same Acker (and not Novak) who holds the MU senior-season record for 3 point shooting.  And I think he probably handled the ball (and possibly even defended) better than Novak as a soph. I don't know if I'd take Acker over Novak now that Novak is fully developed--but Acker's performance as a 5th year senior is arguably superior to Novak's sophomore season.
  
  • I think by any reasonable argument, DJO came in this year with the same reputation for shooting that Diener had (without Diener's reputation for lack of speed, athleticism or explosiveness).  Diener saw the floor better than DJO--but I think if you compare DJO's soph season with Diener's junior year, you'd have to say they're pretty damn close--possibly a slight edge, but certainly not a huge advantage to Diener.
    
  • Butler's offense (coming into the year ranked as the #4 offensive player the year before) has got to be considered a bit stronger than Merritt, Chapman or Townsend.
  
  
  If you disagree on any point, can you please explain why you feel that way without resorting to irrelevancies like the 2010 UConn team, LSU, or 3-year old HS ratings.
  
  And just to show you I'm open to rethinking my positions, I can accept that I probably overstated the Novak/Acker comparision. 
  
  If you think, for example, I got the first point wrong--that there was nobody on the 2004 that approached Hayward--then explain why you feel that way.
  
  
  Here's the next exercise.  I'll rank all players from both team's primary rotations  in one ranking.  This includes 8 players who appeared in all 31 games in 2004, and the 6 players who appeared in all 34 games in 2010, plus Buycks who appeared in 32 of the 34 games.
  
  So here's how I would rank the talent levels of those 15 players based on what I saw.  I grouped the players into three groups of five to show where I think there is a clear division of talent.
   
  1. Hayward
  2. Butler
  3T. Diener
  3T. DJO
  5. Novak
  
  6. Acker
  7 Sanders
  8.  Mason
  9T. Merritt
  9T Buycks
  
  11. Cubillan
  12. Fulce
  13. Chapman
  14. Townsend
  15. Marcus Jackson
  
  Now, you're free to move some players up and some down--but please explain what you saw that caused you to think that way.
  
  
  
  Finally, I will tell you flat out that I think Dwayne Wade was the most talented player on the 2003 team--even though he was not the highest rated coming out of HS.  If you can accept that observation, please explain why you won't accept that  Jimmy Butler was the 2nd most talented on the court in 2010, even though he wasn't the highest rated.
  
  
  

1. Yes. Travis Diener (see #3 for the reason)
2. You're saying AFTER THE FACT that Acker was arguably better last season than Novack was as a sophmore. Maybe that's so. Kudos to Mo, but his "perfomance" doesn't change the fact that his "talent" isn't close to Novack's. The coaching staff that designed schemes to maximize Acker's skills (ballhandling and shooting when left alone) and cover for his weaknesses (poor defense, inability to finish, lack of size/strength).
3.You're saying that fair expectation for DJO (an unrated HS guy and a one year jc player)would be similar to those for a third year former HS All American who was the second best player on a final four team the previous year. I say not.
4. Butler was the 4th (Chicos would argue 5th) offensive option on a team that reached the final 32. Merritt was the 4th offensive option on a team that went to the final 4. Advantage: Merritt.

My Rankings - going into the 2004 and 2010 seasons:
1.(T) Diener
   (T) Hayward
3.Novak
4.Merritt (see above)
5.Butler
6.Mason (HS AA)
7.DJO (JC AA)
8.Townsend (final 4 starter)
9.Sanders
10.(T)Acker (Never a starter at high major except for injuries)
   (T)Chapman
   (T)Buycks (JC AA)
   
13.M Jackson (JC AA)
14 (T)Cubillan (career backup coming off two brutal years)
    (T)Fulce (injuries)

Finally, I agree that Wade was the most talented player on the 2003 team even though he wasn't the highest rated. As I said in previous posts, the scouts are not infallible. My point was that it would be hard for me to fathom they could be as spectacularly wrong as you think they were regarding both the 2004 and 2010 teams. If you honestly believe that both the 2004 and 2010 teams performed at their talent levels you are probably in a minority of one. When it comes to that it's usually a good time to give the data a second look.
[/list]

[brewcity77]

Pretty sure DJO was all-state as a high school senior in North Carolina. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but calling him unrated might be a bit of a slight.

[MARQKC]

Great for Jimmy, but he is the only Big East senior on the list of 10.

Can that be?

Seems unlikely.

[Marquette84]

If you honestly believe that both the 2004 and 2010 teams performed at their talent levels you are probably in a minority of one. When it comes to that it's usually a good time to give the data a second look.
[/list]

I've come to the conclusion that I honestly don't think you are capable of separating projections from reality.

Every one of your justifications is based on some arbitrary projection--not a direct head to head comparison.  Every one of them.

For example, let's take your view on Todd Townsend.  Your justification is that he started on a a Final Four team.   Well so did Bill Neary.  That doesn't mean he has more talent than any player who didn't.

When I look at Townsend  compared to the others, here's what I see:
Townsend (1.8 ppg, 34% FG%, 1.7 rpg and an offensive rating of 86.4)
Sanders (6.4 ppg, 56.4 FG%, 4.6 rpg, 112.8 offensive rating)
Acker (8.7 ppg, 44.3 FG%/49.5 3FG%, 1.8 rpg, 118.4 offensive rating)
Fulce: (3.5 ppg, 50% FG%, 3.1 rpg 112.3 offensive rating)
Cubillan: (6.8 ppg, 45.8 FG%/41.2 3FG%, 1.8 rpg, 120.2 offensive rating)

When I say Acker, Fulce and Cuby showed more talent in 2010 than Townsend showed in 2004, I base it on hard solid facts. 

Another example, you cite prior years' injuries to Cubillan and Fulce.  How is that relevant?  Do you honestly think that Fulce was a less talented player even  though he delivered more simply because he was injured the year before?   How does that even factor?

Another Example--you put Merrit above Butler.  Here's how I see it:
Merritt (28 mpg, 11.2 ppg, 45% fg%, 33.3 3FG%, 7.1 rpg, offensive rating of 94.2)
Butler (34.3 mpg, 14.7 ppg, 53 FG%, 50.0 3FG%, 6.4 rpg, offensive rating of 131.5)

As I see it, not only did Butler show more talent, but it really wasn't even that close.  His offensive rating of 131.5 was #6 in the NCAA.

Whats your basis?  Merritt was the 4th option on the final four team!!  Of Course he was 4th!!! Todd Townsend (1.8 ppg, 34% FG%) was 5th.


The only thing I can conclude is you cannot separate projections from reality. 

What you want to argue is that because everyone EXPECTED the 2004 team to be good, they actually did had that talent.    Because everyone EXPECTED the 2010 team to be bad, they couldn't have had talent.

There is a reason why they actually play the games. 

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I thought this thread was about Jimmy Butler's recognition.  Can you two start a new thread for you discussions or maybe just start an email relationship?

[MedicineHatSpanker]

AGREED.

Soft Mer...I mean, Scott...was brutally average.

He's tearing it up in Sushi Land. He may have hit stride.

[Lennys Tap]

I've come to the conclusion that I honestly don't think you are capable of separating projections from reality.

Every one of your justifications is based on some arbitrary projection--not a direct head to head comparison.  Every one of them.

For example, let's take your view on Todd Townsend.  Your justification is that he started on a a Final Four team.   Well so did Bill Neary.  That doesn't mean he has more talent than any player who didn't.

When I look at Townsend  compared to the others, here's what I see:
Townsend (1.8 ppg, 34% FG%, 1.7 rpg and an offensive rating of 86.4)
Sanders (6.4 ppg, 56.4 FG%, 4.6 rpg, 112.8 offensive rating)
Acker (8.7 ppg, 44.3 FG%/49.5 3FG%, 1.8 rpg, 118.4 offensive rating)
Fulce: (3.5 ppg, 50% FG%, 3.1 rpg 112.3 offensive rating)
Cubillan: (6.8 ppg, 45.8 FG%/41.2 3FG%, 1.8 rpg, 120.2 offensive rating)

When I say Acker, Fulce and Cuby showed more talent in 2010 than Townsend showed in 2004, I base it on hard solid facts. 

Another example, you cite prior years' injuries to Cubillan and Fulce.  How is that relevant?  Do you honestly think that Fulce was a less talented player even  though he delivered more simply because he was injured the year before?   How does that even factor?

Another Example--you put Merrit above Butler.  Here's how I see it:
Merritt (28 mpg, 11.2 ppg, 45% fg%, 33.3 3FG%, 7.1 rpg, offensive rating of 94.2)
Butler (34.3 mpg, 14.7 ppg, 53 FG%, 50.0 3FG%, 6.4 rpg, offensive rating of 131.5)

As I see it, not only did Butler show more talent, but it really wasn't even that close.  His offensive rating of 131.5 was #6 in the NCAA.

Whats your basis?  Merritt was the 4th option on the final four team!!  Of Course he was 4th!!! Todd Townsend (1.8 ppg, 34% FG%) was 5th.


The only thing I can conclude is you cannot separate projections from reality. 

What you want to argue is that because everyone EXPECTED the 2004 team to be good, they actually did had that talent.    Because everyone EXPECTED the 2010 team to be bad, they couldn't have had talent.

There is a reason why they actually play the games. 

OMG. In your world the most talented team ALWAYS has a better year, since all one has to do is look at stats AFTER the seaon to judge a player's talent. A team is incapable of under or over performing because their talent is only defined after the fact. Oh, and a coach's ability to develop talent or use it properly (see William's use of Mathews, Acker, Cubillan,etc) is, I guess, also irrelevant. In your world, Mo Acker was maybe the "least talented" 3point shooter in all of college basketball in 2009 and the "most talented" one in 2010. Cubillan had not even low major talent in 2008 and 2009, but more than adequate high major talent in 2010. Do you have any clue how insane that sounds to anyone who follows the game? Are you actually saying that MU had much more talent than UCONN last year because our player's stats were better? OMG.
[/list]

[Marquette84]

OMG. In your world the most talented team ALWAYS has a better year, since all one has to do is look at stats AFTER the seaon to judge a player's talent. A team is incapable of under or over performing because their talent is only defined after the fact.

Yep, you've almost nailed it.  

I don't think a player who plays injured (Cubillan in 08 & 09, Diener in 05) or was a head case (think Amo or Maymon or most of the 2010 Uconn team) reflects their true talent.  

Otherwise, if they were healthy and of sound mind,  then their actual play is a better reflection of their current talent than some arbitrary judgement made before the year began (especially if that judgement is three years old).

For example, before the season, it would be fair to debate whether or not Acker had the talent to hit 50% on three point shots--after the season, there SHOULD be no debate.  In my eyes, he clearly DID have the talent to do so--otherwise he could not have accomplished it.   You seem to be arguing that he didn't actually have 3 point shooting talent--despite the fact that he shot 50%--because he didn't in previous seasons.   

Your argument made sense at the start of the season--but now that you know what happened, you should be open to changing your mind.  You can make all the projections you want--what really counts for me is the actual game-time performance.  

Before the season, one can make a guess at the talent level.  
After the season one can make a fact-supported assessment.

You choose to to put 100% faith in the pre-season projections
I choose to give more credence to the post-season reality.

[Marquette84]

84, why was the 2004 team so untalented (in your eyes)? That was Crean's 5th year and it came on the heels of 2 straight very strong seasons.  Same question with the 2005 team.  MU lost only lost one player early due to leaving for the pros.  Why didn't Crean recruit/develop players better during those seasons so that there would be more talent (in your eyes)?  Why did the 2006 recruiting class have to save a sinking ship?

Sorry--didn't mean to ignore your question above.

I don't think the 2004 team was untalented--i just think the 2010 team had more talent overall.

First factors is maturity:  In 2010 the rotation consisted of 3 seniors, 3 juniors and 1 sophomore.  In 2004 the rotation had had 2 seniors, 3 juniors, 2 sophomores and 1 freshman.  Even top 100 freshman sometimes struggle--witness the participation of Erik Williams this year.  He was higher rated out of HS than any of our primary rotation players, yet he couldn't crack the rotation.  Yet many still have high hopes for him.

Second is a reluctance to fairly credit JUCOs for their talent.  We had 4 JUCO all-Americans, and to hear people talk about it, those players weren't comparable to top 100 freshman.  I think they are, and the performance of DJO, Buycks & Butler prove it.

[Lennys Tap]

Yep, you've almost nailed it.  

I don't think a player who plays injured (Cubillan in 08 & 09, Diener in 05) or was a head case (think Amo or Maymon or most of the 2010 Uconn team) reflects their true talent.  

Otherwise, if they were healthy and of sound mind,  then their actual play is a better reflection of their current talent than some arbitrary judgement made before the year began (especially if that judgement is three years old).

For example, before the season, it would be fair to debate whether or not Acker had the talent to hit 50% on three point shots--after the season, there SHOULD be no debate.  In my eyes, he clearly DID have the talent to do so--otherwise he could not have accomplished it.   You seem to be arguing that he didn't actually have 3 point shooting talent--despite the fact that he shot 50%--because he didn't in previous seasons.   

Your argument made sense at the start of the season--but now that you know what happened, you should be open to changing your mind.  You can make all the projections you want--what really counts for me is the actual game-time performance.  

Before the season, one can make a guess at the talent level.  
After the season one can make a fact-supported assessment.

You choose to to put 100% faith in the pre-season projections
I choose to give more credence to the post-season reality.

So we can therefore conclude that all that nonsense you were spewing about the 2010 team (about whom we KNEW NOTHING in your view) having similar expectations as the 2006 team (whose talent was a matter of historical record) was total BS. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Marquette84]

So we can therefore conclude that all that nonsense you were spewing about the 2010 team (about whom we KNEW NOTHING in your view) having similar expectations as the 2006 team (whose talent was a matter of historical record) was total BS. Thanks for clearing that up.

Wrong. 

We're all entitled to make projections at the start of the season. For example, you and I both did that for 2010.  And we know how that turned out: my projection was right, yours was wrong. 

But when the actual results differ from pre season projections, rational people conclude that it was their projections that were wrong. 

But you cling to those pre-season projections even though you know they were wrong!

The only BS here is your continued use of knowingly incorrect pre-season projections. 

[Lennys Tap]

Wrong. 

We're all entitled to make projections at the start of the season. For example, you and I both did that for 2010.  And we know how that turned out: my projection was right, yours was wrong. 

But when the actual results differ from pre season projections, rational people conclude that it was their projections that were wrong. 

But you cling to those pre-season projections even though you know they were wrong!

The only BS here is your continued use of knowingly incorrect pre-season projections. 

Wrong.

I didn't make any projections last year so I don't know how mine could be "wrong". I'm not in that business. I merely pointed out that your projections (expectations) were much higher than anyone who gets paid to coach or cover basketball. I was, and remain, suspicious of your motives. And they were made BEFORE three pivotal players were lost for the season. Some here call you prescient, but I don't recall your prognostications had us relying on Acker or Cubillan starting and having big years.

But it's all a moot point anyway since your new stance is that expectations are meaningless, talent can only be judged in retrospect and that the team with the best record automatically is the more talented. Some on this board actually had high expectations for that 2004 team that returned 3 starters and several key reserves from a final 4 team and added a top 50 high school player and a JUCO All American. Who knew that they just wouldn't have the physical ability to compete with a team that had a 5'8" Mid American conference refugee and a 5'11" way down the bench career back up playing almost 70 minutes a game between them? Nobody, that's who.

Last year's team was often physically outmanned at all 5 positions. Announcers and opposing coaches alike made us the poster child of overachievers. But you know better. It was all due to our talent. Too bad you're not an NBA general manager, maybe Cuby and Mo would get drafted next month. Big East upper echelon talent like that certainly deserves a shot.

[jmayer1]

Yep, you've almost nailed it.  

I don't think a player who plays injured (Cubillan in 08 & 09, Diener in 05) or was a head case (think Amo or Maymon or most of the 2010 Uconn team) reflects their true talent.  

Otherwise, if they were healthy and of sound mind,  then their actual play is a better reflection of their current talent than some arbitrary judgement made before the year began (especially if that judgement is three years old).

For example, before the season, it would be fair to debate whether or not Acker had the talent to hit 50% on three point shots--after the season, there SHOULD be no debate.  In my eyes, he clearly DID have the talent to do so--otherwise he could not have accomplished it.   You seem to be arguing that he didn't actually have 3 point shooting talent--despite the fact that he shot 50%--because he didn't in previous seasons.   

Your argument made sense at the start of the season--but now that you know what happened, you should be open to changing your mind.  You can make all the projections you want--what really counts for me is the actual game-time performance.  

Before the season, one can make a guess at the talent level.  
After the season one can make a fact-supported assessment.

You choose to to put 100% faith in the pre-season projections
I choose to give more credence to the post-season reality.

I could have swore that North Carolina had a really talented team last year.  Little did I know that they were only the 67th most talented team in the nation.  Boy, a lot of people sure missed the boat by putting all those guys on all-star teams in high-school. It's clear they didn't underperform because there really isn't such a thing.  Your record is clearly indicative of how much talent you have, irregardless of how good/bad you may have been coached and a variety of other factors such as cohesiveness, matchups, luck...etc.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Wrong.

I didn't make any projections last year so I don't know how mine could be "wrong". I'm not in that business. I merely pointed out that your projections (expectations) were much higher than anyone who gets paid to coach or cover basketball. I was, and remain, suspicious of your motives. And they were made BEFORE three pivotal players were lost for the season. Some here call you prescient, but I don't recall your prognostications had us relying on Acker or Cubillan starting and having big years.

But it's all a moot point anyway since your new stance is that expectations are meaningless, talent can only be judged in retrospect and that the team with the best record automatically is the more talented. Some on this board actually had high expectations for that 2004 team that returned 3 starters and several key reserves from a final 4 team and added a top 50 high school player and a JUCO All American. Who knew that they just wouldn't have the physical ability to compete with a team that had a 5'8" Mid American conference refugee and a 5'11" way down the bench career back up playing almost 70 minutes a game between them? Nobody, that's who.

Last year's team was often physically outmanned at all 5 positions. Announcers and opposing coaches alike made us the poster child of overachievers. But you know better. It was all due to our talent. Too bad you're not an NBA general manager, maybe Cuby and Mo would get drafted next month. Big East upper echelon talent like that certainly deserves a shot.

Why even bother? 

[Marquette84]

I could have swore that North Carolina had a really talented team last year.  Little did I know that they were only the 67th most talented team in the nation.  Boy, a lot of people sure missed the boat by putting all those guys on all-star teams in high-school. It's clear they didn't underperform because there really isn't such a thing.  Your record is clearly indicative of how much talent you have, irregardless of how good/bad you may have been coached and a variety of other factors such as cohesiveness, matchups, luck...etc.

I haven't followed North Carolina closely enough to know whether their players lacked maturity, suffered from injuries to key players,  were assessed incorrectly out of HS, or were head cases.  My guess is that there were some combination of all four.

I do follow Marquette closely enough, and can assure you that there was more talent on the 2010 team than on the 2004 team.

BTW, I'm not sure where you get the idea I think teams cannot underperform.  Teams certainly can underperform--and the most likely reason is they lacked the talent people originally thought they had.

[Marquette84]

Wrong

I didn't make any projections last year so I don't know how mine could be "wrong".

You argued against me pretty vehemently when I said the team should do well.  That's making a projection, whether you call it that or not.

I'm not in that business. I merely pointed out that your projections (expectations) were much higher than anyone who gets paid to coach or cover basketball. I was, and remain, suspicious of your motives. And they were made BEFORE three pivotal players were lost for the season. Some here call you prescient, but I don't recall your prognostications had us relying on Acker or Cubillan starting and having big years.

As if your motives are above suspicion!

I probably looked more closely at MU and its competition than anyone who had to cover 345 D1 teams did.  The extent of most analysis was "The amigos are gone so it will be hard to fill their shoes". 

But it's all a moot point anyway since your new stance is that expectations are meaningless,

Well, no, I never said that. Maybe you misunderstood:

Expectations are meaningless once we know the reality.

For example, I can say that I expected that Lloyd Moore will be one of the greatest player to ever play for Marquette based on his HS rank.  But once I saw him play, it would be a misrepresentation to say that Moore actually was one of the most talented players ever to play for Marquette.  The projections were meaningless.  We know how Moore turned out.

talent can only be judged in retrospect and that the team with the best record automatically is the more talented.

Nope.  Didn't say this either.  Another misunderstanding on your part: I said there were other factors--like injuries, head cases, maturity that have to be taken into account.

Some on this board actually had high expectations for that 2004 team that returned 3 starters and several key reserves from a final 4 team and added a top 50 high school player and a JUCO All American.

Well, that would be a real trick, since this board didn't come into being until 2005!

Nonetheless, it may surprise you to know that I had high expectations for 2004 as well.

The difference between you and me is that you still believe those players were really as talented as their projections, while I updated my opinion after I saw them their play.

Hell, you probably still believe Lloyd Moore was one of the MU's all time greats as well based on his HS rank.

Who knew that they just wouldn't have the physical ability to compete with a team that had a 5'8" Mid American conference refugee and a 5'11" way down the bench career back up playing almost 70 minutes a game between them? Nobody, that's who.

Of course nobody knew in advance. 

The key is what do we know NOW.

The 2010 players had more talent than anyone expected, which explains why they exceeded those expectations.

Who knew that Acker had 49.5% three point shooting talent?  We could project it based on how he played against 5 elite eight teams at the end of 2009, but did we KNOW it?  Not until he proved it.

Who knew that Butler was the #6 offensive talent in all of NCAA?  We could project it based on his #4 rank from the 2009 season--in late season play he stepped up and demonstrated solid play.  After the season, we KNOW he had that talent.

Who knew that DJO would be the #3 all time single season 3 point shooter?  We could projected it based on how other 1st Team JUCO all-AMerican's have played in D1, but after the season, we KNEW it.

Who knew that Hayward would wind up #2 all time in scoring?  We didn't know what might happen with injuries, if he got a big head, or didn't work hard over the summer.  But after the season we KNEW he worked hard, improved his shooting & strength, wasn't injured, and did wind up the #2 scorer.

Before the season, we didn't know any of those things.  After the season, we DO know.

Sort of like how we didn't know Lloyd Moore wasn't as good as advertised.

Last year's team was often physically outmanned at all 5 positions. Announcers and opposing coaches alike made us the poster child of overachievers. But you know better. It was all due to our talent.

I hardly think we were out-manned at all five positions.  We may have been undersized, but unless Manute Bol or Chuck Nevitt are your idea of the greatest players of all time, we were not outmanned.

And our success was by definition due to our talent.  College basketball is 90% recruiting.  Mike Deane and Bob Dukiet showed you cannot win with substandard talent.   Maybe you'll win a game or two at the margins based on a coaching decision.  But you don't win without talent.

[NersEllenson]

Why even bother? 

+1 - Aint nobody going to change 84s illusionary mind.  What is being overlooked is that 84 continues to point out how talented DJO and Jimmy Butler are, yet fails to recognize that the previous coach in season 5 at the helm, following a Final Four year team, had recruited less talent to campus, than has an unheard of 2nd year, career assistant.  Furthermore, if Buzz had brought in players of the caliber of Mike Kinsella and Trend Blackledge, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

[Marquette84]

+1 - Aint nobody going to change 84s illusionary mind.  What is being overlooked is that 84 continues to point out how talented DJO and Jimmy Butler are, yet fails to recognize that the previous coach in season 5 at the helm, following a Final Four year team, had recruited less talent to campus, than has an unheard of 2nd year, career assistant.

This is amazing.

On one side, I've got Lenny criticizing me because I put for the argument that 2010 had more talent than 2004.

I now have Ners criticizing me for "failing to recognize" that 2010 had more talent than 2004.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Ners, but I most certainly HAVE recognized that 2010 had more talent than 2004--that is EXACTLY my point.

Which means that you and I share the exact same opinion.