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

[Marquette84]

I'm certainly not arguing that preseaon polls are more accurate than post season ones. Outcomes are easier to "predict" when one knows the final score. But try to tell people that follow N. Carolina, UCONN, Michigan, etc that they had NIT talent this year and that their teams performed to their capabilities since record = talent. 84 will find no more agreement with those fans than he finds here.

I think most UNC fans that would agree that their NIT appearance this year was more due to a lack of talent than poor coaching.

But I don't know--maybe most of their fans think that Roy is a terrible coach, only won the national championship because he got lucky, and failing to make the NCAA with super-studs like Tyler Zellar, John Henson and the Ware brothers on the roster have exposed his poor coaching.

[Lennys Tap]

Sorry, but you are the one distorting the truth here.

The truth:
Buzz recruited 10 players on the 2010 roster.
Crean recruited 3 players on the 2010 roster.

Your distortion of using use "recruiting classes" is a last gasp attempt to mask the underlying fact: Most of the players on the 2010 team were Buzz's responsibility. So what if Buzz "only" had 1.25 recruiting classes--he brought in most of the players.  

And what you really mean by making excuses for Buzz by claiming that he "only" had 1.25 recruiting classes?  Are you suggesting that Buzz wasn't capable of recruiting quality players until the incoming class for 2011? That he got lucky with Butler and Buycks and DJO?  That his recruiting in 2009 and 2010 were total busts?

You've clearly backed yourself into a corner on this one.

You argued quite vehemently that you think that 2010 had LESS overall talent than 2004.
But that's before I reminded you that Buzz (not Crean) recruited most of the players on the 2010 team.

Hence you invent this bogus "1.25 recruiting classes" argument.  

Yet 10 players are 10 players, regardless of whether they are all in one class or spread out over four classes.  Its completely bogus to say that Buzz couldn't recruit quality because he only had 1.25 classes to do so.

Again, in 1+ year I think Buzz has done a remarkable job of recruiting but it's not fair to say he should have recruited 4 years of talent in that time. By the way, how did that 1+ year work out for your boy at IU?(where last tear's team was TOTALLY his). As a fair man I think it's too early classify it as a complete train wreck and a collossal failure. You obviously think Crean (who actually had a slight head start on Buzz) has had ample time to make IU an elite program again. Don't you think you're being a tad harsh on him?

[MU B2002]

Jimmy Butler
Jimmy Butler
Jimmy Butler


Just wanted to make sure his name got mentioned on this page of the thread.   

[Marquette84]

Again, in 1+ year I think Buzz has done a remarkable job of recruiting but it's not fair to say he should have recruited 4 years of talent in that time.

Its this simple:  Buzz had 10 scholarships to fill. He filled them.

Either he filled them with players that are collectively better than the 2004 team (my view).  
Or he filled them with players that are collectively not as good as the 2004 team (your view).
 

[ChicosBailBonds]

The preseason polls are projections (hence the prefix pre), but to say they're based on nothing concrete is inaccurate. They're based on past performance (concrete data on returning players and newcomers) predicting the future - which is necessarily an inexact science. Injuries, defections and changes in attitude can't be predited. Nor can anything other than normal variance and progression for individual players. When you have players whose performance doesn't match reasonable expectations (see MU in 2004 or Texas, UCONN, etc from last year) teams surprise to the downside. Conversely, when a team has players who exceed reasonable expectations (MU 2010 with Acker and Cubillan) teams surprise to the upside. 84  believes that Mo and David were elite talents held back by TC before being "unleashed" by Buzz. I think it's more likely that they gave a big effort and had their strengths accentuated and weaknesses mitigated by the system devised by Buzz.

I'm certainly not arguing that preseaon polls are more accurate than post season ones. Outcomes are easier to "predict" when one knows the final score. But try to tell people that follow N. Carolina, UCONN, Michigan, etc that they had NIT talent this year and that their teams performed to their capabilities since record = talent. 84 will find no more agreement with those fans than he finds here.

I think we agree to a large extent.  Because they are preseason, they are subject to a lot of missing information, but certainly there is some information for them to make their prognostications.  So perhaps saying "nothing concrete" on my part was overstated.  I guess where we differ is how much weight to put into preseason predictions.  They're a nice gauge, fun for the fans, but in my opinion are largely based on the prior year's team and don't reflect the realities that occur in season like injuries, level of competition, the schedule changes from one year to the next, etc.

In essence, I don't believe a team overachieved or underachieved based on preseason polls.   This is why in 2004, I don't think we should have been the #23 team in the nation in preseason just as Michigan shouldn't have been the #15 team this year, or any other example given by me last night.

In my opinion, working with sports writers over the years, understanding how the polling works, it's just not a sound way to judge a team.  It's impossible for writers to know all 347 teams, or even know the top 75 that they would seriously look at to judge where they should be this year based on last.  I think the proof is in the pudding when we see that they only got 60% right this year...an F.

Just my opinion.

[jmayer1]

In essence, I don't believe a team overachieved or underachieved based on preseason polls.   

What do you think overachieving or underachieving should be based on?

The overall preseason rankings might be a bit sketchy, but what about the individual preseason conference rankings done by coaches and writers?  Surely there is some substance in those picks as everybody is familiar with the teams and knows what each team returns.

If you can't base if off those as a starting point (and take other factors such as injuries, luck..etc into account), then what is the basis for a team to over or underachieve?  Or do you foolishly believe (like 84) that there is no such thing?

[ChicosBailBonds]

What do you think overachieving or underachieving should be based on?

The overall preseason rankings might be a bit sketchy, but what about the individual preseason conference rankings done by coaches and writers?  Surely there is some substance in those picks as everybody is familiar with the teams and knows what each team returns.

If you can't base if off those as a starting point (and take other factors such as injuries, luck..etc into account), then what is the basis for a team to over or underachieve?  Or do you foolishly believe (like 84) that there is no such thing?

Here is where I sit with this.  It is easier to ascertain how a NFL or NBA or NHL or even MLB team is going to do each year via offseason moves, injuries, retirements, etc, core talent largely stays in tact.  The biggest reason is that there are only about 30 clubs in each sport.

Where I think one of the mistakes that has been made is to extrapolate that thinking to college basketball, where there are almost 350 teams, schedules are wildly different from year to year, roster turnover is the name of the game (including your most talented players) due to graduation.   Simply put, predicting college basketball or college football in the offseason is IMMENSELY more difficult than other sports.  Sure, people can say X player was rated #63 in the class so he's going to step right in and take over for the senior that just graduated, but that's nowhere near a science or even a highly educated guess because there is no track record for recruits other than random player rankings (many of which also don't pan out nearly to the extent that the recruiting gurus say they will).

So if people want to put a team's achievement in the hands of writers trying to figure out what 350 teams will do, trying to guess what a player that played well his Senior of high school is going to do his freshman year of college, trying to compare last year's schedule to this year's schedule, trying to compare the strength of all the other teams on that schedule, then that's fine.  For me, I don't buy into that as the source for determination of achieving or underachieving.  It's no more a guess than what we do on Crackedsidewalks when we take our lucky stab in the dark at how we will do.  It's a guess, with some rationale applied to it, but with massive amounts of caveats because so much data is missing.  The true analysis of achievement is done, in my mind, after the season is done based on what they did....not based on where some writer picked them to finish.


I've shown plenty of examples to show why counting on recruiting experts or poll voters is exposed with huge holes.  And just by definition, in my mind you evaluate a team on ACTUAL performance in ACTUAL games against ACTUAL competition, not by saying "they finished 8th in the conference but were picked 6th".  Seems way to naive and simplistic approach.

By the way, did you see the AP writers football preseason top 25?   We already know how badly they miss on hoops, for football they should do a much better job.  Even there, these "experts" miss badly.

Notre Dame top 25 preseason again....didn't happen in the final rankings
Oklahoma....major injuries...didn't finish in the top 25....did they underachieve or were those injuries the REALITY of what caused their downfall?  I'd argue the latter
California....preseason top 25, not at the end
Georgia....preseason top 25, but not at the end
North Carolina...same thing
Kansas...same thing
Oklahoma State...same thing

USC preseason #4, supposed to contend for national title...barely makes top 25 and goes to Emerald Bowl
Why did they miss on Wisconsin, Central Michigan, Pittsburgh, etc in the preseason?

And on and on.  The reality is, the preseason polls are based on some realities, some "science" in evaluation based on who's coming back, etc, but it's also loaded with gaping holes which is why they (the writers) miss so badly on the preseason vs the final rankings.  It's not the writers fault that they can't predict an injury, but the realities are those things happen.  Just like they happen in college hoops, and if that means a team underachieves, well that's for you to decide I guess.

[jmayer1]

I've shown plenty of examples to show why counting on recruiting experts or poll voters is exposed with huge holes.  And just by definition, in my mind you evaluate a team on ACTUAL performance in ACTUAL games against ACTUAL competition, not by saying "they finished 8th in the conference but were picked 6th".  Seems way to naive and simplistic approach.

So, do you think teams cannot under or overachieve in college sports because there is no way to accurately predict what a team will do due to a multitude of variables?  They just achieve whatever they achieve and that's that?  It's fine if you do, I just want to be clear.

[NersEllenson]

Its this simple:  Buzz had 10 scholarships to fill. He filled them.

Either he filled them with players that are collectively better than the 2004 team (my view).  
Or he filled them with players that are collectively not as good as the 2004 team (your view).
 

84 - Out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Indiana basketball - would you rather have Buzz Williams or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, do you think teams cannot under or overachieve in college sports because there is no way to accurately predict what a team will do due to a multitude of variables?  They just achieve whatever they achieve and that's that?  It's fine if you do, I just want to be clear.

LOL.  Not what I said at all.  You can use whatever criteria you want, but in my opinion using preseason rankings, which have shown to be very poor in predicting actual outcomes, is not proper or extremely flawed at best.  If you want to use that as your measuring stick, knock your socks off.  I'd prefer to watch the team, evaluate at the end of the season how they did, who they played, who was injured (you know...REAL DATA    ) and determine if they actually did better or worse then they should based on what the team was comprised of.

If you want to use a measuring stick of pretend, of prognostications done by writers with a yearly poor track record, that doesn't factor in the realities of injuries, schedules, etc....by all means.

[Lennys Tap]

Here is where I sit with this.  It is easier to ascertain how a NFL or NBA or NHL or even MLB team is going to do each year via offseason moves, injuries, retirements, etc, core talent largely stays in tact.  The biggest reason is that there are only about 30 clubs in each sport.

Where I think one of the mistakes that has been made is to extrapolate that thinking to college basketball, where there are almost 350 teams, schedules are wildly different from year to year, roster turnover is the name of the game (including your most talented players) due to graduation.   Simply put, predicting college basketball or college football in the offseason is IMMENSELY more difficult than other sports.  Sure, people can say X player was rated #63 in the class so he's going to step right in and take over for the senior that just graduated, but that's nowhere near a science or even a highly educated guess because there is no track record for recruits other than random player rankings (many of which also don't pan out nearly to the extent that the recruiting gurus say they will).

So if people want to put a team's achievement in the hands of writers trying to figure out what 350 teams will do, trying to guess what a player that played well his Senior of high school is going to do his freshman year of college, trying to compare last year's schedule to this year's schedule, trying to compare the strength of all the other teams on that schedule, then that's fine.  For me, I don't buy into that as the source for determination of achieving or underachieving.  It's no more a guess than what we do on Crackedsidewalks when we take our lucky stab in the dark at how we will do.  It's a guess, with some rationale applied to it, but with massive amounts of caveats because so much data is missing.  The true analysis of achievement is done, in my mind, after the season is done based on what they did....not based on where some writer picked them to finish.


I've shown plenty of examples to show why counting on recruiting experts or poll voters is exposed with huge holes.  And just by definition, in my mind you evaluate a team on ACTUAL performance in ACTUAL games against ACTUAL competition, not by saying "they finished 8th in the conference but were picked 6th".  Seems way to naive and simplistic approach.

By the way, did you see the AP writers football preseason top 25?   We already know how badly they miss on hoops, for football they should do a much better job.  Even there, these "experts" miss badly.

Notre Dame top 25 preseason again....didn't happen in the final rankings
Oklahoma....major injuries...didn't finish in the top 25....did they underachieve or were those injuries the REALITY of what caused their downfall?  I'd argue the latter
California....preseason top 25, not at the end
Georgia....preseason top 25, but not at the end
North Carolina...same thing
Kansas...same thing
Oklahoma State...same thing

USC preseason #4, supposed to contend for national title...barely makes top 25 and goes to Emerald Bowl
Why did they miss on Wisconsin, Central Michigan, Pittsburgh, etc in the preseason?

And on and on.  The reality is, the preseason polls are based on some realities, some "science" in evaluation based on who's coming back, etc, but it's also loaded with gaping holes which is why they (the writers) miss so badly on the preseason vs the final rankings.  It's not the writers fault that they can't predict an injury, but the realities are those things happen.  Just like they happen in college hoops, and if that means a team underachieves, well that's for you to decide I guess.

College basketball harder to project than any of the major pro sports? Agree. Easier to judge a team after the season than before it? True for all of life's endeavors.

I still say that it's fair to conclude that a team projected in the 18-30 range by all the preseason publications, writers and coaches that loses nobody to injury and finishes in the 50-70 range underachieves big time in comparison to a team picked 65-85 that loses 3 players from their rotation and still goes on to be a 6 seed in the NCAAs.

In 2004, the team lost Wade and Jackson and fell from the final four to the NIT. In 2010, the team lost James, McNeal, Matthews, Burke, Cadougan, Otule and Maymon and went from a 6 seed in the NCAA tourney to - (drum roll) - a 6 seed in the NCAA tourney. If both those teams achieved to their talent then those who say DWade was virtually a one man team are grossly understating their case.

[jmayer1]

LOL.  Not what I said at all.  You can use whatever criteria you want, but in my opinion using preseason rankings, which have shown to be very poor in predicting actual outcomes, is not proper or extremely flawed at best.  If you want to use that as your measuring stick, knock your socks off. 

Not sure what the LOL was for. I asked you the same question before and didn't get a straight answer.

I believe what the coaches and writers of a league think, as well as the general consensus of the team's fans, prior to the year are a good starting point to base expectations off of.  Obviously things change and there are a ton of other factors that should be considered when evaluating how a team fared after the season.

I'd prefer to watch the team, evaluate at the end of the season how they did, who they played, who was injured (you know...REAL DATA    ) and determine if they actually did better or worse then they should based on what the team was comprised of.

If you want to use a measuring stick of pretend, of prognostications done by writers with a yearly poor track record, that doesn't factor in the realities of injuries, schedules, etc....by all means.

The big problem with saying this is that then you aren't really setting any expectations prior to the season and thus have no starting basis to say if you think they under or overachieved.  How do you know if they did better or worse than they should?  It's all hindsight, because the results are right there in front of you.  It's illogical to look at the results and say a team did or did not meet expectations, when you didn't set any in the first place.

Going into 2004, I would have said the team should make the NCAA. That would have been my starting point.  After the season, I would have said they underachieved in my eyes due to x, y, and z.  Or I could have said they didn't really underachieve, I just set my expectations too high given the prior year success and x, y, z. 

Similarly, last year going into the season not many people (myself included) had MU pegged for a 5th place finish and another NCAA tournement appearance.  I could either say they overachieved, despite losing 2 highly rated recruits in Junior and Maymon, as Acker and Cubby really stepped up, Butler continued his progression, and DJO had one of the best first years on campus in recent memory.  Or I could have said that my expectations were too low, given how Acker & Butler played at the end of 09, Cubillan finally being healthy again, and DJO/Buycks showing a lot of potential in JUCO.

However, if you have no expectations to start with (even if they are just in your own head like most people's) I don't see how you can decide after the fact whether the team should have been better.  Not sure if you see my point or not.

[ChicosBailBonds]

84 - Out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Indiana basketball - would you rather have Buzz Williams or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?

Not 84, but asking me after 9 years and I can see how the two compare. 

Just as if you were to ask that same question a number of years ago after the Final Four season under Crean and said, "out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Tennessee basketball - would you rather have Kevin O'Neill or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?"

Timing is everything and when you ask the question in the tenure of the coach is equally relevant.  Would UNC fans today answer the same way about Roy Williams as they would have last year?  Would UCLA fans today answer the same way 2 years ago about Ben Howland after their 3rd straight Final Four?

[Lennys Tap]

84 - Out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Indiana basketball - would you rather have Buzz Williams or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?

If everyone in Marquette Nation past and presnt answered your question honestly the only two votes for TC would be from Tom and Joannie Crean.

[NersEllenson]

Not 84, but asking me after 9 years and I can see how the two compare. 

Just as if you were to ask that same question a number of years ago after the Final Four season under Crean and said, "out of curiousity, knowing everything we know about the past and present of MU/Tennessee basketball - would you rather have Kevin O'Neill or Tom Crean as head coach of Marquette?"

Timing is everything and when you ask the question in the tenure of the coach is equally relevant.  Would UNC fans today answer the same way about Roy Williams as they would have last year?  Would UCLA fans today answer the same way 2 years ago about Ben Howland after their 3rd straight Final Four?

Would you tend to agree that the sledding gets easier the longer a coach is successful and stays at 1 school?  In other words do established coaches 7-10+ years of tenure have an easier go of things - recruiting primarily - than those trying to establish themselves?  The truth is that in this day and age most schools aren't going to retain a coach for 7-10 years if he hasn't been successful...and that success should help build that coaches program, correct?  To me, early success on the job is a good indicator of future success - unless complacency or ego rear their ugly head....which I hope never happens to Buzz.  His character seems such that this won't happen, but we never know with public figures (as you've said before.). 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Would you tend to agree that the sledding gets easier the longer a coach is successful and stays at 1 school?  In other words do established coaches 7-10+ years of tenure have an easier go of things - recruiting primarily - than those trying to establish themselves?  The truth is that in this day and age most schools aren't going to retain a coach for 7-10 years if he hasn't been successful...and that success should help build that coaches program, correct?  To me, early success on the job is a good indicator of future success - unless complacency or ego rear their ugly head....which I hope never happens to Buzz.  His character seems such that this won't happen, but we never know with public figures (as you've said before.). 

In the old days, I would say absolutely.  In the new world, not so sure.  When you see Arizona, UCLA, UCONN, North Carolina, etc, etc not making the NCAA Tournament, despite being coached by highly successful coaches, that somewhat proves my point.

Kids leave earlier than they used to.  Parity has spread out talent across to other teams like never before (the elite teams often have only 7 or 8 solid players and no bench). 

I guess what I'm saying is that early success doesn't mean sustained success, and I give you UCLA, Arizona, North Carolina, UCONN, etc as just the latest examples of many.  Or, you can look at Steve Lavin.  Or you can look at Pat Kennedy.  Etc, etc. 

Look at Crean...average first two years, very good next two years, average next two years, very good next 3+ years (let's face it, if he didn't leave he would have taken the amigos to the NCAAs as well).

This is why I won't evaluate coaches until after 5 years, because things change and change frequently.

[NersEllenson]

In the old days, I would say absolutely.  In the new world, not so sure.  When you see Arizona, UCLA, UCONN, North Carolina, etc, etc not making the NCAA Tournament, despite being coached by highly successful coaches, that somewhat proves my point.

Kids leave earlier than they used to.  Parity has spread out talent across to other teams like never before (the elite teams often have only 7 or 8 solid players and no bench). 

I guess what I'm saying is that early success doesn't mean sustained success, and I give you UCLA, Arizona, North Carolina, UCONN, etc as just the latest examples of many.  Or, you can look at Steve Lavin.  Or you can look at Pat Kennedy.  Etc, etc. 

Look at Crean...average first two years, very good next two years, average next two years, very good next 3+ years (let's face it, if he didn't leave he would have taken the amigos to the NCAAs as well).

This is why I won't evaluate coaches until after 5 years, because things change and change frequently.

I'd tend to agree with some of your analysis, but it definitely is an anomaly or almost a fluke when UNC, UCLA, UCONN and Arizona don't make the tourney.  That said, due to one and dones, or other early departures it has leveled the playing field a little bit for the rest of the field, or non blue-chip programs.  One other thought - is there anything really that great about Lawrence, KS or Chapel Hill, or Bloomington, or Lexington..to where these schools/cities are such a draw that, that explains their success over time?  Or does a program become a blue chip program due to the legacy of an amazing coach with a long run at the school:  Wooden, Lute Olson, Dean Smith, Bobby Knight, Larry Brown (tho I think he was short run at Kansas), Adolph Rupp, Boheim, Calhoun, Bill Self, etc.?  Even Al McGuire put MU on the map nationally with recruits..and after he left we still got some top tier talent based on school name alone..and Al's legacy.  The longer one of these blue chip schools goes without a premier coach..the less the school becomes blue chip..in my opinion...which I believe TC is dealing with at IU currently.

[4everwarriors]

Funny? I'm figuring Crean thought it would be easier at Indiana than MU. Guess he was wrong for the first time ever.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Funny? I'm figuring Crean thought it would be easier at Indiana than MU. Guess he was wrong for the first time ever.

Maybe, but we'll have to see if that holds true 5 or 10 years from now.  Depends on so many factors.