Early CBE Loss to Duke = Forgone Conclusion

[4everwarriors]

If we're going to suck ass, why not save the airfare and hotel? I mean, fook it.

[NCMUFan]

Hopefully Duke has a weakness we can exploit.  DJ and McSteal abused Paulus when we won the CBE championship in 2006.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Though I am one who thinks MU is going to be quite a bit better than most people think (I think they will be a cinch for the NCAA tournament),

You clearly don't like Buzz and are setting him up for failure with this prediction.

[ErickJD08]

The optimism is a strict correlation to you opinion of Buzz.  So far, Buzz has had question marks leading into every season and has made it work.  So many question marks on this team but I am confident Buzz can put it all together.  Duke will be an interesting game.

[mwbauer7]

...and Trevor Mbakwe's fault.

Mbakwe transferred to Duke?

[Marquette84]

Simple really. Set expectations unrealistically high and there's much more room to criticize after the fact. And should we pull an upset he gets a big "I told you so". It's a win/win that's a favorite tactic with some of our posters.

Not to be confused with the tactic of setting expectations unrealistically low so one can heap lavish praise regardless of what actually happens.

My guess is Lenny will predict a 50 point loss to Duke, so that if we only lose by 40, he can praise the team for overachieving. 

Of course this is from the guy who STILL argues that we lacked talent last year, despite a team that featured a first round draft pick, one of the top 10 juniors-to-be-seniors in D1, one of the top 15 guards in the nation invited to the elite Chris Paul camp AND the Big East's #1 and #2 three point shooters.

[MUCam]

Mbakwe transferred to Duke?

Noting that that question is teal, I will nonetheless answer it. No, Mbakwe did not transfer to Duke. Nevertheless, he is responsible. I blame him for DJ Newbill's situation. I blame him for MU's inability to land stud 6'10" post men. I blame him for the NIT loss to Western Michigan. Why? Because he is at fault.

EDIT: I blame him for Marquette84's post above too.

[bobnoxious]

Well I'm gonna go ahead and blame Brandon Bell for this one

[mwbauer7]

Noting that that question is teal, I will nonetheless answer it. No, Mbakwe did not transfer to Duke.

The teal wasn't a dig. It was a "it wouldn't surprise me if Mbakwe transferred again."

[MUCam]

The teal wasn't a dig. It was a "it wouldn't surprise me if Mbakwe transferred again."

I know it wasn't a dig. That said, had I misinterpreted your statement as a dig, I would certainly blame Mbakwe for the misunderstanding.

[mikem91288]

Well, I will be there. Who else is coming? We can drink the dukies under the table.

[marquette99]

MU has beaten one #1 team EVER, in the history of the program - that was dwyane wade over kentucky.  A very long shot to pull this game off in november - but I grabbed courtside tickets because I am not missing it if it happens.

[karavotsos]

I'm more concerned about our frontcourt in this game than our backcourt.  I look forward to seeing how our guards match up with top flight guards.  It will be fun to see Blue guard Smith if he gets the opportunity.  Overall, it will be fun to watch our myriad of guards against their myriad of guards, whatever the matchups.  However, Butler-our main returning frontcourt player-will most likely be running with Singler around screens chasing on the perimeter a lot of the game.  This leaves Otule, Fulce, Crowder and Williams to rebound against the Plumlee brothers and the other 6'11" dude.  The Duke guys will most likely take their cue from Zoubek and not try to post up and score, just screen and move and hit the glass.  Will our inexperienced frontcourt have the discipline and aggression to get to their guys and box out?  If not, you're just feeding the fire.

I'm excited to see how Buzz works the matchups and the tempo, and I'm more concerned about our frontcourt than our backcourt.     

[mug644]

I'm more concerned about our frontcourt in this game than our backcourt.  I look forward to seeing how our guards match up with top flight guards.  It will be fun to see Blue guard Smith if he gets the opportunity.  Overall, it will be fun to watch our myriad of guards against their myriad of guards, whatever the matchups.  However, Butler-our main returning frontcourt player-will most likely be running with Singler around screens chasing on the perimeter a lot of the game.  This leaves Otule, Fulce, Crowder and Williams to rebound against the Plumlee brothers and the other 6'11" dude.  The Duke guys will most likely take their cue from Zoubek and not try to post up and score, just screen and move and hit the glass.  Will our inexperienced frontcourt have the discipline and aggression to get to their guys and box out?  If not, you're just feeding the fire.

I'm excited to see how Buzz works the matchups and the tempo, and I'm more concerned about our frontcourt than our backcourt.     

Well put, and, I gotta say, your "preview" gets me psyched for the season and that game in particular!

[Lennys Tap]

Not to be confused with the tactic of setting expectations unrealistically low so one can heap lavish praise regardless of what actually happens.

My guess is Lenny will predict a 50 point loss to Duke, so that if we only lose by 40, he can praise the team for overachieving. 

Of course this is from the guy who STILL argues that we lacked talent last year, despite a team that featured a first round draft pick, one of the top 10 juniors-to-be-seniors in D1, one of the top 15 guards in the nation invited to the elite Chris Paul camp AND the Big East's #1 and #2 three point shooters.

I'll set my expectations slightly higher or slightly lower than the Vegas line on the Duke game and I'll set my expectations for the season similarly. Since I think the experts underrate Buzz a bit as a coach, my expectations will likely be SLIGHTLY higher than theirs.

But they likely will be within a standard deviation of the norm. For example, I probably will never "expect" a team that loses 4 starters (including the highest paid 2nd year man in the NBA, their all time leading scorer and their #2 assist man in history) to be an upper echelon Big East team, especially when their replacements include a 5'6'', 150 lb Mid American refugee with a 2 - 6 record as a starting pg point guard in the Big East, a 6'0''career backup 2 guard whose awful play had reduced his pt to almost nothing and jucos we had never seen who were originally recruited by the Bradleys (at best) of the world. Only a real genius could have "expected" that the smallest team in any BCS conference, who graduated 70% of its points and rebounds and 80% of its assists and had one (barely) consensus top 100 guy in their rotation would win 22 games and go to the NCAAs. Just like, for example, only a real genius could have set the fair expectation for Butler last year to play for the national championship.

[Marquette84]

I'll set my expectations slightly higher or slightly lower than the Vegas line on the Duke game and I'll set my expectations for the season similarly. Since I think the experts underrate Buzz a bit as a coach, my expectations will likely be SLIGHTLY higher than theirs.

But they likely will be within a standard deviation of the norm. For example, I probably will never "expect" a team that loses 4 starters (including the highest paid 2nd year man in the NBA, their all time leading scorer and their #2 assist man in history) to be an upper echelon Big East team, especially when their replacements include a 5'6'', 150 lb Mid American refugee with a 2 - 6 record as a starting pg point guard in the Big East, a 6'0''career backup 2 guard whose awful play had reduced his pt to almost nothing and jucos we had never seen who were originally recruited by the Bradleys (at best) of the world. Only a real genius could have "expected" that the smallest team in any BCS conference, who graduated 70% of its points and rebounds and 80% of its assists and had one (barely) consensus top 100 guy in their rotation would win 22 games and go to the NCAAs. Just like, for example, only a real genius could have set the fair expectation for Butler last year to play for the national championship.

So this highlights the differences  in our analytical capabilities.

For example, you look at Acker and only see a short guy with a 2-6 record.  If that's the extent of your analysis, its no wonder you were so wrong!

I look at the history of players like Cordell Henry or Aaron Hutchins to conclude that height is of zero concern for me in a a PG.   Then I actually look at the  performance and who the opponents were in those 8 games.  A 2-6 record against DePaul, St. Johns and Rutgers would be a concern.  But Acker actually put up excellent shooting and A:T stats against six Sweet 16/Elite Eight teams--five of which were played extremely close.  Extremely impressive--especially considering that he had received only token minutes up to that point.  One only wonders what he might have done if he got 10 or 12 mpg all season.

Given the lack of any real depth of your analysis its no wonder you guessed wrong.

Then your analysis is based on complete ignorance.  You apparently didn't even know who was actually recruiting Buycks and DJO--sure Bradley might have been interested--just like UWM is interested in JP Tokoto.  Doesn't mean Tokoto is a Horizon league player.

According to DJO himself, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Tennessee and Kentucky were all recruiting him.    According to ESPN, Memphis, Kentucky, Illinois and Tennessee were recruiting Buycks.

Again, this is evidence your poor analysis skills.  You didn't know who was recruiting Buycks or DJO--I did.

So, no, it wouldn't have taken a genius to predict that we should be a top half team--just someone that was actually paying attention.

So perhaps I was a bit hasty in my accusation that you sandbagged last year's team in order to set up the opportunity to praise medocre performance.   

It might have been that you are just ignorant about MU basketball

By your own post, you obviously didn't know that Henry & Hutchins were also undersized, you didn't know who was really recruiting DJO or Buycks, and you didn't know that Acker actually held his own against Sweet 16-type teams.

[Lennys Tap]

So this highlights the differences  in our analytical capabilities.

For example, you look at Acker and only see a short guy with a 2-6 record.  If that's the extent of your analysis, its no wonder you were so wrong!

I look at the history of players like Cordell Henry or Aaron Hutchins to conclude that height is of zero concern for me in a a PG.   Then I actually look at the  performance and who the opponents were in those 8 games.  A 2-6 record against DePaul, St. Johns and Rutgers would be a concern.  But Acker actually put up excellent shooting and A:T stats against six Sweet 16/Elite Eight teams--five of which were played extremely close.  Extremely impressive--especially considering that he had received only token minutes up to that point.  One only wonders what he might have done if he got 10 or 12 mpg all season.

Given the lack of any real depth of your analysis its no wonder you guessed wrong.

Then your analysis is based on complete ignorance.  You apparently didn't even know who was actually recruiting Buycks and DJO--sure Bradley might have been interested--just like UWM is interested in JP Tokoto.  Doesn't mean Tokoto is a Horizon league player.

According to DJO himself, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Tennessee and Kentucky were all recruiting him.    According to ESPN, Memphis, Kentucky, Illinois and Tennessee were recruiting Buycks.

Again, this is evidence your poor analysis skills.  You didn't know who was recruiting Buycks or DJO--I did.

So, no, it wouldn't have taken a genius to predict that we should be a top half team--just someone that was actually paying attention.

So perhaps I was a bit hasty in my accusation that you sandbagged last year's team in order to set up the opportunity to praise medocre performance.   

It might have been that you are just ignorant about MU basketball

By your own post, you obviously didn't know that Henry & Hutchins were also undersized, you didn't know who was really recruiting DJO or Buycks, and you didn't know that Acker actually held his own against Sweet 16-type teams.

Wow. Over time, I've grown used to you misrepresenting my and other posters' statements. I've also become aquainted with your  your personal attacks. But this post takes the cake and should be exhibit A on the wit and wisdom that is Marquette 84.

Because Cordell Henry and Aaron Hutchins were good point guards you conclude that size matters zero in a point guard. So 6'9" Magic Johnson has no physical edge on 5'3" Muggsy Bogues? Right. Furthermore, the reason Acker got only "token" minutes in the 10 games or so preceding DJ's injury is because he PLAYED his way out of the rotation. Evidently you didn't watch MU play that season or you would have known that.

Regarding the recruitment of Buycks and DJO, neither one of us knows who actually offered them out of junior college(saying someone is "recruiting" you means nothing to me without an offer) I do know that the best Buycks could do out of high school was Bradley, where he signed. I also know that DJO was not in the top 100.

Finally, please explain the "By your own post, you obviously didn't know that Henry and Hutchins were undersized" statement. Of course I did. I'm just not "analytical" enough to to draw the ridiculous conclusion that because Hutch and Henry were good  Acker will be also. If your syllogism goes A is short,B is short and C is short and A and B are good, therefore  C must be good, I'm afraid you failed logic miserably.

[ATL MU Warrior]

So this highlights the differences  in our analytical capabilities.

For example, you look at Acker and only see a short guy with a 2-6 record.  If that's the extent of your analysis, its no wonder you were so wrong!

I look at the history of players like Cordell Henry or Aaron Hutchins to conclude that height is of zero concern for me in a a PG.   Then I actually look at the  performance and who the opponents were in those 8 games.  A 2-6 record against DePaul, St. Johns and Rutgers would be a concern.  But Acker actually put up excellent shooting and A:T stats against six Sweet 16/Elite Eight teams--five of which were played extremely close.  Extremely impressive--especially considering that he had received only token minutes up to that point.  One only wonders what he might have done if he got 10 or 12 mpg all season.

Given the lack of any real depth of your analysis its no wonder you guessed wrong.

Then your analysis is based on complete ignorance.  You apparently didn't even know who was actually recruiting Buycks and DJO--sure Bradley might have been interested--just like UWM is interested in JP Tokoto.  Doesn't mean Tokoto is a Horizon league player.

According to DJO himself, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Tennessee and Kentucky were all recruiting him.    According to ESPN, Memphis, Kentucky, Illinois and Tennessee were recruiting Buycks.

Again, this is evidence your poor analysis skills.  You didn't know who was recruiting Buycks or DJO--I did.

So, no, it wouldn't have taken a genius to predict that we should be a top half team--just someone that was actually paying attention.

So perhaps I was a bit hasty in my accusation that you sandbagged last year's team in order to set up the opportunity to praise medocre performance.   

It might have been that you are just ignorant about MU basketball

By your own post, you obviously didn't know that Henry & Hutchins were also undersized, you didn't know who was really recruiting DJO or Buycks, and you didn't know that Acker actually held his own against Sweet 16-type teams.

Wow.  you are one arrogant d-bag. 

[Marquette84]

Because Cordell Henry and Aaron Hutchins were good point guards you conclude that size matters zero in a point guard. So 6'9" Magic Johnson has no physical edge on 5'3" Muggsy Bogues? Right. Furthermore, the reason Acker got only "token" minutes in the 10 games or so preceding DJ's injury is because he PLAYED his way out of the rotation. Evidently you didn't watch MU play that season or you would have known that.

I intended to show was that height alone is not a relevant stat.  Mbao wasn't a stud because he was 7'2.  Acker didn't suck because he was 5'8.   We've had other successful short PGs, therefore being short is not an impediment to success. If that's not what you got out of the statement, then I apologize for not stating it clearly.

Let me be clear:  Height is irrelevant as a determinant of success as proven by Hutch and Henry (and as you cite, Bogues)

Second, when Acker DID play extended minutes, he played extremely well--maybe not Big East Championship level--maybe not Dominic James level--but certainly above average for the big east in general. ANY point guard that can pull a 2:1 assist to turnover ratio against the murderers row of Pitt, UL, Syracuse, UConn, Villanova and Missouri has got to be respected for decent PG skills. 

Third, citing the 2-6 record without mentioning that those losses were all Sweet 16 teams (five of them Elite Eight), you border on blatant misrepresentation. 

Regarding the recruitment of Buycks and DJO, neither one of us knows who actually offered them out of junior college(saying someone is "recruiting" you means nothing to me withoutn offer)

Its your choice to reject the reports out of Rivals, Scout, ESPN, and all the other recruiting gurus,who all reported that Buycks and DJO were getting interest from the likes of Missouri, UK, Pitt, Tennesse, etc.

How'd that work out for you? 

Of course, you know you want it both ways on this.

You want to argue that only through Buzz's outstanding recruiting skills did he land highly talented players like DJO and Buycks.  But you also want to believe that Buycks and DJO were stumbelbums when they arrived on campus--players more suited to the Bradley's of the world--at best.

Finally, please explain the "By your own post, you obviously didn't know that Henry and Hutchins were undersized" statement. Of course I did. I'm just not "analytical" enough to to draw the ridiculous conclusion that because Hutch and Henry were good  Acker will be also.

You are twisting the argument. I did NOT say that because Hutch and Henry were good, Acker would be also.   

I said that because Hutch and Henry were good, you cannot draw the ridiculous conclusion that Acker's height means he can't be good.

If your syllogism goes A is short,B is short and C is short and A and B are good, therefore  C must be good, I'm afraid you failed logic miserably.

Nope.  You've got it backwards.

You argue that because A is short, he cannot be good.

My counter is that B and C were both short AND good, proving your argument is false.

[Lennys Tap]

84,

I NEVER said that my modest expections for Acker were based solely on his diminutive stature. And saying that I said that a small player couldn't be good is a flat out lie. That said Acker's lack of size and strength were nonetheless a shortcoming, (no pun intended) making it impossible to finish offensively and making him a liabilty defensively. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is just plain basketball stupid.

[NersEllenson]

Lenny,

I find it best to just ignore Marquette 84...I mean Joanie Crean. Life's too short to worry about 84's arguments and arrogance.  She/He has her agenda - which happens to be opposite of ours, and most MU fans - to promote and extoll the greatness of Tom Crean, while simulatneously diminishing the accomplishments thus far of Buzz Williams.

Joanie can't be pleased thus far with the results Tommy's gotten at IU, so therefore all she can do is try to defend his MU legacy, while knocking down Buzz's accomplishments.  AT the end of the day, it comes down to this:  Who's roster would you rather have at present day:  Marquette's or Indiana's? 

Hopefully Buzz can win with his players this year.  I suspect DJO and  Buycks and Cadougan will offset the loss of Mo and Cooby.  Crowder should be a serviceable replacement for Lazar.  We already know that Buzz is an upgrade as a game day coach over Crean.

Lastly, did 84 pick IU to finish in the Top 4 of the Big Ten last year  -considering the "talent" Tom Crean recruited to IU in year 1 and 2??  Considering 84 picked MU to finish in the Top 5/Upper 3rd of the Big East last year..when MU was picked by almost every college basketball expert to finish in the bottom 25 percent of the Big East...it would stand to reason that 84 would have expected Tommy to guide the Hosiers to a Top 4 finish in the Big 10 last year, right?

[Marquette84]

84,

I NEVER said that my modest expections for Acker were based solely on his diminutive stature. And saying that I said that a small player couldn't be good is a flat out lie. That said Acker's lack of size and strength were nonetheless a shortcoming, (no pun intended) making it impossible to finish offensively and making him a liabilty defensively. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is just plain basketball stupid.

And I never said your entire argument against Acker was his size.  In my first response I very clearly said the size argument is irrelevant--which it is--and your misleading tactic of citing the w/l record only while ignoring Acker's actual play (and the quality of the opponents) in the 8 games he did play in 2009.

For example, Acker's 2.4:1 Assist to Turnover ratio in those 8 games--if extended for the entire Big East season--would have ranked him 3rd in the Big East.

Your comment about Acker being a defensive liability is simply not borne out by the statistics. In BE games without Acker, our FG% defense was 45.1%.  And in 3 point shooting--where Acker was defending--our defense actually improved--from 36.7% in the games w/o Acker to 35.4 with him.  And then we have to factor in the opponents-- those eight games included the #1, #2, #3, #5 and #7 best shooting teams in the conference.

You can claim its "basketball stupid" if I don't agree that Acker was a defensive liability--but the fact is the so-called "liability" didn't show up on the scoreboard.

I would agree that Acker wasn't the best PG in the Big East--but at the same time, I think he was good enough over those 8 games to be considered a worthy substitute for James.

But probably the most fundamental error you keep making is to assume that there was no good reason for optimism going into this season.  I did the analysis and came to a different conclusion than you.  

You saw Acker and saw a short kid that you thought was defensive and offensive liability.  I looked at the stats and saw an excellent A:T ratio and no difference in defensive statistics in a stretch of games that would be far tougher than anything he'd face the following season.

Usually in these types of debates, they take place before the season, and then the games are played and the argument is settled. I don't know why you're still debating this.  I made a prediction that we would be "just fine" with Acker, and supported it with the same reasoning I'm giving you here.  Even though we both KNOW that Acker came closer to my prediction than yours, you still here arguing the point!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Lastly, did 84 pick IU to finish in the Top 4 of the Big Ten last year  -considering the "talent" Tom Crean recruited to IU in year 1 and 2??  Considering 84 picked MU to finish in the Top 5/Upper 3rd of the Big East last year..when MU was picked by almost every college basketball expert to finish in the bottom 25 percent of the Big East...it would stand to reason that 84 would have expected Tommy to guide the Hosiers to a Top 4 finish in the Big 10 last year, right?

Silliest logic I've ever read.  First, which experts....MU, was picked 12th by the coaches but as high as 8th by other experts, magazines, etc. 

Second, it wouldn't stand to reason at all that the same expectation would be made.  In fact, it's one of the silliest things I've ever read.   By that same logic you are using, the first place team in the Big Ten is equivalent to the first place team in the Big East.  The middle of the pack teams are the same.  The last place teams are the same.  So on and so forth.

MU, despite being picked 8th through 12th, still returned a first team all Big East player and top 5 scorer of all-time in the program, a first team JUCO All American, several returning seniors, etc.  They were mostly picked where they were because no one knew much about the other guys (this, AGAIN is why preseason polls are a joke and nothing but complete guesses) and the big three had left.  To compare them to what Indiana brought back is laughable, which is why IU was picked either dead last in the Big Ten or 10th by two publications.

Come on Ners, use some logic.  I read some of this stuff from grads and it doesn't surprise me that we're ranked 330th best school in the nation. 

[Lennys Tap]

And I never said your entire argument against Acker was his size.  In my first response I very clearly said the size argument is irrelevant--which it is--and your misleading tactic of citing the w/l record only while ignoring Acker's actual play (and the quality of the opponents) in the 8 games he did play in 2009.

For example, Acker's 2.4:1 Assist to Turnover ratio in those 8 games--if extended for the entire Big East season--would have ranked him 3rd in the Big East.

Your comment about Acker being a defensive liability is simply not borne out by the statistics. In BE games without Acker, our FG% defense was 45.1%.  And in 3 point shooting--where Acker was defending--our defense actually improved--from 36.7% in the games w/o Acker to 35.4 with him.  And then we have to factor in the opponents-- those eight games included the #1, #2, #3, #5 and #7 best shooting teams in the conference.

You can claim its "basketball stupid" if I don't agree that Acker was a defensive liability--but the fact is the so-called "liability" didn't show up on the scoreboard.

I would agree that Acker wasn't the best PG in the Big East--but at the same time, I think he was good enough over those 8 games to be considered a worthy substitute for James.

But probably the most fundamental error you keep making is to assume that there was no good reason for optimism going into this season.  I did the analysis and came to a different conclusion than you.

You saw Acker and saw a short kid that you thought was defensive and offensive liability.  I looked at the stats and saw an excellent A:T ratio and no difference in defensive statistics in a stretch of games that would be far tougher than anything he'd face the following season.

Usually in these types of debates, they take place before the season, and then the games are played and the argument is settled. I don't know why you're still debating this.  I made a prediction that we would be "just fine" with Acker, and supported it with the same reasoning I'm giving you here.  Even though we both KNOW that Acker came closer to my prediction than yours, you still here arguing the point!

So now your coming up with statistics to "prove" MU was a better defensive team with Acker at point guard than DJ? Have you ever seen James or Acker play or do you just look up numbers in the newspaper? James was one of the the toughest on ball defenders at MU EVER - as good as Acker was bad. I didn't think it possible for you to hit new lows. I was wrong. 

[Marquette84]

So now your coming up with statistics to "prove" MU was a better defensive team with Acker at point guard than DJ? Have you ever seen James or Acker play or do you just look up numbers in the newspaper? James was one of the the toughest on ball defenders at MU EVER - as good as Acker was bad. I didn't think it possible for you to hit new lows. I was wrong.  

Yes, Lenny, I'm actually using statistics.  The "new low" of statistics is the basis on which basketball games have been settled since the game was invented.

I've never once picked up the paper and learned that a game was settled by judges that scoreed a comparison of the on-ball defense of the two point guards.  If thats what you want, go watch ice skating or diving.

You can go right ahead and argue that James was a tougher on ball defender. It may well be true--probably is. I don't care. In basketball, if that skill doesn't translate into a lower shooting percentage for the other team, its not relevant.

The bottom line is that when we took James out of the game and put Acker in, the rate at which the other team put the ball in the hoop did not change in any significant way--even though the opposition was a lot better. 

James may have won more style points, but Acker, for all his supposed flaws, was good enough.