Great game by Scott C.

[Lennys Tap]

None.  Having Christopherson would have been a net plus this season.  We already narrowly lost one game this year because Mark Few saw that our 3 point shots couldn't hit the ocean.  

And given that our current lineup is one of the worst 3 point defensive teams in the country, I hardly think you can make the case that Christopherson would cause us to become terrible defensively.  

As a team, Iowa State is 12 points better than us at defending the three point shot this season.

You've made an assumption--unsubstantiated by fact--that our more athletic backcourt naturally defends the 3 point shot better.  That's simply not happening right now.  

First, I think you're wrong about Newbill not getting off the bench. He's putting up better numbers than most of our current backcourt--even our veterans.  And he's even done so against Big East-level competition.  

Second, you offer a false premise on the question. Buzz could have picked any of the 13 players on scholarship or under LOI when he needed to find room for Wilson.    

Pakuni's assertion is that over the course of the year having Christopherson on our roster rather than, say DJO, would cost us more games than it would win us. I can't believe there's anyone out there (even you) who wouldn't agree with that. DJO is simply a vastly superior player on both ends of the court.

[Pakuni]

None.  Having Christopherson would have been a net plus this season.  We already narrowly lost one game this year because Mark Few saw that our 3 point shots couldn't hit the ocean.  

So you know that Christopherson would have shot lights out against Gonzaga as opposed to, say, the 1-for-10 performance he had against Northern Arizona.
And that DJO's shooitng woes will continue and he won't, in fact, prove to be the better long-range shooter, as he was last year.
Interesting. Remember that I need to invite you to the track some day.

And given that our current lineup is one of the worst 3 point defensive teams in the country, I hardly think you can make the case that Christopherson would cause us to become terrible defensively.  

Huh? Who said anything about "defending the 3-point shot."
Nobody but you, of course.
But if think this team wouldn't suffer defensively by replacing DJO or Blue with Christopherson, well then your basketball knowledge is seriously lacking.

First, I think you're wrong about Newbill not getting off the bench. He's putting up better numbers than most of our current backcourt--even our veterans.  And he's even done so against Big East-level competition.  

Yeah, 9 points against South Florida qualifies as "doing it against Big East level competition." Obviously a valid sample size to show how he'd perform against the Big East.
And South Dakota State's 10-point win over Iowa proves they can handle anyone in the Big 10. Just like Chaminade's win over Oklahoma shows that they are a Big 12-quality team.

Second, you offer a false premise on the question. Buzz could have picked any of the 13 players on scholarship or under LOI when he needed to find room for Wilson.

Of course he couldn't have.
All the others were accepted Marquette students with valid NLIs.    


rocky's edit: fix quotes

[Marquette84]

Pakuni's assertion is that over the course of the year having Christopherson on our roster rather than, say DJO, would cost us more games than it would win us. I can't believe there's anyone out there (even you) who wouldn't agree with that. DJO is simply a vastly superior player on both ends of the court.

Yes, and my assertion is that having Christopherson in addition to DJO or Blue over the course of the year would win us more games.  

Does that clear it up for you?

Sadly, you've fallen for one of Pakuni's tricks.  He's been known to present some irrelevant (yet factually correct) statement as if it were a counter-argument.  I first caught him doing this when I pointed out that Wade wasn't an RSCI top 100 player.  Pakuni tried to dispute me by saying that Wade was 1st team all-state in Illinois.  He was absolutely correct, of course.  But it didn't change my statement.  Wade was not a consensus top 100 player.

Let's go back and look at what I actually said:
"With the way we're shooting the 3 this season, the loss of Christopherson will wind up costing us a loss or two this year. "

He responded with the following (emphasis added):
"How many game would it cost MU to have Christopherson playing ahead of DJO or Blue?"

Did I say that Christopherson should play ahead of DJO or Blue?  No.  Of course not.

And Pakuni knows that.  But he didn't want to concede the point so he invented his straw man and argued that instead.

I think we lost the Gonzaga game in large part because of our lousy outside shooting. I think Christopherson would have done one of two things for us--either got us the points we needed by shooting over the zone, or he would have kept the defense honest, opening up the lanes for penetration by DJO or Blue.  Either way, Few would have been forced to go back to man defense a hell of lot earlier than he did.

[GGGG]

Yes, and my assertion is that having Christopherson in addition to DJO or Blue over the course of the year would win us more games.  

DJO filled our last scholarship for 2009-10.  If Christopherson doesn't transfer, we don't have the scholie for DJO.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni's assertion is that over the course of the year having Christopherson on our roster rather than, say DJO, would cost us more games than it would win us. I can't believe there's anyone out there (even you) who wouldn't agree with that. DJO is simply a vastly superior player on both ends of the court.

I would agree with this, no question DJO is a better player and I would not want SC over DJO.  Since there were no scholarships left, it's an easy decision to make.

However, I would like a better shooter, someone with that skill set ahead of a player taken in the next class.  It's not a matter of who would you not want, either.  It's not a zero sum game.  The question in my mind is could we live with one less of the same type of player in which we have many that fit the exact same mold?  Instead, do without one of those interchangeable players and get someone that can help you in other ways by possessing a skill set that the "switchables" don't have?

That, to me, is the more relevant question.  SC isn't that guy, but there are a ton of very good shooters out there in DI (much more abundant than big men) and we seem to be a team absent any of them sans one, which is frustrating.

Hopefully they can turn it around and someone gets hot and DJO starts to find his stroke.  It would go a long way to having a successful season.

[Marquette84]

So you know that Christopherson would have shot lights out against Gonzaga as opposed to, say, the 1-for-10 performance he had against Northern Arizona.

You mean 1 for 4 on 3 point shots in that first game. 

I mention how we would miss his 3 point shooting, and somehow you feel that mentioning the six missed TWO point shots is relevant. I can't argue with your fact.  You're right--in that Northern Arizona game Chrisopherson did miss six two point shots.

Its just not relevant to what I said.

And that DJO's shooitng woes will continue and he won't, in fact, prove to be the better long-range shooter, as he was last year.
Interesting. Remember that I need to invite you to the track some day.

Last year, flanking DJO, we had Acker at 49% and Cubillan at 41% and Hayward at 35%.

This year we have . . . no more acker, no more cuibillan, no more Hayward, and DJO shooting has fallen off to half what it was.  And no incoming guards who appear to have either Acker's or Cuby's shooting touch.  

So even if DJO does return to his form of last year, we're still down a couple of 3 point shooters.  

And what if he DOESN'T return to form?

Huh? Who said anything about "defending the 3-point shot."
Nobody but you, of course.

Oh, here's your other game . . False Preciseness.  

You said:
"How many more points does he give up to Big East-quality perimter players?"

Of course everyone knows that the perimeter and the 3 point line represent the same region of the court.  So 3 point FG% defense is an actual statistic that measures defense from the perimeter.

THAT'S why I mentioned it.

But if think this team wouldn't suffer defensively by replacing DJO or Blue with Christopherson, well then your basketball knowledge is seriously lacking.

And of course, once again, this is your usual game of "change the argument."

I never said replace DJO with Christopherson.

And for some strange reason, the backcourt with DJO is allowing a significantly higher percentage of perimeter shots go through the basket than the one with Christopherson.   But since you claim my basketball knowledge is lacking, please explain for me why allowing 39% (instead of 27%) on treys is a sign of better defense.  

Of course he couldn't have.
All the others were accepted Marquette students with valid NLIs.    

But, as you yourself have argued so vehemently, the only reason Newbill's wasn't valid was because Buzz chose to reject him.  Any my point was Buzz could have made that choice for any player, since they all signed the same NLI form.

Not to mention, of course, that Buzz had the absolute right to choose not to renew the scholarship of any returning player.   So, as I said, Buzz had 13 choices when he needed a spot for Wilson.  

[Marquette84]

DJO filled our last scholarship for 2009-10.  If Christopherson doesn't transfer, we don't have the scholie for DJO.

Christopherson left after the 2008 season.  If he hadn't left, we wouldn't have had Liam McMorrow.

And I'm pretty sure Mbao committed after DJO.

[Jay Bee]

Christopherson left after the 2008 season.  If he hadn't left, we wouldn't have had Liam McMorrow.

And I'm pretty sure Mbao committed after DJO.

Yes - DJO was ~April Fool's Day.  Mbao was about 4 weeks later.

[GGGG]

Christopherson left after the 2008 season.  If he hadn't left, we wouldn't have had Liam McMorrow.

And I'm pretty sure Mbao committed after DJO.

OK...had my dates mixed up.

[Pakuni]

Yes, and my assertion is that having Christopherson in addition to DJO or Blue over the course of the year would win us more games.  

Awesome idea.
I'm sure Buzz will implement your program for success as soon as the NCAA allows six players on the court at a time. Until then, though, playing one by necessity means you're not playing one of the others.
Playing Christopherson ahead of Blue means you're trading SC's better shooting for Blue's better defense and all-around game.
Playing Christopherson ahead of DJO measns you're trading his - maybe - better shooting (DJO actually still is a better shooter, career-wise) for all the other things DJO is better at.

You're suggesting MU wins more games making those trades. I disagree.

Does that clear it up for you?

Pakuni tried to dispute me by saying that Wade was 1st team all-state in Illinois.  He was absolutely correct, of course.  But it didn't change my statement.  Wade was not a consensus top 100 player.

Welcome to world of telling the truth, but never the whole truth, SJS style. Now explain why you cited Wade's lack of being a consensus top 100 player. Because, of course, you were arguing that he wasn't all that good before he arrived at Marquette, and it was the development he received there - and not the fact he was a helluva player even in high school - that's to be attributed for his success.

Let's go back and look at what I actually said:
"With the way we're shooting the 3 this season, the loss of Christopherson will wind up costing us a loss or two this year. "

He responded with the following (emphasis added):
"How many game would it cost MU to have Christopherson playing ahead of DJO or Blue?"

Did I say that Christopherson should play ahead of DJO or Blue?  No.  Of course not.

Pray tell, how does Christopherson get on the court, if not for ahead of DJO and/or Blue? Is he going to play the five? The point? Is MU allowed six players at a time? By nature of the fact SC is a two, and only a two, he must play ahead of either DJO or Blue to get on the court.

I think we lost the Gonzaga game in large part because of our lousy outside shooting.

I think you didn't watch the game. MU lost the Gonzaga game because they were outrebounded 42 to 26, and allowed 17 offensive boards, leading to 20 second-chance points.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Suggestion Christopherson would be worth an addition 2 to 3 wins is almost as ridiculous as Marquette84's previous actual (vigorously defended) assertion that MU's head coach should adopt players to avoid burning scholarships.

[tower912]

Christopherson chose to leave.   There is no either/or.   Once Scott chose to leave, God Bless, good luck, who is next?   Congratulations to Scott on his success.   Not worth nit-picking diatribes. 

[MuMark]

Christopherson chose to leave.   There is no either/or.   Once Scott chose to leave, God Bless, good luck, who is next?   Congratulations to Scott on his success.   Not worth nit-picking diatribes. 

This.......He realized during his freshman season that he was in over his head at this level and knew if he wanted to play major minutes in college he would have to look elseware.

Great kid...glad he is having some success now but he didn't think he could play here so he left....end of story.

[Marquette84]

Suggestion Christopherson would be worth an addition 2 to 3 wins is a.

Here's what I said:
"With the way we're shooting the 3 this season, the loss of Christopherson will wind up costing us a loss or two this year"

This should be a non-controversial statement.  We are currently ranked #290 in all of D1 for our 3 point shooting. We ALREADY lost one game because of poor outside shooting. 

A guy--any guy--who could come in with a lifetime 48.5% 3 point shooting average would help this team.

. . . almost as ridiculous as Marquette84's previous actual (vigorously defended) assertion that MU's head coach should adopt players to avoid burning scholarships.

This again?  Its almost pathetic how often you trot this one out.

I've always wondered why you've never ever bother to actually link what I posted:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=3369.msg28489#msg28489

Boy, that was REALLY outrageous of me to merely ask the question. Little did I know that my innocent question would lead to three years of an obsessed moron brining it up over and over again.



 

[ChicosBailBonds]

This.......He realized during his freshman season that he was in over his head at this level and knew if he wanted to play major minutes in college he would have to look elseware.

Great kid...glad he is having some success now but he didn't think he could play here so he left....end of story.

The Big 12 isn't a high level?

He knew Buzz wanted a different type of ball player, and that's why he left.  Along with the coach who recruited him left, so why stay.  That's fairly routine.

For Pakuni, I guess I don't understand your either\or insistence again.  Is it not possible to sit a Blue, Smith, etc to get a shooter in there during certain situations or 10 minutes a game?

That's where I brought up Gasser the other day.  At the end of the year, will Gasser have better stats and contributions than Reggie Smith?  Jones?  I'm going to go on a limb and say yes.  Now, does that mean he's better than Smith or Jones?  Nope, sure doesn't.  But therein begs the question I and others have been asking about having basically 5 or 6 guys in which their games are basically the same, a few of them are going to ride pine most of the year, doesn't it make sense to have some skill diversity where you can bring in a kid to do things the rest of your roster can't?

[ChicosBailBonds]

He is a great kid, good to see nice things happen to great kids.  Another 16 points today and 4 for 7 behind the arc.  He's 18 for 28 (64%) on the year behind the arc which had him 11th in the nation last week but likely will put him in the top 10 after his latest performance.

[Pakuni]

For Pakuni, I guess I don't understand your either\or insistence again.  Is it not possible to sit a Blue, Smith, etc to get a shooter in there during certain situations or 10 minutes a game?

I think the prospect of being a 10-minute a game role player is the very reason Christopherson left Marquette. And, by all accounts, he made a good decision. He's getting opportunities at ISU that he might never have received at MU, and it's working out well for him. Good for him, I say. I have nothing against the kid. Just those who think his decision to transfer is somehow costing MU multiple wins. Of course, the advocate of that position also believes MU is suffering for the lack of a DJ Newbill on its roster, so maybe I should be better at taking said positions with a grain of salt.

I mean, do you believe that a 10-minute a game role player really makes MU 2+ wins better this season?

[Ready2Fly]

DJO with 16 points in the first 10 minutes. 6 of 6 from the field, 3 of 3 from three. Good to see good things happen to such a traditionally good kid

[Marquette84]

I think the prospect of being a 10-minute a game role player is the very reason Christopherson left Marquette. And, by all accounts, he made a good decision. He's getting opportunities at ISU that he might never have received at MU, and it's working out well for him. Good for him, I say. I have nothing against the kid. Just those who think his decision to transfer is somehow costing MU multiple wins. Of course, the advocate of that position also believes MU is suffering for the lack of a DJ Newbill on its roster, so maybe I should be better at taking said positions with a grain of salt.

I mean, do you believe that a 10-minute a game role player really makes MU 2+ wins better this season?

Just once, Pakuni, it would be nice if you responded to what I actually wrote--not the distortion you created as a straw man.  What is this, the third distortion just in this thread?  
--saying that I said that Christopherson would replace DJO on the roster.
--saying that I said that Christopherson would play ahead of Blue and DJO
--now saying that I said we'd "suffer" wtihout Newbill.

With Newbill, I'll repeat that my comment SHOULD be a non-controversial issue.  A former recruit of ours is averaging 10 points and 7 rebounds as a frosh. I said if he keeps that up, I think we'll regret letting him get away.  Its no different that regretting that we lost Damian Saunders or Odartey Blankson or Shannon Smith or who knows who else over the years.  Apparently, you're too insecure to admit that maybe we let the wrong guy go.

As for Christopherson, here's what I see:  We just lost to Gonzaga by 3 points on very poor 3 point shooting. We let a very bad (i.e. lost-to-Florida-Atlantic bad) UWM team back into a game (and damn near lost) because in part we went 0-8 on treys in the 2nd half.

I think a career 49% three point shooter would have helped us beat Gonzaga, and would have helped us maintain our lead over UWM. Christopherson would have done one of two things for us against Gonzaga--either shooting over the zone, or extending the defense, opening up the lanes for penetration by DJO or Blue.  Either way, it would have helped.  And yes, I think the lack of outside shooting cost us that game, because there was a LOOOONG stretch in the 2nd half when we couldn't penetrate or pass inside to save our lives.  
   

[ChicosBailBonds]

DJO with 16 points in the first 10 minutes. 6 of 6 from the field, 3 of 3 from three. Good to see good things happen to such a traditionally good kid

Yes it is good to see....no, it's great to see.

[NersEllenson]

The Big 12 isn't a high level?

He knew Buzz wanted a different type of ball player, and that's why he left.  Along with the coach who recruited him left, so why stay.  That's fairly routine.

For Pakuni, I guess I don't understand your either\or insistence again.  Is it not possible to sit a Blue, Smith, etc to get a shooter in there during certain situations or 10 minutes a game?

That's where I brought up Gasser the other day.  At the end of the year, will Gasser have better stats and contributions than Reggie Smith?  Jones?  I'm going to go on a limb and say yes.  Now, does that mean he's better than Smith or Jones?  Nope, sure doesn't.  But therein begs the question I and others have been asking about having basically 5 or 6 guys in which their games are basically the same, a few of them are going to ride pine most of the year, doesn't it make sense to have some skill diversity where you can bring in a kid to do things the rest of your roster can't?

Let's see how Reggie, Jamail, and Vanders stats compare with Gasser's and Christophersons...come their senior years.  Vander and Jamail definitely have higher ceilings than either Gasser or Christo....Reggie..posibly.  Recruiting isn't about what a kid is going to do for you as a freshman..but how do they project/how high of ceiling does the kid have??

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let's see how Reggie, Jamail, and Vanders stats compare with Gasser's and Christophersons...come their senior years.  Vander and Jamail definitely have higher ceilings than either Gasser or Christo....Reggie..posibly.  Recruiting isn't about what a kid is going to do for you as a freshman..but how do they project/how high of ceiling does the kid have??

I agree Ners.  Something tells me SC and Gasser will have fine careers where they are at.  I certainly hope Jones does, but hard to tell since he never plays.  Vander, almost certainly will and should, he was ranked in the top 50 in the nation where SC and Gasser weren't at all.  It would be a major disappointment if Vander doesn't have a fine career at MU.  No reason to think he won't.

[Marquette84]

I'm sure Buzz will implement your program for success as soon as the NCAA allows six players on the court at a time.

One doesn't needs the NCAA to allow six players on the court.  Just more than five on the roster. Oh, wait, they already allow 13!    

Until then, though, playing one by necessity means you're not playing one of the others.
Awesome idea.

Yes, it is awesome.  There's a word for it.  It's called "substitution."

Playing Christopherson ahead of Blue means you're trading SC's better shooting for Blue's better defense and all-around game.
Playing Christopherson ahead of DJO measns you're trading his - maybe - better shooting (DJO actually still is a better shooter, career-wise) for all the other things DJO is better at.

Yep.  Coaches have to make tradeoffs all the time.  Few coaches have players who have every skill all the time.  If DJO and Blue and Cadougan were all shooting 45%+ on the season so far, maybe its a different story.  

But given that none currently are averaging that pace, having someone who could shoot 45%+ might help us on cold shooting nights. Sometimes you need more than just a one-dimentional look to your team.  As good as DJO and Blue are, they couldn't get us past Gonzaga, and almost coudn't get us past UWM.

Welcome to world of telling the truth, but never the whole truth, SJS style. Now explain why you cited Wade's lack of being a consensus top 100 player. Because, of course, you were arguing that he wasn't all that good before he arrived at Marquette, and it was the development he received there - and not the fact he was a helluva player even in high school - that's to be attributed for his success.

This is a classic case of YOU not telling the whole truth, and then distorting my response. Recall that YOU initially claimed that Crean recruited the "best player in MU history" in Wade.

Recall that I replied that while Wade was good in HS, he wasn't a top 100 player, and that he developed into a top 5 pick during his time at MU.

Instead of admitting that you were caught shading the truth and leaving out relevant facts, you turned around and distorted "Not Top 100" into "Not all that good."

Yes, Wade was good.  Yes, he was "a helluva player"  And both those statements are completely consistent with the fact that Wade was NOT one of the consensus top 100 players, not widely recruited, and that he developed tremendously during his time at Marquette--all facts you conveniently left out.

And you have the gall to suggest that *I* was the one who didn't tell the whole truth?  In reality, YOU were the one not telling the whole truth.  

Pray tell, how does Christopherson get on the court, if not for ahead of DJO and/or Blue?

Simple.  He substitutes in.

What next?  Are you going to ask pray tell how Gardner gets on the court without the NCAA allowing six players given that he plays behind Otule?  Or how Cadougan gets in without six on the court given that Buycks plays ahead of him?

Is MU allowed six players at a time? By nature of the fact SC is a two, and only a two, he must play ahead of either DJO or Blue to get on the court.

The frequency at which you bring up the "six players at a time" argument makes me wonder if you understand the concepts of depth, rotation, substitution, matchups, etc.

And your focus on traditional position numbers makes me wonder if you've been paying any attention at all when Buzz used the term "switchables".

Here's how Christopherson gets in the game:  The same way Gardner, Crowder, Williams, Fulce, Jones, Smith or Cadougan would get in the game even though other players are ahead of them.  Buzz substitutes based on matchups, the oppositions, their strenghts & weaknesses, etc.

I think you didn't watch the game. MU lost the Gonzaga game because they were outrebounded 42 to 26, and allowed 17 offensive boards, leading to 20 second-chance points.

I wonder if you did.  Apparently you missed what occurred prior to each the 27 Gonzaga defensive rebounds.

[chren21]

Not bad tonight vs. Iowa....  scored 30 points, 7 for 12 3PFG....  He's 35 of 59 from 3 on the year.   

Not to much else went on in the world of college bball tonight.

[mviale]

Interesting - will Iowa improve on their 10-22 record from last year?