New Conference so far not good for recruiting

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yep, and he averaged 3 ppg/2.1 rpg average, as compared to a 9.9 ppg 4.1 rpg average for the eveven top 50 Small Forwards in his class. 3x the points, 2x the rebounds.  I think that's signficant.

Meanwhile, your argument is that he'll get significantly better next season.  Fine--he might.  But it hasn't happened yet.  Also keep in mind that at the same time in their respective careers, we all thought Jamail Jones, Erik Williams and Juan Anderson would get signficantly better in THEIR second seasons.  It didn't happen.

Why did I choose the top 50 instead of the top 100 in my inital post:
I'll use RSCI data so I'm not accused of using a single data point as an outlier. Since he's been at MU, Buzz has brought in 8 top 100 recruits:

--#40 Jamil Wilson
--#47 Junior Cadougan
--#48 Vander Blue
--#67 Erik Williams
--#73 Jeronne Maymon
--#74 Jamail Jones
--#81 Juan Anderson
--#82 Steve Taylor

Maybe I missed someone--if I did I'm sure you'll be more than happy to correct me.  And I do hope including every one of Buzz's top 100 recruits is objective enough for Pakuni.

Sorry you disagree with me on my observation that the top 50 players are genreally better than the next 50.

At best, at this point you could argue that Taylor might buck the trend.  And then 20% of Buzz's 51 to 100 will be considered successful.  Compared to 100% of the top fifty.

Reggie Smith was another

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-05-22/unlv-guard-reggie-smith-to-transfer-again

[keefe]

Reggie Smith was another

One of my favorite Dodgers. Steve Garvey fought Don Sutton when Sutton said Reggie was the best Dodger. Had one of the better Fros back in the day.

[Pakuni]

To be fair, you said it in this thread. Not using those exact words of course, but your response to my comment that the top 50 players were generally better was:

Boy, that sounds like you're agreeing with me, doesn't it?  Not.

Now after I show that 100% of Buzz's top 50 have been successful compared to at best 20% of 51-100, you're trying to say that nobody here has ever disgreed with me that the top 50 are bettter.

But if you really want me to believe you, perhaps you could edit your reply to this post:
And politely explain to Jaminnamam that its obvious that the top 50 are  nerally alot better than 51-100.

You have a very vivid imagination If you got "top 50 recruits are worse than 51-100 recruits" from what I wrote. Perhaps the same vivid imagination that convinced you that moving to the Big East was a bad move for Marquette. And the same one that convinced you that an A-10 program like Xavier would never hook up with the C7 because they had it so good already.

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point entirely. I wasn't making the case that top 50 players are worse than players outside the top 50. I was mocking your convoluted effort to downgrade BE recruiting by arbitrarily cutting things off at 50. Why not top 20? Aren't top 20 players better than 21-50? Why not top 30? Aren't top 30 better than 31-75? The fact is, top 100 is the "industry standard." There is no ESPN, Scout, RSCI, etc. Top 50. They all make Top 100 lists.

Also, when discussing top 50 vs 51-100, you ignore the reality that the edge in the first 50 is almost entirely a result of the top 20 or so kids, not because there's some wide gulf between the kid ranked 41st and the one ranked 61st.

[The Equalizer]

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point entirely. I wasn't making the case that top 50 players are worse than players outside the top 50. I was mocking your convoluted effort to downgrade BE recruiting by arbitrarily cutting things off at 50. Why not top 20? Aren't top 20 players better than 21-50? Why not top 30? Aren't top 30 better than 31-75? The fact is, top 100 is the "industry standard." There is no ESPN, Scout, RSCI, etc. Top 50. They all make Top 100 lists.

So you admit to intentionally making stupid arguments because by some contorted logic you thought it would "mock" me?   

At this point, the only thing you've demonstrated is that you have no freaking clue as to what the term "arbitrary" means.  As I celarly explained very early in the thread, I used the top 50 based on our recent experience:

I think we've seen enough evidence that the type of players that excel come from the top 50.

Vander Blue, Jamil Wilson, Junior Cadougan were top 50
Juan Anderson, Jamail Jones, Erik Williams were 50-100

If the goal is to feel good about quantity, use top 100.
If the goal is to compare quality, top 50 is a better measure in my opinion.

Lets face it, the only convoluted efforts in this thread have been your attempts to "mock" me for making a commonsense observation -- based on our own experience -- that there is a performance difference between top 50 players and those ranked lower.

Also, when discussing top 50 vs 51-100, you ignore the reality that the edge in the first 50 is almost entirely a result of the top 20 or so kids, not because there's some wide gulf between the kid ranked 41st and the one ranked 61st.

Really?   I'm ignoring all of our Top 20 recruits who skewed the findings?  Let me refresh your memory on the ranking of all our top 100 recruits:

--#40 Jamil Wilson
--#47 Junior Cadougan
--#48 Vander Blue
--#67 Erik Williams
--#73 Jeronne Maymon
--#74 Jamail Jones
--#81 Juan Anderson
--#82 Steve Taylor

Pray tell how can I be "ignoring" the impact of players we never had?  Our BEST recruit was ranked 40th.   

At best, we don't have any data between 48 and 67.  The cutoff might be 50.  Or 60. 

But the fact remains, 100% of our top 50 recruits have been successful (as have 100% of our 1st team JUCO AAs).  If we assume a significant improvement in Taylor, then 20% of 51-100 have been successful.

[Pakuni]

Lets face it, the only convoluted efforts in this thread have been your attempts to "mock" me for making a commonsense observation -- based on our own experience -- that there is a performance difference between top 50 players and those ranked lower.

Anybody who thinks he made an interesting/worthwhile observation by arguing that top 50 players generally are better than players ranked lower deserves to be mocked.
Will you next make the bold observation that McDonald's All Americans tend to be pretty good at basketball?

As for the rest, you're simply unable/unwilling to get it.

[LAZER]

But the fact remains, 100% of our top 50 recruits have been successful (as have 100% of our 1st team JUCO AAs).  If we assume a significant improvement in Taylor, then 20% of 51-100 have been successful.

That 20% gets a little better when you add McNeal(#99), Matthews(#85), Hayward(#73), and James(#61) into the 50-100 field.

[MuMark]

Going further back....Diener and James would both have been in the top 50 IIRC

McNeal, Lazar, Novak and Matthews would have been top 100 guys.

[MuMark]

James was 36 in his final RSCI ranking

That 20% gets a little better when you add McNeal(#99), Matthews(#85), Hayward(#73), and James(#61) into the 50-100 field.

[The Equalizer]

That 20% gets a little better when you add McNeal(#99), Matthews(#85), Hayward(#73), and James(#61) into the 50-100 field.

Well, maybe Crean was a little better at spotting hidden talent in the 50-100 range.   

[LAZER]

Going further back....Diener and James would both have been in the top 50 IIRC

McNeal, Lazar, Novak and Matthews would have been top 100 guys.

I pulled James #61 ranking from Rivals, Scout had him at #43.  McNeal was #54 on Scout too.

[MuMark]

RSCI is an average of all the services so is considered a better estimate of true ranking coming out of high school.

[The Equalizer]

Anybody who thinks he made an interesting/worthwhile observation by arguing that top 50 players generally are better than players ranked lower deserves to be mocked.

And anyone who thinks that was the observation I originally posted is a complete idiot.

As for the rest, you're simply unable/unwilling to get it.

As for the rest? What rest? You have nothing. Your entire argument is nothing but a big fat circular argument.

You argue that my post was arbitrary, but that means you have to argue that there is no effective performance difference between the top 50 and the next 50. When I pressure you to make that case that there's no difference, you switch the argument and claim nobody is saying that and "duh, of course better players are better." 

Okay--since you agree better players are better, then you have to agree that its not arbitrary to look at them separately.  Oh wait, that's not your argument, is it? 

Rather than own up the circular nonsensical argument, you'd rather attempt to "mock" me for perfectly reasonalbe and factually based arguments.

BTW, the interesing/worthwhile observation is that while the Big East has annually recruited 8 to 10 top 50 recruits each year, so far this year we collectively have only 1 commitment.

We either have a long way to go (even adjusting for league size), or we're going to fall short compared recent performance.

[Pakuni]

And anyone who thinks that was the observation I originally posted is a complete idiot.

Just so we're clear, the guy who ...

- suggested Tom Crean adopt a player
- thought moving to the Big East in 2005 was a bad move for MU basketball
- called David Cubillan a "pure point guard"
- argued vociferously that Xavier (and other A-10 programs) would want no part in the New Big East

... is calling someone a complete idiot.
Duly noted.

And your latest startling observation: the new Big East - minus Louisville, Syracuse, UConn and Pitt - may be getting fewer top 50 recruits than the old Big East had in recent years.
Great stuff.

[Galway Eagle]

I was ignored last time I pointed out that Jeronne Maymonn wasn't a flop if you look at his Tennessee numbers.  But I guess because that makes the number 40% it makes your argument not as effective you are just ignoring me. 

[GGGG]

Just so we're clear, the guy who ...

- argued vociferously that Xavier (and other A-10 programs) would want no part in the New Big East

The Equalizer is UDPride???

[Eldon]

The Equalizer is UDPride???

[The Equalizer]

I was ignored last time I pointed out that Jeronne Maymonn wasn't a flop if you look at his Tennessee numbers.  But I guess because that makes the number 40% it makes your argument not as effective you are just ignoring me. 

Sorry--didn't mean to ignore you--your message just got lost in all of Pakuni's lies and misrrepresentations.

I simply don't recall Maymon as one of Buzz' success stories.  Feel free to respectfully disagree if you want--but you asked why I didn't consider him, and that's my answer.

Keep in mind that this is in reponse to an innocuous post where I provided a recruiting analysis of the 2014 top 50 for the league.  Someone asked why I choce the top 50 (insinuating that there was some nefarious reason), and I gave them the honest answer--my observation is that we haven't had a lot of success outside the top 50 HS players. 

I guess there's no satisfying the haters, who seem more bent on personal attacks than actual discussion (unless I 100% agree with them).

[The Equalizer]

- suggested Tom Crean adopt a player
- thought moving to the Big East in 2005 was a bad move for MU basketball
- called David Cubillan a "pure point guard"
- argued vociferously that Xavier (and other A-10 programs) would want no part in the New Big East

Anyone who believes these come anywhere close to what I actually said on any of these topics is a complete idiot.

[MuMark]

Back on topic....LJ Peak verbaled to Georgetown tonight....another top 100 kid chooses to play in the new Big East....

[Lennys Tap]

Back on topic....LJ Peak verbaled to Georgetown tonight....another top 100 kid chooses to play in the new Big East....

Saw him play a few times last year. Really impressive, looked much better than his teammate (Paul White) in the games I saw.

[GGGG]

Saw him play a few times last year. Really impressive, looked much better than his teammate (Paul White) in the games I saw.

In the end, I think Harris might be the better player than White.

[ChicosBailBonds]

One of my favorite Dodgers. Steve Garvey fought Don Sutton when Sutton said Reggie was the best Dodger. Had one of the better Fros back in the day.

My favorite was during a spring training game when Sutton faced Garvey and Garvey said he was going to drill Sutton.  Next thing you know, Garvey crushes a ball back up the middle that hits Sutton.  A few innings later, Garvey does the exact same thing.  Tough enough to get a hit off a pitcher, but to nail your rival pitcher back to back with line drives is pretty good.

[keefe]

My favorite was during a spring training game when Sutton faced Garvey and Garvey said he was going to drill Sutton.  Next thing you know, Garvey crushes a ball back up the middle that hits Sutton.  A few innings later, Garvey does the exact same thing.  Tough enough to get a hit off a pitcher, but to nail your rival pitcher back to back with line drives is pretty good.

I think a lot of us lost some respect for Garvey, he of Popeye forearms, when scrawny Don Sutton kicked his as in the locker room. But any lingering admiration evaporated immediately once word emerged that his wife left him for Marvin Hamlisch.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think a lot of us lost some respect for Garvey, he of Popeye forearms, when scrawny Don Sutton kicked his as in the locker room. But any lingering admiration evaporated immediately once word emerged that his wife left him for Marvin Hamlisch.

My recollection of the "fight" was that both came away bruised.  Sutton said something about Popeye's wife, Cindy, which is not a cool thing to do and Garvey went after him.  I'm not backing either, that's just my memory from growing up out here.  Personally, I liked Steve Yeager, nephew of Chuck Yeager whom I sure you have a fondness for in your pilot heart.

[MU Buff]

L.J. Peak put on a South Carolina hat at first and then threw it.  I understand he's a kid just enjoying the moment but I probably wouldn't find it funny if I was a South Carolina fan.

http://zagsblog.com/georgetown/l-j-peak-fakes-out-fans-before-pledging-to-georgetown/