[PaintTouches]Analyzing the MU freshmen at the halfway mark

[PaintTouchesSays]

Analyzing the MU freshmen at the halfway mark

We're just past the halfway mark of the 2013-14 season (Marquette has played 17 games; it has 15 guaranteed games remaining) and given the Golden Eagles' struggles to date, it's only fair to look at how their first-year players have performed. There's been good (#BANE), bad (Jameel McKay says goodbye) and ugly (Duane Wilson redshirts) [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=10335&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" />

Source: Analyzing the MU freshmen at the halfway mark

[Lennys Tap]

Nicely analyzed Mark. Won't stop the "crazies" from demanding 30 minutes from Dawson and a one way ticket out of town for Derrick, though.

[GGGG]

Ugh....I wish they would go away from saying stuff like "numbers don't lie" when it comes to JJJ, when in the very paragraph above they indicate a couple of pretty good reasons to suggest that they are at least misleading.

[NersEllenson]

Nice analysis.  Would love to see the "splits" on Dawson in games he's gotten over 15 minutes compared to the other games.

Would also like to hear how Mark thinks Derrick gives the team the best chance to win?  Just because he takes more shots at the rim, but virtually NONE from 3, thereby allowing sagging, paint collapsing defenses - which makes Buzz's beloved paint touches that much more difficult to achieve?  What is Derrick's shooting percentage at the rim?  I'd put it below 45%, which, at the rim is pretty crazy.  Plus half of Dawson's minutes have been playing the 2, for 3 minute stints at a time - not a lot of opportunity to attack the rim.

Is interesting to note all the Dawson critics cite his defense, yet he has best rate for opposition shooting percentage against.  And as Mark notes, he has a sparkling assist to turnover rate.

But, I'm a crazy!! 

[River rat]

There is nothing more ignorant than saying a guy would do better if he got more minutes.  
It simple does not work that way.  If a sub cannot come into the game with his wheels turning at 100 mph he wont get the chance at all.  no coach in America that is going to be employed for very long can allow a guy a minute or two " to warm up".  If a guy is a slow starter with his shot, he should know better than to shoot the first time down, However, he can play like his hair is on fire from the get go, ala Juan Anderson, doing all the other things besides shooting.  
Scoot Skiles used to use the term "play on demand".  If a sub canot play on demand he will not be used.  It is a tricky thing to learn as a young college player, as these kids have started and played a ton of minutes their whole lives.  You see it alot in the NBA too.  If guys cannot overcome this and learn to "play on demand" they just fade away.
Eric Williams and Jamail Jones come to mind from Mu's recent past.  they either dont play or go somewhere else at a lesser level.    

[Norm]

There is nothing more ignorant than saying a guy would do better if he got more minutes.  

Except for when the stats show they do better when given more playing time?

[GGGG]

Except for when the stats show they do better when given more playing time?

Except when those stats come with some explanation that show they really aren't apples-to-apples?

[River rat]

norm you can be blissful in your reply.  However, i guarantee you buzz ad other coaches would tell you exactly what I stated.

  In non conference games when you are up 20 and a freshman or sub comes in and is horrendous for 2 minutes becuase you are rewarding his efforts towards the program, you still are going to win the game, it gives him good game time experience, etc.  As he gets into the flow he will typicall play better, that is the case with 99% of players.  he will hit some shots get some rebounds and may end up with a decent stat line against a wholly inferior opponent. 

to some that means the more he plays the better he is. and the simple answer is to play him more.

now in a 4 point game in conference you give the kid a shot and he is horrible for 2 minutes and you gotta get him out.  he was bad, he is young , he is not strong enuff, he wasnt ready. OK that is part of the process.  however, most coaches at that point are not gonna leave him in for another two minutes to hope he plays better, the game, the tourney, the season is on the line.  And he is going to be less likely to put him in again.  Its just how it works.  if he is a great " play on demand player"  he will have a great 2 minutes, get  another 2 and then get subbed out becuase the starter is rested.  However, when the guy in from of him gets tired he will get called again.  If he was so horrible maybe not the coach will give another guy that go or may decide the tired starter is still better than waht the kid brought in that first stint.  its all part of the process that new players have to buy into and over come.

[mu03eng]

Except for when the stats show they do better when given more playing time?

Which stats do you believe?  MU's offense was atrocious in the 1st half against Xavier with Dawson getting significant minutes....they were appreciably better in the 2nd half minutes Dawson got.

I think the truth is some players "settle" in if they have more minutes and some players play constant regardless of minutes.  I'll leave it up to the guy who sees them every day to decide which type of player Dawson is.

[NersEllenson]

Which stats do you believe?  MU's offense was atrocious in the 1st half against Xavier with Dawson getting significant minutes....they were appreciably better in the 2nd half minutes Dawson got.

I think the truth is some players "settle" in if they have more minutes and some players play constant regardless of minutes.  I'll leave it up to the guy who sees them every day to decide which type of player Dawson is.

Umm...the offense with Dawson in the first half against X wasn't atrocious - came in with MU down 15-14, we had it at 26-25, then a few turnovers by other guys and an easy miss by DG, and we went down 10, rallied to 6 at the half.  Plus, our alleged best player, Jamil Wilson was on the bench the whole time Dawson was in, in the first half.

What's your take on Derrick being -9 on the +/- stat for the X game?  Dawson was 0.  What's your take on MU eeking out a win at home against a depleted Seton Hall team, not nearly as good as X - yet us being squarely in the game at X with 5 minutes left down 1, until Buzz subbed Derrick for Dawson and we promptly went into an 8 point deficit in just 2:45 of action?

[River rat]

I think we should play dylan flood more, one can see the talent oozing. F'n Buzz!!

[Nevada233]

I think we should play dylan flood more, one can see the talent oozing. F'n Buzz!!

we are undefeated when he plays lol