Tip of the hat to Ners

[NersEllenson]

Two stat lines:   Player 1: 40 minutes, 13 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists.    Needs to be benched.
                        Player 2:  31 minutes, 12 points, 2 rebounds, 4 assists.   Needs to be canonized. 

While you are at it, could you please list all of Player 1's 30+ minute per game stat lines, and then Player 2's 30+ minute per game stat lines?  Oh, and let's not forget about the team's record with Player 1 playing max minutes, and that he's 3 years into the program.

[NersEllenson]

I'd be willing to add TOs per 40 to the mix as well. That said, extrapolating out would be tough since Dawson's minutes could be limited (i.e. if he plays just 10 minutes/game but averages 3 points, that would be 12 pts per 40 - admittedly, the same goes for TOs).

If you're good with that, I'm good. If Dawson averages more points/40, asts/40 and fewer TO/40 than Derrick, I'll take a 3-month break. If he doesn't do all 3, you take the break (barring either player missing 2+ games with an injury).

LOL - Funny, so Dawson needs to be better in all 3 categories than Derrick for me to win bet, yet if Derrick is better in just 1 category, I lose?  I think the turnover stat is grasping for straws on your part.  So, I'll agree to a push the bet, if neither player "wins" in all 3 categories, but I'm not going to make an idiotic 3 criteria "parlay" bet of sorts, against your win 1 of 3 scenarios to win a bet!

Come on though Merritt - You are supremely confident Derrick is a better option than Dawson.  So, let's just assign 2 points for every assist, combine that with Points Per 40, and then assign 2 points per 1 turnover differential - and get an aggregate score and compare.  I'll bet Dawson's aggregate score is better than Derrick's.  I mean your horse is a Junior, mine is a rookie, freshman!

[willie warrior]

Surprises to the downside:
1. McKay leaves, we get nothing from him.
2. Duane Wilson hurt, we get nothing from him.
3. Steve Taylor Jr's injury lingers, we get nothing from him until last night.

Mild surprises to the downside:
1. No improvement from Chris
2. No improvement from Derrick
3. No improvement from Davante, and a serious lack of focus earlier which had him shooting poorly even from the (automatic) foul line
4. Jamil, same as Davante
5. No improvement from Juan.
6. Almost nothing from JJJ, our highest rated recruit in a very long time.

Mild surprises to the upside:
1.Deonte has more game and potential than I expected.

Surprises to the upside:
1. John Dawson is much better than I expected a non top 150 guy from basketball poor New Mexico to be
2. Jake, though limited, is way better than the walk on he was last year.

Because the downside surprises have solidly outweighed the upside ones, you can add that Buzz has struggled to find the right combinations - something he's normally very good at. Put it all together and it spells disappointment.

Lenny, I get a loud laugh at those comments we periodically see on this board about Gardner, "He has regressed" or "no improvement". Just hilarious. Gardner:
PPG: 11.5 to 14.2
Rebounds PG: 4.82 to 5.84
Assists: 31 last year to 29 currently
TO's : 57 last year to 22.
Yes his FT% is down and so is his shooting %, but they are still both very good for a big man, and he is seeing more sagging defenses. He also is shooting more from outside.

And all of this regression while being double teamed more than ever; playing the high post which he hardly ever did before this year and playing about 28 mpg, which most people said he was unable to do.

I sure as hell wish the rest of the players would "regress" like he has.

Just laughable BS. OK, I forgot, this is an opinion board and everyone has one. Still ridiculously laughable--"regressed".

[MerrittsMustache]

LOL - Funny, so Dawson needs to be better in all 3 categories than Derrick for me to win bet, yet if Derrick is better in just 1 category, I lose?  I think the turnover stat is grasping for straws on your part.  So, I'll agree to a push the bet, if neither player "wins" in all 3 categories, but I'm not going to make an idiotic 3 criteria "parlay" bet of sorts, against your win 1 of 3 scenarios to win a bet!

Come on though Merritt - You are supremely confident Derrick is a better option than Dawson.  So, let's just assign 2 points for every assist, combine that with Points Per 40, and then assign 2 points per 1 turnover differential - and get an aggregate score and compare.  I'll bet Dawson's aggregate score is better than Derrick's.  I mean your horse is a Junior, mine is a rookie, freshman!

The extrapolation is the hang up because Dawson's minutes will likely be limited. If Dawson plays 5 minutes and makes a 3, then Derrick would need to score 21 points in the other 35 minutes for that to even out (at least for that one game). In the same respect, if Dawson plays 5 minutes and turns the ball over twice, Derrick would need 14 TOs over 35 min for that to even out. Do either of those seem fair to you?

Using "per 40" stats with small sample sizes just doesn't make sense. As an extreme example, Dylan Flood is averaging 11.4 points and 6 rebounds per 40, which would mean that he's more valuable than Jake Thomas.

[NersEllenson]

The extrapolation is the hang up because Dawson's minutes will likely be limited. If Dawson plays 5 minutes and makes a 3, then Derrick would need to score 21 points in the other 35 minutes for that to even out (at least for that one game). In the same respect, if Dawson plays 5 minutes and turns the ball over twice, Derrick would need 14 TOs over 35 min for that to even out. Do either of those seem fair to you?

Using "per 40" stats with small sample sizes just doesn't make sense. As an extreme example, Dylan Flood is averaging 11.4 points and 6 rebounds per 40, which would mean that he's more valuable than Jake Thomas.

But come on, you, Tower, and numerous others here have been able to use a small sample size to determine Dawson wasn't the answer at the PG position, or wouldn't help the team improve.  I mean he played poorly in his 2, 2 minute stints against Seton Hall and Butler, right?  Things could get a lot worse with him running the point, right??

Okay - I'll stop with that...as I agree small sample sizes aren't relevant to judge a player by - I'll be SHOCKED if Dawson's minutes will be limited to less than 15 per game from here on out.  So, let's go with this - so long as Dawson averages more than 15 minutes per game from here on out - we go with the above criteria.  If Dawson is limited to less than 15, that will be an absolute tragedy and disservice to Jamil and Davante in their senior year.

[MerrittsMustache]

But come on, you, Tower, and numerous others here have been able to use a small sample size to determine Dawson wasn't the answer at the PG position, or wouldn't help the team improve.  I mean he played poorly in his 2, 2 minute stints against Seton Hall and Butler, right?  Things could get a lot worse with him running the point, right??

Okay - I'll stop with that...as I agree small sample sizes aren't relevant to judge a player by - I'll be SHOCKED if Dawson's minutes will be limited to less than 15 per game from here on out.  So, let's go with this - so long as Dawson averages more than 15 minutes per game from here on out - we go with the above criteria.  If Dawson is limited to less than 15, that will be an absolute tragedy and disservice to Jamil and Davante in their senior year.

We weren't using his stats in those small sample sizes. We were simply watching him play. That's the difference. If we were saying that against Butler, Dawson averaged 16 TOs per 40 or against New Hampshire, he was 0-15 from 3 per 40, then that would be ridiculous. Saying that he looked lost and overwhelmed against Butler which is why he found himself on the bench seems pretty reasonable.

How about we just do if Dawson averages less than 18 minutes per game, I win. If he averages more, you win. I mean, if he's clearly outplaying Derrick, he'll get the minutes, right?

[NersEllenson]

We weren't using his stats in those small sample sizes. We were simply watching him play. That's the difference. If we were saying that against Butler, Dawson averaged 16 TOs per 40 or against New Hampshire, he was 0-15 from 3 per 40, then that would be ridiculous. Saying that he looked lost and overwhelmed against Butler which is why he found himself on the bench seems pretty reasonable.

How about we just do if Dawson averages less than 18 minutes per game, I win. If he averages more, you win. I mean, if he's clearly outplaying Derrick, he'll get the minutes, right?

So, Dawson went from being composed and performing well on the road against a better Xavier team, to "lost and overwhelmed" against a lesser opponent in Butler, to once again not looking "lost and overwhelmed" against Georgetown?  Uh..sure...okay.  My point is you don't judge a player by stats or by what they show in 2 minute stints of run and 4 minutes per game.

I'd like to take the minute bet, yet, Buzz freaks me out a little because he has been so ridiculously loyal to Derrick when all signs pointed Derrick to the bench as early as Thanksgiving.  I still can't believe it's taken this long for Buzz to give Dawson legitimate PT.  So, I'll take the production based bet, but it becomes null if Dawson doesn't average 18 minutes per game here on out..

[MerrittsMustache]

So, Dawson went from being composed and performing well on the road against a better Xavier team, to "lost and overwhelmed" against a lesser opponent in Butler, to once again not looking "lost and overwhelmed" against Georgetown?  Uh..sure...okay.  My point is you don't judge a player by stats or by what they show in 2 minute stints of run and 4 minutes per game.

I'd like to take the minute bet, yet, Buzz freaks me out a little because he has been so ridiculously loyal to Derrick when all signs pointed Derrick to the bench as early as Thanksgiving.  I still can't believe it's taken this long for Buzz to give Dawson legitimate PT.  So, I'll take the production based bet, but it becomes null if Dawson doesn't average 18 minutes per game here on out..

If you think that's ridiculous then you must be unfamiliar with freshmen basketball players.

If Dawson plays 18 min/per, that would likely mean Derrick plays at most 22 min/per. If you're confident that Dawson will outperform Derrick, let's just go points + assists - TOs from here on out. Higher number wins. Loser takes a 3-month break from posting.

Side bet: If Dawson plays less than 18 min/per, you take a 1-month break.

Feel free to propose a comparable side bet for me.

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, I get a loud laugh at those comments we periodically see on this board about Gardner, "He has regressed" or "no improvement". Just hilarious. Gardner:
PPG: 11.5 to 14.2
Rebounds PG: 4.82 to 5.84
Assists: 31 last year to 29 currently
TO's : 57 last year to 22.
Yes his FT% is down and so is his shooting %, but they are still both very good for a big man, and he is seeing more sagging defenses. He also is shooting more from outside.

And all of this regression while being double teamed more than ever; playing the high post which he hardly ever did before this year and playing about 28 mpg, which most people said he was unable to do.

I sure as hell wish the rest of the players would "regress" like he has.

Just laughable BS. OK, I forgot, this is an opinion board and everyone has one. Still ridiculously laughable--"regressed".

You know what I get a kick out of, Willie? People who don't know how to interpret statistics. I'll leave it to others much more advanced in their understanding than me to compare Davante's efficiency numbers from this year to last, but the numbers you cite to prove Davante's "progress" this year are BS, and that's fact, not opinion. His scoring is up 19% this year. And his rebounding is up 20%. Raw numbers don't say much though - if they did we'd all be cheering Derrick for increasing his scoring by 400% and his assists by 125%.  Davante is playing 25% more minutes to get those extra 19% points and 20%'rebounds - so that's not "progress". And he's shooting 10% worse from the field and 11% worse from the free throw line. And please stop with the idea that he's hurt by sometimes playing the high post. His best game ever was against Syracuse last year playing mostly the high post.

I like Gardner. He's a good player and looks to be coming on recently. Hope it continues, but to this point he has not improved over last year and the facts bear that out.

[brandx]

Two stat lines:   Player 1: 40 minutes, 13 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists.    Needs to be benched.
                        Player 2:  31 minutes, 12 points, 2 rebounds, 4 assists.   Needs to be canonized. 

Must be a guy that thinks stats are there to be manipulated.

How about this.

Player 1: use a stat line from his best game of his 3-years in the program (Player 1 is also unguarded on the floor)

Player 2: A freshman playing extended minutes for only the 2nd time in his career.

There is no comparison. the stats from player 2 knock player 1 out of the water.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Extrapolating Dawson's short stints are worthless. He looked shaky early against GTown but settled in when Buzz didn't pull him and looked very good the rest of the way. That's part of the reason why Ners was right. He needs extended playing time to show his worth. The two times that has happened in conference play - @X and @GTown - both he and the team have performed well during his time on the court.

[Dreadman24]

If Dawson was the starter I guarantee we wouldve won at least 3 more games.

[brandx]

If Dawson was the starter I guarantee we wouldve won at least 3 more games.

I can't guarantee it, but it is a possibility.

We also would have had lots of postings demanding that Derrick be the starter whenever John didn't play well.

[jesmu84]

I can't guarantee it, but it is a possibility.

We also would have had lots of postings demanding that Derrick be the starter whenever John didn't play well.

Could we have done better? Sure. Absolutely would we? Absolutely no way to make that claim.  The one caveat I will make is that there's no doubt that even those little stints plus all the accrued practice time make Dawson much better today than he was 1 month ago.

[brandx]

Could we have done better? Sure. Absolutely would we? Absolutely no way to make that claim.  The one caveat I will make is that there's no doubt that even those little stints plus all the accrued practice time make Dawson much better today than he was 1 month ago.

+1. Even as much as we struggled at PG, I think Dawson would have gotten eaten up playing extended minutes at the beginning of the season.

[willie warrior]

You know what I get a kick out of, Willie? People who don't know how to interpret statistics. I'll leave it to others much more advanced in their understanding than me to compare Davante's efficiency numbers from this year to last, but the numbers you cite to prove Davante's "progress" this year are BS, and that's fact, not opinion. His scoring is up 19% this year. And his rebounding is up 20%. Raw numbers don't say much though - if they did we'd all be cheering Derrick for increasing his scoring by 400% and his assists by 125%.  Davante is playing 25% more minutes to get those extra 19% points and 20%'rebounds - so that's not "progress". And he's shooting 10% worse from the field and 11% worse from the free throw line. And please stop with the idea that he's hurt by sometimes playing the high post. His best game ever was against Syracuse last year playing mostly the high post.

I like Gardner. He's a good player and looks to be coming on recently. Hope it continues, but to this point he has not improved over last year and the facts bear that out.

Guess what Lenny: Your statement that Gardner has not improved is BS. I can play your rationale also--he has increased his scoring average by 23%; his rebound average by 21% and his assists per game by 70%. That is improvement--it is not "no improvement". And yeah the Syracuse game was just about the only game he played at the High Post. And the facts bear it all out. But Lenny is the expert of all and only his eyeball test matters. If Ox has not improved, why the hell is the savior Buzz playing him so much. Go ahead with your getting a kick, Lenny, and I will continue to LOL. He should be benched by your analysis. Don't bother to respond--save the gas!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Must be a guy that thinks stats are there to be manipulated.

How about this.

Player 1: use a stat line from his best game of his 3-years in the program (Player 1 is also unguarded on the floor)

Player 2: A freshman playing extended minutes for only the 2nd time in his career.

There is no comparison. the stats from player 2 knock player 1 out of the water.

Honestly, their age has no bearing on this argument. Buzz is playing to win now, not in the future. So if Derrick's best game is statistically better than Dawson's, the fact still remains that Derrick has had better games than Dawson this year.

However, a better argument is that Derrick has had 19 legitimate chances to put up good numbers and Dawson has had 3 (maybe?). So if Derrick has put up good stats in let's say 5 games (guessing, would need to go back and check) and Dawson has put up good stats in 1 which is better? 5 good games out of 19 total? Or 1 good game out of 3 total?

But Tower still makes a good point. Derrick had arguably the second best game of his career against Butler and put up better stats than Dawson did against GTWN and people were screaming "bench him!"

But Keefe makes a good point that despite Derrick's quality game, the rest of the team suffered while they seemed to prosper with Dawson.

Why all the buts? To show that these arguements are played out and there is no right answer.

[keefe]

Crash-

Funniest post of the year. Read it three times and I'm still laughing as I post this. My wife is eying me with what I hope is bemusement but may well be genuine concern. I can't show her what I think is so hilarious because it would likely confirm her worst fears about me and my tenuous grip on reality/my own sanity. Keep it coming.

Here to serve my friend, here to serve.

If a woman struggles with a man's sense of humor she is a keeper.

[Eldon]

Honestly, their age has no bearing on this argument. Buzz is playing to win now, not in the future. So if Derrick's best game is statistically better than Dawson's, the fact still remains that Derrick has had better games than Dawson this year.

However, a better argument is that Derrick has had 19 legitimate chances to put up good numbers and Dawson has had 3 (maybe?). So if Derrick has put up good stats in let's say 5 games (guessing, would need to go back and check) and Dawson has put up good stats in 1 which is better? 5 good games out of 19 total? Or 1 good game out of 3 total?

But Tower still makes a good point. Derrick had arguably the second best game of his career against Butler and put up better stats than Dawson did against GTWN and people were screaming "bench him!"

But Keefe makes a good point that despite Derrick's quality game, the rest of the team suffered while they seemed to prosper with Dawson.

Why all the buts? To show that these arguements are played out and there is no right answer.

Man oh man, you are just asking for it.  I hope that you're prepared...prepared to be EQUALIZED!!

[brandx]

Honestly, their age has no bearing on this argument. Buzz is playing to win now, not in the future. So if Derrick's best game is statistically better than Dawson's, the fact still remains that Derrick has had better games than Dawson this year.

However, a better argument is that Derrick has had 19 legitimate chances to put up good numbers and Dawson has had 3 (maybe?). So if Derrick has put up good stats in let's say 5 games (guessing, would need to go back and check) and Dawson has put up good stats in 1 which is better? 5 good games out of 19 total? Or 1 good game out of 3 total?

But Tower still makes a good point. Derrick had arguably the second best game of his career against Butler and put up better stats than Dawson did against GTWN and people were screaming "bench him!"

But Keefe makes a good point that despite Derrick's quality game, the rest of the team suffered while they seemed to prosper with Dawson.

Why all the buts? To show that these arguements are played out and there is no right answer.

Good post - That's why there have been so many threads about DW. My main point is that DW does not need to be guarded and it affects every other player on the floor.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Man oh man, you are just asking for it.  I hope that you're prepared...prepared to be EQUALIZED!!

ramblling, overwrought, anti-Buzz/pro-Crean dissertation ensues

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Man oh man, you are just asking for it.  I hope that you're prepared...prepared to be EQUALIZED!!

*Grabs riot shield, several weapons, and earplugs*

READY!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Good post - That's why there have been so many threads about DW. My main point is that DW does not need to be guarded and it affects every other player on the floor.

And that is an argument that I don't think anyone can argue against

[AZWarrior]

My main point is that DW does not need to be guarded and it affects every other player on the floor.

Agreed.  And that's why I want Dawson to play more minutes than DeW.

[Sunbelt15]

Honestly, their age has no bearing on this argument. Buzz is playing to win now, not in the future. So if Derrick's best game is statistically better than Dawson's, the fact still remains that Derrick has had better games than Dawson this year.

However, a better argument is that Derrick has had 19 legitimate chances to put up good numbers and Dawson has had 3 (maybe?). So if Derrick has put up good stats in let's say 5 games (guessing, would need to go back and check) and Dawson has put up good stats in 1 which is better? 5 good games out of 19 total? Or 1 good game out of 3 total?

But Tower still makes a good point. Derrick had arguably the second best game of his career against Butler and put up better stats than Dawson did against GTWN and people were screaming "bench him!"

But Keefe makes a good point that despite Derrick's quality game, the rest of the team suffered while they seemed to prosper with Dawson.

Why all the buts? To show that these arguements are played out and there is no right answer.

The right answer is Dawson because the TEAM plays better, and the team comes first.