Where's the D-Wil love from Ners?

[MerrittsMustache]

"His guy got 20" on an EFG% of 41.6% (season average 46.5%) and a 94.5 offensive rating (117.7 average).  It's ok though, keep picking a stat at random to demonstrate your points.

Yes, Derrick Wilson had only 4 points but he had 8 assists that led to 18 points (6 twos and 2 3's) so he had a direct hand in 36% of MU's offense in the game without counting a couple potential assists that led to FTs. In addition...

In the 10 minutes that Derrick was out of the game, Cotton went 3-5 from the floor, 1-3 on 3s, 2-2 on FTs, scored 9 points and didn't turn the ball over. During that time PC outscored MU by 7.

In the 30 minutes that Derrick was in the game, Cotton went 4-13 from the floor, 0-1 on 3s, 3-4 on FTs, scored 11 points and committed 5 TOs. During that time MU outscored PC by 18.

Enough said.

[Dreadman24]

Lol can't wait till all your JJJ predictions come true.

+1000

[GGGG]

I didn't see the first half of the game...but I know Derrick played virtually the entire 2nd half and we got outscored that half 36-30...which is interesting, whereas in the 1st half we dominated...I'd still hypothesize that was due to less Derrick and Jake...and more Dawson, Burton, Mayo, JJJ...

Plus/Minus for Providence:

Derrick Wilson:  +18  (highest on the team)
John Dawson: -7 (lowest on the team...and only negative)

He was much more than "serviceable."

[GGGG]

I think you hypothosis is off, I think the issue is when it is Jake and Derrick together.  Derrick and Mayo/JJJ or Dawson and Jake would be much preferred.

I don't disagree with that at all.  I liked seeing JJJ out there early for that reason alone.

[tower912]

I was rooting for Buzz to put Dawson in during the last 2 minutes for offensive defensive switches, a la Oxtule.   I was afraid of Providence going to a hack-a-Derrick strategy.    Other than that, I thought the minute distribution was effective and deserved. 

[mu03eng]

Plus/Minus for Providence:

Derrick Wilson:  +18  (highest on the team)
John Dawson: -7 (lowest on the team...and only negative)

He was much more than "serviceable."

This is 100% correct, and before we all become slurpers....this doesn't mean Dawson can't "flip the script" in the next game and have the highest positive impact.  However this game Derrick was clearly better(like Dawson was against G'Town) and the minutes reflected that.  It's not a 1 or 0 decision....it's called coaching.

[GGGG]

This is 100% correct, and before we all become slurpers....this doesn't mean Dawson can't "flip the script" in the next game and have the highest positive impact.  However this game Derrick was clearly better(like Dawson was against G'Town) and the minutes reflected that.  It's not a 1 or 0 decision....it's called coaching.

Right.  God forbid we bring nuance into the discussion however.

[GGGG]

In the 10 minutes that Derrick was out of the game, Cotton went 3-5 from the floor, 1-3 on 3s, 2-2 on FTs, scored 9 points and didn't turn the ball over. During that time PC outscored MU by 7.

In the 30 minutes that Derrick was in the game, Cotton went 4-13 from the floor, 0-1 on 3s, 3-4 on FTs, scored 11 points and committed 5 TOs. During that time MU outscored PC by 18.

Enough said.

It certainly is enough said.  Wow.  Thanks for putting that together.

[willie warrior]

It certainly is enough said.  Wow.  Thanks for putting that together.

So Sultan, you are now personally monitoring Derrick's time on the floor. Where are you getting your stats from? By the way, when Derrick was guarding Cotton, he was getting much more help than when Mayo was on him, from my personal monitoring. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[tower912]

Merritt's Mustache put the numbers together.   Sultan repeated them in a slightly different format. 

[mu03eng]

So Sultan, you are now personally monitoring Derrick's time on the floor. Where are you getting your stats from? By the way, when Derrick was guarding Cotton, he was getting much more help than when Mayo was on him, from my personal monitoring. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

http://www.gomarquette.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2013-2014/mugame21.html

Go here, do math, find answer

[tower912]

http://www.gomarquette.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2013-2014/mugame21.html

Go here, do math, find answer

actually do work, harm agenda.

[NersEllenson]

Plus/Minus for Providence:

Derrick Wilson:  +18  (highest on the team)
John Dawson: -7 (lowest on the team...and only negative)

He was much more than "serviceable."

Derrick played well...many feel his best game in MU career - and I'd probably agree with that.  I know you and the other Derrick guys have been looking for anything to hang your hat on and support your argument, and finally after 21 games, you have a decent case you can make.

As for +/-   I like it as a general indicator, yet a lot goes into that, such as who you are paired on the floor with.  In the 2nd half Dawson was -11 in a 3:32 stint.  In that time, he had the "pleasure" of playing with 9 different guys.  YES 9 DIFFERENT GUYS in a 3:32 stint of action.  Talk about disjointed. Meanwhile, Carson Desroisers was +13 during his stint of 5 minutes during that same 3:32 stretch - think Desroisers was a huge difference maker in the game?  Hence the slippery slope of +/-

All that said, Derrick played well last night - I do wonder if teams will continue to press, because that actually gave us a fast break game for the 1st time all year.  Was a little surprised Derrick handled it as well as he did..and it ultimately helped him and the team a lot.  Curious decision by Cooley with a roster only going 6 deep.

[GGGG]

So Sultan, you are now personally monitoring Derrick's time on the floor. Where are you getting your stats from? By the way, when Derrick was guarding Cotton, he was getting much more help than when Mayo was on him, from my personal monitoring. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The +/- stats I got from the boxscore:

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2014/01/30/providence-50-marquette-61

Yeah...beauty to me is seeing our starting PG go +18 and holding a likely first team all conference PG to 4-13 shooting and 5 TOs when he is in the game.

I know...silly of me....I'm such a slurper.

[MerrittsMustache]

http://www.gomarquette.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2013-2014/mugame21.html

Go here, do math, find answer

Exactly right.

[willie warrior]

The +/- stats I got from the boxscore:

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2014/01/30/providence-50-marquette-61

Yeah...beauty to me is seeing our starting PG go +18 and holding a likely first team all conference PG to 4-13 shooting and 5 TOs when he is in the game.

I know...silly of me....I'm such a slurper.

Not the plus and minus stats, which are meaningless, but shots when being guarded by Derrick. Or was that just the eyeball test?

[frozena pizza]

Derrick played very well last night, maybe his best game and he was crucial to us winning.  I still like mixing in Dawson, but last night Wilson was definitely the better option.

[tower912]

One of the differences against the press was that they kept an offensive player behind the ball to throw the crosscourt outlet pass to.   They failed to do that against SH.   The press would come, the PG would pass across to (usually) Jamil, who would then pass forward before the trap arrived.   Press break 101. 

[GGGG]

Derrick played well...many feel his best game in MU career - and I'd probably agree with that.  I know you and the other Derrick guys have been looking for anything to hang your hat on and support your argument, and finally after 21 games, you have a decent case you can make.

As for +/-   I like it as a general indicator, yet a lot goes into that, such as who you are paired on the floor with.  In the 2nd half Dawson was -11 in a 3:32 stint.  In that time, he had the "pleasure" of playing with 9 different guys.  YES 9 DIFFERENT GUYS in a 3:32 stint of action.  Talk about disjointed. Meanwhile, Carson Desroisers was +13 during his stint of 5 minutes during that same 3:32 stretch - think Desroisers was a huge difference maker in the game?  Hence the slippery slope of +/-

I don't disagree with you regarding +/-.  However it was pretty clear that Derrick was way better last nigh.  Merritt's more detailed breakdown pretty much showed that.

[GGGG]

One of the differences against the press was that they kept an offensive player behind the ball to throw the crosscourt outlet pass to.   They failed to do that against SH.   The press would come, the PG would pass across to (usually) Jamil, who would then pass forward before the trap arrived.   Press break 101. 

And Derrick waited for the second guy to commit to coming to him before making the pass to Jamil. 

[GGGG]

Derrick played very well last night, maybe his best game and he was crucial to us winning.  I still like mixing in Dawson, but last night Wilson was definitely the better option.

Exactly.  And against SJU Dawson might be.  It's what I have been saying all along.

[Hards Alumni]

Another epic thread.  Where we discuss the same things as 15 other threads.

Can't wait for tomorrow.

Wonder why a lot of the better/older posters left.

[Lennys Tap]

As for +/-   I like it as a general indicator, yet a lot goes into that, such as who you are paired on the floor with.  In the 2nd half Dawson was -11 in a 3:32 stint.  In that time, he had the "pleasure" of playing with 9 different guys.  YES 9 DIFFERENT GUYS in a 3:32 stint of action.  Talk about disjointed. Meanwhile, Carson Desroisers was +13 during his stint of 5 minutes during that same 3:32 stretch - think Desroisers was a huge difference maker in the game?  Hence the slippery slope of +/-

You like it as a general indicator - translation - when the numbers confirm your bias, you like them and take them at face value. When they don't, the numbers are flawed. I GUARANTEE that if John Dawson ever is a +18 while Derrick is a -7 those numbers would be referenced by you as proof positive that Derrick should never see the floor. No excuses, no mitigation. Just another couple hundred posts about how right you are.

[Hards Alumni]

You like it as a general indicator - translation - when the numbers confirm your bias, you like them and take them at face value. When they don't, the numbers are flawed. I GUARANTEE that if John Dawson ever is a +18 while Derrick is a -7 those numbers would be referenced by you as proof positive that Derrick should never see the floor. No excuses, no mitigation. Just another couple hundred posts about how right you are.

Happy to bathe in the glory when he is right, but won't admit it when he is wrong.

Sounds like most of the population of the USA.

[mu03eng]

As for +/-   I like it as a general indicator, yet a lot goes into that, such as who you are paired on the floor with.  In the 2nd half Dawson was -11 in a 3:32 stint.  In that time, he had the "pleasure" of playing with 9 different guys.  YES 9 DIFFERENT GUYS in a 3:32 stint of action.  Talk about disjointed. Meanwhile, Carson Desroisers was +13 during his stint of 5 minutes during that same 3:32 stretch - think Desroisers was a huge difference maker in the game?  Hence the slippery slope of +/-

All that said, Derrick played well last night - I do wonder if teams will continue to press, because that actually gave us a fast break game for the 1st time all year.  Was a little surprised Derrick handled it as well as he did..and it ultimately helped him and the team a lot.  Curious decision by Cooley with a roster only going 6 deep.

Please specify the exact laboratory conditions under which Dawson should get his extended run time to verify his viability.  Holy crap, how could a point guard possibly play with 9 different players and be successful...the MADNESS!!!  Derrick played with 9 different players over the course of the game as well.

Lastly, and this is where I've turned on you from a passionate Dawson advocate to just an irrational guy

Derrick played well...many feel his best game in MU career - and I'd probably agree with that.  I know you and the other Derrick guys have been looking for anything to hang your hat on and support your argument, and finally after 21 games, you have a decent case you can make.

Hang our hat?  Really?  The group that tends to disagree with you has brought up Dawson's less than stellar performances in the Xavier, Butler, and a couple of other games.  Your response "but he got 30+ minutes at Georgetown and look how that turned out".  So if we are being "hat hangers" with last nights game that's only because we learned from you the professional.

I'm thinking I should add this to my signature "I support both DWil and Dawson, without malice or bias" and hope I can shed the slurper label