At this point

[NersEllenson]

This is what makes Ners so great  

Me: "Does that absolve the offense from any blame? Of course not."

Ners: "all of what ails the team this year is defense???"

Sorry for splitting hairs...but this sure sounds like a guy who squarely places blame at foot of defense..

Final point on this whole issue...

Marquette's offense has been ugly this year and many fans have commented on how the offense is holding this team back, but statistically it's been basically the same as last year's offense (which isn't saying much). This year's primary issues have been on the defensive end. THAT is where the team has really taken a step backwards this season. Does that absolve the offense from any blame? Of course not. That simply means that sacrificing defense to help the offense isn't the answer.

Defense carried this team to the Elite 8 last year and defense is likely leading this team to the NIT this year.

Your analysis is sure interesting - how you draw the above conclusions - when our defense is just 2 spots worse nationally this year, than last year, while our offense is 64 spots worse...talk about some pretzel logic.

[MerrittsMustache]

Sorry for splitting hairs...but this sure sounds like a guy who squarely places blame at foot of defense..
Your analysis is sure interesting - how you draw the above conclusions - when our defense is just 2 spots worse nationally this year, than last year, while our offense is 64 spots worse...talk about some pretzel logic.

This has already been addressed. Rankings and the actual numbers aren't the same thing.

[Windyplayer]

This has already been addressed. Rankings and the actual numbers aren't the same thing.

You're right. Rankings give context to actual numbers.

[Hards Alumni]

You're right. Rankings give context to actual numbers.

No, they are misleading, and its being done intentionally.

Example:

Lebron James is the leading scorer in the NBA with 30 points per game this year.

Last year Kevin Durant was the leading scorer in the NBA with 35 per game.  Also, Lebron James was 3rd in the NBA with 31 points per game.

You can't say that LBJ had a better year scoring this year since he is leading the league.  Obviously, he had a better year scoring LAST YEAR because he scorde more points per game.

I suggest a remedial course in PHIL 101 for quite a few people here.

[NersEllenson]

No, they are misleading, and its being done intentionally.

Example:

Lebron James is the leading scorer in the NBA with 30 points per game this year.

Last year Kevin Durant was the leading scorer in the NBA with 35 per game.  Also, Lebron James was 3rd in the NBA with 31 points per game.

You can't say that LBJ had a better year scoring this year since he is leading the league.  Obviously, he had a better year scoring LAST YEAR because he scorde more points per game.

I suggest a remedial course in PHIL 101 for quite a few people here.

Not sure your above analogy is relevant or apples to apples as to what is being argued here...the argument is that Merritt/Sultan are stating that it is largely our defense to blame as to why we aren't winning more this year...when that simply is not true.

In defensive terms...the lower the Adjusted Defensive Efficiency number the better:

2012-2013 MU was 46th in country at 94.2
2013-2014 MU is 48th in country at 97.4

So...this says that defense across the board in the country isn't being played as well as last year in that 94.2 this year would put us at 19 in the country...whereas last year it put us at 46th.  What this means is it is much easier to score, to be more efficient on offense this year - likely a result of new hand check rules, and no arm bars allowed in post, no body to body contact allowed on cuts..

Now in terms of Adjusted Offensive Efficiency:
2012-2013 MU was 111.2 or 25th in the country (against better defense than this year as shown above)
2013-2014 MU is 109.2 or 89th in the country..that 109.2 would have put us 40th in the country last year...and this 109.2 comes against easier defense.

Bottom line..defense isn't what ails this team...its the other side of the ball.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Merritt,

I'm sorry, but as your sponsor in the NEP, I am going to have to take away your sobriety pin. It's ok, debating Ners is a hard drug to kick. I struggle at times and I still give into feeding other trolls. I hope you can find your way back and re-earn your sobriety pins.

[MerrittsMustache]

Merritt,

I'm sorry, but as your sponsor in the NEP, I am going to have to take away your sobriety pin. It's ok, debating Ners is a hard drug to kick. I struggle at times and I still give into feeding other trolls. I hope you can find your way back and re-earn your sobriety pins.

I appreciate the support, TAMU. There's just something about Ners' complete lack of reason and logic that sucks me in. I'm fully prepared to re-sign the NEP, stop taking the bait and earn my pin back.

[Hards Alumni]

Not sure your above analogy is relevant or apples to apples as to what is being argued here...the argument is that Merritt/Sultan are stating that it is largely our defense to blame as to why we aren't winning more this year...when that simply is not true.

In defensive terms...the lower the Adjusted Defensive Efficiency number the better:

2012-2013 MU was 46th in country at 94.2
2013-2014 MU is 48th in country at 97.4

So...this says that defense across the board in the country isn't being played as well as last year in that 94.2 this year would put us at 19 in the country...whereas last year it put us at 46th.  What this means is it is much easier to score, to be more efficient on offense this year - likely a result of new hand check rules, and no arm bars allowed in post, no body to body contact allowed on cuts..

Now in terms of Adjusted Offensive Efficiency:
2012-2013 MU was 111.2 or 25th in the country (against better defense than this year as shown above)
2013-2014 MU is 109.2 or 89th in the country..that 109.2 would have put us 40th in the country last year...and this 109.2 comes against easier defense.

Bottom line..defense isn't what ails this team...its the other side of the ball.

Actually, it perfectly applies.  You're just an unreasonable person.  That's really all.

[Windyplayer]

Actually, it perfectly applies.  You're just an unreasonable person.  That's really all.

Do remedial courses in philosophy teach you to make conclusive statements and attack the speaker's character without addressing the speaker's premises in support of their conclusion? Give me a break. Don't drop a line like that and then post this crap.

[Windyplayer]

No, they are misleading, and its being done intentionally.

Example:

Lebron James is the leading scorer in the NBA with 30 points per game this year.

Last year Kevin Durant was the leading scorer in the NBA with 35 per game.  Also, Lebron James was 3rd in the NBA with 31 points per game.

You can't say that LBJ had a better year scoring this year since he is leading the league.  Obviously, he had a better year scoring LAST YEAR because he scorde more points per game.

I suggest a remedial course in PHIL 101 for quite a few people here.

Rankings account for myriad variables that you nor I could completely wrap our heads around. They're certainly not perfect, and they can be misleading, but they serve a valuable purpose. Maybe LeBron is a better scorer this year based on stingier defenses, less PT than last year, etc.

[Hards Alumni]

Rankings account for myriad variables that you nor I could completely wrap our heads around. They're certainly not perfect, and they can be misleading, but they serve a valuable purpose. Maybe LeBron is a better scorer this year based on stingier defenses, less PT than last year, etc.

They do, obviously, but not in the manner he was trying to use them.  If you haven't noticed, it is his MO.  He forms an argument, is proven wrong, and then moves the field goals/changes the argument/creates an easier straw man to knock down.

[Windyplayer]

They do, obviously, but not in the manner he was trying to use them.  If you haven't noticed, it is his MO.  He forms an argument, is proven wrong, and then moves the field goals/changes the argument/creates an easier straw man to knock down.

The problem with the D Wilson argument for both sides is that there are soooo many statistics to use to support both sides and there are no tight parameters to the argument--only should D Wilson be playing as much as he does and the argument continue to evolve with each passing game. Under these circumstances, the argument can branch off into numerous sub-arguments through no fault of either side. As cumbersome as the argument has become, I've learned a lot through the process regarding D Wilson, our offense and defense. I'd even venture to say that it's been a rich debate with very little personal bashing or anything like that. That being said, I won't weep when this chapter of MU hoops debate is lost in the annals of MU scoop.

[Hards Alumni]

The problem with the D Wilson argument for both sides is that there are soooo many statistics to use to support both sides and there are no tight parameters to the argument--only should D Wilson be playing as much as he does and the argument continue to evolve with each passing game. Under these circumstances, the argument can branch off into numerous sub-arguments through no fault of either side. As cumbersome as the argument has become, I've learned a lot through the process regarding D Wilson, our offense and defense. I'd even venture to say that it's been a rich debate with very little personal bashing or anything like that. That being said, I won't weep when this chapter of MU hoops debate is lost in the annals of MU scoop.

I absolutely agree.  I'll cheer instead of forgoing the weeping.

[Wojo'sMojo]

Merritt,

I'm sorry, but as your sponsor in the NEP, I am going to have to take away your sobriety pin. It's ok, debating Ners is a hard drug to kick. I struggle at times and I still give into feeding other trolls. I hope you can find your way back and re-earn your sobriety pins.

I respect everyone's opinion on topics and think it is healthy to debate points. I fail to understand why you label people trolls because they don't share your viewpoint. In case you haven't noticed, all is not well in Marquette land this year as evidenced by our record. Certain people share what they think the issues are and they are labeled trolls? Well wouldn't it just be great if everyone had the same thought and feelings on every single topic...

[Texas Western]

Please cite a source showing that Dean Smith used to do that. I find it hard to believe.

You realize that the game against New Mexico wasn't IN New Mexico, right? It was in Vegas, 12 hours away from Dawson's hometown. If I was a parent (or recruit) and a coach put an undeserving player into a tightly-contested game simply because it happened to be in the same general vicinity as his hometown, I'd think that the coach isn't serious about winning.

To each his own.

Dean Smith was notes for running the four corners office, one of his strategies was to bring in the reserves and give them game experience when the outcome was still in doubt. He would bring them in at the end If the first half to do this. I witnessed it first hand many times. It built incredible team chemistry and loyalty to the program.

Dawson is clearly a player Buzz was willing to give time to in a road conference game.  Give him a DNP in front of friends family etc does nothing but create bad will.  There are aome concerned that JJJ will leave, I would be just as concerned for Dawson leaving. Riding pine behind Todd is one thing, but get splinters  behind two far less talented players is another .

[GGGG]

Dean Smith was notes for running the four corners office, one of his strategies was to bring in the reserves and give them game experience when the outcome was still in doubt. He would bring them in at the end If the first half to do this. I witnessed it first hand many times. It built incredible team chemistry and loyalty to the program.

Dawson is clearly a player Buzz was willing to give time to in a road conference game.  Give him a DNP in front of friends family etc does nothing but create bad will.  There are aome concerned that JJJ will leave, I would be just as concerned for Dawson leaving. Riding pine behind Todd is one thing, but get splinters  behind two far less talented players is another .

How do you judge talent?  On potential?  If that's the case, you are probably right.

But as for right now?  Hmmmm...how are you sure about that?

[Archies Bat]

I fail to understand why you label people trolls because they don't share your viewpoint.

I'll take a shot at responding to this comment, and I'll limit it to what I have seen from Ners, who is generally the focal point of this talk.

I respect Ners opinion, as I respect others.  I agree with him often.  He is a good MU fan with  many pertinent points.

He is not what I consider a classic troll.  By my definition, a troll is generally a non-fan, but always someone who disrupts a thread as their goal.

Ners, however, often has the impact of a troll.   During the height of the Derrick/Dawson debate, he took his opinion to multiple unrelated threads, and said the same thing over and over and over (and over).  He also started several threads saying exactly the same thing as the disrupted threads.  I do not believe he has the slightest desire to be a troll.  However, when on a roll, he disrupts the board like a "classic" troll.

He also often doesn't listen or acknowledge valid points that counter his argument.  While this is the norm on this board, it is compounded, with me, by the actions I describe in the prior paragraph.

So for me, he is treated like a troll.. I put him on Ignore.  However, since he does offer many good insights, I also quickly take him off ignore when I sense he is off his soapbox.

I hope this help explains it from my own perspective.

[NersEllenson]

How do you judge talent?  On potential?  If that's the case, you are probably right.

But as for right now?  Hmmmm...how are you sure about that?

How can you be so sure Derrick is the best option??  ARe you really impressed with what he's done this year?  Is it beyond a shadow of a doubt to think a freshman who has tripled Derrick's career 3 point makes, and shoots 83% from the free throw line, might possibly be an upgrade over a 7% 3pt shooter and 48% FT shooter?? 

YOu have 1 game of Dawson getting 30 minutes of PT all year.  It went well.  We have 20 games of Derrick getting 30+, 15 or so of which have been extremely limited from a production standpoint.

Funny how Dawson has 1 bad stretch of playing time and he gets 2 DNP's thereafter, yet Derrick has had numerous poor stretches and virtually never sees the bench unless in foul trouble.

I mean we are talking probably record setting meager production in the way of 1, 3pt shot made for a starting PG averaging 30+ minutes per game after 26 games into his junior year.  Do you ever recall seeing teams sag 6-8' off a PG on the perimeter and just totally and complete disrespect the player in such a way??

[GGGG]

How can you be so sure Derrick is the best option??

I have answered this question repeatedly and in this very thread.  No need for me to do so again.

[g0lden3agle]

Not sure your above analogy is relevant or apples to apples as to what is being argued here...the argument is that Merritt/Sultan are stating that it is largely our defense to blame as to why we aren't winning more this year...when that simply is not true.

In defensive terms...the lower the Adjusted Defensive Efficiency number the better:

2012-2013 MU was 46th in country at 94.2
2013-2014 MU is 48th in country at 97.4

So...this says that defense across the board in the country isn't being played as well as last year in that 94.2 this year would put us at 19 in the country...whereas last year it put us at 46th.  What this means is it is much easier to score, to be more efficient on offense this year - likely a result of new hand check rules, and no arm bars allowed in post, no body to body contact allowed on cuts..

Now in terms of Adjusted Offensive Efficiency:
2012-2013 MU was 111.2 or 25th in the country (against better defense than this year as shown above)
2013-2014 MU is 109.2 or 89th in the country..that 109.2 would have put us 40th in the country last year...and this 109.2 comes against easier defense.

Bottom line..defense isn't what ails this team...its the other side of the ball.

I look at those numbers and see: Our offensive efficiency has gotten less worse than our defensive efficiency comparing last year to this year (2 pt offensive efficiency vs. 3.2 defensive efficiency).  Comparing the rankings of our efficiencies ignores the performance of every other D1 school, which is a lot to ignore.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I respect everyone's opinion on topics and think it is healthy to debate points. I fail to understand why you label people trolls because they don't share your viewpoint. In case you haven't noticed, all is not well in Marquette land this year as evidenced by our record. Certain people share what they think the issues are and they are labeled trolls? Well wouldn't it just be great if everyone had the same thought and feelings on every single topic...

See Archie's post for my main response. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The only thing I would add is that I label people as trolls who only show up to point out the negatives. For me, you need to point out the good and the bad.

[NersEllenson]

I look at those numbers and see: Our offensive efficiency has gotten less worse than our defensive efficiency comparing last year to this year (2 pt offensive efficiency vs. 3.2 defensive efficiency).  Comparing the rankings of our efficiencies ignores the performance of every other D1 school, which is a lot to ignore.

Think you are misinterpreting the stat.  The rankings I listed take into account every other D1 School.    Plain and simple:

We were 46th in the nation defensively last year...and are 48th this year...compared to all D-1 teams.

We were 25th in the country in offensive efficiency last year...but are 89th this year...compared to all D-1 teams.

The issue is....is that the defense being played across the country this year, isn't as good as last year - likely due to new hand check rules.  What that also means is that our offensive rating should have risen accordingly...but instead...we've regressed from last year...that is a double whammy.  We face less defensive challenge essentially this year, yet are 2 points (not basketball points) worse in our Offensive Efficiency Rating.

Again - the 94.2 rating we posted in 2012-2013 was good for 46th in the country.  This year, that number would be good for 19th in the country...means across the board, defense isn't being played as well this year as last....which again should lead to a natural uptick in our offensive efficiency...but instead we've regressed over last year offensively...

[Wojo'sMojo]

See Archie's post for my main response. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The only thing I would add is that I label people as trolls who only show up to point out the negatives. For me, you need to point out the good and the bad.

I thought Archie's post was very well thought out. I personally want every MArquette player to succeed. I get frustrated with posters trumpeting every little thing Derrick does well and justifying his mediocre play and I feel it antagonizes posters who think his game is suspect. He seems like a great kid and I don't want to continually break him down. That being said, I also am mentally drained watching him run the point game after game. If anything I should rip Buzz's choice to continually play him max minutes. Anyways here's to a Marquette butt thumping tomorrow!! Hope Derrick goes for 20 and 10 

[Wojo'sMojo]

Maybe we should start a D Wilson venting thread? Then we can keep it to one thread, only people who wanna read it will, and improve the quality of the other threads? Seems like a win win to me!!

[NersEllenson]

I'll take a shot at responding to this comment, and I'll limit it to what I have seen from Ners, who is generally the focal point of this talk.

I respect Ners opinion, as I respect others.  I agree with him often.  He is a good MU fan with  many pertinent points.

He is not what I consider a classic troll.  By my definition, a troll is generally a non-fan, but always someone who disrupts a thread as their goal.

Ners, however, often has the impact of a troll.   During the height of the Derrick/Dawson debate, he took his opinion to multiple unrelated threads, and said the same thing over and over and over (and over).  He also started several threads saying exactly the same thing as the disrupted threads.  I do not believe he has the slightest desire to be a troll.  However, when on a roll, he disrupts the board like a "classic" troll.

He also often doesn't listen or acknowledge valid points that counter his argument.  While this is the norm on this board, it is compounded, with me, by the actions I describe in the prior paragraph.

So for me, he is treated like a troll.. I put him on Ignore.  However, since he does offer many good insights, I also quickly take him off ignore when I sense he is off his soapbox.

I hope this help explains it from my own perspective.

I can't argue with how you've laid this out...it's reasonable...and I get it...it's fair.  I will say, however, that I do acknowledge valid arguments that counter my positions at times - yet unfortunately, I am beyond convicted (obviously) on the issue at PG.  I cannot concede a point, that I don't believe to be true.  Nonetheless, I have voted Derrick SOTG on one occasion, and have noted his better play of late - yet that aside, that doesn't mean I have to agree with opposing viewpoints on his merits as being the starter or being our best option.