C: past, present and future

[Marcus92]

Some perspective on how Luke Fischer compares to select four-year centers from Marquette's past. First, a look at some raw stats from their first 3 seasons:

Luke Fischer — 6'11"  245
2.8 ppg  2.1 rpg  0.3 apg  0.8 bpg
11.0 ppg  4.8 rpg  0.9 apg  2.2 bpg
12.4 ppg  6.8 rpg  1.0 apg  1.8 bpg

Chris Otule — 6'11"  275
1.3 ppg  1.1 rpg  0.0 apg  0.6 bpg
3.7 ppg  2.0 rpg  0.0 apg  1.7 bpg
5.1 ppg  3.6 rpg  0.1 apg  1.5 bpg

Ousmane Barro — 6'10"  235
2.0 ppg  2.3 rpg  0.3 apg  0.3 bpg
4.4 ppg  2.8 rpg  0.4 apg  0.5 bpg
8.1 ppg 6.9 rpg  0.4 apg  1.0 bpg

Scott Merritt — 6'10"  240
6.0 ppg  3.6 rpg  0.5 apg  0.9 bpg
5.9 ppg  4.4 rpg  0.7 apg  0.8 bpg
10.1 ppg  6.6 rpg  1.5 apg  1.2 bpg

Amal McCaskill — 6'11"  235
1.7 ppg  3.1 rpg  0.3 apg  0.8 bpg
5.2 ppg  3.3 rpg  0.5 apg  1.0 bpg
10.7 ppg  8.5 rpg  0.8 apg  2.3 bpg

Jim McIlvane — 7'1"  240
8.0 ppg  4.7 rpg  0.5 apg  3.3 bpg
10.3 ppg  4.6 rpg  0.6 apg  3.0 bpg
11.0 ppg  4.8 rpg  0.8 apg  2.8 bpg

A few basic takeaways for me: 1) Luke is possibly the best scoring center we've seen at Marquette in the past 25 years. He's on track with or even ahead of Big Mac's development. 2) The same goes for rebounding. He's ahead of McIlvane at this point in his career, roughly equal to Barro and Merritt. Only McCaskill posted better numbers. 3) Mac was likely the best shot blocker I'll ever see in a Marquette uniform. Fischer won't challenge his records, but chances are he'll occupy the next spot.

So have past centers saved the best for last? Judge for yourself from their senior stats:

Chris Otule
5.8 ppg  4.3 rpg  0.2 apg  1.0 bpg

Ousmane Barro
5.5 ppg  5.5 rpg  0.3 apg  1.2 bpg

Scott Merritt
11.2 ppg  7.1 rpg  1.0 apg  0.7 bpg

Amal McCaskill
10.3 ppg  8.9 rpg  1.3 apg  1.8 bpg

Jim McIlvane
13.6 ppg  8.3 rpg  1.3 apg  4.3 bpg

Based on what I've seen from Luke so far, there's good reason to look forward to next year.

[rocket surgeon]

       good stuff-excellent diligence.  luke loves the books and is really taking advantage of his educational opportunities-good for him.  hope we have him for the duration of his eligibility

[rocky_warrior]

No Davante Gardner?  Luke probably still gets the edge in every stat, but Davante gives him a run for the money in scoring compared to the other guys.

4.6 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 0.3 rpg, 0.2 bpg
9.5 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.7 rpg, 0.2 bpg
11.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 0.9 rpg, 0.6 bpg
14.9 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 1.3 rpg, 0.5 bpg

[Marcus92]

No Davante Gardner?

Good point. I know Davante certainly played like a center. But I figured the others (apart from maybe Otule) make a better comparison for Luke's height, weight, strength, etc.

[Dr. Blackheart]

No Davante Gardner?  Luke probably still gets the edge in every stat, but Davante gives him a run for the money in scoring compared to the other guys.

4.6 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 0.3 rpg, 0.2 bpg
9.5 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 0.7 rpg, 0.2 bpg
11.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 0.9 rpg, 0.6 bpg
14.9 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 1.3 rpg, 0.5 bpg

On a per pound basis, Luke is clearly the heavier weight.

[brewcity77]

Luke may average more points as a junior, but he's not remotely the offensive force Davante was. Luke is averaging 12.4 ppg in 28.8 minutes while Davante averaged 11.5 ppg in 21.4 minutes. So Luke scores 8% more points in 35% more minutes played.

Davante also wins the efficiency battle. Both have done well, but Davante was a top-40 player with a 122.4 ORtg while Luke's 115.5 ORtg is 335 in the country.

Down low, there was never a question if Davante could bang with other bigs. Luke is probably the better all around player, and certainly the better defender, but when it came to the offensive end, Davante was superior, and also would have been the kind of guy that would have abused Luke.

[MU82]

Luke may average more points as a junior, but he's not remotely the offensive force Davante was. Luke is averaging 12.4 ppg in 28.8 minutes while Davante averaged 11.5 ppg in 21.4 minutes. So Luke scores 8% more points in 35% more minutes played.

Davante also wins the efficiency battle. Both have done well, but Davante was a top-40 player with a 122.4 ORtg while Luke's 115.5 ORtg is 335 in the country.

Down low, there was never a question if Davante could bang with other bigs. Luke is probably the better all around player, and certainly the better defender, but when it came to the offensive end, Davante was superior, and also would have been the kind of guy that would have abused Luke.

I agree with all of this, while also appreciating the things Luke does well (as I know you do, too, brewski).

[MarquetteDano]

Luke may average more points as a junior, but he's not remotely the offensive force Davante was. Luke is averaging 12.4 ppg in 28.8 minutes while Davante averaged 11.5 ppg in 21.4 minutes. So Luke scores 8% more points in 35% more minutes played.

Davante also wins the efficiency battle. Both have done well, but Davante was a top-40 player with a 122.4 ORtg while Luke's 115.5 ORtg is 335 in the country.

Down low, there was never a question if Davante could bang with other bigs. Luke is probably the better all around player, and certainly the better defender, but when it came to the offensive end, Davante was superior, and also would have been the kind of guy that would have abused Luke.

Agree for the most part but two things: 1) Davante couldnt be on the floor more because of his conditioning and 2) if Davante would abuse Luke as would Luke abuse Davante. Especially in transition as Luke runs the floor well.

[willie warrior]

Agree for the most part but two things: 1) Davante couldnt be on the floor more because of his conditioning and 2) if Davante would abuse Luke as would Luke abuse Davante. Especially in transition as Luke runs the floor well.

Don't agree. Luke would be in foul trouble almost immediately.

[Marcus92]

I loved Davante at Marquette. Talent isn't the reason he's not on the original list. I was just looking at players most similar to Luke to see how they developed over their careers. To my mind, Davante's body, skill set and playing style were one of a kind.

[MarquetteDano]

Don't agree. Luke would be in foul trouble almost immediately.

Games where refs calls fouls  on all the flailing yes.

[Marcus92]

Maybe a bigger takeaway is that Fischer is performing at or above the level of two players who spent multiple seasons on NBA rosters (McIlvane and McCaskill). And he's doing so against top competition in the Big East, at least equal to if not better than the Great Midwest or Conference USA in terms of conference strength.

McIlvane was a truly gifted shot blocker. McCaskill was probably a better athlete. But to even include Fischer in the same conversation says a lot. Only 1.2% of all college players go to the NBA. Luke is playing at an elite level.

[WarriorFan]

Robert Jackson  Senior year  10.4, 7.5, 0.8
And this was considered a HUGE contribution for an MU center at the time. 

[CAINMUTINY]

While I like Luke, I think you'll see some serious regression on his part next year.  Without Ellenson drawing double and triple teams he won't have nearly as many wide open looks. I hope i'm wrong, but very doubtful if HE leaves.

[tower912]

While I like Luke, I think you'll see some serious regression on his part next year.  Without Ellenson drawing double and triple teams he won't have nearly as many wide open looks. I hope i'm wrong, but very doubtful if HE leaves.

The counter to that is that he will have a full off season in the weight room for the first time and there will be more shooters on next year's team to make the double teams pay.   

[Marcus92]

While I like Luke, I think you'll see some serious regression on his part next year.  Without Ellenson drawing double and triple teams he won't have nearly as many wide open looks. I hope i'm wrong, but very doubtful if HE leaves.

Anything's possible, I guess. But I don't see the evidence of it. Luke is a former state player of the year (same as Henry) and top 100 recruit. He's been recognized as an elite talent for some time. And he's shown steady improvement as a player year-over-year.

Based on the historical examples, that kind of progression typically continues into senior year. None of the other players above had someone like Henry drawing double-teams. The bigger point is, experience makes a tremendous difference in a player's development.

[Dr. Blackheart]

nm

[Jay Bee]

A few basic takeaways for me: 1) Luke is possibly the best scoring center we've seen at Marquette in the past 25 years. He's on track with or even ahead of Big Mac's development. 2) The same goes for rebounding. He's ahead of McIlvane at this point in his career, roughly equal to Barro and Merritt. Only McCaskill posted better numbers. 3) Mac was likely the best shot blocker I'll ever see in a Marquette uniform. Fischer won't challenge his records, but chances are he'll occupy the next spot.

wat? Basic stats won't tell you much...

1) That's crazy. Davante was a better scorer and it's not even close. Others are right there as well. One of the many reasons to slow down when looking at basic statistics... remember that MU is average 10% more possessions per game this season than in Davante's senior year, for example.

2) Rebounding - Luke's defensive rebounding is - I don't mean this in the wrong way - but terribly low. He's never been above 13%. It's no small wonder why MU's DR% is #244 in the nation and second-worst in BEast play.

"He's ahead of McIlvane at this point in his career"... how do you reach this conclusion? Cripes, I did a quick calc and come up with 12.2 DR% for Luke and 16.8% for McIlvaine in his jr year.... edge to Luke on OR% thus far 13.7% to 11.9%.. overall rebounding to JM.

3) wat? Look no further than Otule. Luke is at a 5.8% block percentage this year.. down from career numbers... Chris' worse year was senior year.. at 6.4%.. 6.7% as a junior.

[Marcus92]

Agree that using raw stats is a crude measure at best. And appreciate some actual statistical analysis on this.

The thing is, as good a player as Davante was in production per minute, he simply didn't put enough minutes on the floor. It's not fair to compare someone who played 21.5 mpg (Davante his junior year) with someone playing 29 mpg (Luke this season, 2nd most on the team, roughly 35% more floor time). Efficiency counts — but so does reliability.

Minutes played is the simplest statistic in basketball; it indicates how often the coach can count on you as one of the five best players on the floor. In Davante's case, poor conditioning was only part of the reason for his limited minutes. He was also such a defensive liability that he was regularly substituted out of the game for Otule or another better defender. In other words, Buzz couldn't rely on him. In this regard, Luke is the far superior all-around player.

I'll defer on the statistical breakdown. Clearly, that's not my forte. But I do feel Luke at least belongs in the conversation with the best centers to play at Marquette over the past couple decades. He doesn't deserve all the criticism he's gotten this year.

[MarquetteDano]

The thing is, as good a player as Davante was in production per minute, he simply didn't put enough minutes on the floor. It's not fair to compare someone who played 21.5 mpg (Davante his junior year) with someone playing 29 mpg (Luke this season, 2nd most on the team, roughly 35% more floor time). Efficiency counts — but so does reliability.

Minutes played is the simplest statistic in basketball; it indicates how often the coach can count on you as one of the five best players on the floor. In Davante's case, poor conditioning was only part of the reason for his limited minutes. He was also such a defensive liability that he was regularly substituted out of the game for Otule or another better defender. In other words, Buzz couldn't rely on him. In this regard, Luke is the far superior all-around player.

Completely agree. Loved Davante but he was the American League's equivalent of a DH. For all everyone complains about Luke's foul trouble still averages more than min than Davante in league play.

If Davante had to expend what Luke does on D for 30 min would be interesting to see how his numbers would look then.

[Dawson Rental]

While I like Luke, I think you'll see some serious regression on his part next year.  Without Ellenson drawing double and triple teams he won't have nearly as many wide open looks. I hope i'm wrong, but very doubtful if HE leaves.

Then again, with HE gone, Luke will be THE man on the blocks, and probably have more scoring opportunities, as a result.

[Dawson Rental]

Agree that using raw stats is a crude measure at best. And appreciate some actual statistical analysis on this.

The thing is, as good a player as Davante was in production per minute, he simply didn't put enough minutes on the floor. It's not fair to compare someone who played 21.5 mpg (Davante his junior year) with someone playing 29 mpg (Luke this season, 2nd most on the team, roughly 35% more floor time). Efficiency counts — but so does reliability.

Minutes played is the simplest statistic in basketball; it indicates how often the coach can count on you as one of the five best players on the floor. In Davante's case, poor conditioning was only part of the reason for his limited minutes. He was also such a defensive liability that he was regularly substituted out of the game for Otule or another better defender. In other words, Buzz couldn't rely on him. In this regard, Luke is the far superior all-around player.

I'll defer on the statistical breakdown. Clearly, that's not my forte. But I do feel Luke at least belongs in the conversation with the best centers to play at Marquette over the past couple decades. He doesn't deserve all the criticism he's gotten this year.

Completely agree. Loved Davante but he was the American League's equivalent of a DH. For all everyone complains about Luke's foul trouble still averages more than min than Davante in league play.

If Davante had to expend what Luke does on D for 30 min would be interesting to see how his numbers would look then.

I think that both of you are missing an obvious contribution to Davante's lower minutes; he was really the only center being discussed who played on a team with a credible second option at center, Otule.  Mac could be spelled for a few by Key, but Key, like HE this year, couldn't contribute much time at center since he was holding down the PF position full time.  I believe that there is a consensus that neither Otule nor Gardner could handle more than a very limited amount of time at PF, so a Mac/Key type of combination wasn't feasible, and both Otule's and Gardner's minutes suffered, as a result.

On another note, I've always been a McCaskill fan, but his numbers look even better than I expected.  IMO, O'Neil's best recruiting find.  He didn't even start in high school, he did show well in AAU, I guess.  He'd be a great prototype for the defensive stopper/rebounding PF that many here covet.  (He was more than athletic enough to move over to the PF).

[Marcus92]

McIlvane averaged just 19 mpg his junior year (1992-93). That year, Marquette had a three-man rotation down low: Mac, Key and Ron Curry — the team's leading scorer and rebounder as a senior at 14.5 ppg and 8.3 rpg, respectively.

From what I remember, McIlvane's biggest struggles in his first 3 seasons were with establishing and maintaining position. He was 7'1" but lanky and could get pushed around on the blocks. He also had a bad habit of bringing the ball down and dribbling after entry passes or offensive rebounds, where defenders could swat at the ball.

The next season, McIlvane improved to 28.6 mpg. He had attended Pete Newell's big man camp in the offseason and came in much stronger and with more confidence.

[Dawson Rental]

McIlvane averaged just 19 mpg his junior year (1992-93). That year, Marquette had a three-man rotation down low: Mac, Key and Ron Curry — the team's leading scorer and rebounder as a senior at 14.5 ppg and 8.3 rpg, respectively.

From what I remember, McIlvane's biggest struggles in his first 3 seasons were with establishing and maintaining position. He was 7'1" but lanky and could get pushed around on the blocks. He also had a bad habit of bringing the ball down and dribbling after entry passes or offensive rebounds, where defenders could swat at the ball.

The next season, McIlvane improved to 28.6 mpg. He had attended Pete Newell's big man camp in the offseason and came in much stronger and with more confidence.

IIRC, McIlvane's freshman season got off to a very slow start on account of him suffering multiple concussions during the preseason, and Key was the starter at center for much of his freshman year, as a result.

Glad to see you mention Ron Curry.  IMO, Ron Curry gets overlooked a lot.  He transferred from Arizona when O'Neill got the Marquette job because Arizona's attempt to convert him to a small forward wasn't working.  O'Neill couldn't make the switch work either and when he got back to his true position at PF, he really got a chance to shine.

[Marcus92]

Searching even deeper into the memory banks, I think 1993 is when O'Neill took the team on a summer trip to Russia. (I could easily have the year or destination wrong.) Marquette was coming off its first NCAA appearance since 1983 and was really starting to realize its potential.

I remember scouring the paper each day for any information on how the games went. It was usually nothing more than a brief paragraph with the score. Think we won them all except one — which was suspended due to a fight breaking out. I saw that as a sign of a tough team that wasn't going to back down from anything.

[77ncaachamps]

Put Luke's season numbers in perspective though: better than most MU Cs you listed but they're really struggling this year.

I'd easily trade Otule's numbers for the success the team had while he was here.

[Marcus92]

Of course I miss being in the Elite 8 and Final 4. (Or even in the NCAA tournament altogether.) This team is what it is: talented and full of potential but young and inexperienced — in a league that might just be the toughest in the country from top to bottom.

Still hopeful that we're still playing after the conference tournament. However this season plays out, I'm confident we'll start to see that potential realized next year.

[GGGG]

Maybe a bigger takeaway is that Fischer is performing at or above the level of two players who spent multiple seasons on NBA rosters (McIlvane and McCaskill). And he's doing so against top competition in the Big East, at least equal to if not better than the Great Midwest or Conference USA in terms of conference strength.

McIlvane was a truly gifted shot blocker. McCaskill was probably a better athlete. But to even include Fischer in the same conversation says a lot. Only 1.2% of all college players go to the NBA. Luke is playing at an elite level.

An elite level?  No way. He is a good to occasionally very good center. No more than that.

Comparing him to two NBA centers from 20 years ago on simple ppg and rpg analysis isn't really a good way to compare anyway. It ignores issues like the minutes they played, the teammates around them, and their total impact on the offense.

[Marcus92]

I read a lot on this board about how Luke isn't that good, should be rebounding better, fouling less, et cetera. My question is: What standard do you hold him to exactly?

On a team level, he's 1st in blocks, FG% and offensive efficiency, 2nd in rebounds and minutes (trailing only an NBA lottery pick on both), and 3rd in scoring (just 1 point behind Duane).

In the Big East, Luke is 3rd in FG% and in blocks, 10th in rebounding (tops of any center), and 17th in scoring (again with the highest PPG of any center in the league). Value Add ranks him among the 10 most valuable players in the conference. To put it another way, any other team in the Big East would love to have him on the roster.

He's shown clear improvement over last year. And he's only a junior, playing in his 3rd semester as a starter.

If a "good" center is someone who's likely the best player in the Big East at his position right now, who's currently drawing interest from NBA scouts and who could get even better, then I'll agree that Luke is just a good center.

[Herman Cain]

Luke is a quality center, who in my view because of the shoulder situation, has never truly come into a season healthy and strong. He still has been very productive for us.

I am looking forward to next season. He will have a whole summer to get stronger and work on his game. That should bring a confidence that will allow him to move into the upper tier of Big East centers.

[GGGG]

In the Big East, Luke is 3rd in FG% and in blocks, 10th in rebounding (tops of any center), and 17th in scoring (again with the highest PPG of any center in the league). Value Add ranks him among the 10 most valuable players in the conference. To put it another way, any other team in the Big East would love to have him on the roster.

All that tells me is that the center position in the Big East sucks. The tenth beat rebounder is the first center???

He's good. Maybe he'll get a cup of coffee in the NBA. He's not elite.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

In the Big East, Luke is 3rd in FG% and in blocks, 10th in rebounding (tops of any center), and 17th in scoring (again with the highest PPG of any center in the league).

All that tells me is that the center position in the Big East sucks. The tenth beat rebounder is the first center???

Marcus is using what ESPN labels players as. Angel Delgado, Daniel Ochefu, and James Farr are all listed as forwards but play center and are ahead of Luke.

But agree with the general premise that Luke is a very good college center and takes more crap here than he deserves.

[Dawson Rental]

Marcus is using what ESPN labels players as. Angel Delgado, Daniel Ochefu, and James Farr are all listed as forwards but play center and are ahead of Luke.

But agree with the general premise that Luke is a very good college center and takes more crap here than he deserves.

I suspected as much, but didn't have the time to do the checking.  I appreciate you getting to it.  The other factor is if you add up the top two centers at Creighton, I suspect they would be ahead, as well.  (Anyone who cares can feel free to add Matt Heldt's numbers to Luke's to make it a fair comparison.)

[We R Final Four]

I see Sultan and 82 and changing their hardline stance on Luke will NEVER even get a look in the NBA to a cup of coffee and a maybe.  Progress.

[Jay Bee]

I read a lot on this board about how Luke isn't that good, should be rebounding better, fouling less, et cetera. My question is: What standard do you hold him to exactly?

On a team level, he's 1st in blocks, FG% and offensive efficiency, 2nd in rebounds and minutes (trailing only an NBA lottery pick on both), and 3rd in scoring (just 1 point behind Duane).

In the Big East, Luke is 3rd in FG% and in blocks, 10th in rebounding (tops of any center), and 17th in scoring (again with the highest PPG of any center in the league).

ppg, rpg... matter how?

I think Luke is just fine, but his turnover rate of 19% is higher than you'd want to see from a guy with his role on this team and his DR% of 11.4% is poor for his size and position.

In conference games there are 70 guys who have played at least 40% of their team's minutes. Of those 70, Luke's defensive rebounding percentage puts him at #40.

Brutal.

[MU82]

I see Sultan and 82 and changing their hardline stance on Luke will NEVER even get a look in the NBA to a cup of coffee and a maybe.  Progress.

I like Luke. Decent to good college center and seems like a nice young man. Not NBA material. After Buycks, I'm avoiding saying "never," so I'll just stick with highly, highly unlikely.

There's no shame in not being an NBAer. Some of our best players over the last dozen years couldn't make it.

[WarriorFan]

A lot of things (good things) can happen when guys start playing ball for money.

Buycks, for example, learned how to play PG and to make the NBA 3 consistently.

If Luke develops a J out to 12-15 feet he could be a serviceable pro reserve getting 10-12 mins per game.

The TO's are a function of the collegiate game, with so many hands on the ball under the basket and more uncontrolled physicality.  The NBA - with better spacing and tighter contact rules - may actually be easier for him from a turnover perspective.

[GGGG]

I like Luke. Decent to good college center and seems like a nice young man. Not NBA material. After Buycks, I'm avoiding saying "never," so I'll just stick with highly, highly unlikely.

There's no shame in not being an NBAer. Some of our best players over the last dozen years couldn't make it.

Yep. Ditto. I actually clarified my "cup of coffee" position a couple weeks ago.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Luke is a quality center, who in my view because of the shoulder situation, has never truly come into a season healthy and strong. He still has been very productive for us.

I am looking forward to next season. He will have a whole summer to get stronger and work on his game. That should bring a confidence that will allow him to move into the upper tier of Big East centers.

Not sure how he could be considered anything less than the upper tier of Big East centers as is. He isn't the big bruising banger that some BE teams have, but Luke has been very, very effective for us.

[Marcus92]

I don't think I have anything more to offer on this. (Some might debate whether I had anything to offer in the first place.) The issue seems to come down to differing expectations — and in some cases, simple word choice.

To me, being in the top 95th or 99th percentile of anything — whether you're talking about college basketball players or income — is the very definition of elite. The Big East is ranked 2nd out of 32 conferences in Division I. And the NCAA estimates that just 1.2% of all college basketball players go on to make an NBA roster. So if Luke is considered one of the best players in the Big East and getting a look from NBA scouts, I'd call that elite territory.

The thing is, the dictionary definition of "elite" doesn't include any sort of qualifying information. It just means "the choice or best of anything considered collectively." Some may reserve that kind of label for the Big East player of the year, or NBA lottery picks — or only players in the Basketball Hall of Fame, for that matter.

There's no sense in arguing whether Luke is elite or not. I would argue that using language such as "brutal" in talking about his game isn't any more helpful. This implies anything but a good player. Just the opposite, in fact; it suggests that Wojo is certifiable for giving him so much floor time or even keeping him on scholarship.

I enjoy watching Luke play, appreciate what he brings to the team and look forward to seeing how much better he can get as a player. I'm confident he's going to play a huge role in Marquette's success next year. That's enough from me on the  subject.

[We R Final Four]

He doesn't shoot enough jumpers to satisfy some.

[Herman Cain]

Let's put it this way , if we signed up a graduate transfer center that had Luke's production this board would be predicting final four.  We need to appreciate what we have with him.  I think next year will be a very big year for him.

[MU82]

Just because I don't think he'll be a pro doesn't mean I lack appreciation for what Luke does at MU.

I didn't think Vander, Jerel, Dom, Robert Jackson or Davante would be pros but I appreciated the hell out of them when they wore blue and gold. I also had my doubts about the pro potential of Lazar, Diener and a few others who ended up getting some nice paychecks. Appreciated them all!