Mc-Dammit

[GoldenDieners32]

A lot of hope on landing Mane on here.   I wouldn't count on it.

Why is this exactly?

[tower912]

The way Mane is blowing up, he could find himself projected into the first round of the NBA draft.    If he is projected that high, I would expect him to take the money and run.   

[GoldenDieners32]

The way Mane is blowing up, he could find himself projected into the first round of the NBA draft.    If he is projected that high, I would expect him to take the money and run.

No one has him projected that high

[Bad_Reporter]

Why is this exactly?

I can't get into specifics, but I have strong reason to believe that ship has sailed. Hope I'm wrong, but I would be my house on it.

[GoldenDieners32]

I can't get into specifics, but I have strong reason to believe that ship has sailed. Hope I'm wrong, but I would be my house on it.

why bring it up if you "cant get into specifics" seems pointless??

[Galway Eagle]

I can't get into specifics, but I have strong reason to believe that ship has sailed. Hope I'm wrong, but I would be my house on it.

You really are a bad reporter

[LAZER]

The way Mane is blowing up, he could find himself projected into the first round of the NBA draft.    If he is projected that high, I would expect him to take the money and run.

He wasn't in ESPN's latest mock fwiw.

[BM1090]

I can't get into specifics, but I have strong reason to believe that ship has sailed. Hope I'm wrong, but I would be my house on it.

I have no inside information here, but we did a visit with him 2 weeks ago. I'd be surprised if we did that visit if the ship has sailed. Unless this is a very recent development.

[Windyplayer]

I can't get into specifics, but I have strong reason to believe that ship has sailed. Hope I'm wrong, but I would be my house on it.

You really are a bad reporter

And gambler.

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

A lot of missing context here (I know, I know, this is Scoop after all). Marquette held Creighton to it's 6th lowest PPP on offense, fully 7 points below their season average (and they are a Top 5 offense) and almost a full point below their season average eFG%. So despite Creighton hitting some really clutch shots, MU's defense was really good and got stops, especially in the second half. The problem was the offense and two key factors, turnovers (again) and shots not going in. MU had at least 15 open looks they didn't convert including 5 from Sacar (who shoots at 40% rate) and 3 or 4 from Koby (who shoots at a less good 30%). The offense was there and if one 3 from Sacar and Koby each goes in MU is leading with  3 minutes to go in the game.

But the shots didn't go in so we think it was garbage offense and we yell and scream at each other while totally ignoring what the defense did. God I love this place.

You are absolutely right, for me the issue is two fold tho.
1. Year 6 we cannot find a PG in America that is less of a trainwreck than Koby? Cant shoot and is cringeworthy with the ball in his hands, to think people used to complain about Cordell Henry or Junior Cadougan.  MU is a Top 10 team with either if them at PG.
2. Year 6 and we have a 5th year senior at the wing that is woeful offensively.  Has become an OK 3 point shooter but from the FT and 2 pt range is borderline atrocious, cannot break anyone down off the dribble, and doesnt really distribute.  You are only as good as your guards and this is the best we can cobble up?
Where are the other BE coaches finding them. Put zegarowski at PG or Alexander or Ballock at the wing for us, not even both positions, simply one and we are a top 10 team. How are we so wholly deficient at these spots? We got a top 300 5th year senior at wing and a top 150 transfer from the WAC at PG.  wtf is the deal?

[Bad_Reporter]

And gambler.

I guess time will tell.  Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so

[skianth16]

They are definitely not insignificant and the PPP was better by 24 compared to the average over the last month and the eFG% was better by 5%.....the defense was solid to very good.

Someone who know basketball advanced stats better than me can weigh in here, but looking at Creighton's scoring over the course of the season, they're all over the place. A handful of games in the 50s, a few more games in the 70s, and a bunch in the 80s. Seems like a pretty high standard deviation. And then their efg is also all over the place. To be within 1 pt of a metric that has been anywhere from 40% to 70% doesn't seem significant. The difference between their efg last night and their season average was just one missed shot.

So while I do think our defense played a role in Creighton putting out below average numbers, I don't think it had quite the impact as some others here.

[mu03eng]

Someone who know basketball advanced stats better than me can weigh in here, but looking at Creighton's scoring over the course of the season, they're all over the place. A handful of games in the 50s, a few more games in the 70s, and a bunch in the 80s. Seems like a pretty high standard deviation. And then their efg is also all over the place. To be within 1 pt of a metric that has been anywhere from 40% to 70% doesn't seem significant. The difference between their efg last night and their season average was just one missed shot.

So while I do think our defense played a role in Creighton putting out below average numbers, I don't think it had quite the impact as some others here.

You are looking at the person....MU's defense from an analytic standpoint was solid

[skianth16]

You are looking at the person....MU's defense from an analytic standpoint was solid

I'm not buying the efg argument. And from a points scored perspective, they were about a half of a standard deviation away from their average. Is that significant? So I'm not buying that defensive argument either. PPP is something I'll take your word on, though.

[The Sultan]

I'm not buying the efg argument.

What's there to "buy?"  The defense was objectively good.  I think you might be biased because it didn't seem that great in key situations late in the game and was better in the first half than the second.

[CTWarrior]

You are looking at the person....MU's defense from an analytic standpoint was solid

Seems to me it was a very fast paced game so holding them to below their average has to be considered a good defensive effort.

[lawdog77]

Seems to me it was a very fast paced game so holding them to below their average has to be considered a good defensive effort.

Overall, the defense seemed to have been good. Unfortunately, like Kamar from Butler, Alexander kept hitting from the same spot in key possessions.

[BM1090]

What's there to "buy?"  The defense was objectively good.  I think you might be biased because it didn't seem that great in key situations late in the game and was better in the first half than the second.

Yep. Our defense jumped about 10 spots in Kenpom after last night. The issue was the offense.

[skianth16]

What's there to "buy?"  The defense was objectively good.  I think you might be biased because it didn't seem that great in key situations late in the game and was better in the first half than the second.

The "buying" is me saying I don't think holding them to 1 pt below their average efg is proof of a strong defensive outing. Especially when that metric swings so much from game to game. There are probably other metrics that show this more clearly, but I don't think touting the efg difference is a strong argument.

[BM1090]

The "buying" is me saying I don't think holding them to 1 pt below their average efg is proof of a strong defensive outing. Especially when that metric swings so much from game to game. There are probably other metrics that show this more clearly, but I don't think touting the efg difference is a strong argument.

Held them to their 2nd lowest points per possession in their last 11 games. The defense was very good. The only one lower was their loss at Providence.

[skianth16]

Held them to their 2nd lowest points per possession in their last 11 games. The defense was very good. The only one lower was their loss at Providence.

See, that to me is a stronger argument. That's a better case for saying our defense was good.

But why focus on the last 11 games? That feels like you're cherry picking your data to make your point. If the defense was really good, just use the whole season, or use conference play as a barometer.

[willie warrior]

Why don't you post after wins?

I do. Why dont you read more.

[Newsdreams]

I do. Why dont you read more.

#FakeNews you rarely do Mazos.

[The Sultan]

People think he doesn't post because he's equally negative after a win.

[Elonsmusk]

I have watched Creighton a few times over the last few weeks and marveled at their offensive scheme and efficiency.    MU played them better than anybody else has in the last month.      Wojo tried a few defensive wrinkles.    A zone.   4 guards.   From a '4 guard' perspective, it would have been interesting to see Greg, Symir, Koby, and Sacar all out there and switching everything.    Theo played well enough that there was not a need to go smaller.     
  Lost in all of this is that for the first 30 minutes, Bailey and Cain were having a competition to see who could stink worse. 

But in the end, against a really good team,  poor shooting = loss.   

Creighton is good.  Our D was really good.  Their D on us was also pretty good.  Coaches can't make shots for players, but they also aren't responsible for players making shots either.  No need for us to use the excuse we missed tons of open shots.  Markus had about 3 clean looks all game - and Koby, Sacar, and Brendan are anything but consistent.

As it relates to Jamal/Brendan - Lots of inconsistency at that position.  However, to pass judgement on Jamal in 9 minutes of action is silly.  Not even enough minutes to qualify for an O-Rating from Ken Pom.