The perfect 10 man MU roster for 2021?

[BCHoopster]

I'm sorry but your opinion is crazy. Our national championship team would have been lucky to be a tournament team in today's NCAA. They were dominant in their time, more dominant than any other MU players besides Wade and maybe Jae and deserve all the praise and honors, but the game is different now. Jim Chones was the most dominant center to ever play at Marquette and he would have been considered a stick amongst current big men with no ability to stretch the floor and he's one of the two guys  (Lucas) of your 10 who I think could have a role today.

They did all play in the NBA/ABA but again it was a different era and other than Chones and Lucas, most of them had limited success at the pro levels. Most were career backups and only a few of them had the occasional season as starters. Wade is a top 15 NBA player all time and Jimmy is an All Star in today's game.

The one player in that era that would have been a real star now, more than Boylen or maybe even Butch, was Gary Rosenberger.  He had insane range, I know since
I played against him at Hyde Park.  He had about 36 points that day on a windy day, Allie was yelling at me to pick him up sooner.  We here playing zone, and he just
kept moving back and hitting deeper threes, amazing.

[JWags85]

Got beat out by Gary Rosenberger.

Gary had a higher career FG% than Markus, btw, with a stellar senior year. Different era and rules, but he was a great shooter.

#hangthejersey

Again guys, this is no disrespect to Rosenberger, but we're gonna rank a guy who never played more than 20 min a game and averaged 7 points per game over his 2 best seasons over the BEast all time leading scorer, (should be 2x) BE POY, and 1st team AA.  Its not like Rosenberger had any significant size advantage.  As for percentages, they are within 2% on career averages, but Markus took 15 more shots a game and drew all the attention, he didn't have Butch Lee, Toone, and Whitehead to draw defenders.

We're a few posts away from someone arguing for Ulice Payne over Jimmy Butler or Crowder

#70sBlueAndGoldGlasses

[Galway Eagle]

At this point we should just pick the 10 best players after the 70s and compare them against the Al guys.

Sure one of those post Al guys is an All time great basketball player and one of Als guys is even remotely in the same stratosphere but that won't stop people arguing that even Wade couldn't hold the jock of Al's guys

[Dr. Blackheart]

Again guys, this is no disrespect to Rosenberger, but we're gonna rank a guy who never played more than 20 min a game and averaged 7 points per game over his 2 best seasons over the BEast all time leading scorer, (should be 2x) BE POY, and 1st team AA.  Its not like Rosenberger had any significant size advantage.  As for percentages, they are within 2% on career averages, but Markus took 15 more shots a game and drew all the attention, he didn't have Butch Lee, Toone, and Whitehead to draw defenders.

We're a few posts away from someone arguing for Ulice Payne over Jimmy Butler or Crowder

#70sBlueAndGoldGlasses

No one is seriously claiming Rosenberger is better than Markus. Our point is: Gary was made more for the modern era and would have been a star in the three point shot clock era of 4 out and 1 in. Instead, he was a situational zone breaker in the four corners era. So, when comparing players and eras, style of play needs to be considered. And Gary is one who pops out as an undervalued anomaly.

[Lennys Tap]

LMAO.  6'2 200 lb Brute Force inside against 6'9 255 Theo John, he'd get embarrassed.  Much less someone like Nate Watson.

LMAO indeed.

George played forward in college because he played so much bigger than his actual size. In the pros (5 years ABA, 1 year NBA) he played mostly SG and some PG. one year he averaged 27 points, 5 rebounds and 3.7 assists. He regularly made fools out of players much better than Theo John.

[Goose]

Galway

I think you miss some posts on talking about all tie great Warriors. There is no doubt in my mind that Wade is the greatest player to ever play at MU. That is a 100% slam dunk,IMO. As for the next 8-10 best players of all time, all come from the Al era and that is a slam dunk, IMO. Getting back to Wade, it took me about five minutes into watching in him person to realize that he was a very special player and about 2-3 games to believe he had potential to be the best ever.

As for the constant comparisons to the Al era, simple solution. Hire a coach that recruits at a much higher level. No one would be happier to see an intelligent debate comparing new greats vs. old greats. Mentioning Theo's name in a conversation with GT is not an intelligent debate.

[The Sultan]

As for the next 8-10 best players of all time, all come from the Al era and that is a slam dunk, IMO.

Yeah, no.  That's ridiculous.

[Galway Eagle]

Galway

I think you miss some posts on talking about all tie great Warriors. There is no doubt in my mind that Wade is the greatest player to ever play at MU. That is a 100% slam dunk,IMO. As for the next 8-10 best players of all time, all come from the Al era and that is a slam dunk, IMO. Getting back to Wade, it took me about five minutes into watching in him person to realize that he was a very special player and about 2-3 games to believe he had potential to be the best ever.

As for the constant comparisons to the Al era, simple solution. Hire a coach that recruits at a much higher level. No one would be happier to see an intelligent debate comparing new greats vs. old greats. Mentioning Theo's name in a conversation with GT is not an intelligent debate.

I vaguely recall having this conversation with you (I think?) on here a few years back when my warm headed self was more hot headed. I'd 100% agree about Lucas, Thompson, Chones, a decent few others. I think after that there's logical reasons to give Crowder, McNeal or Howard at least a look seeing as were talking All Americans with a ton of honors to their names. The one that gets me is Wade. obviously you give him his due, but there are a decent few posters on here that still seem to gloss over him.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Here is Pudner's list from a while ago.  Markus not yet added and maybe a few others.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/08/calling-pudner-bama.html?m=1

[The Sultan]

Pudner's calculations place them firmly in the time in which they played.  The premise is how they would fare today.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Pudner's calculations place them firmly in the time in which they played.  The premise is how they would fare today.

Not quite fair. He uses the Value Add statistics to measure a player's rank across eras in an objective manner. The second part you say is true--how do quantitatively account for the rules changes and style of play is over the years.

So for me, Pudner is the starting point and then we can debate the rest. I think we can really only debate who of the Top 20 we could winnow down to today's Top 10.

[MuggsyB]

No idea what the criteria is but Damon Key seems crazy low to me. 

[JWags85]

LMAO indeed.

George played forward in college because he played so much bigger than his actual size. In the pros (5 years ABA, 1 year NBA) he played mostly SG and some PG. one year he averaged 27 points, 5 rebounds and 3.7 assists. He regularly made fools out of players much better than Theo John.

Lenny, its has nothing to do with Theo's ability/skills, and more sheer size and athleticism.  Average C in the early 70s was 6'8.5 and about 225 lbs.  Average PF was 6'6 210.  Thats just a much smaller game when in among the trees. 

Even when moving to SG in the ABA, his 3P percentage was very low, and his FG percentage was near 50% which would have me believe he still did most of his work inside.  He would still be woefully undersized as it related to his game.  Find me a player under 6'3 who doesn't have an outside shot with a game primarily inside 15 feet who has been exceptional in the modern game recently?

Here is Pudner's list from a while ago.  Markus not yet added and maybe a few others.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/08/calling-pudner-bama.html?m=1

That methodology looks like it uses a measure of their best season though.  So not really apples to apples when applying across styles and eras.

[Goose]

Galway

I think we did have this debate several years ago. I would ask you to trust me/others on the talent level of the Al era. The gap between Wade and the Al guys is quite a bit and the gap between 2-6 and Crowder/Butler/etc is even bigger. I have been hoping for 43 years that we would get guys to replace the top ten and so far only one guy has shown up.

[Galway Eagle]

Lenny, its has nothing to do with Theo's ability/skills, and more sheer size and athleticism.  Average C in the early 70s was 6'8.5 and about 225 lbs.  Average PF was 6'6 210.  Thats just a much smaller game when in among the trees. 

Even when moving to SG in the ABA, his 3P percentage was very low, and his FG percentage was near 50% which would have me believe he still did most of his work inside.  He would still be woefully undersized as it related to his game.  Find me a player under 6'3 who doesn't have an outside shot with a game primarily inside 15 feet who has been exceptional in the modern game recently?

That methodology looks like it uses a measure of their best season though.  So not really apples to apples when applying across styles and eras.

Nate Robinson?

[dgies9156]

Ya'll are forgetting a whole bunch of things. The great Al players of the day were great because they had outstanding talent. True, the game was played differently but dadgummit, if those guys played now, they'd still be great talents. They would have been conditioned differently, taught differently but in the end, having watched most of them, they'd still be superstars.

Chones, McNeill, Lucas, Ellis, Meminger, Walton, Lee, Thomson, Tatum, Lackey, Toone all would be Burger Boys and superstars now.

So would Rivers. In any era, we'd be hard pressed to find a greater Warrior than Dwyane Wade.

As for Rosenberger, in today's world, yes, he would be starting. If the game in 1974-1978 had been anything like it is today, he'd be great but I doubt he would be remembered the way many remember Markus. The reason: they had a whole lot more weapons on the 1974-1978 Warriors than they did with Markus. The offense would be more balanced.... unless Wojo was coaching it.

[Galway Eagle]

Just looked that Dave Quabius on the Cracked Sidewalks list and he was responsible for 2/4 of Bill Chandler's actually good seasons.

I'd take him

[MU82]

This is all fun, and not a single one of us can "prove" anything. All a bunch of opinions.

I'm gonna stick to the ones I stated earlier -- the greats that I talked about would have not only done fine today, they'd be stars today.

And BTW, I'm not an Al-era Warrior. My freshman year was Hank's second season as coach. My stars were Sam Worthen my first two years and Glenn Rivers my second two. So I'm not an automatic "Al's era was the best, dammit!" guy -- not that those guys are wrong!

That there are some Scoopers who apparently think Shaq wouldn't be a star today just makes me giggle. Again, take Rudy Gobert and then multiply his impact times two. That would be Shaq today. (And I'm no huge Shaq fan.)

OK ... but how about the perfect 10-man MU roster for 2021? I sure hope Wojo brings in a couple of athletic 3-and-D wings after he gets his contract extension!

[Galway Eagle]

Again, take Rudy Gobert and then multiply his impact times two.

So all of the NBA and reporters get sick?

[Goose]

82
I was big time Sam Worthen fan. Loved watching him play and one of my all time favorites.

[MU82]

82
I was big time Sam Worthen fan. Loved watching him play and one of my all time favorites.

Sam was a blast. My friends and I used to do the "we are not worthy" bow to him when he was introduced. He was basically a late-70s version of today's Ben Simmons -- took his time, made the right plays, surprisingly athletic, great passer, decent defender. But Sam was way cooler!

[The Sultan]

That there are some Scoopers who apparently think Shaq wouldn't be a star today just makes me giggle. Again, take Rudy Gobert and then multiply his impact times two. That would be Shaq today. (And I'm no huge Shaq fan.)

Shaq would have to change his game though.  Teams aren't dumping down into the post consistently any longer.  And comparing him to Rudy Gobert is the absolute wrong comparison.  The best post players now are Joel Embiid and KAT, and both of them can launch it from the outside anyway - which is the more efficient play.

Read this:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/12/2/20991249/post-up-dead-nba-brooklyn-nets-joel-embiid

"And even for the top players, a post-up can still prove inferior to a good new-fashioned 3. Towns, for instance, averaged 1.02 points per post-up play over the last three seasons, one of the league's best marks. He's a phenomenal post-up performer. Yet as a 40 percent 3-point shooter over his career, his average 3-pointer yields a much higher point-per-play rate than his average post-up finish. Even Embiid, a significantly worse long-distance shooter than Towns, manages roughly the same ratio on post-ups and 3s. The 3-versus-2 math is just so lopsided."


So let's say for argument sake, that Shaq could get 1.2 points per post up.  Which is kind of what his .582 FG% would get him plus adding on the occasional "and one" free throw.

That's the equivalent of a 40% three point rate - 55 players currently shoot at that rate - 25 of them average 5.0 three point attempts per game.

It's just math that makes Shaq's game less important these days.

[JWags85]

Nate Robinson?

Actually better than you'd think shooting.  Shot 39% on 5 attempts a game as a senior, then most his NBA career was in the high 30s, outside of his last 2 years with the Knicks.  And his game was all about being a pogo stick, not outmuscling anyone.

[MuggsyB]

Actually better than you'd think shooting.  Shot 39% on 5 attempts a game as a senior, then most his NBA career was in the high 30s, outside of his last 2 years with the Knicks.  And his game was all about being a pogo stick, not outmuscling anyone.

Nate had crazy ups.  I tried to work on mine but could not come close to his vert. 

[MU82]

Shaq would have to change his game though.  Teams aren't dumping down into the post consistently any longer.  And comparing him to Rudy Gobert is the absolute wrong comparison.  The best post players now are Joel Embiid and KAT, and both of them can launch it from the outside anyway - which is the more efficient play.

Read this:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/12/2/20991249/post-up-dead-nba-brooklyn-nets-joel-embiid

"And even for the top players, a post-up can still prove inferior to a good new-fashioned 3. Towns, for instance, averaged 1.02 points per post-up play over the last three seasons, one of the league's best marks. He's a phenomenal post-up performer. Yet as a 40 percent 3-point shooter over his career, his average 3-pointer yields a much higher point-per-play rate than his average post-up finish. Even Embiid, a significantly worse long-distance shooter than Towns, manages roughly the same ratio on post-ups and 3s. The 3-versus-2 math is just so lopsided."


So let's say for argument sake, that Shaq could get 1.2 points per post up.  Which is kind of what his .582 FG% would get him plus adding on the occasional "and one" free throw.

That's the equivalent of a 40% three point rate - 55 players currently shoot at that rate - 25 of them average 5.0 three point attempts per game.

It's just math that makes Shaq's game less important these days.

Mmm-hmm