Mussini headed back to Italy?

Quote from: Poison on June 01, 2017, 03:44:32 PM

Comparing him to Shamorie Ponds, one of the best freshman this program has ever had is insane. There is nothing Mussini does better than Ponds, except complain.

Not so.  There are two things, that I know of at least,  that he does better than Ponds.  Shoot three pointers, and free throws while we're at it.

As far as I know,  nobody here is dumb enough to suggest that Fellini is better than Ponds.  Present company included.  However,  it appears that there are things he does better than the entire team, Ponds included.

The 42.7% he put up last season is rarified air for a Johnny gunner probably not matched since Wasju's boy friend Larry "Michigan" Wright went for 43.1% as a freshmen.  Albeit from a  significantly smaller sample size.

My personal fav's from last years model were Mussini and Marcus. With Tariq coming in a deserving third for hustle alone.

Let me get this straight, your favorites from last year's team were three players and none of them are the best guard we've ever had?

Larry Wright is a good comparison for Mussini. Wright was a little better, but both are slow, weak and both were more of a hindrance than a help.

Quote from: Foad on June 01, 2017, 11:06:20 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on May 31, 2017, 11:15:42 PM

It's fundamental statistical analysis 101 to hypothesize that the guy who does something at a better clip is better at doing said something.  It's not reinventing the wheel.

It's simple really.

John Paciorek had a lifetime major league batting average of 1.000. Ted Williams had a lifetime batting average of .344. Therefore John Paciorek was better at hitting baseballs than Ted Williams. It's simple really, if you're a simpleton.

Ponds had 75 made three's.
Fellini had 56 made three's.

Ted Williams had I would assume several thousand at bats.
John Paciorek had I would assume a handful or less at bats.

Other than that you make a good point.  Not!

This is too easy.

So context matters?

It seems that once again you've out stupided yourself. Thanks for playing.

Let me get this straight, your favorites from last year's team were three players and none of them are the best guard we've ever had?
 

Maybe.  I thought that Love it was at least tied for our best guard last year.

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on June 01, 2017, 11:48:49 PM

Quote from: Foad on June 01, 2017, 11:06:20 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on May 31, 2017, 11:15:42 PM

It's fundamental statistical analysis 101 to hypothesize that the guy who does something at a better clip is better at doing said something.  It's not reinventing the wheel.

It's simple really.

John Paciorek had a lifetime major league batting average of 1.000. Ted Williams had a lifetime batting average of .344. Therefore John Paciorek was better at hitting baseballs than Ted Williams. It's simple really, if you're a simpleton.

Ponds had 75 made three's.
Fellini had 56 made three's.

Ted Williams had I would assume several thousand at bats.
John Paciorek had I would assume a handful or less at bats.

Other than that you make a good point.  Not!

This is too easy.

So context matters?

It seems that once again you've out stupided yourself. Thanks for playing.

No.  I've out stupided you.  What?  Ok now I've out stupided myself.

Yes, context matters.  The context is that Fellini hit three's in the 16/17 season at a better rate than Ducks on the did from a relatively similiar sample size.

Meanwhile, the Splendid splinter had 2654 hits and John Paciorek had 3.

So you have made a clever, relevant comparison. Not!

When arguing with an idiot, once you have won the argument it is better to stay silent.

Quote from: Foad on June 02, 2017, 08:05:42 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on June 01, 2017, 11:48:49 PM

Quote from: Foad on June 01, 2017, 11:06:20 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on May 31, 2017, 11:15:42 PM

It's fundamental statistical analysis 101 to hypothesize that the guy who does something at a better clip is better at doing said something.  It's not reinventing the wheel.

It's simple really.

John Paciorek had a lifetime major league batting average of 1.000. Ted Williams had a lifetime batting average of .344. Therefore John Paciorek was better at hitting baseballs than Ted Williams. It's simple really, if you're a simpleton.

Ponds had 75 made three's.
Fellini had 56 made three's.

Ted Williams had I would assume several thousand at bats.
John Paciorek had I would assume a handful or less at bats.

Other than that you make a good point.  Not!

This is too easy.

So context matters?

It seems that once again you've out stupided yourself. Thanks for playing.

No.  I've out stupided you.  What?  Ok now I've out stupided myself.

Yes, context matters.  The context is that Fellini hit three's in the 16/17 season at a better rate than Ducks on the did from a relatively similiar sample size.

Meanwhile, the Splendid splinter had 2654 hits and John Paciorek had 3.

So you have made a clever, relevant comparison. Not!

Our story so far:

ApesNGrapes: a good argument can be made that ponds is the better outside shooter than Missini

Carmine:  Ponds - 38%, Fellini  - 43%. Not that good an argument.

Foad: Context matters when considering statistics.

Carmine: Context doesn't matter, 5.2% is 5.2%. 

Foad: if context doesn't matter, John Paciorek was a better hitter than Ted Williams

Carmine: Ted Williams was better than John Paciorek, therefore context matters.

Foad: whatamaroon.

Carmine: I find being stupid easy. Therefore I win.

Can we get some resolution on Moose's status for crying out loud? He's on campus, likely attending Summer Session I. Someone put something in writing so we can finally relax on a set roster through the Summer.

This thread has become ridiculous. We spent 6 years bitching about a coach who couldn't see what was right in front of his eyes. Mussini is a one dimensional player. He's no different than a kid on a D3 team who shoots over 45% from 3, and 90 from the line.

If the argument is that in an empty gym, Mussini is the best pure shooter on the team, ok fine.

Can we get some resolution on Moose's status for crying out loud? He's on campus, likely attending Summer Session I. Someone put something in writing so we can finally relax on a set roster through the Summer.

As a SJU fan you can never relax

And for the record I'm in NY but not on campus and have no plans to go there anytime soon.

Mussini I think in top 10 of amount posts about a player since I have been on these sites.
In no particular order:

Geno- For being slow, awful to watch and the face of the Norm Roberts era.

Harrison-For being a best player and for somehow annoying a bunch of middle aged white guys with facial expressions, tats and frohawks.?

Jordan-Seemed like he was rumored to be leaving from the minute he showed up.

Burrell-Started and ended his career nicely. In between was disappointing.

Mason-Best player on terrible teams. Ball hog always hurt.

Phil Greene-Dribbled around aimlessly while miscast as a point guard. Would have 3 terrible games followed by great game. Carmine hyperbole added to animosity.

Lovett-Criticized very unfairly and also had Jordan will he or won't he drama from the day he showed up.

Mussini-Little white guy. ST john's fans seem to love little white guys?

Off top of my head can't think of two other players that come close to the above 8.

Putting it in perspective , no one is saying Mussini is a world beater.  But, next year he will be stronger and more experienced. He is a nice player coming off the bench. He provides depth and his stats where not against div 3 opponents , but against mostly BE defenses.

Quote from: QuanMan on June 02, 2017, 10:52:15 AM

Can we get some resolution on Moose's status for crying out loud? He's on campus, likely attending Summer Session I. Someone put something in writing so we can finally relax on a set roster through the Summer.

As a SJU fan you can never relax

And for the record I'm in NY but not on campus and have no plans to go there anytime soon.

Lmmmaaaaooooo facts Moose facts!

Mussini I think in top 10 of amount posts about a player since I have been on these sites.
In no particular order:

Geno- For being slow, awful to watch and the face of the Norm Roberts era.

Harrison-For being a best player and for somehow annoying a bunch of middle aged white guys with facial expressions, tats and frohawks.?

Jordan-Seemed like he was rumored to be leaving from the minute he showed up.

Burrell-Started and ended his career nicely. In between was disappointing.

Mason-Best player on terrible teams. Ball hog always hurt.

Phil Greene-Dribbled around aimlessly while miscast as a point guard. Would have 3 terrible games followed by great game. Carmine hyperbole added to animosity.

Lovett-Criticized very unfairly and also had Jordan will he or won't he drama from the day he showed up.

Mussini-Little white guy. ST john's fans seem to love little white guys?

Off top of my head can't think of two other players that come close to the above 8.

Kyle Anderson and he didn't even play for us.

Quote from: we are sju on June 02, 2017, 11:39:00 AM

Mussini I think in top 10 of amount posts about a player since I have been on these sites.
In no particular order:

Geno- For being slow, awful to watch and the face of the Norm Roberts era.

Harrison-For being a best player and for somehow annoying a bunch of middle aged white guys with facial expressions, tats and frohawks.?

Jordan-Seemed like he was rumored to be leaving from the minute he showed up.

Burrell-Started and ended his career nicely. In between was disappointing.

Mason-Best player on terrible teams. Ball hog always hurt.

Phil Greene-Dribbled around aimlessly while miscast as a point guard. Would have 3 terrible games followed by great game. Carmine hyperbole added to animosity.

Lovett-Criticized very unfairly and also had Jordan will he or won't he drama from the day he showed up.

Mussini-Little white guy. ST john's fans seem to love little white guys?

Off top of my head can't think of two other players that come close to the above 8.

Kyle Anderson and he didn't even play for us.

You could also add bunch of the recruits that Norm lost out on here particularly Lance, Syl and the Mystery Recruit.

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on June 02, 2017, 09:13:26 AM

Quote from: Foad on June 02, 2017, 08:05:42 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on June 01, 2017, 11:48:49 PM

Quote from: Foad on June 01, 2017, 11:06:20 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on May 31, 2017, 11:15:42 PM

It's fundamental statistical analysis 101 to hypothesize that the guy who does something at a better clip is better at doing said something.  It's not reinventing the wheel.

It's simple really.

John Paciorek had a lifetime major league batting average of 1.000. Ted Williams had a lifetime batting average of .344. Therefore John Paciorek was better at hitting baseballs than Ted Williams. It's simple really, if you're a simpleton.

Ponds had 75 made three's.
Fellini had 56 made three's.

Ted Williams had I would assume several thousand at bats.
John Paciorek had I would assume a handful or less at bats.

Other than that you make a good point.  Not!

This is too easy.

So context matters?

It seems that once again you've out stupided yourself. Thanks for playing.

No.  I've out stupided you.  What?  Ok now I've out stupided myself.

Yes, context matters.  The context is that Fellini hit three's in the 16/17 season at a better rate than Ducks on the did from a relatively similiar sample size.

Meanwhile, the Splendid splinter had 2654 hits and John Paciorek had 3.

So you have made a clever, relevant comparison. Not!

Our story so far:

ApesNGrapes: a good argument can be made that ponds is the better outside shooter than Missini

Carmine:  Ponds - 38%, Fellini  - 43%. Not that good an argument.

Foad: Context matters when considering statistics.

Carmine: Context doesn't matter, 5.2% is 5.2%. 

Foad: if context doesn't matter, John Paciorek was a better hitter than Ted Williams

Carmine: Ted Williams was better than John Paciorek, therefore context matters.

Foad: whatamaroon.

Carmine: I find being stupid easy. Therefore I win.

context
   
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Writing 5.2% is 5.2% is not saying that context doesn't matter.

You have misunderstood me in your haste to demean, belittle and attempt to put down others.

Haters be haten, yo.

When arguing with an idiot, once you have won the argument it is better to stay silent.

He's my friend.  This is how he likes to play with me.

Mussini I think in top 10 of amount posts about a player since I have been on these sites.
In no particular order:

Geno- For being slow, awful to watch and the face of the Norm Roberts era.

Harrison-For being a best player and for somehow annoying a bunch of middle aged white guys with facial expressions, tats and frohawks.?

Jordan-Seemed like he was rumored to be leaving from the minute he showed up.

Burrell-Started and ended his career nicely. In between was disappointing.

Mason-Best player on terrible teams. Ball hog always hurt.

Phil Greene-Dribbled around aimlessly while miscast as a point guard. Would have 3 terrible games followed by great game. Carmine hyperbole added to animosity.

Lovett-Criticized very unfairly and also had Jordan will he or won't he drama from the day he showed up.

Mussini-Little white guy. ST john's fans seem to love little white guys?

Off top of my head can't think of two other players that come close to the above 8.

How can we forget Chris Obepka

Memory loss from the weed?

Top talked about players of all-time on Johnny Jungle were never Johnnies. Kyle Anderson and Jermaine Lawrence.

Top talked about players of all-time on Johnny Jungle were never Johnnies. Kyle Anderson and Jermaine Lawrence.

Briscoe