Mason jr to the heat

Even though listing anything printed on JohnnyJungle.con should be enough. I did a quick google search and saw this. I'm sure I can fund more but I'm on my mobile now.

http://www.lex18.com/news/patrick-patterson-works-out-for-pacers

So is it safe to say that 18 years wgo when my Father got me a job interview at Goldman Sachs, because he had a friend on their trading desk, that Goldman Sachs had a real interest in hiring me..?

Quote from: Dave on October 13, 2010, 02:15:15 PM

Even though listing anything printed on JohnnyJungle.con should be enough. I did a quick google search and saw this. I'm sure I can fund more but I'm on my mobile now.

http://www.lex18.com/news/patrick-patterson-works-out-for-pacers

So is it safe to say that 18 years wgo when my Father got me a job interview at Goldman Sachs, because he had a friend on their trading desk, that Goldman Sachs had a real interest in hiring me..?

Probably not but that's only because it was you

Seriously all kidding aside connections always help but an NBA franchise would't bring a kid this far along unless they were seriously interested him. Mason did a great job and I'm proud of him. I don't think his NBA dream ends here. I think he gets his jumper to be more consistent (he has the range) and he continues to develop his defense he has a shot to fit a role.

I wouldnt be shocked to see if the Heat have injuries this season if they call him back.

And just to put things in perspective here is a list of players since I have been following SJU who were better than JR who never played NBA ball:
Billy Goodwin
David Russell
Willie Glass
Mike Moses
Matt Brust
Rowan Barrett
Charles Minlend
David Cain
Boo Harvey
Jason Buchanon
Lamont Middleton
Bootsy Thornton
Lamont Hamilton
Darryl Hill
Anthony Glover

Wasju it's tough to compare players who play different positions. If Lamont Hamilton didn't go down with that knee injury he would have been drafted by the Spurs (warriors were also very interested).

Anyways Mason has size and length that NBA likes, he cabplay above the rim and also has range. Sure Mason has his deficiencies but if you look around the NBA fundamentals aren't exactly abundant

Wasju it's tough to compare players who play different positions. If Lamont Hamilton didn't go down with that knee injury he would have been drafted by the Spurs (warriors were also very interested).

Anyways Mason has size and length that NBA likes, he cabplay above the rim and also has range. Sure Mason has his deficiencies but if you look around the NBA fundamentals aren't exactly abundant

Was just trying to show that even very good college players don't make the NBA.
Dave, there are litterally hundreds of swing players with more skill than jr. Like I said could he find himself at the bottom of an NBA roster one day? I wouldn't expect it but it could happen However he is simply not a good enough basketball player for him to make a living in the NBA.

And just to put things in perspective here is a list of players since I have been following SJU who were better than JR who never played NBA ball:

Interesting list. My take.

Goodwin, Russell, Minlend, Harvey, Thornton and Hill were better than AMJ and better than a lot of other people as well. Add to the better than AMJ list Jason Buchanan, who had a very nice career, Cain, who had not much of a career but a very nice senior year, and Lamont Hamilton, who had a pretty good career despite the fact that eveything about him was soft except his hands.

As to the rest

Name / p pg / reb pg / A-TO

Glover         11.2 / 4.7 / 164-204
Glass           10.9 / 5.8 / 98-206
Middleton    9.7 / 5.3 / 66-120
Brust           8.9 / 4.8 / 236-203
Moses         6.2 / 1.7 / 230 - na
Barrett         5.7 / 2.0  97-122

These numbers seem a pretty fair representation of their respective abilities, except for Barrett, a very nice player who had the misfortune of being coached by BM.

Compare to AMJ

Mason         10.7/ 5.1/ 187-197

By the numbers, AMJ had a career equal to Glover - who played with Hatten - and Glass - who played with Mullin and Berry. Whereas AMJ played with Phil Missere, Gene Lawrence, and Tomas Jasilionustein. He was clearly at least as good as the rest of these players and probably better, and he was especially better than that floor slapping dope Matt Brust, the most overrated player in SJ history.

Conclusion: Mason Jr was a pretty good player with some flaws in his game who had a career equal to Anthony Glover and Willie Glass, also pretty good but flawed players, a fact to which your hatred of all things Norm blinds you.

Hey Foad, did you ever see Wilie Glass play? How about Anthony Glover?

Hey Foad, did you ever see Wilie Glass play?

I can't say I remember Wilie Glass. I did see Wilie Coyote though. Great lateral quickness, but low basketball IQ.

Quote from: we are sju on October 13, 2010, 02:41:35 PM

And just to put things in perspective here is a list of players since I have been following SJU who were better than JR who never played NBA ball:

Interesting list. My take.

Goodwin, Russell, Minlend, Harvey, Thornton and Hill were better than AMJ and better than a lot of other people as well. Add to the better than AMJ list Jason Buchanan, who had a very nice career, Cain, who had not much of a career but a very nice senior year, and Lamont Hamilton, who had a pretty good career despite the fact that eveything about him was soft except his hands.

As to the rest

Name / p pg / reb pg / A-TO

Glover         11.2 / 4.7 / 164-204
Glass           10.9 / 5.8 / 98-206
Middleton    9.7 / 5.3 / 66-120
Brust           8.9 / 4.8 / 236-203
Moses         6.2 / 1.7 / 230 - na
Barrett         5.7 / 2.0  97-122

These numbers seem a pretty fair representation of their respective abilities, except for Barrett, a very nice player who had the misfortune of being coached by BM.

Compare to AMJ

Mason         10.7/ 5.1/ 187-197

By the numbers, AMJ had a career equal to Glover - who played with Hatten - and Glass - who played with Mullin and Berry. Whereas AMJ played with Phil Missere, Gene Lawrence, and Tomas Jasilionustein. He was clearly at least as good as the rest of these players and probably better, and he was especially better than that floor slapping dope Matt Brust, the most overrated player in SJ history.

Conclusion: Mason Jr was a pretty good player with some flaws in his game who had a career equal to Anthony Glover and Willie Glass, also pretty good but flawed players, a fact to which your hatred of all things Norm blinds you.

I admit that 12 year old WASJU watched Willie Glass, Shelton Jones et al with the blinders of 12 year old, where 37 year old WASJU hated all things Norm and his crappy brand of basketball. I have also found it is true that as you get older you automatically think everything was better when you were younger and your memories get skewed.
Now having admitted all that I still stand by the fact that a guy averaging 10 points on a NCAA tourney team is a better player than a guy averaging 10 points on a crappy Norm team. I still can't figure out why a pretty unconventional thinker like yourself is so married to stats?
PS Willie Glass ruled!

Anthony Glover wasn't the most consistent player over his 4 years, but his numbers lie a bit. He came up big for us in most of the biggest wins this program has had in the last 20 years.

Miami, Duke, Kentucky, Uconn etc.

He came to play for the big game. I'd love another guy like him. Imagine if Burrell played with that kind of intensity?

As far as Glass goes, he would have put up 18 ppg on this current team.

Mason only dropped 14 a game as a junior because there was really no one
else who could.

Still, I wish Mason all the best. But he's not the player these guys were.

I admit that 12 year old WASJU watched Willie Glass, Shelton Jones et al with the blinders of 12 year old, where 37 year old WASJU hated all things Norm and his crappy brand of basketball. I have also found it is true that as you get older you automatically think everything was better when you were younger and your memories get skewed. Now having admitted all that I still stand by the fact that a guy averaging 10 points on a NCAA tourney team is a better player than a guy averaging 10 points on a crappy Norm team. I still can't figure out why a pretty unconventional thinker like yourself is so married to stats? PS Willie Glass ruled!

I'm not married to stats. But they're the yard stick that players are in the main measured by. So although I don't think, eg, that Pete Rose was better than Ty Cobb, the fact that he had more hits than Cobb does in some measure reflect his ability and provides a means of comparison that is otherwise unavailable.

That said, Mason was a flawed player. So was Glass - as is continually pointed out, the least fundamentally prepared player Pat Riley ever saw. But Glass's flaws were masked because he played on great teams with great players. Mason's flaws were exposed because he played on lousy teams with lousy players where he was expected to be the man. If you put Mason on a team with Walter Berry and Mark Jackson his game would have improved exponentially - he wouldn't have been handling the ball in the half court offense and he wouldnt have been chucking up off balance threes with 2 seconds left on the shot clock. If you put Willie Glass on a team with Dexter Gray and Cedric Jackson and said you're the go to guy, his flaws - no handle, no shot - would have been exposed.

As to Glover, he was too small to play the 4 in the pros and too slow and lacked the handle to play anywhere else. Mason is more a potential pro than Glover all day long.

I agree that players like Mason are a dime a dozen. But those dime a dozen players are the players who sit on the bench in the NBA and bounce between the development league and the pros. To me he's no better or worse than 100s of other marginal players. Mason's real drawback is his health - he's as fragile as Grant Hill, but without the upside.

Foad, I'll agree that you're right in that Mason has the physical make up to be a pro. That's undeniable.

Glover never did.

In terms of stats, they are the fastest way to measure a college career, but you also have to look at how players performed in big spots. That is a stat as well.

I only saw Mason excell in the clutch once.
And I'm not sure anyone will remember him beating Seton Hall, because both teams were pretty bad.

And yes, it's true that Glass and Glover played on better teams.

Quote from: we are sju on October 14, 2010, 10:06:09 AM

I admit that 12 year old WASJU watched Willie Glass, Shelton Jones et al with the blinders of 12 year old, where 37 year old WASJU hated all things Norm and his crappy brand of basketball. I have also found it is true that as you get older you automatically think everything was better when you were younger and your memories get skewed. Now having admitted all that I still stand by the fact that a guy averaging 10 points on a NCAA tourney team is a better player than a guy averaging 10 points on a crappy Norm team. I still can't figure out why a pretty unconventional thinker like yourself is so married to stats? PS Willie Glass ruled!

I'm not married to stats. But they're the yard stick that players are in the main measured by. So although I don't think, eg, that Pete Rose was better than Ty Cobb, the fact that he had more hits than Cobb does in some measure reflect his ability and provides a means of comparison that is otherwise unavailable.

That said, Mason was a flawed player. So was Glass - as is continually pointed out, the least fundamentally prepared player Pat Riley ever saw. But Glass's flaws were masked because he played on great teams with great players. Mason's flaws were exposed because he played on lousy teams with lousy players where he was expected to be the man. If you put Mason on a team with Walter Berry and Mark Jackson his game would have improved exponentially - he wouldn't have been handling the ball in the half court offense and he wouldnt have been chucking up off balance threes with 2 seconds left on the shot clock. If you put Willie Glass on a team with Dexter Gray and Cedric Jackson and said you're the go to guy, his flaws - no handle, no shot - would have been exposed.

As to Glover, he was too small to play the 4 in the pros and too slow and lacked the handle to play anywhere else. Mason is more a potential pro than Glover all day long.

I agree that players like Mason are a dime a dozen. But those dime a dozen players are the players who sit on the bench in the NBA and bounce between the development league and the pros. To me he's no better or worse than 100s of other marginal players. Mason's real drawback is his health - he's as fragile as Grant Hill, but without the upside.

This was a valid argument as I believe Mason was better as  Frosh and Soph before he was put into a situation he was not suited for.
As far as making the pros, sticking with a team as an end of the roster guy really depends on a lot of luck as far as hooking up with the right team. Postell was a much better all around player and he could only last a couple of seasons as a fringe Knick. 

Anthony Glover wasn't the most consistent player over his 4 years, but his numbers lie a bit. He came up big for us in most of the biggest wins this program has had in the last 20 years.

Miami, Duke, Kentucky, Uconn etc.

He came to play for the big game. I'd love another guy like him. Imagine if Burrell played with that kind of intensity?

I don't disagree with any of this. Loved Glover and he hit some huge shots. Hugely underrated because of his size and because he played with Hatten.

As far as Glass goes, he would have put up 18 ppg on this current team.

This I'm not so sure about. The current team's inside potential is seriously thwarted by the weaknesses outside. There's little reason to believe that opponents wouldn't do the same thing to Glass they do to Burrell - collapse and double team and let Boothe beat them.

Mason only dropped 14 a game as a junior because there was really no one else who could.

Still, I wish Mason all the best. But he's not the player these guys were.

It's difficult to compare different players from different eras who played different positions. Personally I don't see any great difference between Glass and Mason. Mason had a better shot and a better handle and played under much more difficult circumstances. Glass was a better defender and rebounder and maybe a better athlete. If I were choosing up sides and needed a scorer I'd pick MAson. If I needed some inside play I'd pick Glass. As always, YMMV.

[

Glass was a better defender and rebounder and maybe a better athlete. If I were choosing up sides and needed a scorer I'd pick MAson. If I needed some inside play I'd pick Glass. As always, YMMV.

For my money Glass and David Russell were the best two pure athletes I have seen since I have been following the team. Rowan Barrett, Michael Porter, Shelton Jones and Postell would be in the conversation as would Ryan Williams even though he did not play that much. Mase would not be in the same discussion IMO.